pjrv : Messages : 581-581 of 4038
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pjrv/messages/581?)

 21:49:37

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

#581 
	From: "k9caninek9" 
Date: Thu Aug 22, 2002 8:23 pm
Subject: Speaking of targeting issues... 	k9caninek9
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°
  	  	

Yeah, I have used the PJRV targets interspersed with other sources.
Speaking of the devil, I think people should be warned that some of
those targets for this list are IMO not anything that any beginner
should use.  Some are fine but others are the type of target that
some trainers might not ever give to a student and never to a person
that they didn't personally know very well, due to negative content.
Now I realize I am sounding all judgemental on this issue and I don't
really want it to come out that way.  But I do think people that are
considering using them should realize that the term 'advanced target'
in this case can mean 'horrible and gruesome.'  Maybe people could
PEM PJ for a list of the few that they might want to avoid.  I
haven't done all the targets yet so I don't know what's on all of
them yet either.

-E

--------------------------
Moderator's note:  See my response post on this. -- PJ

pjrv : Messages : 583-583 of 4038
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pjrv/messages/583?)

 21:49:52

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

#583 
	From: "dennanm" 
Date: Thu Aug 22, 2002 9:14 pm
Subject: Re: Speaking of Targeting Issues. 	dennanm
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
  	  	

The introduction to this list which members are expected to read says
about targets:

"I offer tasking for psychic practice, but much of this is not for
beginners. At best, many such targets may offer little data for one
in an introductory phase. At worst, they may be confusing or deeply
upsetting."

The primary firedocs target page says:

"These are not for beginners. Many of these are intermediate to
advanced targets. Introductory targets are selected with different
things in mind, and advanced targets may be more unusual, abstract,
symbolic (or grim)."

I do not task a bunch of gross or weird.
My goal is certainly not to traumatize.

But past the 'beginner' stage, at some point, a person is going to
have to have a target that in some way may relate to violence or
crime, or war or death, or deep sadness about humanity or a
situation.  Experience is part of development.

There is only one target in those currently up on firedocs that has
anything disturbing about it in my view -- and it is a very mild one
compared to some stuff in my pool, I was being gentle as these are
for a group of others.

In fact, for any who would like to NOT view this target, I will as of
now take it out of the 'blind' pool by giving you the target number.
You can look at the feedback just as a photo, and know to avoid that
# and everyone can use the others.

I kinda feel like you've made everybody think the target pool on
firedocs is gross and terrifying or something Eva, so, I think list
members should just look at the one "shocking" target and know that
it's around the worst they are likely to get for 'impact' of
feedback.  There is no blood or anything horrible.  It is a b&w
historical photo of a civil war sharpshooter who was killed.

http://www.firedocs.com/remoteviewing/PJRV/2002_07_wk1_07July-
15July/pjrv_rvt006.html (wrap this whole URL together) I left the
photo really large because being b&w and grainy, it's hard to see any
detail otherwise, and there's not too much in the environ, so what
little is there I wanted to be clear for feedback.

That is not a beginner's target by any means.  But your comment
> realize that the term 'advanced target'
> in this case can mean 'horrible and gruesome.'

I consider car crashes, dead kids, anything with blood or guts or
pieces or deterioration, to be horrible and gruesome.  I consider an
old photo of a dead soldier to be potentially disturbing, but not
outside the range of what an intermediate to advanced viewer ought to
be able to handle.

Those who do not want anything that may contain -- or infer, or be
the aftermath of -- violence, disaster, death, or tragic life
situations, should not be using this pool.  Even though such things
are by FAR the LEAST in quantity of what's posted.

In each 'group' that I've made up of regular RV targets (one exists
that isn't online yet), I've tried to put an extremely wide variety
of things.  So every group is a good range of stuff for viewer
experience. From simple gestalts to complex conceptuals, from offbeat
stuff to very practical basic targets, from cool anomalies, history,
technology, archeology, nature, memorable events of the last century,
social and other events, macro, micro, representational, et al.

The larger target pool contains everything from people, events,
animals, documents, every possible manmade thing, situations, etc.

Much of my target pool was hunted down on the web and the national
and international photography awards for the last century were
fantastic sources.  And some war targets, those tend to be a bit
grim, but I wouldn't post anything "gross".  Some of those are news
pics and are grim or at least very emotional.

But the stuff posted on Firedocs is not horrifying IMO.  I wouldn't
task stuff I thought would freak people out.  This list is not for
beginners, and I have two clear warnings about the targets, both
prior to joining and on the main target page.  I can't be any more
explicit than that, without giving everybody major AOL that every
target is going to be frightening or something, which they're not.

A target I did myself recently was a photo of a search helicopter
with the floodlight in the night, two rescue workers were visible in
the light, ref the Swissair plane crash.  But that was it in the
feedback.  I got the data for some kind of fire or explosion or
disaster, probably people dead, emergency sirens, and various stuff
about the copter including the sense of flying in it and the sound.
Another viewer could have chosen on some level to experience the
actual plane crash itself, like as a passenger (after all, my target
was not actually the plane but I got that data), and have been
totally wigged out about it.  I consider much of viewer experience
self-designated by psychology, though not consciously.

If I should happen to task a target where, for example, someone is
dead, (a) the feedback would NOT be gruesome (apart from the issue of
deadness...) and (b) technically, the target is a body.  Not a really
gross body, just a body.  Half the viewers I know want to help find
lost children.  Well most stranger-kidnapped children are bodies, not
kids... this is a target operational viewers may occasionally come
across, so the kind of target - and mine are probably much 'cleaner'
and less horrifying than the real world, I am sure - that viewers
with some skill might want to once in a great while encounter.

Personally I would like to be able to tell the gestalts "alive"
and "dead" from each other as a fairly basic skill just past the more
traditional gestalts.  Short of doing targets where on occasion
something or someone is dead, I'm unlikely to develop that skill.

Now a viewer could describe the feedback, and just get a body, and
maybe the situation or time period or environment.  Or the viewer
could experience the entire process of how that person died.  I do
not believe any tasker can "control" what a viewer does NOT
experience -- it is a miracle enough when taskers successfully
control what a viewer DOES experience -- I can only task on the
moment of feedback photograph being "the target", and choose feedback
photos that even when occasionally on a difficult subject, are as far
from disgusting as possible.

Of course, this ties into the other thread about 'tasking', which was
taken to be 'ethics' but I just consider tasking issues.  I made it
as clear as I could in two major places that the nature of the
targets could be difficult.  There is not much else I can say without
giving massive AOL about the pool at large.

PJ