pjrv : Messages : 2495-2495 of 4038
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pjrv/messages/2495?)

 23:59:58

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-PJRV_group---------

#2495
 	From: Timelord2029...
Date: Sat Mar 8, 2003 10:28 am
Subject: Re: Re: More thoughts on re-tasking existing sessions. 	psitrooper24

  	  	

> Eva wrote:
> Just out of an interesting aside, Pru has mentioned that often by the
> last day of an rv class, people in the class unconsciously tend to
> put on similar colors and styles of clothes for that day as if they
> have become influenced by some kind of class group energy.

I noticed that straight away.
During All 4 days i met her i wore similar coloured clothing to what pru wore.
Each day i would think ..man this is weird :)

Peace,
Tunde

-----------------------
Moderator's note: If something as major as women's menses can begin to cycle in
time with each other when women work together in an office, it's easy to believe
that far more arbitrary and easily changed things, like what clothes one chooses
to wear, will sync.

I find that with a small number of people I'm close to online, even if we don't
talk for a week, it turns out we were having the same thoughts about stuff
during our time of separation, and in general seem to be in the same general
cycle.  I once spent 5 minutes meditating on Don ("Greenman") and had him send
me an email telling me about it, when it happened and what I was thinking. 
Guess it's a good thing I wasn't conspiring against him, LOL.

I've another friend who can do this regularly, and yet another friend who
gradually is beginning to mesh with me like that as well.  Only one of the three
have I ever even met in person.  Obviously if it works this well even via email,
it works even better in person, with all the additional communications.

This happens even in business groups by the way... not just psi! -- PJ

pjrv : Messages : 2477-2497 of 4038
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pjrv/messages/2477?)

 00:00:14

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-PJRV_group---------

#2477
 	From: "pjgaenir" 
Date: Sat Mar 8, 2003 9:55 am
Subject: More thoughts on re-tasking existing sessions. 	pjgaenir

  	  	

Ongoing, gradually getting time to respond to Pru's essay points with
my own thoughts...

Have you ever attempted to find an answer 'in' something, anything,
around you at that moment'?  I do this a lot. I might be at my desk,
in my truck, in the shower, thinking about something, and I will feel
some dilemma of understanding.  I think to myself, "I want to find an
understanding about this.  There is an answer here somewhere.  It
will be allegorized around me somehow."  And, it always is.

I got this from Seth exercises eons ago; of seeing all of reality
around you as a reflection of you.

I have never attributed this to my having reached out and touched
something psychically and changed it to fit the pattern of my
inquiry's answer.  I've always assumed that on some level I have the
answer, and the outer world is my 'witness' as some dowsers say: a
physical medium through which a person may interpret psi
information.  E.g., tea leaves, tarot cards, are a 'witness': a
physical intermediary between 'psychic data' and 'psychic perceiver'.

I have always assumed that my mind looks around for a pattern it
finds similar enough to 'graft' its concepts onto.

That I may look toward a person getting into a red car, instead of
the other direction (or not notice anything informative in the other
direction), I have always attributed to my own mind.  My mind had the
info, and it probably calculated potential allegories near the speed
of light and decided on one that worked.

It never occurred to me that for example, perhaps I was 'accidentally
influencing' the particular way that man got in his car, and dropped
his bag, and what he was wearing that day, all of which tied into
the 'answer' that I understood.

(If I literally create my own reality, and that man is some
reflection of me and vice versa, then surely he DID pick out those
clothes with the psychic foreknowledge of my inquiry and his being
the answer.  But oh! - we could go around in circles about THAT sort
of thing forever.  At some point, everything is totally us and
totally not-us simultaneously and there is almost no point to
worrying about it.)

1.  If I do not assume that I influenced that man-over-there for my
answer, why would I assume that, if I retasked an existing session, I
had influenced the viewer?

