pjrv : Messages : 586-603 of 4038
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pjrv/messages/586?)

 21:55:10

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

#586 
	From: "ozblueriver" 
Date: Thu Aug 22, 2002 10:12 pm
Subject: sub blocks 	ozblueriver
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°
  	  	

There is a lot of talk lately about what taskers should and shouldn't
provide as targets.

I just did a practice target on another website which turned out to
be a train crash in which lots of people had died. (Only the wreck
and the fields surrounding the train were apparent in the photo.)

I got perfect details of the weather, the surrounding fields and the
noises but NO TRAIN.

I have been thinking how my subconscious is just another part of me
and since the conscious me doesn't like to look at negative stuff,
(unless I need to), my sub-conscious is just following suit. It seems
I can trust it to a point to NOT show me anything I really don't want
to see. Although, I'm sure that if I felt it was important then I
would have been shown.

Do the rest of you only get shown scenes or parts of scenes that you
can cope with? Does a part of you filter for your own benifit? Maybe
having to trust the tasker doesn't even apply. Maybe we should
nurture a trust in ourselves?

I'd love to hear how others react to negative targets.

Cheers Liz

Reply | Forward
	
#587 
	From: "PJ Gaenir" 
Date: Thu Aug 22, 2002 10:43 pm
Subject: Re: sub blocks 	dennanm
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
  	  	

Hi Liz,

That was a really good post.

> I got perfect details of the weather, the surrounding fields and the
> noises but NO TRAIN.

Weirdly, I get that with animal targets.  I get anything remotely near the
animal, location, etc., but no
animal.  I don't think it's any subconscious 'refusal' but it may somehow relate
to just not being
practiced at attuning to that type of target, as my current pool is so big I've
only had a couple so far,
there weren't any in my previous pools.

> I have been thinking how my subconscious is just another part of me

Certainly...

> and since the conscious me doesn't like to look at negative stuff,
> (unless I need to), my sub-conscious is just following suit.

I think that's common for me at least, though I am not great at RV... I find
that I am constantly
questioning the data I get as "why did I get that?" and "why did I get that in
that way?" and "why did I
NOT get THAT?"

Now someday when I get some answers, I might improve. LOL.

> Maybe having to trust the tasker doesn't even apply.

My issues with tasker trust relate more to target quality and feedback, and use
of my session if that's
the M.O., than worry they will give me target content I don't like.

> Maybe we should nurture a trust in ourselves?

I think that's an excellent point.  And probably has a great deal of deeper
impact than merely the
issue of target selection, given this entire skillset is so greatly dependent on
psychology and
'allowance' and self-trust.

I said in my post on practice targets earlier tonight, "I consider much of
viewer experience self-
designated by psychology, though not consciously."  It really does seem to me
that people get the
data their mind 'on some level' chooses to perceive, and how the mind chooses to
perceive it.

I think when people have terrible viewing experiences -- assuming they are not
tasked on something
that really IS horrifying, like a "bloated rotting" corpse or the moment of
violent death or something -- it
is because they chose to, at the same level that is pulling in info and
presenting it to us.

The fact is, there are at least 1000 different "options" for most sessions for
data, not counting data
about events or things that came before, or after, or are 'near', etc., not
counting options on
"perspective" (e.g. 1st person, 2nd, etc.) --

I mean there is no way that any tasker knows on ANY target -- even the most
basic -- what kind of
data the viewer is personally going to get, and their perspective, etc.

One can figure the viewer will get a 'gestalt' or three, but beyond that, data
is TOTALLY CUSTOM to
the psychology or psi of every individual.

I joke that there are RV Drama Queens, lol. ;-)

But it may just be that some people choose to experience the emotional, or
traumatic, and others get
it 'indirectly', and others don't get it at all... for perhaps the same reasons
that when you talk with
people in your neighborhood, some sit nightly in front of the news and gush
emotion about terrible stuff
and talk about that during their day.... some are aware of it, will discuss it
if the subject is up, but
don't tend to focus on such things... while others are just oblivious, and will
remain so, to the same
issues.

