Matrix Footnotes
by Kimberly Snow
He has been with PSI TECH the longest of any employees that have come and gone. His tireless behind-the-scenes efforts to assist PSI TECH in making TRV accessible to the public are taken in stride by most—for this man works his magic anonymously, not for the glory of fame or the hopes of material riches reaped from his undaunted loyalty, but for a reason that remains a mystery even unto himself. He has been secretary, webmaster, shipping/processor, programmer, network administrator and technician, duplicator, writer, editor, graphic designer, photographer, carpenter, ditch digger, and friend. You would be hard pressed to find a more loyal, honest, deeply introspective employee, and I am privileged to have had the rare opportunity to interview this reclusive genius. Patrick is also a skilled Technical Remote Viewer. He knows it works. But like any intelligent, curious human being, he ruminates on the theories of how, and why.
Kimberly: Do you really believe this stuff works?
Patrick: Yes. I had my "Oh my God!" moment with the technology. I still remember the target. I was learning stage 4. I was being monitored. I sketched two lifeforms: lots of hair, one was white, the other brown. They were animals, simple beings. After the session was done, the monitor popped out the photo from the envelope and bam! It's a picture of two cats, one a white Persian, the other a brown and red Persian. I said to myself, okay, there is absolutely no way in the world I could have gotten that kind of data on a mere fluke. Before, I had done good sessions, but the data was abstract, fuzzy, open to interpretation. This one was just black and white.
Kimberly: How do you know you're not just reading the monitor's mind? What's to say this data is truth, and not just the truth as the person cueing the target sees it? And how do you know?
Patrick: Oh, it could be that, in fact, telepathic overlay is a potential problem in any monitored session. However, that is actually the way TRV works, from what I understand. Your mind talks to the tasker's mind, to see what the intent is. Telepathy initiates the process. Although I don't have hard evidence to support the idea that TRV is any more than a simple telepathy trick, I do have faith in targets done on items that are double-blind.
Kimberly: What do you mean by double-blind?
Patrick: Where the tasker doesn't know what the target is, and neither does the viewer. For example, "The next pope."
Kimberly: I see. But how do you know you aren't getting data on who the tasker thinks the next pope will be? Or if someone cues God, for example, how do I know I'm not just seeing God in my tasker's mind, the idea of what he thinks God is?
|
Kimberly: How so?
Patrick: You have the dual problem of clear intent—having an unambiguous target to start with, which means the tasker needs to know reasonably what you're dealing with, (e.g., the idea of aliens perhaps, even if the target is the interior of a spaceship, and neither of you have any idea what they looks like or if they exists). And there's the second problem of analysis. Both stages of the game are open to interpretation by the people involved, and hence bending the data to suit what a person's preconceived notions are. We call this pigeonholing.
Kimberly: Classifying the data according to a mental stereotype?
Patrick: Yes. And of course there is a third danger, which is AOL, which is making stuff up or misinterpreting data while in the session. So the whole thing is one huge pitfall, a giant accident waiting to happen. You could say it's no different than a loaded gun. You have protocols, strategies, plans, and rules. You point the gun away from people, never chamber a round until you're ready to shoot, keep your finger off the trigger until a valid target is in the sights, etc., all to keep someone from being accidentally shot. Likewise you have to have discipline in the intelligence acquisition process with TRV: cross-checking, practicing, having an open mind that you may be wrong about anything.
Kimberly: As in the aforementioned instances where preconceived ideas slipped in.
Patrick: Yes, when that breaks down, and you have someone who says, "Aha! I know what this is!" It's akin to the gun problem where someone chambers a round, points the loaded gun at someone and says, "I know how to handle this thing..." BANG! I've seen instances where TRV data appears to be corroborated and valid, but it doesn't make sense. This may have been a problem with the tasker (including telepathic overlay—the monitor telepathically injecting what he wants you to get in your session), or it may have been real, and we don't know it. But I have a sneaking suspicion that there are pitfalls we're not aware of yet. TRV is still a relatively young technology.
Kimberly: Can you speculate on what kinds of pitfalls?
Patrick: Well, one thing I've wondered about is something I call the Bulge Effect, which has to do with probability; masses of people subconsciously knowing danger is afoot, and their collective will influences the event or the people involved to change its trajectory (all consciously unbeknownst to them, of course). One of the remote viewing email lists recently had something, I think, about these random number generators called EGG's, which are placed around the world. Some scientists did a study and found a correlation between massive events in the world with substantial deviations on the random number generators from true chance. How it works, nobody knows, but they see it working over and over again... hours before 9/11, the EGGs showed a shift away from true randomness and heralded an upcoming massive reaction in people.
Kimberly: And you see a correlation between this and the TRV process?
Patrick: I think this might happen in TRV, because in TRV we are only able to look at probabilities. The future, for the most part, isn't completely set yet, from what we've found, free will is possible. We may do a session on say, the next terrorist attack in the United States, and we may get something like a horrible chemical weapon being released over a populated area. And according to current probabilities, this is the most likely thing to happen, and it comes up in the data. I think there is another unaccounted-for variable, which I call the Bulge, which happens when all the people in the world start to realize, subconsciously, that something very, very bad is about to happen. It's shown in other studies that people will respond to disturbing stimuli before it's shown or applied, validating some degree of foresight capability in the brain.
Kimberly: So all these people react to an event that hasn't happened yet.
Patrick: Yes, and perhaps change that event.
Kimberly: How so?
Patrick: The tension build-up makes a suspicious cop somewhere check a locker he wouldn't normally check, or makes some terrorist take a wrong turn they normally wouldn't take, and the dominos fall down, and the bomb is found, the plan delayed, etc. So people will come up and say, "Well, where is the chemical detonation you TRVed? Where is this thing you predicted?" And we actually avoided it, and now it's no longer the probable future. Now I'm aware that this is one of the worst 'psychic' cop-outs I've ever known. "Sure I was right, it was just changed before it happened, is all." But despite the obvious snake-oil bent to that statement, there is very little way of putting it otherwise. It comes back to what is discussed elsewhere, that you can only trust your experience, training, and data. If you add up 2+2 hundreds of times and it always comes back as 4, then when it suddenly comes up as 5 (the event predicted which never happened) you can't just throw away the process and say "Oh, this is crap. Oh, this doesn't work." You can only assume something else is going on below the surface, like rounding errors (to use the numerical computation analogy). These are things that we have to expect will be discovered and accounted for at some point, but it doesn't mean we just stop doing math entirely because we're not sure it is always going to be perfect. There are things like that which we just haven't researched, and we need to know, as we progress and advance with this technology... we're still in the teaching stages, trying to get a foothold on the world, by having trainees out there, and the research part is on the back burner for now.
Kimberly: I would imagine the research aspect is very time consuming.
|
Kimberly: Couldn't some of the problem with telepathic overlay be solved by having multiple taskers cueing the same target?
Patrick: In a TRV session you can actually perceive a tasker's intent, hidden or otherwise, or something wrong with the target. So you have some level of safety right there. If you write down "Egyptian pyramids" as a cue, and are thinking about a hoagie sandwich while doing it, I will get elements of both, but I can still perceive the pyramids are the "right" target. And I can tell you not to cue targets while hungry next time.
Kimberly: How would you know if it's the tasker's intent or the real deal?
Patrick: Perception. Everything in a TRV session is perception. You "feel" more right about this or that. Or you get outright data such as "this is a fraud," "look elsewhere", etc. Which is why TRV is not a "slam-dunk" technology. You can't tell someone how to swing a golf club and watch them score under par consistently from day one. They have to feel the club, and understand how it moves, and apply that experience to the various nuances of sensory input they receive on where the club is, and so forth. And they can then perceive what they need to do, on a kinesthetic level, to make the ball go where they want (or at least try). Some people naturally are kinesthetic and will learn to "feel" the club right away, others are so cerebral that they never feel the club and keep trying to mentally crunch numbers to hit the ball. And so people will have varying degrees of success because of that. You can't just tell someone "hit the ball," they have to learn their own process of doing it, like they learn their own sensations and feelings of receiving data while TRVing. You can still give them tips and help them avoid the common mistakes, of course.