***

Maybe the session I chose to retask is a psychic choice, without my
even realizing it, and hence the sessions work for that reason.  In
other words, maybe the seemingly arbitrary or random or coincidental
assignment of THIS person doing THAT session, for my "secondary
tasking" on MY additional target, is a choice that was made, or that
was set up to be made, subconsciously by me or another, with psi in
our decision mix.  Maybe had a different session and tasking been put
together, it would not have worked (or not nearly so well).  Maybe if
this works, it is partly due to some kind of psi at this angle.

Dr. May has a theory called Decision Augmentation Theory -- that any
judge [or anybody IN the process of RV who is not the viewer], may
contribute their own psi to the process in some way, and so end up
creating the effect that the viewer's session better 'matches' the
target (or is better understood to match the target).

The 'getting a question answered by reality' always reminded me,
conceptually, of those 3-D pictures, where your eyes cannot see the
pattern, but if you fix your eyes past it and give your brain a few
moments to sort it out, you are then finally able to see the "hidden
3-D picture" -- inside another picture.  Nice parallel to the pirate
("hijacked") sessions, isn't it.

The mind is pretty amazing in its calculation abilities, even without
the issue of psi.  A tasker using a linear sequence of submitted
wildcard sessions and a linear sequence of assigned targets, might
unintentionally target toward known viewer strengths or might even,
through psi, subconsciously arrange things so they work.

A session which could quite well apply to three different targets,
and not so well to three others, and not at all to three others,
might get assigned to a particular one that it was particularly well
suited for, not even because of the viewer's skill (I'm in deep water
on this, but let's ignore that for a moment!), but because of the
person managing the tasking process.

2.  Could it be that in putting all emphasis on whether data in a
session can seem to match, at least in part, multiple taskings,
ignores other potential psi in the process besides the viewer's?

PJ

Reply | Forward
	
#2487
 	From: "Eva" 
Date: Sat Mar 8, 2003 1:32 pm
Subject: Re: More thoughts on re-tasking existing sessions. 	k9caninek9

  	  	

Interesting concepts.  I don't know how one could sort it out in a
regular world situation.  Did the man get in the car as coincidence
and your mind just happened to notice it?  Did the man get in the car
at that exact moment vs maybe 3 minutes later because you
unconsciously influenced him a tiny bit off his original trajectory?
Is there an unconscious agreement between the two of you to help you
out with a question that you have?

Just out of an interesting aside, Pru has mentioned that often by the
last day of an rv class, people in the class unconsciously tend to
put on similar colors and styles of clothes for that day as if they
have become influenced by some kind of class group energy.  Perhaps
that relates to some of what's in Pru's paper.
-E

> PJ wrote:
> I think to myself, "I want to find an
> understanding about this.  There is an answer here somewhere.  It
> will be allegorized around me somehow."  And, it always is.
[snip]
> It never occurred to me that for example, perhaps
> I was 'accidentally
> influencing' the particular way that man got in his
> car, and dropped
> his bag, and what he was wearing that day, all of which tied into
> the 'answer' that I understood.
[snip]
> 1.  If I do not assume that I influenced that man-over-there for my
> answer, why would I assume that, if I retasked an existing session, I
> had influenced the viewer?

Reply | Forward
	
#2497
 	From: "smitty97006" 
Date: Sat Mar 8, 2003 4:01 pm
Subject: Re: More thoughts on re-tasking existing sessions. 	smitty97006

  	  	

Hello everyone,

There is a little routine "The Amazing Randi" does publically. He
will take a group of people and give each of them their personality
horoscope reading and then ask the to each individually comment on
how well it fit them.  Well after a significant number of them have
commented on how well it does describe them he lets his little trick
be known that in fact everyone in the room was given the same
made "reading".

There is a list of words I've heard Joe McMoneagle referred to as
saying they appear in a significant percentage of sessions.  This in
itself may provide anecdotal evidence for "retasking" being a real
thing.

I'm not closed minded to the idea that it couldn't exist but at this
point I have trouble accepting it using the currently accepted models.

But if one is able to hand out the same session to any number of
people each one having tasked for a different question/subject and
have each of them say yes this session is "on" then I would say we
are in for some serious ribbing from the Randi's of this world; and
perhaps rightfully so.

