Hi folks,
ack100, you've actually gotten me to drop out of lurking mode to respond to this thread... well done. I have some experience in this area. I am deeply sorry for your friend's loss, and it certainly sounds like he was struggling with several hard-to-deal-with issues.
I've actually done remote viewing a fair bit, and I know quite a few of the people that have studied it and were 'professionally' involved in the area for the military and intelligence services, including some names you would recognize from the Stargate program that were held in high regard (i.e. - they were quite accomplished). I've had dinner with these people, I've discussed their research results, we've have talks about how they think they do what they do, and we've talked about frameworks, worldviews, and how such skills change your perception of reality.
I would caution against attempting to arrive at a specific judgement or conclusion about whether remote viewing is 'good' or 'bad'. Like most things in life, I think the answer is more complicated than that. I tend to look at it rather like the stick argument referenced in some ethics discussions - "Is a stick 'good' or 'bad'?" It's actually neither... it's just a stick, but you can use a stick to beat people, or you can use it to make a crutch for a wounded person to walk. It is what you do with your ability to use a stick that determines whether it is dangerous to someone else.
The basic skill used in remote viewing is a type of perception... you aren't inviting something in, or asking something questions. It's not much different from using your eyes to try to see something far away. The coordinates used in classical coordinate remote viewing are simply a way to make an point that you can reference... like using a compass and saying "look 37 degrees to the west".
Because you're dealing with senses that involve things beyond your normal perceptions, you can also use reference points that are beyond normal perceptions. So, rather than using a compass to tell your eyes where to look, you can use coordinates that are entangled with someone's desired target to tell your mind where to look (similar to the way that we can entangle particles at the quantum level in modern science to change the spin on an electron, and when you change one particle, the other changes in a similar manner). These senses are actually natural perceptions that humans get all the time, and aren't something you can easily make 'go away' or have people stay away from... as any mother who has suddenly known when her child is in danger can attest.
The actual RV protocol itself is just that... it was a protocol designed to sort out actual 'psychic' perceptions by looking at the basic problem as a signal-to-noise issue. If you can't boost the signal to get a clearer reception, then you attempt to lower the noise threshold (which is what most of the RV protocol is about) so that you can pick up the signal more clearly. How do you maintain your focus on a vague perception without starting to interpret what you're seeing, and skewing the data? How do you record your perceptions accurately? How do you know when to take a break because your mind is skewing the data? etc...
****
I would be the last person to say there are no dangerous things out there in that area of perceptive abilities... there definitely are, in my view. There are also good things there, and good reasons to work on what we can do with that area of science (and yes... I consider formal study of such things to be a science). The tool you're using to view things, whether the targets are dangerous things or good things... is not itself intrinsically good or bad. To use an analogy - you probably want to be aware of at what point you're too close to a charging rhinoceros when you're viewing it through binoculars... but that doesn't make the binoculars you're using to view the world from a distance 'dangerous' or 'bad'. It simply means you have to be aware of the environment you're in, and whether something is likely to notice you, while you are busy noticing it.
You can definitely get yourself in trouble with such things... and it sounds like your friend James may have run across a scenario that was dangerous to him. That doesn't mean the whole skillset is inherently dangerous, or that most of the standard tools one can find online (RV'ing targets of jpgs, for instance) are a point of concern. From my perspective, it's like the difference between viewing animals in a zoo, or going to the African wilderness and approaching wild animals without proper equipment or training. While both may involve close-up encounters with wild animals... they are very different things in terms of risk.
From my perspective, the best practice is to educate people, and show them how to safely manage their natural perceptions, rather than have them unfortunately stumble into a scenario they don't know how to handle - which they may do whether or not they've been trained in a formal protocol like remote viewing.
That doesn't make up for your friend's loss... and I'm not trying to say that what happened to him wasn't tragic, and perhaps avoidable. I do know there are quite a few people that have such perceptions whether they wish to or not, and I hope I've at least given you an alternate perspective to consider. Perhaps if such things were better understood, other people who naturally have these things happen to them could avoid the risks of the kind of scenario in which James found himself.
Stay safe,
--Aphanas
|
|
Bookmarks