Analysis by any other name still smells like analysis though, lol. Okay, Palyne, we disagree on this one, I think. Here’s my thoughts…

There are some assumptions here that I can’t agree with. The first is that the viewer is in closer contact at the end of the session than s/he is at earlier points in the session. In my experience this is never true.

Why, at the end of your remote viewing sessions, do you stop gathering new data? What is it that makes you decide to put a halt to your efforts to perceive the target? Is it because you think you’ve said all there is to be said about it? No, you can’t know that. Is it because you believe you’ve answered whatever the tasker’s question was (to which you are, of course, blind)? No, if so, your efforts are aimed more at telepathy and/or psychic rapport than they are at clairvoyance. Is it because the time clock says you’ve been at it for 20 minutes and you’ve arbitrarily decided that’s the perfect session-length or because some guru told you that’s the perfect session-length, or because it seems, for the most part, that up until now your post-twenty minute efforts have been in vain? No – at least I hope nonoe of the reasons are good enough for any viewer to cut-short their session.

We stop our sessions because we are unable to perceive any more or any new target-data. Sometimes we stop our sessions because we are becoming mentally and psychically exhausted. But in any case, we stop our sessions because we have LOST psychic contact with the target. At the very end of our sessions is time when we have the LEAST contact with the target, not the most – because if, at that point, you are enjoying the MOST contact with the target, then you should still be remote viewing.

Another foundation-assumption for creating what you’ve termed “presentation sessions” that I have trouble with, is that they are the best remedy (or at least a good remedy) for some viewer’s habit of listing long strings of words that all mean essentially the same (or almost the same) thing. When a viewer writes “bright, shiny,silvery, flashy, brilliance, gleaming,” etc. ad nauseum, there is a real problem in their method of data collection. But the place and time to focus in order to rememdy this habit is not AFTER the session, not AFTER the habit has been performed. Doing so only allows the problem to continue and perpetuates the behavior, possibly even reinforcing the behavior because, with the use of presentation sessions, this viewer knows full well that s/he can “fix it up” later.

A viewer should always work with an eye toward improving their method or improving their implementation of their method – always. In remote viewing, we are learning to be more attentive, to gain a better control over where we aim our attention, to martial and concentrate our intention to a laser-like focus – all while doing so in a relaxed, stress-free manner and attitude.

I agree with you in that RV has many inherent difficulties – such as the problem of perceiving and then recording those perceptions and the dichotomy between those two behaviors. They DO seem to be diametrically opposed in several ways. They DO seem to enagage different parts of the brain, each of which interferes with the other. This is one reason that so many early RVers strongly suggested that all new RVers should learn to sketch, if they couldn’t do so already. The use of language alone – in any form – requires at least a minimal amount of searching, memory-sifting, categorizing, and comparison and contrasting, and ultimately “best-fit” behaviors. It requires that any perception – from the most basic perceptions of simple material attributes (like color, size, dimensions, relative placements) to the most advanced and abstract of perceptions (such as all political, social, historical, contextual, emotional, conceptual perceptions) – be labeled in some way. It requires overlaying a free-response activity with a forced-choice series of associations. Such is language. There’s no way around it.

But there ARE ways to minimize the most problematic aspects of it. One is to simply learn to draw, removing the need for words in many respects. Another is to enlarge your vocabulary, thereby increasing the numbers of choices in the forced-choice exercise that language descriptions constitute. A very valuable method is to create your own heiroglyphic short-hand. Two inverted “V”s are the sign I use for a perception of a dog, for example. A “Y” shape is my simplified sketch of a tree, as another example. In general, I keep the use of words to a minimum, trying as much as I can to limit them to only keywords and phrases, tools to jog my memory later.

At the end of the session, I then begin to do something similar to what you are terming “presentation sessions”. I fill out the jotted lines and short series of pen-strokes that look like mere doodling to anyone else. I try to recreate the structures, objects, and activities I perceived earlier, placing them on paper in relation to each other and in relation to me in as close a replication to what I perceived during the RV session as I can. Then I fill in the details of all the non-physical perceptions, using as exact language as I can, describing everything as closely as possible. I label aspects of the sketches to make them more plain and I describe activities I perceived. There are always bits and pieces that don’t seem to belong, that don’t fit in with themajority of the data. I fill in the details on these as well, sometimes not even being able to say exactly what it was, marking them with a question mark and then usually describing what is questionable about it.

Doing all this makes the session more coherent and understandable; not only to others but to myself as well. I’ll usually recall a few bits of impressions that escaped my immediate notice during the session or that I somehow failed to note (often because the data flow was so fast and overwhelming at the time). But I never leave out data. And I never consider it a psychic process. It’s an analytical process, figuring out how best to present my perceptions.

Another assumption to the presentation session idea I diagree withis that the viewer is this:

“Only the viewer is in the position to judge what is “most important and relevent” about a target—that’s the psi!”

I’ve never met a viewer yet or even seen a single session when the viewer had the slightest clue as to whether they were “on” or “off” regarding a remote viewing session. And the same holds true for every piece of data. The stuff that “feels” the most accurate is almost always wrong and vice versa. The problem here rests in the word “judge”. The instant you ask (or expect) a viewer to tell you what data is correct or incorrect, you are requesting analysis. The psi must occur at an earlier point in the process. It must occur at the exact instant the information enters the viewer’s awareness, or possibly immediately prior to that moment. A good viewer is not only perceiving the correct data alone, s/he is also constantly disregarding memories, associations with what s/he saw on TV last night, recent conversations, idle and meaningless mental constructs, etc. – all in a dynamic,on-going, mostly pre-liminal process that s/he has learned to do through practice and repetition. This is the maximized extent that a viewer can discern between truly psi perceptions versus all the “noise” that also tries to enter the awareness, like a bunch of people all trying to crowd their way through the same small door. That part of the mind that exists on the border of conscious and the subconscious, that straddles the line between locality and non-locality, here is where this process should be taking place, because a big part of that discernment lies in the manner in which the data arrives (the way it feels, its speed, its fleetingness, its subtlety, its vague familarity, its surprisingness), all elements that are difficult if not impossible to bring to mind again after the session is over – and yet the very elements that highlight the true data from the pretenders.

I think an experienced viewer will have less data overall at the end of a session than a less experienced viewer has – but they will also have a much higher rate of correct data dn a much lower rate of incorrect data. I believe this change should properly and more naturally take place during the learning curve of practicing remote viewing – as opposed to a second phase or different activity that takes place after all the information (right and wrong) has been gathered.

While I DO agree that session transcipts must be cleaned up before being presented to the public or to a client, I have to disagree that this is a psychic process or that this is the proper place and time to decide what is important to the target and what is not. This is an important subject though, and one I’ve never really seen addressed in any detail. A great blog subject, Palyne!
Warm Regards,
Don

It was truely awesome. Very traumatic though. The woman behind me passed out in the middle and they had to finish.

Remeber to keep your eyes wet for even longer than they suggest. It will stablize you vision.

Congradulations! I am happy for you and wish you much success in your healing.