Whether the issue is saving whales, starving children, local murders, nasty
politics, government
secrets, whatever, every person chooses how to experience that "inside them",
even from the same
media segment on a TV.

So it's probably no different in viewing.  Which is what you said of course, I'm
just agreeing. :-)

PJ

Reply | Forward
	
#588 
	From: "Nita...ulse.com" 
Date: Thu Aug 22, 2002 10:56 pm
Subject: Re: sub blocks 	nitahickok
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°
  	  	

Hi Liz

    I have always gotten dead bodies and accidents properly. I just never
seem to get naked people without puting some clothes on them. I think my
basic thing is that it would embarass me if I saw someone naked. I then
clean up the images so they have some clothes on that seem to suit them.

    I think every mind has blank spots and it isn't easy to get around them.
I have seen real dead bodies and accidents so that may be why my mind
accepts them and views them properly.

    Nita

Self-Reflection is the school of Wisdom

Reply | Forward
	
#592 
	From: "dennanm" 
Date: Fri Aug 23, 2002 12:05 am
Subject: Re: sub blocks 	dennanm
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
  	  	

> Nita wrote:
> I think every mind has blank spots and
> it isn't easy to get around them. I have
> seen real dead bodies and accidents so that
> may be why my mind accepts them and views
> them properly.

"Familiarity" has to relate IMO.

Back on the 4th of Aug, Christopher wrote:
> I wonder whether the accuracy would increase
> based on repeated RVing of a negative situation
> or person. Like a doctor getting used to the
> intensity of trauma in a hospital.

I meant to respond to that one and forgot.

I've been told by various viewers and a couple scientists that there
is a real correlation between a viewer's familiarity with the subject
matter and what data (and detail, and depth) they get.

Some of the 'famous' few-declassified targets that McMoneagle did way
back when, as it turns out, that was stuff that was his military
specialty.  Not only is he a tech-brain through a big range of
timespan tech has changed in, but some targets just played right into
areas of expertise. As one funny example, he actually studied
shipbuilding at one time!  So it's hardly a surprise that when he was
tasked on a military submarine, he got this great detail now famous
in a lot of stories -- it really makes sense.

Now me, I know zip about boats or weapons, so my ability to describe
different decks, directions, missile tubes and size, types of weapons
and locomotion, and a zillion other details, even were I a whole
helluva lot better, would probably be severely limited.  I mean, I
don't even have the vocabulary, never mind the knowledge.

So if you want to target the details of a boat, a viewer who knows
boats would be a good bet.  Someone who's also a walking encyclopedia
on technology and weaponry including a lot that 'officially doesn't
exist yet' would also probably do well if the target were of new
secret military technology of the enemy.

I think I've mentioned this before but it's such a good example. I
once did a training target that another student who is a police
officer did. It was people in a wooden rollercoaster at a theme park.
My data was about the theme park, and details of the track, and so
on.  Not on people.  The officer's data was bigtime about people,
about the feelings, about the excitement, etc. I think that due to
his... er, vivacious personality (seriously), as well as his job, he
is vastly more attuned to "people" than I am.  So he got that data
and I didn't, and I don't think it's chance.

As a side note, some of the most psychotic people I've met in my life
were monstrously psychic, because they were monstrously paranoid.
The 'survival instinct' nature of psi seems to kick in, in that
situation.  They've tended to be really, really good at PEOPLE
targets both in psi and in just interacting with people and picking
up on their thoughts.  Most other stuff, they were oblivious to, or
highly filtered.  But people, man they had 'em nailed, as that was
where their survival fears were focused.

For many years, McMoneagle was well known for not being able to
accurately describe any target with a waterfall.  He'd describe
anything else BUT a waterfall target.  This was so common that the
scientist who regularly judged his sessions against target/decoys, on
seeing him sketch what was almost certainly a waterfall and seeing a
decoy option that was just like it, chose ANOTHER target as
the 'match'. The theory was, maybe it was some emotional symbology
that he (gruff combat soldier, lol) would not allow himself to
experience.  Though that has apparently passed, I always found that
interesting, as it proves that data or targets one avoids aren't just
about 'scary' stuff, but obviously there is a lot of subtle
psychological stuff at issue with any viewer.

