Tasking question

RV Protocol

GO VIEW! @TKR's dojo

Project Home Page

RV webForum (here!)

Email: @Yahoo|@Google

Help make it possible for everyone!

TKR is Funded by:
PJ of Dojo Psi

Simple Session

CS Labs
Ingo Swann
Joe McMoneagle

Baylands Nature Preserve
Pete's Harbor Restaurant
Lucid Dream Example
Radio Listening Post
Test-Bed Trials
Video ABC Put to the Test

P.I.A.

Greg K's ARV Trials

RV Roast (alt)

RV Library

[Prologue]

Hey folks!

Firstly, hello.
I'm not exactly new to the forum but you likely don't know/remember me. 
I'm more of a lurker than a poster - and it's been awhile since I've been around at all.But my interest in RV just won't go away so I'm back.

I've dabbled in my own RV work a little with encouraging but often less than "I'm a God!" results.

I've read several of the methodologies (and personally seem to prefer a hybrid between the methodology detailed Daz's open CRV document, and the TDS methodology). 

Recently I read a great document (also by Daz) about tasking. It was very helpful but I've read in other documents/posts  that some level of meditative prep is also helpful (or required?) And I wonder if you all could weigh in on that. 

Does/should the tasker spend any amount of time "focusing" on the target-intent-id in an effort to bind them together in the cosmic filing cabinet?

Thanks

[Marv]

(Daz's open CRV document, and the TDS methodology).

You mean this: www.crvmanual.com. CRV was developed in the seventies by Ingo Swann in conjunction with SRI and the US military. I'm sure Daz won't mind me pointing this out.

Does/should the tasker spend any amount of time "focusing" on the target-intent-id in an effort to bind them together in the cosmic filing cabinet?

Maybe. You would have thoughts so but to be honest I haven't seen or done the intensive research required to confirm/deny/prove such a hypothesis.

Marv 

[Jen]

I did a meditation type thing with other people this weekend and it was really fun. You'd think that the type of things we focused on during the meditation would be exausting but it wasn't. It was strangely energizing. I was spreading my... what ever it was, over so far. I think we were only supposed to share with the people in the circle but once out, this stuff can't be stopped. It went over the building, town and to a few different countries.

Weird is all I can say about that.

But gosh it was fun and it felt so good afterwards. The next day I did the mission here in the dojo. I'm so disappointed with it! I wanted to get to do stage 4 in it but only got to stage 2. So annoying!

I don't know if it helps with RV and stuff, but it makes you feel good. Well, only did it once and it made me feel good that time anyway.

I hope you get to give it a go. Its way better when someone is talking you through it and you're in a room with other people who you can watch and follow. All the best with it...

Jen

[Prologue]

You mean this: www.crvmanual.com. CRV was developed in the seventies by Ingo Swann in conjunction with SRI and the US military. I'm sure Daz won't mind me pointing this out.
Marv 

Yes I know Daz didn't come up with CRV but he has summed it up in a concise, easy to read document:

http://www.remoteviewed.com/files/open_source_v1.0.pdf

[PatMcDonald]

Does/should the tasker spend any amount of time "focusing" on the target-intent-id in an effort to bind them together in the cosmic filing cabinet?

It depends when. It also depends on whether the tasker is looking for confirmation of speculated info or info that was completely unknown (the latter is preferred but often overlooked by the egoists).

The tasker should spend a lot of focus on setting up the target, getting the cue as sharp as possible, and revealing absolutely nothing to the viewer pre-session.

Ideally, the tasker should forget about the task while the sessions are in progress - they should not be present at the session, nor should anyone else be who is aware of the target.

I often get a litel "oh-oh" feeling that someone is conducting a sessions. I just let it happen rather than consciously interfere.  Afterwards, the tasker/analyst spends a great deal of focus on going over the session data. At least, I do. I like to give as much effort as the viewers have in getting me the data.

[PJ]

Does/should the tasker spend any amount of time "focusing" on the target-intent-id in an effort to bind them together in the cosmic filing cabinet?

The question itself builds in some assumptions. The most obvious one is the belief that the target ID is a critical key to the viewer's "contact or absorption" of the target and hence must be "suffused with" the tasker's intent.

This could be so but it could equally be so that this is a belief system, and that the tasker's intent exists just as entirely anywhere, everywhere, etc.

Target IDs are unnecessary -- a nod in your direction to indicate 'go' could function just as well -- they are used for the convenience of tracking sessions at this point in RV although back in the 70s and the early 80s, along with signal line thinking they had some different ideas, and some people still have those; if you or your tasker/group are working with that kind of belief system, then you might as well adopt it, since belief systems in groups will affect the experience of everyone in the group is my observation unless the individual's personality is really unusually independent.

Also, it may be that the primary target acquisition, while aided by a good tasker intent, is primarily on the part of the viewer (rather like how they eventually realized outbounders thinking/feeling/experiencing the target were probably not much helping the viewing, since viewers could describe locations just as well without that), and might even be entirely IN the viewer (not out-there). But --

That being said, a very clear tasker intent is certainly ideal and a few minutes spent making it clear in the mind is a good habit.

This is a matter of philosophy. As far as experimentation goes, psi being what it is, most people get the results they expect on such things.

Best,
PJ

Username:
Password: