It's my feeling that "context" for the mind is tremendously powerful.
I tend to feel that a good deal of information in a session doesn't make it to the paper, not because people aren't cuing themselves or communicating decently what "goes through/past" them, but because a whole lot of information is not going anywhere, it's passive, it simply exists as a given. I call that "background data".
When feedback arrives, it's as if a myriad of info that is fractional, partial, or background, suddenly falls into place--it was already there, like in a holding pattern, but because the brain had no context whatever in a doubleblind, there was simply nowhere for it to go, because it was not fleshed out enough or specific or active enough to form anything at all. Since it has no context whatever, the result can seem like haphazard chaos no matter how sequentially or neatly or systematically data is recorded and even no matter how accurately. But give someone a little of the context, and not only can their brain recognize the patterns but it might allow much of the data that does exist to "find its place". Then again...
The problem has always been that even the hint of context often amplifies the subtle and gross 'assumptions' that are the constant battle of viewers, and not always obvious stuff like just analytical overlay but very complex, abstract, fundamental framework assumptions that in their way are far more dangerous to the data. So the doubleblind exists somewhat to protect the viewer from that experience but more importantly to protect the analyst from that torquing how much they can trust the data. Then again...
It seems to me there ought to be some workable middle ground on this.
I can't tell you how many sessions I have had go well, and great rapport, but ended up torn between concept models / aol and having to stop the session because, and here's the thing, when you really want SPECIFIC data, and you really need to ask questions of your target/data/self that are not looking for whatever spontaneously comes but looking for a pretty definite point of info, then your mind MUST have a concept model of some kind in order to do this at all.
The universe is a limited set of "forms and dynamics", as I always say. It's holographic in many ways. The forms and dynamics and relationships that affect some DNA processes are remarkably similar to some that affect polar magnetics are similar to some that affect riptides are similar to some that affect operation of the pancreas are similar to some that affect a larger pattern of social politics in the work place and a certain sales dynamic in a stock transaction and the way a particular carnival ride operates and a certain combined orbit/interaction of one of Saturn's moons and -- and if there is no context whatever, there just is not any model or scale for the brain to use, and here's the thing, I feel the brain NEEDS a model at that point.
If you don't have one, it will simply
make one up -- "choose" between the more immediate possibilities invoked in imagination -- or, like my example to start this, will throw up a couple of the strongest options, asking for a conscious choice to "go down this path vs. that one". Without "context", this kind of detail when you do get rapport is very difficult. I feel this is because when you start asking for specifics, you simply
must have something to hang that on, it's part of how the brain naturally operates -- certain things do not happen well or at all in a void.
So for example if the "data requested" is the location of a person, and the viewer knows it is a missing person, then technically they have no info about the real target, but they DO have "indirect" frontloading-effects-by-proxy based on something like, for example, they know they are looking at a location; they know they are NOT probably looking at DNA, a stock transaction, etc. etc. -- the whole rest of the universe is now not crammed into that same box of possibilities. Knowing you want a "location" is "context" data. That location could be buried in cement 8 feet under a bridge, or a small missile silo North of an island bay, or in a box in a closet in a white wooden house someplace that feels like Kent, or even, yes, floating in Saturn's rings
-- but at least there is
scale, scope and context for the brain to use as framework.
I believe this allows the mind to not only place the 'active data' (as I call it) more confidently, but provides the opportunity for a ton of 'passive and fragment data' to also slide into place and help color that larger picture. Further, I think once that framework exists, IF (big IF here) the viewer has decent on-target rapport, I think lines of inquiry that are much more specific can be followed up on in the session.
To me this subject has an analogy with the mystical element: it was great that RV got rid of the superstitious muck, but it threw out half the baby with the bathwater there because a lot of the so-called mystical or metaphysical elements are valid and will impact experience and understanding, so stripping them out of the process creates a shallow result.
I think the frontloading subject is a little similar; it is critically important that we got to the doubleblind as a baseline for RV, as its fundamental, in part to combat the dominant disinformation that's been infesting the field since '95 when it went officially public (and officially as stupid as possible it sometimes seems). I can hardly even converse with people who don't grok the importance of the doubleblind and want it as a baseline and consider it vital enough that any deviation would be reported without hesitation (not in 'confession,' simply in stating the simple facts); anybody who hasn't figured this out yet isn't even a viewer in my book and needs a lot more experience. That isn't about HOW you view--everyone has their own approach and is welcome to it--it's about the understanding of RV protocol and the integrity of clarity about what's going on. Even if someone views fully informed, if they always make that clear, I am more on the same page with them than with someone who thinks doubleblind vs. frontloading doesn't matter or doesn't need mentioning.
But DB protocol is a baseline, much like you expect a musician to have certain basic skills if they're going to play at a certain level. Once that exists, that classical bassist may be found lurking in a back alley hole-in-the-wall club playing jazz-blues. In certain circumstances I want the classical version of him because in the studio or with the symphony it needs to be by the book predictable, in part because it supports everyone else doing their (also predictable, planned in advance) thing. But in the smoky club environ that guy needs to be able to improvise and flex and experiment, in part because the environ and others are contributing to this larger dynamic also, and the only measure of the worth of this is the actual end result. But you don't know the end result until the end. You just have to DO it and really get into it and then, you can look back on it, you can get the reactions of others witnessing it, and they can say man, that was the most creative inspired groove I ever heard, and maybe his creativity is what sparked the singer who sparked the drummer and it was magic and there's no one clear element or trail back to why. Or maybe it was a "learning experience" and your audience needs another drink and quickly after that solo LOL. But getting out and doing it and seeing the results matters more than the gold standard of theory IMO.
I'd really like to do some experimentation that randomly and flexibly assigned various levels of frontloading to viewers and had some analysis and evaluation, also variously having this included, so we could later look at the results of all of that and compare. Hopefully when the Dojo Psi's Taskerbot is finished something can be automated for that. In the meantime though, I'm all for viewers experimenting with what works.
I think viewers like McMoneagle have such strong target-contact rapport skills that really, they are usually operating within a context, it's simply that they are getting it via psi instead of via ordinary information. To me, it becomes a question of, do we exclude from specific/application remote viewing every viewer that doesn't have that so strongly? Because without some context they are unlikely to get the kind of specific we want for applications viewing. Or do we see if there is a middle ground of "supplementation" of what amounts to "context" -- NOT frontloading info
about the target, but rather, some information about
the context of the data being sought, there is a difference! -- that might allow people quite decent at getting psychic data via viewing, to have more specifics made possible by providing a concept framework for their minds to use. (Even while fully solo-blind/double-blind to
the intended information of course.)
At heart I'm a purist (protocol! protocol!) but in practice I'm for what works. People use frontloading often to prop up poor viewing and that is not quite what I'm talking about here. I think target rapport can be very good, and psi data collection effective, yet still have the viewer lacking any sense of context, without which their mind has all this good potential but nowhere to go with it, and that's a shame. I'd like to see what intentionally designing and randomly applying some variant protocol details with this achieves.