Sincerely,
Gene Smith

pjrv : Messages : 2520-2712 of 4038
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pjrv/messages/2520?)

 00:12:07

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-PJRV_group---------

#2520
 	From: Richard Krankoski 
Date: Sat Mar 8, 2003 8:11 pm
Subject: Re: More thoughts on re-tasking existing sessions. 	Rich_crv

  	  	

> PJ wrote:
> The 'getting a question answered by reality' always reminded me,
> conceptually, of those 3-D pictures, where your eyes cannot see the
> pattern, but if you fix your eyes past it and give your brain a few
> moments to sort it out, you are then finally able to see the "hidden
> 3-D picture" -- inside another picture.  Nice parallel to the pirate
> ("hijacked") sessions, isn't it.

I don't know about hijackingbut I like that analogy for getting RV data
better than the matrix concept. Each bit of data is 3-D picture within
the noise pattern of the universe. In our simple 3-d physical world one
either sees the hidden picture or not. One cannot see something else.
(But maybe there is a way to do that too.) In the psi world, there are
other filtering factors and resonances that can prevent the inception
of the "moment of clarity".

Rich

Reply | Forward
	
#2558
 	From: Karl Boyken 
Date: Sun Mar 9, 2003 3:04 pm
Subject: Re: More thoughts on re-tasking existing sessions. 	kboyken

  	  	

> Rich wrote:
> I don't know about hijackingbut I like that analogy for getting RV data
> better than the matrix concept. Each bit of data is 3-D picture within
> the noise pattern of the universe.

This suddenly brings to mind holograms.  A hologram can store multiple
images, if I remember correctly.  I can't remember how you grab just
one picture out of the hologram at a time.

Karl

--
Karl Boyken
mailto:kboyken...t
http://soli.inav.net/~kboyken

-----------------------
Moderator's note: Well, and that brings the conversation back to where I started
it, of the "holographic universe" concept; if that theory is true, then
technically, everything-replicates-everywhere: we should be able to find almost
anything we are looking for in almost anything.  (Including target info for
Target 1, in the session info from Target 8.) -- PJ

Reply | Forward
	
#2561
 	From: James Phillip Turpin 
Date: Sun Mar 9, 2003 3:52 pm
Subject: Re: More thoughts on re-tasking existing sessions. 	james_p_turpin

  	  	

You can set-up a hologram so that it displays different images from
different angles.  This is why it possible to make 3-D holograms.  Your
eyes are at slightly different angles, so they see slightly diffeent
images, which your brain interprets as 3-D.  But the multiple images can
also be unrelated, just depending on how the hologram is made.

It's also possible to have reverse parallax with holograms, which is a
sort of 3-D impossible object.

James

> Karl wrote:
> This suddenly brings to mind holograms.  A hologram can store multiple
> images, if I remember correctly.  I can't remember how you grab just
> one picture out of the hologram at a time.

Reply | Forward
	
#2597
 	From: Bill Pendragon 
Date: Mon Mar 10, 2003 6:54 pm
Subject: Re: More thoughts on re-tasking existing sessions. 	docsavagebill

  	  	

Hi Karl,

I don't think you can isolate one image out of a
hologram without changing media to a regular photo or
something.. every small piece of a hologram contains
information on the whole...

Best regards,

Bill

Reply | Forward
	
#2613
 	From: James Phillip Turpin 
Date: Tue Mar 11, 2003 9:51 am
Subject: Re: More thoughts on re-tasking existing sessions. 	james_p_turpin

  	  	

But a hologram can be set-up to hold a particular 3-D image, rather than
a confusing congolmerate.  Just because it can hold multiple images
doesn't mean it must.  So one key to successful RV is to do likewise:
set-up your RV sessions so that they only hold information pertaining to
one particular target.

> the "holographic universe" concept;
> if that theory is true, then technically, everything-replicates-
> everywhere: we should be able to find almost anything we are
> looking for in almost anything.  (Including target info for Target
> 1, in the session info from Target 8.) -- PJ


~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-PJRV_group---------
Moderator's note: If that's possible.  I think it's hard enough arranging for a
session TO hold information about the target in question.  Additionally trying
to arrange the session so that it DOESN'T hold any information about any OTHER
target (esp. when it's so easy to find info about most targets in most sessions)
sounds pretty darn difficult to arrange.