Kimberly: So the feeling part of the process is where the difficulty lies.
Patrick: I think so. Some people will have no issues, others will always have issues. When you get better at the process, you'll feel when a swing is "off", and know the ball is doing to go left when you wanted it to go right, and for (less experienced) others, every swing feels like a perfect hit, and they watch the ball go in any direction it pleases. You can only learn the differences through experience.
Kimberly: But I've heard of TRVers who thought they were spot on, they knew what the target was, but all of their "knowing" was all wrong.
Patrick: Yes, and again, that is psychology. It happens to ice skaters and piano players and such, it is a common human failing. One of the problems is that people think that because TRV is so new and so revolutionary, it isn't subject to the same rules as with anything else. They want it to be more than it is, or can be.
Kimberly: To change the subject a little bit, you talk about this "collective consciousness," the library, the Matrix, that we're all connected to.
Patrick: Well, from what I was told in training, we're all connected. We're aware of the thoughts of those around us, on a subconscious level. That's why we can feel eyes on us, or feel like someone is talking about us, even if our physical senses could not possibly know that.
Kimberly: How do you explain then, targets that no human being could possibly know about, like other planets, for example? I heard that Ingo Swann accurately remove viewed data about Jupiter, before the probe ever got there to verify it. How do you explain data that is outside of human consciousness?
Patrick: The Matrix is just a concept. There is nobody I know of that has actually sat down and tried to enumerate the whole collective unconscious thing, which started out in the Jungian writings. At least, the most modern work addressing it in a serious and complete way that I know about, are the works of Carl Jung. But I'm sure some ancient monk somewhere probably gave it some written thought also. However, we can theorize that there is some kind of central repository, or nexus, of information in the universe. Not necessarily a physical nexus, but something that connects everything else, perhaps some kind of para-dimensional ether in the universe. And the information is really being conducted along those connections. The idea as I know it is probably best described as thinking of the Matrix as a mirror. Light from me hits the mirror. Light from Jupiter hits the mirror. Discounting the attenuation of light, you could say that pretty much everything is reflected in this "super-matrix-mirror" object. I can 'view' Jupiter through it's reflection in that mirror. I am not "there" with Jupiter, or connected in some quasi-new-age fashion with it, and in fact I'm not even observing Jupiter directly. I'm looking at its reflection, and I can see it just like I was there. Of course, the Matrix is not just a reflection point, it also seems to store knowledge like a library, so we can see the "reflection" of anything past, present, or (semi-near) future.
Kimberly: So no one REALLY knows how all this works.
Patrick: In reality, who knows? It could be anything. We don't exactly know. And sometimes we give up on trying to figure it out. We just know it works.
Kimberly: I suppose theories are constantly changing in all fields across the globe.
|
Kimberly: Scientists think they know how things operate one day, then the next day they don't.
Patrick: Yes, and some people actually get hung up on that. They say, you can't do this because we don't know how it works. If that's the case, how do they drive to work? Their car is magic—they put this liquid in it, push a pedal, and off they go. It must not be possible, because they don't know how the internal combustion engine works.
Kimberly: That's an excellent analogy. So you don't have to know how TRV works for it to work.
Patrick: No. Sometimes we take things on faith. And we just drive the car anyway. We know if it smokes, that's bad. Otherwise, under the hood is a mystery.
Kimberly: But come on, knowing the future? How can we know something before it's even happened?
Patrick: Again, it's all about probability. We can see a certain distance into the future. Some things, which are constantly and utterly random and variable, like lotto numbers, are impossible to do.
Kimberly: Because of their randomness?
Patrick: Partly. Other things, like volcanic eruptions, which are so huge and lumbering that the timing is not affected by anything man-made, are easier to do. They are more "reliable".
Kimberly: Isn't our future random? I mean, we can get hit by a car tomorrow. I could eat a bad egg salad sandwich....
Patrick: The future is semi-random. From TRV data, we find we have trajectories. We have set paths we can take, that we can choose from. For instance, you could choose to be a piano teacher, and have one set of likely possibilities: a nice house, kids, a family. Or you could choose to go out and kill someone, and then you have another set of likely possibilities: orange jumpsuits, cellmates named Bubba...
Kimberly: Are we talking about multiple timelines here? Multiple universes? Or is it simpler than that?
Patrick: Multiple timelines, yes. Mankind has utter free will, for the most part. There's a good story about it. You can remote view what someone is going to have for breakfast the next day. If you say nothing to them, it will probably happen, barring those little random things that may or may not happen (like a mosquito flying into the milk or something). However, if I say to you, "I remote viewed you eating breakfast tomorrow, and you'll have corn flakes," then what happens?
Kimberly: You skip the flakes and say TRV doesn't work.
Patrick: The trajectory may change. You just invalidated the line of probability you investigated. That proves free will. If there was no free will, you'd have had corn flakes anyway.
Kimberly: If I remote viewed my death, and saw myself getting hit by a bus, could I change that?
Patrick: Then you'd change it. Just like in the movies. I don't know if there are "times" for people to die, like in the movies, where someone foresees their death, averts it, then gets killed by something even more bizarre right after...
Kimberly: What you're suggesting though is pretty powerful. It's saying that you don't really have to worry about accountability of the moment, since you can see the future and change it when it happens.
Patrick: Theoretically, but nobody has the time or patience to remote view constantly. It's easier to just make informed choices and let life take you where it may. There are of course, also instances where the future is rather difficult to change, such as the aforementioned murder incident. You can run, or you can TRV, but doing both is challenging. It's better to avoid having to be in that situation at all. But yes, the implications are powerful. However, for now most people using the tool are on the fringes of society—weirdoes, if you will.
Kimberly: Are you a weirdo?
Patrick: Yes, I am absolutely a weirdo. You have to be, to get into this.
Kimberly: Why did you get into this? What drew you to it?
Patrick: Well, I did a little mini study on the whole thing, why people come to TRV, and I found out, in most instances, it was because they had a burning question to answer, or an undefined need, something which made them itch so bad that they were willing to take the mental leap required to accept this as being able to be possible. Now, I say weirdoes tongue in cheek of course, because some people really are out to lunch. They come to TRV because they want something to validate their perception that their parents are reptilians in disguise, or something.
Kimberly: So what did you find?
Patrick: For me, I've always been a star-gazer. I always looked up and saw unlimited possibility. I'm a daydreamer, and I wanted to know more about what was out there. Of course, I don't have a spaceship, and my arms are too scrawny to help out in that area either. So I found the next best thing.
Kimberly: Did you find the answers you were looking for?
Patrick: Well, that's an interesting question also. Because I didn't, really.
Kimberly: Why not?
Patrick: Most of the time when I looked into something I wanted to know about, like aliens, I left with more questions than answers. That, coupled with the difficulty of TRV, in terms of time and concentration, made it hard for me, a natural slacker, to stick to huge-scale projects. It's also a common fallacy that people try to take on more than they ought to.
Kimberly: Wait a minute, are you saying aliens are real?
Patrick: According to TRV data, aliens are real. Although the common folklore of anal probes and stuff is not.
Kimberly: I ask again, how do you know they are. What if the person doing the target thinks they're real, so you got that they're real?
Patrick: A beginner TRVer may actually be fooled by the tasker's intent. They may really fall for the storyline utterly. A more advanced TRVer, who is more discerning and more sensitive to the incoming data, will know or perceive that the data coming in is about a fantasy, or a not-real situation.
Kimberly: So can you tell me yes, with absolute certainty, that aliens are real?
|
Kimberly: I've heard that the reason people are so convinced of the more esoterical target data, is because of the accuracy of basic TRV data on simple, real world targets. For example, the cat story. If it works for simple, easy targets, it must work for the more difficult ones like aliens. Do you think that's a given?
