pjrv : Messages : 3572-3595 of 4038
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pjrv/messages/3572?)

 15:49:07

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

#3572
 	From: "Elizabeth Hambrook" 
Date: Thu Dec 18, 2003 6:39 am
Subject: Retro-tasking experiment 	ozblueriver

  	  	

G'day Glyn, Bill, PJ, and lerkers,

First off I must say my brain is well and truely fried now! Thanks a lot guys!
LOL

I'm finding it hard to get my grey matter wrapped around FM, ARV etc so I
relieve the pressure by going back to what I believe in. It's simple that way.

I believe there is no time line and I have all knowledge within me. I also
believe that I create my own reality....literally.

So how does retro-tasking fit into that? I've thought about it a bit and this is
what I've come up with so far. Wether it's right is another matter though. ;)

I post a session, Glynn retro-tasks it and comes up with a fairly good match
although it matches the original target as well. Why.......because when Glynn
told me what had happened I thought it was fun and therefore allowed that to
happen in my reality. Since I don't have a time line, I don't have to go
anywhere along it to affect that particular session to match this scenario. My
session is being done at the same time I make the unconscious decision to allow
it to match Glyns target as well as the original.

Then before I send off the next session to Glyn my ego kicks in and I dig my
heals in and refuse to have my sessions mucked up by retro-tasking and therefor
the next 5 sessions were 'fairly' clean. I want to be a good RVer after all.
(Grin.)

Then along comes the time to choose a session for 
#7. B
y this stage I'm getting
bored and dig out a 'bad' session that was totally off the original target to
send to Glyn to see what happens. Will her retro-target match? Will I have a
good excuse for a 'bad' session. What will the outcome be? Will this generate
something interesting to happpen? I hoped so.

Well as it turned out it was a 'perfect' match. So much so that I would have
been extatic if her retro-target had been the original.
But my poor little ego was shattered. I went into such a dilemma thinking that I
would make a hopless real life RVer since I completley missed the original
target and yet had a 'perfect' session on the retro-target. What a waste! Man, I
even got the straight line on a 45deg angle! And yet in a real life situation
that session wasn't worth the paper it was written on, at least to the original
tasker.

I lost sleep over this....until..... da da.........I remembered that I *wanted*
it to match the retro-target! I was getting bored and wanted something
interesting to happen. So in my perfect world (as Joe would say) I created that
to happen so that the experiment became interesting again.

I've sent off another crappy session (
#8) t
o Glyn and I'm torn between wanting
some more excitement and not wanting my session mucked up. It will be
interesting to see which part of me wins. Bet you anything 'excitement' wins
because if it *doesn't* match with the retro-target then I'm stuck with a
really, really bad session. LOL

Now ..... "Is my attitude affecting this experiment, or is it just a
coincidence?" How are Glyns attitudes, expectations, beliefs fitting in with
mine? Does your (person reading this) attitude, beliefs etc have any effect on
what happens during the experiment?

By the way, does anyone know about an experiment with a random number generator
that was affected in the past?

cheers Liz

Reply | Forward
	
#3575
 	From: "Elizabeth Hambrook" 
Date: Fri Dec 19, 2003 4:47 am
Subject: Retro-tasking experiment 	ozblueriver

  	  	

> Bill: After 3-500  or more ARV sessions I'd have say
> "feedback is highly overrated".

Hi Bill,

yes, I agree. I used to do psychic readings for people and it was very obvious
that feedback had nothing to do with what information I got. After giving the
person lots of detail on something I would just get an answer like, "Oh yes,
that's exactly right". That doesn't give me any details as feedback at all yet I
had given them lots of detail.

Cheers Liz

Reply | Forward
	
#3576
 	From: "pjgaenir" 
Date: Fri Dec 19, 2003 8:13 am
Subject: Feedback's effect on Session 	pjgaenir

  	  	

> feedback had nothing to do with what information I got.

Right.  I think, though, that maybe there are different ways of
looking at it.

One way is to be very literal and to think that whatever info we get
is 'because of' feedback.  The other is to be more abstract and think
that whatever info we get, if we have ANY confirmation that it is
correct, is hence "supported by proxy" by our feedback.

It IS feedback to be told that you did well, or you described 'the
other ARV target' or whatever.  It is a retroactive "validation",
basically.  So that would not be 'giving us the detail' but it might
be supporting whatever detail we got.

I'm not sure what I'm trying to say here lol!--but I think if we for
a moment pretend time doesn't exist, that 'validation' of data, even
in general, still MIGHT contribute to a session.

