As pointed out earlier in this series, the main problem in "remote sensing" is not so much the ability to bring about sensations or pictures from another place, but rather the abundance of impressions that may flow in, making it difficult to differentiate between "facts and fiction."

 The question arises: how do we know how to recognize reality in the first place?

 It may come as a shock, but there has been no answer to this quite innocent, yet very basic question in the entire known history of mankind! Even worse: the more one is trying to nail down how to "really" recognize "reality," the more it eludes rational thinking.

 Sure, there are plenty of definitions of "reality." One definition, the model of overlapping individual universes, was presented earlier in this series. Most definitions are quite limited, however, if one attempts to put them to practical use.

 On top of this dilemma is another one: even if there would be "one and only one" reality, and even if this reality could be perceived by two different observers in an identical fashion-- the subjective comprehension, based on the subsequent process of abstraction of this "reality," would be different for each observer.

 Abstractions are based on the socio-cultural environment that an observer is used to. A bushman who never saw a "chair" in his life can hardly make the abstraction "chair" when he sees one. Thus, the more closely one looks, it becomes progressively difficult to ascertain any common grounds for different observers.

 Now, in "remote viewing" it is expected that two or more observers arrive at an identical (or extremely similar) "abstraction." This means that an outcome is expected that is already close to impossible to achieve when the observers are not remote. Perhaps it may be altogether more accurate to label "remote viewing" as "abstractions about distant events" instead.

 All this means that no matter whether "reality" truly exists or not, and no matter how it ultimately manifests itself, it also appears to be impossible to determine with certainty whether an observation is truly based on an "objective reality" which is shared with others or if it solely exists in the mind of one (and only one!) beholder. If one would try to verify an observation with another observer, the observed "reality" might very well exist only for the two observers involved and not for anyone else.

 The same is true for channeled and tunneled information sources: there is no guarantee that the information is "true" for anyone else other than the entity that provided the information and the recipient(s) of this information.

 For the majority of humans these problematic questions have no relevance whatsoever. They are so firmly rooted in their immediate environment that they seem unable to conceive any thought that could possibly question their fixated set of mind. Thus they become slaves of mental constructs that they perceive as their "own" even though these constructs are mostly imprints from the prefabricated pseudo-world of the mass media.

 The following, extremely powerful exercise goes a long way in gaining a better understanding of how one's own mind is perceiving "reality." It is derived from the technique of "instrument scanning" which is practiced by airplane pilots who fly "on instruments" (IFR) and it is the actual remote viewing procedure suggested here in the Straightline Remote Sensing series: ***


Exercise 7a (Remote Viewing):

 0. Think of at least two remote places you want to look at.

 1. Look around wherever your body happens to be in this very moment.

 Do this quickly and stop immediately when you have any new or confirmed information about the place.

 2. Now do the same with the first of the two remote places.

 3. And then do it with the second one.

 Go to Step #1 again and cycle through the viewing "scan."

 For pilots flying on instruments this procedure is vital. It is the basic survival skill for flying in any weather condition that is not "severely clear."

 Looking at only one instrument would result very quickly in a hypnotic effect and the pilot would lose control over the airplane within an amazingly short time.

 In a sense this is exactly what happens to a Being which is fixated on a single body: it becomes paralyzed after a short time of looking at a single object (the human body), loses control shortly thereafter, and then tries to overcontrol even though it has already lost orientation and doesn't know where it is heading for.

 The Being is then prone to hang on to the body just like a pilot often starts holding the yoke with cramped hands. Amongst pilots this is feared and known as the "death grip" or the "white knuckles." Unless resolved in time, the result will be a sure dive into disaster.

 Actually, a straight dive is rare amongst humans and airplanes. More commonly, a "spin" will be entered. A spin is ironically the only "stable" condition for an airplane except when it is grounded: all forces are in an equilibrium. This is exactly why it is so difficult to recover from a spin.

