For several years and more so in the past two years, there have been some conflicts between different CRV instructors over CRV’s history, what CRV means and for some ‘the right way to teach it’.

If you look here at this methods map I created you can see the differing flavours of CRV that have developed over the decades and the different branches – the link will also be below for this.

This stems really between two different formats of CRV being commonly taught today – the Paul H smith flavor of CRV and the Lyn Buchannan flavor of CRV. Myself im kind of in the middle of both flavors.

The main arguments are from the Paul H smith flavor and its students who believe that the version of CRV taken inhouse in 85-86 in an unaltered and unchanged form is ‘THE way’ and the only really valid form of crv and that any deviance from this are inferior. The Buchanan flavor and others of CRV – are one that interprets some of the core CRV components slightly differently, in the case of the Buchanan branch the terminology has changed and more.

As I said I’m stuck in the middle. I know from my extensive research that in 1985 CRV was not complete. It was still a ‘prototype training method’ and it was still very much in R&D. I’m convinced that IF ingo had been allowed to fully finish the CRV product it would be way different than what is taught today and that it would have had further developments or stages that he did find later in his ‘life that he documented in numerous correspondence.

With this said – for years I have thought of and promoted myself as a CRV student and mentor.

Like the Buchanan branch of CRV, I too interpret some of the CRV core stages slightly differently (mainly that ideograms contain valid visual data), and over twenty-five years of practical real-world CRV use, I have also made further changes that work for me – an individual.

Now, after all the toxic infighting over the last two years, it became apparent to me that I just could not follow the preached doctrine that some want to establish.

They believe that Ingo’s CRV should stay as it was. Semi-finished in 1985 as a prototype, and it should not be changed in any format. I struggle with this because my research has shown me that Ingo himself made further changes and developments as he built CRV and also later in life. Then Add to this that it’s four decades later and we know more now than we ever did then.

This dogged and closed-minded philosophy around ‘Ingo’s’ CRV is imo, detrimental to CRV and RV moving forward. Ingo Swann would never have thought this way, trying to keep a methodology only part built, in a vacuum of sterility without change over time. This is not how RV works, or how anything works with individuals, and this is not a philosophy I want any part of.

So, over the last year, I have been referring to what I practice as RV as something other than CRV. I also didn’t want to add any new acronyms to the growing list of RV methods so I just called it by how it works – a flow.

For me – CRV or RV is a flowing process of expanding cooperation and revealing the target. My practices of CRV and how it has evolved with me mirrors the belief and description of a practice within Zen called Enso.

The creative drawn flow of Enso, its meaning, its decoding, and expression is a mirror to the Ideogram process first created by Ingo Swann and used in many different forms today.

Usually, a person draws the ensō in one fluid, expressive stroke. When drawn according to the sōsho (cursive) style of Japanese calligraphy.

the brushstroke is especially swift. Once the ensō is drawn, one does not change it. It evidences the character of its creator and the context of its creation in a brief, continuous period of time.

This spiritual practice of drawing ensō or writing Japanese calligraphy for self-realization is called hitsuzendō.

Each Zen master has his or her own style, and that individuality is clearly expressed in the enso’s they brush.

The circle may be open or closed. In the former case, the circle is incomplete, allowing for movement and development as well as the perfection of all things. When the circle is closed, it represents perfection, akin to Plato’s perfect form.

This is why I have named what I now practice as ‘flow’. It’s a Remote Viewing method with a structure and philosophy that over time adapts and changes as it symbiotically works with the user. It encompasses the intuitive and creative expression of the Ideogram process, but also the unfinished elegance and nature of the universe allowing for development.

This flowing, expressive and developmental approach is quite different from what is currently being taught by some CRV practitioners. In essence ‘flow’ has a core of CRV but a heart of Zen and the belief in change, or expression and individuality, and growth. Something most current CRV thinking does not promote.

The ‘flow’ for me is at its core CRV but with a different way of thinking behind it, a different philosophy of its form, function, and its use by us as individuals. It’s a remote viewing method born of Ingo Swann’s CRV, but one that promotes a symbiotic relationship with its practitioners that allows a flowing development of practitioner and method together.

Anyway, sorry for taking so long – I just wanted to let you know my thoughts, feelings, and direction, and for those who asked me in private – what ‘flow’ meant.

Now, I’m sure some people will find my approach, this video, and my words heretical. I care to think of them as evolutional. It’s my philosophy that CRV or RV should not be thought of as a sterile and stagnant form with no breathing room or change, but as a vibrant tool, that works with the individual, working to their strengths as it develops and grows.

Finally, I just want to add that there is no perfect or correct way to learn remote viewing. ANY method will work. It’s up to you to find what you feel will work best for you as an individual.

I wish you all the very best on your RV journey.


Click for FLOW mentoring testimonials