Patrick: In TRV training we always start out with verifiable, simple targets. Photos, real places, etc... because you want to know, and you need to know, if you mess up. If you TRV the Matterhorn and get a bunch of people flipping burgers in a restaurant, then you know you've messed up. If you TRV the next pope and get the ideas of an antichrist and demons and stuff, you can't be sure. So in a way, it is indeed faith.
Kimberly: What if someone says, but there's a burger joint at the base of the Matterhorn that serves wild boar burgers and deer dogs, so I was on target. Is that pigeonholing?
Patrick: Well, we've had that. We've had some targets—for instance, we had one trainee target, in the Empty Quarter, which is a desert in Saudi Arabia I think—most trainees got lots of sand, hot sand, it's rather boring, but that's the idea. You want to get people used to reporting the real data and not embellishing it. However, one person had tents and camels and people. And we had to say, well, who knows, that is certainly possible. There may have been a caravan.
Kimberly: So you can never be totally sure if you've bombed a target, unless you actually go to that site?
Patrick: To a degree, yes. But again, it's faith, like a lot of technology.
Kimberly: Faith... you keep using that word. When does faith become knowing?
Patrick: I know that there are millions of microscopic transistors in my computer's cpu, but I have never actually put one under a microscope. I trust that people who make them know what they're doing, that the technology works, and so forth. You can only eventually look at the results... does this continue to work? At some point we may indeed say, "Oh crap, we were wrong about this target," and find out why, because it was some oddball thing like remote viewing is less accurate when the moon is full or something (which I'm not saying is true). But we try to keep an open mind about that. Anyone who doesn't is setting themselves up for failure. We have to believe that the data we get on non-verifiable targets is valid, because we do the same thing we do with verifiable targets, and the data is correct. In some instances, although unfortunately not many, we do have things like the Ingo Swann/Jupiter rings data, which we can later verify. (And it should be mentioned Swann wasn't using TRV or protocol-based viewing in that instance). But this verification bolsters the confidence in the data also. We also have multiple people take a look at a target, to ensure no one person is going off the deep end on a particular session. When does faith become knowing? I don't know. I'm not old enough to have enough faith in anything to have it transmute into knowing. I don't trust anything, but I have been accused of being paranoid. Which a psychologist would probably say is part of why I was attracted to a technology that promises information on everything.
Kimberly: Do you believe in God?
Patrick: I have a flip-flop relationship with God. Most people do, I think. They say there are no atheists in foxholes. I certainly believe in God when I need to, otherwise it's hard. The TRV sessions I've done highly suggest a God, or a benevolent higher power. I believe in that, in a benevolent higher power, but I'm not so far as to believe utterly that this higher power is the creator of all things. And honestly, my mind is way too feeble to even try to wrap around the concept of "What came before God." So I leave it at that. I don't worry about it too much.
Kimberly: Why are you at the future site of the Matrix Research Center? Why are you in the middle of a jungle, mud caked, chewed on by mosquitoes, living with minimal luxuries? What are you hoping to do there?
Patrick: I see a world that is full of evil and hate, and yet good and caring. I believe in Darwinian evolution more than anything, but I also apply it to the psyche. I think people are simply animals, which are cursed with the ability to think and be self-aware. And we act like it, we try our best but we still have a long way to go. We were made in God's image, which is not to say God has two arms, two legs, two eyes, genitalia... but rather that we were made to be creators ourselves. I believe that we are all here to learn how to be more decent creatures. And that the physical realm is our "sandbox" so to speak, so we don't really hurt one another in a permanent way. But none of that is TRV data, that's just my own personal theology.
Kimberly: Do you think that's why you're at the Eden Sanctuary, building the Matrix Research Center? To pursue those beliefs? Do you think TRV will help us?