For example the other day on the CRV list I was mentioning how often
when I type something I am affected by my 'gut instinct' on how other
people will respond, sometimes getting impressions of certain people
or specific comments from them verbally or in type, and it modifies
what I write.  This might be subconscious, or psi, or both intermixed
as much of life is.  But it's possible that on some psychic level,
I'm 'bouncing' different variables off the future and my perception
of that future, and hence modifying what I'm doing in the present--
and the same could go for sessions as well, I suppose.

Regards,
PJ

Reply | Forward
	
#3581
 	From: Bill Pendragon 
Date: Fri Dec 19, 2003 11:45 am
Subject: Re: Feedback's effect on Session 	docsavagebill

  	  	

Hi PJ,

I think I agree..G. I'm sure that validation of ones
sessions by proper feedback is essential in building
good psi skills. But I think feedback has no essential
role other than training skills. I think the whole
"feedback model" of how RV happens is an extension of
the "mental radio" concept. So instead of radioing the
information mind to mind, we now radio it thru time to
our own mind. RV just doesn't work that way IMO. It
truly exists everywhere and everytime. I think the
Feedback-radio-model is getting to be a real red
herring IMO.

Best wishes,

Bill

---------------------------
Hi Bill. I would agree as far as to say that feedback is not 'necessary' for
doing well in a session.  And, that often a session can be accurate despite
wrong feedback for example.  That does not mean that feedback has no effect;
only that in the confusingly inconsistent way we know and don't love in RV, it
does not HAVE to; but that doesn't mean that it doesn't most of the time.

To me this is a little like the telepathic overlay debate.  It does not HAVE to
exist; lab viewers (who rock) showed it couldn't shake them.  This proves it's
not unavoidable.  However, anybody who's done any amount of viewing with others,
or as a tasker, has seen TO in actual operation.  One can recite the Official
Book (so to speak) that it isn't a worry; one can even get carried away and
insist it doesn't exist (quite a leap); but actual RV with novices especially
ought to show anybody differently.

This is another case in RV where just because something does not HAVE to be,
and/or is not ALWAYS an effect--and can be "viewed through" with sufficient
focus--does not mean that it NEVER has an effect.  The skill of the viewer, and
1001 other trivia of the situation may be involved in 'whether or not' an effect
is seen.

I do not believe that getting physical feedback is necessary for a good session.
I do know from experience though that screwing up feedback or that part of
protocol can have very obvious effects on a session.

Regards! PJ

Reply | Forward
	
#3580
 	From: "Glyn" 
Date: Fri Dec 19, 2003 1:56 pm
Subject: RE: Retro-tasking experiment 	glynis5799

  	  	

Hi Liz,

> Liz wrote:
> I used to do psychic readings for people and it was very
> obvious that feedback had nothing to do with what information
> I got. After giving the person lots of detail on something
> I would just get an answer like, "Oh yes, that's exactly right".
> That doesn't give me any details as feedback at all yet I
> had given them lots of detail.

If all ESP-type activities involve precognition, which may work according to FM
theory, then to use an analogy with RV, your client was your target, your words
to him/her your 'session', and your feedback was his/her confirmation of
everything you had said. OK, we have an apparent paradox, in that you would not
have remembered your words without saying them in the first place, so what came
first (?) Dunne did provide for that with his Serial Time theory, and time (with
a big 'T')definitely seems to figure largely in 'psi' however we each look at
it.

I'm not fully decided re whether I think it's FM myself yet, and I just can't
argue this feedback question. It needs experimentation and lab science to take
it further, and that will happen more and more now that scientists are becoming
more interested...and they are I think.

Meanwhile we(you, me, and Bill) will have to agree to disagree re whether
feedback is essential or not; as long as none of us insists he/she is absolutely
right, because we just don't know yet. All I ask is that y'all don't dismiss FM
theory out of hand ;-).

Kind thoughts,
Glyn

Reply | Forward
	
#3588
 	From: "Elizabeth Hambrook" 
Date: Sat Dec 20, 2003 8:38 pm
Subject: Re: Retro-tasking experiment 	ozblueriver

  	  	

> Meanwhile we(you, me, and Bill) will have to agree to
> disagree re whether feedback is essential or not; as long
> as none of us insists he/she is absolutely right, because
> we just don't know yet. All I ask is that y'all don't
> dismiss FM theory out of hand ;-).

Hi Glyn,

There is the possibility that we are all right. ;)

* IF* we all create our own reality according to our beliefs then each of us has
a reality unique to ourselves.

In my daily reality I could have everything that happens 'prove' to me that I'm
right, and everyone else could have events happen in their lives that 'prove'
they are right.

