Archived from the former firedocs blog. 29 June 2006
It’s just too mushy to believe. And so . . . metaphysical! I apologize in advance for any hard-headed, no-nonsense viewers this post sends screaming into the night.
An interesting thing happened during Emotional Sequencing (pre-session intro) last night. And in the session that followed, I had an interesting experience that was difficult to articulate. No wonder. It is not normal to experience “being” a tornado, as a very unique creature. One can do little but personalize it in human terms! The session was imperfect (though had good data too) but that was my inability to translate, articulate, communicate. On feedback, I understood. My target contact rocked.
I suspect the pre-session insight and session as ‘confirmation’ may change a lot about my viewing. I feel that in my genuinely good-intentioned quest of self and universe to find some answers, I may have actually found something that has meaning to me.
I was intending to go through the common emotions for E.S. and it just… worked way better than expected. Along the way of feeling wonder-anticipation about the session, and determination, and humor, I had another new feeling appear inside me spontaneously, evolve into a whole new perspective, and it just … carried me away!
The feeling up first was respect. This “bloomed” like an inner flower into a full acknowledgement of the target. Our own thoughtform definition as far as “inclusion and exclusion” goes, yet still its OWN thing of a sort. An identity of its own. Sort of. Not exactly self-aware, but aware.
Those feelings brought the understanding that a session explores a relationship between the viewer and the target. It then pulled in more of the respect, added a hefty dose of “fond appreciation,” and a warmth spread from my chest as if my heart chakra were ‘blooming’, and suddenly I was perceiving the target as Sensei. Great respect for the honor of the relationship, for the opportunity to learn. The most astounding perception was this concept that it was agreeing to teach me. A mutual relationship.
Yet even as I marveled at this rather offbeat way of looking at it, a complete reversal of the normal me-as-centric, I realized that this is the most fundamental truth of a session: that I want to learn about it, of it, and from it. What makes me think that process would be all about me? And not equally about IT? The fact that “it” was something I’d been granting all the sentience of a postage stamp five minutes earlier did not escape me.
For years, I have had only two things I considered “givens” based on all my experiences over time. The rest is variable for me. These two things are not.1. All things are composed of consciousness (which is energy which is inherently aware as a property which even when not self-aware is still awareness).
2. All things long for evolvement (via absorption of energy which is power which is like food which causes growth which is evolution).
These have been the core “understandings” I’ve held about reality for years. How could I have forgotten?
How could I have not applied this to Remote Viewing?
Here’s a thought. What if when we miss a target, I mean really miss it—when we are literally “off target” (as opposed to misinterpreting or miscommunicating data from the target, which is different)—what if it’s because the target at that moment does not choose to share itself with us? I’m reminded of the spoon-bending efforts, the feeling-for-permission activity, the shouting at it. We are trying to convince it? IT? Are we suggesting that a spoon has consciousness? If so, it’d seem a given that entire targets of information do. So what if it says “no”? Can we force it? Yes I believe we can, just like I can go dump chemicals on my plants/soil that will force bloom even if it is inappropriate timing for them. But maybe it takes extra effort and “Will” to succeed at the forcing when there is nothing “mutual” going on. Why make it harder than it needs to be? Isn’t RV inconsistent enough without working against the universe?
Back in 1996-7 I had a dream where a target and I were having what felt rather like a dance. As I slowly awoke, a voice said to me, “It images itself for you.” I put that on the front page of Firedocs RV because it struck me as so profound, and because at the time, it felt like the target and I had this relationship that I can only compare to lovers getting to know each other. As if I were a man and the target were a beautiful woman who deep down, really wanted to show herself, really wanted to be fully known, really wanted to be admired, really wanted to have the full uninhibited ability to interact with me without reservation and have me appreciate and delight in every part of her. Whether it’s RV, dowsing or anything else, would it help to enlist the assistance of the others involved? That would be… the target, since that IS the other party involved, right? But we’d have to recognize the target as having some consciousness in order for this to happen. As long as we treat targets as if they’re as unimportant and assumedly-dead as used chewing gum wrappers, we’re unlikely to be granting them the kind of respect that would breed a good relationship and rapport.
Later when I thought about it, writing an email to a friend about this, I realized just how shallow the common perspective really is. The RV framework, in the process of getting rid of the religious and mystical garbage (and thank God for that, pun intended), seems to have gone to the other extreme. Maybe it is the element of having scientists and soldiers in a culture of consumers and corporatism, that set the “tone” for perspective and exploration, but it seems to me now, that our perspective is so… shallow and limited. Typical of the humans we are, with RV we act just like we do with anything else. Going in and taking what we want, with no regard to what is right for balance, no respect for our relationship with anything else–we cannot even recognize such relationships exist, because we don’t grant sentience to anything else!
Information as a Natural Resource
We expect to know the target because we want to. We insist. Because it would be convenient and fun for us to have this power of insight. Because we want to harvest the information as a resource. Mostly, because we CAN. So… the same logic we used for everything from stealing land to polluting rivers we use with RV— no matter how cosmic it might seem, no matter it’s all about “consciousness,” we don’t seem to have any change of perspective for RV. We’re human, we want it, so we take it, and we don’t even think about the details. I am not saying we have been unkind to the universe via RV. I am just saying we are clueless and missing out as a result of the viewer-as- sole- participant- in-session perspective. The ignorance may affect our results. I suppose the reason this subject doesn’t come up in the context of RV is because we do not for a moment expect that the target has anything to do with it. ‘Cause it’s all US, you know? Gosh, the universe revolves around humans, what else exists, let alone matters?
Amazing, really: you take the one niche group of people who ought to MOST respect the “consciousness of the universe” and they treat targets—whether people, animals, locations, events, or any combination of things—like “inanimate” objects. (Don’t get me started on how inanimate objects are ‘composed of consciousness’ as well; they are not self-aware, that much is a given, but that doesn’t mean they have no awareness that contributes to the mix of a given environment, or that contributes to the conglomerate of a target-identity. You can certainly share the awareness of an inanimate, I’ve done it. Spontaneously, never mind many times during RV.) We don’t see a target as “a conglomerate of consciousness.” As something we should respect, something we are interacting with, not just observing. One experienced viewer even told me that interacting with the target data was “incredibly dangerous” and should be avoided. Maybe so. But maybe being a genuine student of the universe means something more to me than RV on the surface does. The session that followed knocked my socks off. I am certain I could not have experienced that if I hadn’t been willing to grant some degree of awareness to the target itself first.
So in the end, I had a question: what am I missing? How is my thinking limited or incorrect?Love was the answer.
Maybe not the only answer, but one that I feel really opened my eyes… and heart.
Somehow, I think for a lot of people into viewing, this is just not going to be possible for them to get their brain around. I think it will sound too new age, too airy-fairy. I am usually the one saying viewers should not “project” their performance details onto taskers, analysts, and a variety of other things that we use as excuses in our field; that viewers should take total responsibility. But responsibility for my role, does not mean invalidating that anything else exists to mutually participate. Some people use the ‘you create your own reality’ concept to invalidate the universe around them as merely a projection; others use it to validate the universe around them as a delightfully creative canvas of self they get to interact with. I’m in the latter group, obviously. Most viewers have read that book “The Conscious Universe.” Most viewers if questioned would be perfectly happy to say, that consciousness permeates our holographic universe, whatever. Yet I don’t see or hear that armchair theory “rolling down into” perspective or theories or hands-on application or discussion.
What difference might it make in our physical world, if man began working with nature, with all things as deserving of respect, with the earth as a relationship?
What difference might it make in our psychic world, if we did the same thing?
“If you love it enough, anything will talk with you.”
— George Washington Carver