SMART WACKOS

By: Bryan Boodhoo

How much of what you know is a result of original thought? It is very little. Most of everything you know or believe has been taught in some way or another. Traditions, schooling, TV, reading, these are the predominant ways that information is passed. From an objective standpoint, it would appear that humans assimilate information easier than we are to discover it.

A pioneer would be someone that would adopt a level of objectivity and clarity of thought. They typically use a scientific approach. They would have a period of dissecting their own beliefs and rebuilding the Styrofoam blocks that they may have used as their base. Logic based lines of thinking is one of their primary tools to solve a problem. The issue here is that sometimes you may have perfect logic and the conclusion can still be untrue or incomplete. This here lies the dilemma. What do we know to be 100% fact?

Humans communicate consciously and subconsciously. Conscious communication is done through speech, and its derivatives. Body language is another form. Subconscious communication is there as a form of communication but is not easily processed by the sensory apparatus until there is a realization by the receiving party that there is an attempt to do so. It can be a form of communication with inventive means or use of intuition. One-way communication is likely to be the best use of subconscious communication. In a perfect world, with enough gain, at the most it may cause the receiving party to have a random thought appear within their mind. They’d likely consider it to be part of their own mental creation. The event size is too small to be a significant use for communication. There would be no way of knowing unless they were a record of their thoughts and emotions in writing, without a lapse in clarity.

A pioneer, one that is original in thought will utilize this aspect of themselves. The idea that originality is not always supported by the status quo, but original information sometimes be obtained through an open search for information. This open search is a lot like google. You define the terms based on a position, you know what you are looking for, though not the answer. The search is executed, the results would likely be based on the input search terms or position. There’s information there to support any claim. The mind must rationalize things, even things it doesn’t understand. How does one know the absolute truth?

The remote viewing renaissance will be carried by a scientific approach where beliefs should be tested, and all styrofoam blocks are replaced by a solid one. The community will have to adopt objectivity a bit more than it current state. There’s a tendency to regurgitate beliefs as fact. This shows up in remote viewing sessions. The beliefs and knowledge of the targeteer are the search terms used on google, the result is a translation of real data viewed through the lens of the viewer’s beliefs and background. That is two points within the remote viewing process that information can be skewed. There’s a big issue wherein a remote viewing product is produced for a targeted audience; Skewed beliefs are spoken with certainty because it was supposedly retrieved from a session, again often a translation or metaphor of actual data.

What’s the point? Remote viewing is real. It’s a bigger mystery than the community is willing to accept. All we know is that it is real, it’s magic. The remote viewing community should be focused on play and understanding it. What else is out there? There’s been a lack of interest and creativity as of late in the community because it has lost the appeal of magic. For the individual remote viewer, it should be in their best interest to gain understanding and competency of the skill rather than telling an audience about some great mystery or becoming a guru. let your competency speak for itself. Wacky individuals are attracted to the environment, smart wackos make for an interesting place.