Any thoughts on IRVA ethics

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

[Fejita]

DAZ - in response to your inquiry - see my original post

I obviously project a great deal in my. 

I find myself in a situation that has been going on for 18 months now.  Due to a mistake on my part and someone else’s paranoia, I was under surveillance by local LE and someone who practices CRV.  This started in 1-10.  BY 7-10, I realized I was being used as a lab rat for training purposes.  My privacy has been taken from me and now due to classical conditioning my control is being taken also.  I cannot get these people to stop bothering me.  When I tried to get help all I received was lies and denial, even from local LE.

I feel that my well being is in serious jeopardy, and I do not know what to do.  I don’t need to learn how to project I need to unlearn what these people have taught me to do non-stop.  Or, I need to find something that will prevent me from projecting.  I may stilled be viewed but at least I wouldn’t be projecting and subjecting myself to the torment I am receiving from these people (professional trainers in CRV……..)

[Daz]

Fejita,
Who is this alleged CRV person (professional CRV trainer) you say is attacking you?
I find this unlikely because RV and CRV inst used in this manner - its why I don't really understand your claims - and to be honest I also ask - what proof do you have to make such claims?

Also why do you believe you are being attacked in a psychic manner?

Daz

[Fejita]

I didn't say a professional CRV trainer was attacking. 

Whether you want to call it CRV or ARV or anyother name does not matter.

Let's drop the whole thing.  If you do not believe that someone could bother me psychicly then you cannot help me.

If that is truly the case, then if I scratch my nose, brush my teeth, stick my finger in my ear, or floss my teeth no one should be bothered by that either.

Thanks for help.

[Daz]

Whether you want to call it CRV or ARV or anyother name does not matter.

Let's drop the whole thing.  If you do not believe that someone could bother me psychicly then you cannot help me.

Thanks for help.

Actually it does matter  because you seem to have the wrong impression of what remoet viewing is and its capabilities.

Why would anyone want to affect you physicially - what makes you special and again if you feel someone is harming you  - then who and why?
I would drop it - but tis you that keeps making unfounded allegations?

Daz

[PatMcDonald]

I find this unlikely because RV and CRV inst used in this manner - its why I don't really understand your claims - and to be honest I also ask - what proof do you have to make such claims?

Would you be prepared to take part in an experiment to validate or invalidate the effect? Actually, don't reply now, if we meet up in London later this month I'll chat with you about the idea then.

[RedCairo]

A God player doesn't ask permission, they just do.

I don't actually know what that means (to you) really.

But (this is general about the thread, not to you specifically) I can say that the people who most want to establish rules for other people are often those that are likely to have the most problem with them personally, both generally, and in this case of the thread topic, quite pointedly of course.

I don't care what people do in their head. I do care what people do publicly which would do harm to RV's reputation, practice, or to other individuals. Which is to say, for example, if you want to view Madonna in her underclothes or something, I put this in the daydreaming category--people cannot be hunted down based on what we assume is in their head -- but if you want to write a book about her based on that, that would be unethical. So in that particular instance, is it the viewing that has ethics or the actions taken based upon that viewing? If viewing that is so bad, can we go throw stones at everybody who has ever had a private sexual moment involving a celebrity, neighbor, or whatever? (And yes I actually agree with the concept that we are responsible for what is in our head--not just what is in our hand. Er, I was not being punny there. But that is responsible to ourselves and God: not to civilization, which is based on what we do and say, not on what we think privately.)

Let us say you target the 'most major news headline in 72 hours out of 25 major-cities newspapers in the USA', and it says NY-NY destroyed in a quake. Do you go on C2C radio and tell the world that everyone in a metro city is going to die unless they paypal you money right this instant for your super duper overnight omniscience training so they can see if it's their city and find the safe place for their spouse and kids? (This is what people bearing the flag of RV have essentially been doing in some form on the radio since May of 1996, so would this really be new?) Now, was viewing it unethical? Of course not. Was saying something about the results unethical? Hell yeah. As if millions and millions could get out of a city anyway. As if it would do anything but create chaos and terrible helpless fear for so many. As if it would be anything but using the worst, most base unethical fear-mongering about the safety of one's children just to scam them to buy your RV-esque products and get media attention.

So the point I'm making with the two examples above is that whether the viewing itself IS technically inappropriate or even unethical, or really not at all, it is really the action taken based on the viewing experience that has relevance to our society and our field.

Everyone lives within Divine Will, as I see it, and we will experience reality effects and internal development (or lack) based on how well we do at staying within our "proper orbit." (I mean orbit literally actually, my theology is cosmology...) But when it comes to discussions of ethics in remote viewing, the only appropriate/reasonable discussion in my view is about how people represent and use remote viewing interactively with others.

Only me and God and the ridiculous number of identities that appear to be involved with both of those are part of what is in my head. My larger society and our "field" is fairly involved, however, in whether RV is used to frighten the public or allegedly expose a celebrity or politician or whatever.

As for stealing future or other-firms' technology -- I don't do it but philosophically, at least, I think that if we want to see psychic ability finally get emphasis and research instead of suppression and outbreeding, it'll have to be put it in contexts where it MAKES SOMEONE MONEY. That would be one way to do it.

PJ

Username:
Password: