Intent & Origins - April 6, 2006
RemoteViewingNews.net is intended to cover general news about remote viewing organizations, people, and events. The Weekly Buzz will contain a more personalized commentary and indepth treatment of ideas and events. Archives of pages past will be maintained online.
My purchase of this domain (considering its prior history under other dot formats) could be considered unfortunate. However, I have defined this as an opportunity to present controversial as well as general 'remote viewing news' from a less caustic perspective. Contributors are welcome. Send your essays, articles, and comments to Shelia Massey. I will publish those that uphold the intent and purpose of this publication.
Critical Thinking - April 8, 2006
George Noory's interview of remote viewer Paul H. Smith on CoasttoCoast (Thursday night/Friday AM April 6th) addressed the topic: "the skeptic conspiracy to keep evidence of the paranormal away from the public." After considerable discussion of remote viewing and its government-funded beginnings at the Stanford Research Institute, and consequent use by the military, the conversation came round to the intended topic.
Paul defined conspiracy as a group of people making plans to do something illegal or wrong. He cautioned that the skeptic cabal in the US was not technically a conspiracy, since it is not illegal (nor should it be) to believe and promote skeptical beliefs, yet he noted the campaign against paranormal phenomena appeared to be heavily funded and well-organized. This in combination with other factors, including the media driven 'giggle-factor', had succeeded in drying up funding for US laboratory research of the paranormal. Ed May's Cognitive Sciences Laboratory and Dean Radin's Boundary Institute being among the handful of laboratories still studying the paranormal within the United States. However, research of the paranormal appears to be on the increase in Europe, Japan, and China. Note Joe McMoneagle's many television appearances in Japan that demonstrate the efficacy of remote viewing in finding missing persons. Paul mentioned that psi and remote viewing had been utilized for many years in archeaological research by remote viewing pioneer Stephan Schwartz and psychics such as George McMullen (who will be speaking at the IRVA 2006 Remote Viewing Conference.)
Paul provided a few examples of the typical skeptic arguments in addressing paranormal phenomena. He pointed out the circular no-win pseudo-logic that demanded replicable studies, yet when presented with replicable studies replied: "statistics can prove anything" - or, conversely - "statistics prove nothing." A favorite ploy of many skeptics to detract without presenting evidence is the pronouncement: "the methodology was flawed". It struck me as outrageously funny that skeptic spokesperson Michael Shermer had said (in a prior interview with Noory) that he would accept psi as viable if remote viewers could find Bin Laden. This, as a one-time event, falls into what is commonly referred to as 'anecdotal evidence.' The skeptic response to finding Bin Laden would simply be: "anecdotal evidence is not enough."
In discussing the psychology of the anti-psi position versus a truly scientific and open-minded approach, Paul noted much of the vehement objection to psi research was 'fear'- and 'belief'- driven rather than based on the scientific evidence. The 'fear' being that if belief in the reality of psi were allowed to persist, humankind would devolve into a Dark Ages superstitious mentality. In contrast, Paul's position is that driving such an important part of human nature as psi is into the shadows is harmful in that this suppression not only undermines our understanding of human nature, but prevents science from forming a complete model of the universe, with possible serious repercussions for humankind and our future on this planet.
When asked what Coast to Coast listeners could do to turn the tide in favor of paranormal research, Paul challenged them to educate themselves on the subject using a high degree of critical thinking, and to approach the field with a "Buyers' Beware" mentality. A simple Google on 'remote viewing' will show you why that is now necessary. Paul also pointed listeners to information posted on rviewer.com that would show them how to do their own remote viewing session. The original researchers at the Stanford Research Institute found early on that the best way to demonstrate remote viewing was to have the interested individual do his or her own remote viewing session. People tend to better understand what they have personally experienced rather than merely observed or heard about.
-- Shelia Massey
What's Being Done to Bring Remote Viewing into the Mainstream? - April 9, 2006
I've recently heard complaints that little has been done in recent years to promote remote viewing into mainstream awareness. I heartily disagree. In general, these complaints come from supporters of remote viewing and are aimed at many of the individuals and organizations who are, in fact, working toward that end.
I say that much has been done and is being done to promote remote viewing in the mainstream. Four examples come immediately to mind:
- Beyond the multiple books he has written, Joe McMoneagle's successful public work in locating missing persons in Japan is presented in mainstream media ("FBI: Psychic Investigator" - Nippon TV). Judging by requests for his return, with 10 appearances since 2002, his work appears to be well-received. Nancy McMoneagle provided a description of how Joe works and the protocols in place for these events. His 10th appearance on Nippon TV was April 1, 2006. That our own US media treat the paranormal as a subject for entertainment or ridicule is simply the tip of a rather large iceberg of resistance pushing up against anyone involved in promoting remote viewing or paranormal research.
- Judging from the uncharacteristic increase of website visits to irva.org in the past few months, public interest in remote viewing appears to have followed upon the Readers' Digest publication of a Bonus Book version of Paul H. Smith's Reading the Enemy's Mind. The Readers' Digest is a mainstream publication by anyone's measure of the term.
- Researchers who devote their time and public attention to the field do so at significant risk to their careers and professional standing in the scientific community. These men and women simply take it in stride and continue to pursue their interests because they know their interests are of primal importance to the future of humankind. They do the research and detail for us the outcomes in books and articles.
Dean Radin’s research has been featured in numerous magazines, newspapers, and television programs. He also appeared in a special features interview on the DVD version of the movie, Suspect Zero, and is a featured scientist in the 2006 movie, What the Bleep Do We Know: Down the Rabbit Hole. Radin has presented over a hundred invited lectures to scientific and popular audiences around the world, is author and co-author of nearly 250 journal articles and technical reports, and the author of the best-selling book, The Conscious Universe (1997, HarperCollins). His forthcoming book is entitled Entangled Minds (Simon & Schuster), due for publication in April 2006.
- For 6 years the International Remote Viewing Association has held conferences that have aimed to provide informative content for the general public as well as the accomplished remote viewer. They have published a small but well received quarterly newsletter. IRVA directors, Stephan Schwartz, Paul H. Smith, Russell Targ, Lyn Buchanan, and John Alexander, participate in multiple conferences and speaking engagements each year and in television, radio, and print media interviews. For a comprehensive listing of each man's published works check each individual's website or do a book search on Amazon.com.
As Robert Durant put it, "Remote Viewing tells us that all men are not just brothers, but brothers bound in a psychic nexus, and the exploration of that central fact should properly be a prominent goal of the science of the 21st Century. . . . In a sane world, Swann and his colleagues would be Nobel laureates. Sadly, they are already marginalized, and social forces are trying to consign them to the dust-bin of history."
I say, these men and women have risked much to be who they are and to do the work of moving us into a 21st century science that reclaims our birthright as 'more than physical beings.' As beneficiaries of their work we have risked nothing; at the very least, one could expect that we take the time to become cognizant of the degree of ongoing work rather than indulging a form of intellectual bankruptcy that finds support in joining a cacaphony of ridicule or dismissal.
-- Shelia Massey
Money, Money, Money - April 9, 2006
If a man cuts wood for a living, hauls the wood to the city, agrees to bring it to your home and stack it neatly in your yard for a price, do you complain that the wood is a natural resource that belongs to everyone and no one should charge money for it? Or, finding his labor to be of value to yourself, do you pay his asking price and thank him for his labor?
"People who look for gurus to follow and place on pedestals are always reaching behind them for a stone to throw." From within the ranks of people interested in remote viewing, I've noticed throughout the years a disturbing trend for disparging comments aimed at conference speakers as being people who "only show up to hawk their books or their classes." On top of this is an underlying accusatory tone intimating that these people are getting rich by selling books and teaching remote viewing.
Apparently there is little understanding of today's world of publication. None seem to realize that publishers rarely put resources into promoting a book. Even for proven writers of highly successful mainstream money-makers there are requirements for personal appearance tours - this translates into additional labor by the author. For writers of non-mainstream books there is little to no publisher assistance. Promotion of the book is left to the author to provide on his own dime. Of the total dollar amount charged for a book, only a small percentage (10 - 15 percent) is received by the author in the form of royalties. If truth be known, even a widely successful book in the paranormal category probably provides a 'nice bonus check' -- certainly nothing commensurate with several years of work.
As for the financial viability of remote viewing classes - yes, some monies are made, but certainly nothing in the range of what I've heard bantered on the forums. Ignoring the fluctuations of classes that make and those that don't, after expenses are tallied, the amount of time and effort required would provide more financial benefit if applied to just about any other area of endeavor to which these individuals could easily turn their attention. All of them are well-educated and accomplished individuals. It's not as if they were without alternative choices.
It is evident to me that these men and women truly are dedicated to the 'mission' of promoting remote viewing for reasons other than financial gain. Most, if not all, have either a primary means of livelihood totally unrelated to remote viewing, or maintain multiple sources of income, in order to support their pursuit and love of remote viewing. As Robert Durant said in an article pending publication: "Put another way, would I recommend training in remote viewing? Not if your goal is to make money or in other ways influence your physical existence. Rather, I would commend it to those for whom the world of ideas is paramount, and who travel in that world of thought like the early explorers traveled awestruck through the unmapped territories of Africa. "
-- Shelia Massey
Remote Viewing: History and Practice - April 19, 2006
Remote viewing historian and practitioner Robert Durant recalls the early days of government remote viewing programs with Russell Targ, Hal Putoff and Ingo Swan. Remote Viewing: History and Practice
Premature Dismissal - April 20, 2006
I am a googler of certain terms having to do with the field of remote viewing. And during a lazy browse last week I happened upon an essay by Dennis Overbye in the New York Times (online - free access by subscription) Far Out, Man. But Is It Quantum Physics?. It turned out to be a rather curious essay about the underlying physics portrayed in the "What the Bleep" movies.
Overbye says, "These films and the quantum mysticism industry behind them raise a disturbing question about the muddled intersection between science and culture. Do we have to indulge in bad physics to feel good?"
The term 'quantum mysticism industry' invoked significant mirth as I share his distaste for the overuse of the term 'quantum'. The 'mysticism industry' has been with us for centuries, and is unlikely to go away - as the urge to transcend normal human limits is part and parcel of who we are. There have always been those who seek to be guided by others and those who are more than willing to be gurus. Sad, but unlikely to ever change.
Not being a physicist, I have no educated judgement about what is or is not 'good' physics. However, I do know that the Bleeping movies are most certainly not the science - more closely related to a skimpy watercolor summary of the ideas behind the science and meant for layman consumption. You don't come to the dinner table for dessert and complain that the dinner was unfulfilling because you missed the main course.
This exercise in dismissal was of interest to me because of the upcoming appearance of William Tiller and Dean Radin at the International Remote Viewing Conference this May. As a member of the conference committee I thought it behooved me to read what others might have to say about Tiller and Radin. The value of remote viewing and it's science lab past, lies in the potential for demystification of what has previously been labeled 'paranormal'. A less than discerning review of serious discovery processes does not serve that potential.
Overbye concludes, "Take free will. Everything I know about physics and neuroscience tells me it's a myth. But I need that illusion to get out of bed in the morning. Of all the durable and necessary creations of atoms, the evolution of the illusion of the self and of free will are perhaps the most miraculous. That belief is necessary to my survival.
But I wouldn't call it good physics."
Here Overbye seems to be projecting his personal motivations onto others -- as if the need to be supported by some oversoul were what was driving the science. I make what I perceive as freely derived choices -- while at the same time being deeply aware of how many processes come to bear upon those choices. The perceptual dichotomies of life, in the same moment both ordered and chaotic, free and entangled, cannot be ignored. Choosing to dismiss the value of another's discovery process, even when it apparently rubs up against one of your belief systems, seems like a premature form of death -- or, at the very least, a failure to thrive.
-- Shelia Massey
|