Up to that point, I had thought of data/target avoidance as being an
issue of their literal nature (e.g., avoid violence), but I hadn't
considered till I heard that, that even SYMBOLIC subconscious
correlations might affect data too.

I think it takes a whole LOT of viewing to eventually be able to see
such profiles in oneself.  One reason I made a really big target
pool, with really small feedback pics (about the size of an index
card or smaller), was so I could do a LOT of RV and brief sessions
and not feel like I was "wasting" a target if I didn't have much data
yet wanted feedback, and so by the time I got through the pool for a
year or so, I'd have enough experience to have some idea how I
responded to most anything.

PJ

Reply | Forward
	
#590 
	From: "k9caninek9" 
Date: Thu Aug 22, 2002 11:33 pm
Subject: Re: sub blocks 	k9caninek9
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°
  	  	

Yeah, my brain does so far seem to kind of side step most of the
nasty stuff.  I think it's a good defense mechanism, but at the same
time, I have seen instances with some people where their defense
mechanisms at one point or another seem to let stuff through that
they aren't ready for.  I have seen some people really get messed
up.  Now of course one can argue that at some level they must have
let it happen.  HEck, I can argue that if I stab you with a knife,
then at some level you subconsciously allowed it to happen by being
there in the first place.  Now, BEFORE ANYONE GETS REALLY PISSED, let
me say that obviously, those two things are extremely different from
eachother.  My point is only that I don't see any obvious place to
draw the line on these issues.  Diff people will draw it in diff
places.  Some might argue that any rv student should go through 50
pages of mental stability tests before they are even allowed to touch
the remote viewing pen.  I don't pretend to say there is one magic
answer on this stuff.

As for the previous warning post on PJRV targets, I just thought
people should know.  I didn't post the specific target I had in mind
because I thought some people might want to view it without
frontloading and I didn't know if there were any others or not.  I
didn't mean it to sound like they are all gruesome.  So far, I liked
most of them.  All I can say is that one target gave me pause.  Some
might not think it's gruesome, but I think a corpse is gruesome.  I
also don't think that time frame (ie it happened in the past) will in
any way ameliorate the impact.  Time travel is easy as pie in RV.
Some may disagree.

Me being a typical American, I do not always read every sentence of
an intro because they are usually boring as hell.  All I remember
seeing is that targets would be intermediate to advanced.  There were
no warnings on the homepage and none on the link that I use to get to
the feedback.  If I missed the warnings, then I am probably not the
only one.  I know I am lazy but I also know that others are too!
Anyway, I just thought it would be good to mention the issue since I
know there are a lot of beginners on this list and I will now be
placing the soap box back under the bed.

-E

Reply | Forward
	
#603 
	From: Weatherly-Hawaii...m
Date: Fri Aug 23, 2002 4:41 pm
Subject: Re: sub blocks 	maliolana
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°
  	  	

Aloha Nita,
I feel the same about dead bodies and stuff...I have known more than my
share...Plus...since teenage time...I have read so many books on the
Nazi's /concentration camps etc...and many other terrible things...

I even looked inside of mass murderors to try and understand what made
them that way...

I have been wondering lately ...if this was not also a form of OOBE or
psi...
I guess it also depends on how folks deal with 'reality'...

As far as naked folks go...I learned a long time ago to do a little
mental thing ...to aid in getting over stage fright...being overly
selfconsciousness...

I learned to view everyone ...as a naked 2 or three year old...few are
scarey
or gross...at this age...haha...

now in this stage of my development...naked is obviously more normal
...than all the artifice most people go to......plus I had to get use
to my own naked body first......and that was not easy...hahah...not
sure I have accomplished that one...

My grandmother was married to my grandfather for over 50 yrs. ...they had
four children and he never once...saw her naked...I made sure my children
feel comfortable in their own bodies...

Love & Light & Laughter
Mali'o...aka...Dawna