Reality seems to be a bit of a shifty character. LOL

cheers
Liz

--------------------
Reality's also pretty hilarious once you start paying attention. ;-)  PJ

Reply | Forward
	
#3595
 	From: "Elizabeth Hambrook" 
Date: Sat Dec 20, 2003 7:58 pm
Subject: Re: Retro-tasking experiment 	ozblueriver

  	  	

>>>> BUT Pru
strongly feels you don't HAVE to be a willing
participant in retro-tasking. >>>

If we are all connected on another level, which I personally believe we are,
then the decision on wether or not we are going to co-operate with the
retro-tasker would not necessarily be a conscious decision. We wouldn't need to
have any conscious awareness of what's going on. The decision could be made
unconsciously at the level where we are 'as one'.

But that's a little tricky to verify. *grin*

cheers Liz

------------------------
That is often the core of debate about 'remote influence' also. Some people feel
you cannot heal, or harm, without someone's permission--"on some level".  I
happen to agree with that: every individual is sovereign.  But some people may
give permission for harm on that level for the same kinds of reasons they may
already have harmful things in their physical reality, or they may give
permission for healing on that same 'not quite conscious' level. It makes it
pretty difficult to measure or predict any outcomes of such things.  PJ

Reply | Forward
	
#3583
 	From: Bill Pendragon 
Date: Fri Dec 19, 2003 11:54 am
Subject: Re: Retro-tasking experiment 	docsavagebill

  	  	

Hi Liz,

I like  your model of creating your future, BUT Pru
strongly feels you don't HAVE to be a willing
participant in retro-tasking. Now in all fairness we
just havn't tested that angle, and although I won't
necessarily take Pru's unproven  word for it. But I'm
not really sure it won't work either.G

Best Wishes,

bill

------------------------------
One reason the theory has had such a difficult time getting fair discussion, in
a field of people surely intellectually qualified to consider such things, is
because her "speculations" about it get wrapped up into the theory itself. 
Since her speculations, at least in the March 3 posting she made, have a fair
heavy amount of inferred paranoia, it's hard for many to separate that.  I have
sort of moved on from the variety of theories about its possibility, into
feeling it's so unworkable as a source of info (for analysis) that there'd be no
point, even if it were.  PJ

Reply | Forward
	
#3585
 	From: "Glyn" 
Date: Fri Dec 19, 2003 3:54 pm
Subject: RE: Retro-tasking experiment 	glynis5799

  	  	

Hi Liz,

I found that a very interesting and thought provoking mail, and yes, if
retro-tasking is possible then all sorts of possibilities come to mind.

Er...I was just about to email you about 
#8, b
ut now I have seen your mail I may
as well tell you here.  Even before I read these last few mails from Bill and
yourself about whether or not feedback is important, I had already decided that
I would not give you the feedback to 
#8 Li
z; ever.

  By not giving you feedback or ever telling anyone about the retro-target or the
outcome I am ensuring that information regarding my retro-target never did, and
never will, enter your memory; thus factoring out your FM (well as far as linear
time goes anyway).  It's no fun not being able to say how it went :-(, but I had
to try it didn't I? Once isn't going to prove anything of course, but I won't do
it again in this series of experiments. Can't promise I won't try it again if I
ever find willing helpers for more RV experiments in the future though..if I
haven't put everyone completely already that is..;-) .

I am really sorry, but it is a valid part of the experiment and I just could not
warn you. You can kick me up and down the road if you want Liz (might cost a bit
to fly here to do it though ;-)) Hope you are not too annoyed about it, and I
can understand how you must be feeling.

However, this whole thing is *highly* intriguing. I could now turn round and
change my mind and give you the feedback, as I have free will. Or do I?  I don't
want to give it to you, so does that mean that because I have made that decision
my free-will no longer exists? Is the future set in stone? Would it change
anything (have changed anything) if I did give you the feedback? The past is the
past and a 'known' and therefore unalterable I think..but is it?  Surely we can'
t change the past (?).but we'd never recognise it if we did surely?

Can we 'mould' the future by influencing the past though?  Perhaps we do every
day. As you said in your mail....maybe we create our own reality as we go along.
By constantly seeing a short way or maybe a longer way into our future,
manipulating our present to try and influence the past of others and thereby
securing a desired outcome for ourselves; even if  on a purely unconscious
level, maybe we are doing just that all the time. Maybe it's part of how
existence works? If so, in this day-to-day hustle and bustle of  constant
interaction and knock-on domino-like affects, both by us and on us, then some
would naturally be better at it than others ..so are they what we call the
'lucky' ones? Fascinating stuff Liz.

  I'd love to hear your comments, and Bill's and anyone else who is interested of
course...but sorry, I can't join in any discussion about 
#8 :-
).

Hope you're still speaking to me Liz ;-). I'll be in touch for 
#9 a 
bit later.

Sheepish Grins,
Glyn