Remote Viewing or Remote Perceiving?

I once watched a public talk given by Joe McMoneagle in which he noted that remote viewing was a bit of a misnomer; that it is more accurately described as remote perception. He noted that it seems more accurate as we are not really ‘viewing’ anything as we would with our eyes.

Fair enough. The thought has probably struck many of us.

Though we may get impressions strong enough that would make one think we had actually seen the target/focus of intention, we really aren’t seeing it with the eyes. However, are we building a model of the target via our visual cortex based on the sense impressions or perceptions we attain in the session? Even if so, does that qualify it as ‘viewing’? Maybe. Perception through the visual sense organs is defined as vision/seeing.

But how about the times I’ve been in session and smelled sawdust, chemicals, and other odors. Was I remote smelling?

Or the times I’ve felt myself sprayed with water while in session? Remote surfing or showering?

I once viewed a supersonic jet and could taste the metal and it’s color (navy blue). Remote tasting?

Please see the insouciance of this—I am by no means being antagonistic. However, since the basis of how we get along in the world is via communication, and the basis of communication is language, it helps to have accurate language to describe our experiences in life.

It would seem that all of our sense impressions in sessions are, in fact, perceptions. However, I would have to guess that the dominant sense impression used to move around most targets is visual in nature. Remote viewing grew out of its necessity; out of the need to have an answer. An answer about how things were and looked like.

The original outbounder experiments were indeed visual and as the need to call the program something arose, the most appropriate term was likely remote viewing, as it appeared to be accurate. Given the visual nature of the early experiments, the term certainly indicated.

But given that what we do encompasses so much more than what the visual cortex typically processes, room for new vernacular shouldn’t be dismissed, particularly if it indicates and does not change the original intent, attitude or structure of the existing practice.

However, that being said, I can’t say I’d like to be called a CRPer, or join the IRPA. There really is something cool about being a remote viewer.