This is particularly the case because in the small amount of testing I've done
on this theory now, although it's true sometimes the inaccurate data on one
target will better fit another, it's also MOSTLY true that the accurate data
about target1, tasked at the time, seems to fit plenty well for target8,
retro-tasked on an existing session, as well.  It's just that the data selected
to write down for the session, and how it's written down, interestingly matches
both.

Whether this is an incredible coincidence -- scoffers would say it's an example
of deluding ourselves about psi LOL -- or whether the retasking is part of the
reason the session went as it did -- geez, who knows.  I've been playing with
the theory a little though.  That we can find reasonably accurate data for darn
near any target in a session for another is so far, at least most of the time,
true. WHY this is so... now, that is another question, and I don't know. PJ

Reply | Forward
	
#2617
 	From: Rocheleh 
Date: Tue Mar 11, 2003 5:02 pm
Subject: Re: More thoughts on re-tasking existing sessions. 	rochelehhakt...

  	  	

> ----------------------- Moderator's note: Well, and that brings the
> conversation back to where I started it, of the "holographic
> universe" concept; if that theory is true, then technically,
> everything-replicates-everywhere: we should be able to find almost
> anything we are looking for in almost anything.  (Including target
> info for Target 1, in the session info from Target 8.) -- PJ

But everything-replicates-everywhere is only true to a degree in
holograms; if you cut a tiny part of the hologram out, the image you'll
get from it will be considerably fuzzier than the original one.

This can be applied to sessions just as well, coming to think of it. If
you re-task and re-re-task and re-re-re-task sessions, the less useful
and structured information you'll get, perhaps? (Isn't that what Pru
talks about? The part I didn't find clear.)

Though if re-tasking is nothing more than an environment query (I call
your Sethian method of looking for omens "environment query" and have
been using it myself semi-consciously for all my life, consciously for
half a year or so. I have given it a name a month ago.) So, if
re-tasking is nothing more than that, then the above make no sense.

Experiments, experiments! I really resonate with that. We could start a
project. I can volunteer a few sessions for re-tasking if we start
looking into this.

(Hmm, sessions *before* and *after* this whole thread started. Then we
could compare.)

(Not that my sessions are any good. :( )

We could also try doing re-tasking (the entire session) or just looking
for information that might apply in the session (the entire session, but
not the entire session will be of concern). I don't know if I managed to
make the difference clear. Let's see...

One of the reasons I don't really do I Ching these days is that it
seemed like I got lots of data, but there would be a single fragment in
every 'session' that stood out, and which would be the easy answer to my
query. (Precious little for 45 mins. of yarrow-stalk... er... stalking?
:) and analysis!) This reminds me of the above somewhat. Maybe Reality
already did the session and I was only re-tasking it myself? ;) (What if
reality was the session itself? ...whoops :) )

Rachel

Reply | Forward
	
#2628
 	From: Bill Pendragon 
Date: Tue Mar 11, 2003 7:59 pm
Subject: Re: More thoughts on re-tasking existing sessions. 	docsavagebill

  	  	

Hi PJ, Rocheleh,

Well there you go. If RV is some aspect of a
holographic universe..RV clarity should increase as
you get more and more pieces of the hologram togeather
prior to shining the laser thru it? But what are the
metaphorical  "pieces" are they separate people?..are
they taskings?... is it better focus?? Any ideas?

Bill

Reply | Forward
	
#2630
 	From: Rocheleh 
Date: Wed Mar 12, 2003 4:36 am
Subject: Re: More thoughts on re-tasking existing sessions. 	rochelehhakt...

  	  	

Bill Pendragon wrote:

> Well there you go. If RV is some aspect of a
> holographic universe..RV clarity should increase as
> you get more and more pieces of the hologram togeather
> prior to shining the laser thru it? But what are the
> metaphorical  "pieces" are they separate people?..are
> they taskings?... is it better focus?? Any ideas?