 While an airplane is spinning down to the ground in seconds or minutes, a Being may take many lifetimes. Time enough, one might think, to break the spin. But time is not that important in breaking the spin, except when it is getting really close to the ground already.

 One must engage the "opposite rudder" with all force and hold it there until the spin comes to a stop. (And one should never forget to let go of the rudder when this happens-- otherwise another spin in the opposite direction would be initiated).

 But back to the exercise... What makes the perceptions of immediate and remote environments different from each other? Some indicators have already been presented in this series, notably the paradox of the continuity of events that are, nevertheless, constantly changing. The human mind can change an illusion that is not being shared with other Beings. It can do so without warning and without any restrictions:

 It can turn an elephant pink and a human face green without any temporal or spatial transition. And, at the same time, it can falsely insist that something never changed over time, even though this would clearly be impossible.

 In "reality," things are changing at a certain rate; yet all objects that are part of an event will have a certain amount of inertia.

 Indicators to look for during the "remote sensing scan" are therefore:

  • what is different in the picture compared to the previous scan(s)?



  • what remained the same in the pictures?



  • can submodalities (such as color, weight, speed, etc) be changed permanently in the picture? (This would be an indicator of a isolated mental construct).



  • do the events take a course of its own and in a way that could not have been predicted? (This would be an indicator of a shared reality).



The checklist of indicators should be expanded by the reader according to his/her own preferences - nobody "works" exactly like anybody else.

 This now concludes the mini-series Straightline Remote Sensing, written for the readers of ViewZone Magazine. More information on this subject can be found in the author's online book PNOHTEFTU - The Little Purple Notebook On How To Escape From This Universe at This site also contains a list of websites of contemporary thinkers and tinkerers who engaged in comparable quests.

 Although far from being comprehensive or exhaustive, this mini-series nevertheless contains the outlines of the major elements and considerations regarding this subject. If there is one point that could summarize this outline, it would be the realization that "remote" sensing is just a special case of perception at large. It cannot be seen isolated from the already existing faculties of perceiving what is going on: in a strict sense - since there are no genuinely IMMEDIATE perceptions in the first place - EVERY sensing could be called REMOTE sensing.

 The starting place for remote sensing is therefore necessarily the improvement of the perceptions of the environment in which the human body is currently placed. And, even more important: the perception of the perception process itself.

 Once this perception process has been recognized as such, the concept of "remote" sensing becomes just a side condition-- namely the distance of one's own current body to an event that is to be observed.

 Most importan of all: learning to perceive perception processes is the basic step to regain one's individual liberty from the self-made prison of mental constructs.

 Now, when the barriers in the individual mind are starting to tumble down, something else happens, both wonderful and frightening-- and often unexpected: the barriers that appeared to separate us from all the other living beings that share this very place with us are breaking down at about the same rate at which our own internal limits are dissolving. 

With the increasing ability of "Remote Sensing" comes thus a responsibility from which it seems impossible to escape: 

  • Without barriers of time and space, one is not only exposed to the curious, delightful, or fascinating aspects of events in distant places, but one also has to learn to share the fright, despair, loneliness, and sorrow of other Beings.
In a time where everybody glibly talks of global peace and the progress-- or even the survival-- of the human race, this question should therefore be raised and honestly answered:

 "Can mankind as a whole become truly free as long as its proper members-- the individual human beings-- are not free, happy, and safe in their very own hearts and minds to begin with?"

 It is the author's recognition that this world (and any possible world for this matter) can never be changed to a better place by means of guns, drugs, economics, or politics. Any true change has to start with freeing one's very own mind and heart first.

 In the spirit of this thought, these notes about Straightline Remote Sensing have been written.

 May All Beings Be Happy, Safe, And Free!

 Maximilian J. Sandor, Ph.D.
Christmas Eve 1998,
Tujunga, California, on the planet Earth of the Solar System, somewhere in the outskirts of the galaxy known as the Milky Way.