Patrick: Well, as to why I'm in Eden Sanctuary, it's a few things, really. The most primary of which is that I love a challenge. I like to see a problem, then overcome it. There is also the beauty of this place, and the quiet. However, the physical challenges are many. The initial problem to overcome I think, was the scattering of students and TRV people. We needed a way to centralize things, to have a real icon of the technology. A place people could look at and see a real TRV school, a lab, etc., to know this was real, to have something to fixate on. It's a basic human need, like getting a t-shirt while on vacation that says, "I was at the largest rubber band ball in the world." It's a touchstone. That was the first, most obvious, physical problem to overcome. Just building something out of nothing in the middle of nowhere. The next, which I did not expect, was personal.
Kimberly: In what way?
Patrick: Being in a semi-isolated environment, with those kinds of challenges, brought out a different problem to overcome. That being the problem of self. On a personal level, what do you believe in? What fulfills you? Take any contemporary person and make them exist for a year on nothing; take away the TV, the newspapers, the McDonalds, the movie theaters, the clubs, the bars, etc., strip it all down to the bare basics, and it's hard. It makes you stop and think, 'What is really meaningful to me?' With all the noise taken away, there is a lot more left to discover, like people a hundred years ago did.
Kimberly: People prefer creature comforts over their own personal evolution.
|
Kimberly: What do Joni and Dane really care about?
Patrick: Dane cares about the technology, first and foremost. Everyone has a passion, something they care about more than anything else. For some, it's their kids, for others, it's old cars. For some, sex, for yet more, education. For Dane, it's advancement, mental evolution. It's unlocking the secrets of the human mind.
Kimberly: And Joni?
Patrick: For Joni, it's the development of the TRV training programs and the technology. She thrives in a teaching environment. The environment here is a hard adjustment. But we all go along with the difficulties in pursuit of what we hope is a greater good. Some days it's hard, because you're not sure this is the greater good.
Kimberly: But wouldn't TRV tell you if it is or isn't the greater good?
Patrick: TRV tells us that the Eden Sanctuary is a good thing that will help people. Not just us, but the world. But when you're in the middle of it, it's hard to have faith in the data, for reasons described earlier.
Kimberly: Wow. TRV will help the world. That's a bold statement. Do you believe it?
Patrick: I believe it, or I wouldn't be here. But that doesn't mean I question it everyday. Is this the right thing to do? Yes. Let's face it: if TRV works, and we can teach people to get past lies and deceit to explore the universe and get closer to God, isn't that a good thing?
Kimberly: It is, if the data really is coming from some all knowing, all truth based library of the universe.
Patrick: There always has to be that nagging voice in the back of your head (you're crazy or stupid if you don't), that says, "Hey, you're just fooling yourself, quit now!" But again, you know, people face this all the time. What proof does a physicist have that there are really muons and gluons and quarks and things all over the place? There are mathematical models, empirical evidence, past studies, etc.., but you can't really see it, or really hold it. TRV is the same way.
Kimberly: So even when handed this incredible mind technology that convinces you beyond a shadow of a doubt that it's real, you still say, maybe it's not?
Patrick: It comes down to some degree of faith and educated guessing.
Kimberly: But we can have that without TRV.
Patrick: Of course. I don't want to sound like some brainwashed cult member or make it sound like TRV is a religion. It's not. I suppose I say those things for two reasons. One is that I worry I may be wrong. And two is that I never want to get to the point that I believe TRV is infallible. When you start to believe whatever comes to mind, you stop TRVing and start daydreaming, essentially. You lose your ability to get real data, and you're a fraud to yourself and others. I never want that to happen. It's like an ice skater who wins gold after gold. What if she said to herself, I'm the best skater ever, nobody else can ever beat me (beyond the usual psyching up before a competition). What if she truly believed that? All the time? She'd stop practicing. Get sloppy, not put her heart into it. She'd feel entitled to the gold medal, and she'd lose. An old teacher of mind I guess instilled that into me. He had this card that said, no matter how good you are, there is always someone else equally as good who is practicing to beat you.
Kimberly: Back to the educated guess comment. What if, for example, you did a TRV session on the missing Lunsford girl in Florida. And you got data that a missing girl was in a shack with a tin roof, you perceived rain, she was scared, confused....well, I could have guessed the same scenario.
Patrick: To a degree, you are right about the whole chance thing. You could make a guess as to the roof composition of where she was being held, metal, wood, cement, dirt, etc. However, if you hit that target, and you get not just the roof but the surroundings, her emotional state, the assailant, etc., and you do this without even knowing that the target is a missing girl, (the target could be a rock after all), and you do it over and over and over again, then you start running out of arguments to explain how lucky you are.
Kimberly: That would make a difference, yes. I would think a good way to ensure you still can do it is to keep slipping yourself simple targets—calibration targets. To keep you on your toes.
|
Kimberly: This technology sounds like hard work.
Patrick: This technology isn't going to hand the cure-all to you on a silver platter. And people expect that. Most people do, unfortunately. I think I did also. There's nothing wrong with that kind of thinking, it's normal and human. The problem is when you blame the technology, or worse, blame the people who practice the technology. If TRV got widespread enough, I have no doubt eventually we'll have the same kinds of problems that we have with other technologies. Some would sue someone because you failed to TRV their sister's death soon enough, or someone TRVed that an optimum trajectory was for someone to kill their spouse or kids, and they did it, and then there would be a false information suit. I mean, people are people, and most of us are really mind bogglingly stupid and naive.
Kimberly: Are you suggesting we're not ready for this kind of technology?
Patrick: To a degree, yes I am. I think it's self-evident that we as a species are not ready for where we are today. But that doesn't stop us. I certainly don't stop myself from going out and driving an ozone-layer killing car because I don't feel I understand the implications of it enough. It's peanut gallery commentary to be sure, but it's really the truth I think. We don't have the luxury of dictating our evolution the way we see fit. We just do the best we can with what we have. I want people to know that they have to be responsible for themselves and what they do, whether it's with TRV or with lawn darts, or their car. TRV is not some magic ointment that solves world hunger and ignorance, but it can be applied to those problems.
Kimberly: Should you be doing background checks on the people who learn this stuff? What if some freak trained through the TRV University, started using his skill for optimum methods of capturing and killing his victims? Or what about a thief, TRVing the optimum method of pulling off the heist?
Patrick: Well, you know, and this reflects poorly on me, but I hadn't thought of that in a serious way. As a tool, we expect TRV is just an aid to do what people want. If someone was going to go out and capture and kill people, then they will do that, with or without TRV. Some have actually said that TRV is too dangerous because someone may use it for evil. But the evil person will do evil no matter what, and with TRV, we actually have something that I think is used for wildly more good than evil. Ultimately it will catch up, if the thief TRVs how to steal, then the cops TRV how to catch the thief, or better, how to design a good security system, or the thief TRVs how to live a fulfilling life without stealing. I mean, the possibilities are endless. We give people the means to choose their destiny. We cannot, nor do we have a right to, choose their destiny for them. We have to, we absolutely have to, allow free will, including the possibility that TRV may be used for evil. Otherwise we shut down our lives, and we just exist in a void.
Kimberly: If you could have your adult life to do over again, would you have not become involved with TRV?
Patrick: Well, in a way it's a hard question, and I've actually thought about it before. But for me, the thing I needed most was to know it was possible. Had I to do it over again, I would know it was possible, and to be honest, if I could do it over again, I'd have been a lawyer or a doctor instead. But I'd still TRV. I don't think you can ever walk away from it completely. Could Quai Chang Kane ever stop doing kung fu?
Kimberly: Any parting thoughts?
Patrick: Yes. The parting thought is that I have faith in the technology, but not in people. People are fallible. We all have our ego problems, our corruptions, our hatred. TRV does not fix those. TRV is just a tool. It doesn't make me care about the welfare of someone else, even if I did a session, a mind probe on them. I still have to accept it inside. It's the same as with psychology. You can't make a patient do something, or believe something. All you can do is help them believe it for themselves. TRV can only help you find the truth within yourself.
<< Return to Index