If we-re still at re-tasking theory, I'd say a full session in any
method constitutes the full image, all pieces; and any re-tasking
lessens the number of pieces somehow.
Or so it seems to me :)

Hmm, let's say we have free-floating bits and pieces of data in our
thought stream. When we do a session, these bits get assigned by intent
(or, *should be* assigned... ;) ), but not all of them. If you do a
re-tasking, *and* provided this whole re-tasking business is not just
another environment query where your "environment" is a RV session*,
then you can assign the remaining free-floating bits that you wrote down
but somehow weren't in regards to the target. Those should be fewer in
number, hence the less data and the clouding that you get.

Wait, would it be possible to re-task a session and get a definite hit,
where seemingly *all* of the session is about that other target you
wanted? I guess that wasn't what Pru meant, but who knows. I'd say *if*
that's possible, then that's a form of RI and takes a lot more energy.
(Pru's physical effects?)

* The jury is still out on this though. Pru says otherwise, I guess, but
we don't have anything else than her word for it. That's good if we're
friends, but in science, one'd need objective proof. I'm all for
experiments.

Sorry, this message is a bit hurried as I'm writing it between classes.

Rachel

Reply | Forward
	
#2640
 	From: David 
Date: Wed Mar 12, 2003 4:24 pm
Subject: Elizabeth Smart alive 	a_healey56

  	  	

I just heard on the radio that Elizabeth Smart was found alive in Sandy,
Utah today.  Dr. Doom just blasted Psi-Tech on Coast to Coast last week,
saying that his team knew the exact location of her body, and that "the
place he used to work" (paraphrasing) was over 100 miles off from her exact
location.  Does this means that his team is not 100% correct anymore?  :-)

Dave

-------------------------
Moderator's note: I am SO happy they found that kid alive. That is so awesome! 
I was just getting all teary from reading the news report when I came here and
see your message.  As for Ed Dames being wrong as usual -- well he is 100%
accurate, you know, it's just that everything is happening in an "alternate
reality"!  LOL!  :-)   PJ

Reply | Forward
	
#2652
 	From: Bill Pendragon 
Date: Thu Mar 13, 2003 2:27 pm
Subject: Re: Elizabeth Smart alive 	docsavagebill

  	  	

Hi PJ,

I also am really happy about that. But am very sad
that the police and media hounded the other poor
handyman to death ..literally. I hope his widow sues
the Salt lake city police and wins millions.

Bill

> Moderator's note: I am SO happy they found that kid
> alive. That is so awesome!

Reply | Forward
	
#2658
 	From: "Linda & John Garvey" 
Date: Thu Mar 13, 2003 6:31 pm
Subject: Re: Elizabeth Smart alive 	linda_g7us

  	  	

>Moderator's note: I am SO happy they found that kid alive. That is so
>awesome!  I was just getting all teary from reading the
>news report when I came here and see your message.

YES!!   Same here!  I've been watching the coverage on MSNBC and CNN.  The
family had never given up hope, and when the police called yesterday and
summoned him, not giving any details as to why, Mr. Smart, the dad, drove to
the police station thinking that possibly they had caught the suspected
kidnapper, and that he would have to identify the man, who had done roofing
work for the family.  (Well, he was partially right. :)  The police didn't
even tell him the miraculous news when he got there, but took him into a
room and THERE was his daughter, sitting there on the sofa --  safe, alive
and well!  Can you imagine??!!  He said at first he could hardly believe his
eyes... he grabbed her and said "Is it REALLY YOU...?!"  He burst into tears
right at the news conference when telling about it.

Brings tears of joy every time I think about it... such a WONDERFUL thing!

Linda G

"The distinction between past, present and future
is only an illusion, even if a stubborn one."
-- Albert Einstein --

Reply | Forward
	
#2671
 	From: "intuitwolf" 
Date: Thu Mar 13, 2003 10:17 pm
Subject: Re: Elizabeth Smart alive 	intuitwolf

  	  	

> Linda wrote:
> The police didn't
> even tell him the miraculous news when he got there,
> but took him into a
> room and THERE was his daughter, sitting there on the sofa

Well thanks for posting this. I had been wondering why the mom wasn't
there - or why no mention had been made of her. Now I know. I had only
seen one newsclip of the father's news conference.

Shelia

Reply | Forward
	
#2661
 	From: "ronan5000" 
Date: Thu Mar 13, 2003 2:30 am
Subject: Re: Elizabeth Smart alive 	ronan5000

  	  	

I am overjoyed for this family and all of the people who helped look
for her, and nine months later helped return her safely to her home.
In regards to the RV field and people associated with this case I
recall Ed saying they were going to recover "Stephanie Condon's" body
and not in fact Elizabeth Smart, but we should not tangle Joni and
her Indian grave robbing tactics in with Dr. Doom.

Ronan

Reply | Forward
	
#2659
 	From: Bill Pendragon 
Date: Thu Mar 13, 2003 2:16 pm
Subject: Re: Holograms and re-tasking existing sessions. 	docsavagebill

  	  	

Hi Rocheleh,

I kind of think RETASKING is like putting another film
altogeather in front of the laser beam..so you get
superimposed holograms. It seems as you suggest that
focus or intention is what brings the pieces to a
sharper focus.

Bill

> If we-re still at re-tasking theory, I'd say a full
> session in any
> method constitutes the full image, all pieces; and
> any re-tasking
> lessens the number of pieces somehow.
> Or so it seems to me :)

Reply | Forward
	
#2712
 	From: "Glyn" 
Date: Sat Mar 15, 2003 7:23 am
Subject: RE: More thoughts on re-tasking existing sessions. 	gebega

  	  	

Hi Rachel,

> You said..
> Experiments, experiments! I really resonate with that. We could start a
> project. I can volunteer a few sessions for re-tasking if we start
> looking into this.
> (Hmm, sessions *before* and *after* this whole thread started. Then we
> could compare.)

Yes, that would be interesting.

> (Not that my sessions are any good. :( )

   Don't underestimate yourself  Rachel, remember I've seen a few of yours
over on Farview :-). What I think most of  us suffer from is lack of intent
to focus on and pick up the data at the time it is most clear to us ...and
not include any subsequent discussion/retask /ponderings/imaginings etc etc.

   Yes,  I'm all for experiments. I'd love to join in too if anyone has
anything definite in mind.

   Regards,
   Glyn

Reply | Forward
	
#2569
 	From: Richard Krankoski 
Date: Sun Mar 9, 2003 10:19 pm
Subject: Re: More thoughts on re-tasking existing sessions. 	Rich_crv

  	  	

> Moderator's note: Well, and that brings the conversation back
> to where I started it, of the "holographic universe" concept;
> if that theory is true, then technically, everything-replicates-
> everywhere: we should be able to find almost anything we are
> looking for in almost anything.  (Including target info for
> Target 1, in the session info from Target 8.) -- PJ

Maybe that's why Joe gave info on Mars that seemed "reasonable" even though Skip
gave him the wrong co-ordinates.

Or.... what Joe found was at the given co-ordinates not the ones
originally of interest.

Rich

Reply | Forward
	
#2570
 	From: "pjgaenir" 
Date: Sun Mar 9, 2003 10:50 pm
Subject: Re: More thoughts on re-tasking existing sessions. 	pjgaenir

  	  	

> Rich wrote:
> Maybe that's why Joe gave info on Mars that seemed "reasonable"
even though Skip gave him the wrong co-ordinates.
> Or.... what Joe found was at the given co-ordinates not the ones
> originally of interest.

Or... Joe 'remote influenced' himself/retasked himself backward in
time when he found out what the CORRECT coords were.

Hey.  So.... any session I've done that really sucked... I could just
attempt to influence myself back in time to better focus or
something.  I've actually done that with other things. Course there's
no proof whatever!  That's an age old metaphysical technique, plus a
scientology technique.

Here's a thought.  What if I retask my session on the same target I
was tasked on.  30 times.  ROFL.

PJ