Embarassing RV sessions

waterway

Member
of course this can be perceived as me making excuses instead of explanation, but I am going to bring this up because I think its important, and I have not heard the topic discussed.

It is new to me, to be sharing my RV sessions with others, so I have not had an occasion before where the data from the session is so insulting to the actual tasked target that it is sort of embarrassing. It makes me afraid to include controversial material in my sessions, for fear of hurting others, or inciting others, or just because it makes me look like a fool.

I believe that the REASON my session info was so inflammatory is because the subconscious or whatever we call the organ of the mind that provides the RV material to our consciousness, found the exciting but insulting data to be more useful in fostering relationships than the actual, factual target info. The “correct” RV info is very important to the ego driven consciousness, but the actual RVing organ of the mind is MORE interested in facilitating communication and relationship building, so it provides info that will achieve those aims. The subconscious has a different agenda than my ego-driven conscious mind. There, that is my excuse/explanation.

Would other please share their humiliating failures and the context of their embarrassment? What is going on there?
 

blu

New Member
Waterway asked,

Would other please share their humiliating failures and the context of their embarrassment? What is going on there?

Check out my Mission session in the Peanut gallery, eek! LOL

I was literally on another planet with that one, the closest I got to getting data on a person was the data I got on subjects that I couldn't see for some reason, I've never got invisible people/subjects before, oh well better luck next time ego :p ;D

blu
 

nightworking

New Member
I don't think that I have got any talent for RV. Most of my sessions catch only few, if any, basic features of the target. Nevertheless, I think I can improve by practicing hard enough. This implies mistakes, many of them. I don't feel ashamed of making mistakes. Success doesn't teach me anything. If RV is a teachable skill, I can learn. Perhaps others can learn from my mistakes too, so why not share them.
Moreover, I believe that the hit percentage is not much higher than 30% even for pro RVers. Only thing is, if a pro hits a target, he/she can get more data about it than a beginner.
So, please be not afraid of posting your sessions if you personally think you given all you can and tried hard. :)

Best regards
nightworking
 

PJ

Administrator
Staff member
I know what you mean waterway.

I was "iffy" about tasking the next person accepting the president position in the US as that Mission in the galleries. I am averse to targeting political leaders of my own country, but then I'm averse to targeting any individual really -- that is just nobody's business.

It isn't the task, it's what might come up in the data; even if the data is wrong, it still reflects on the tasked person, if you see what I mean, and that may be unfair, or it may be an invasion of privacy and still unfair.

I hoped if I tasked specifically, and during an event, that the primary data would be the event (gestalt) with some data on the tasking (identity related info).

But as it turns out, some data is ... well, suggestive of negative things associated with the person/event of the target. I don't consider this inaccurate data, simply data which doesn't directly pertain to the tasking (deciphering the identity).

But when I saw this stuff in the sessions, I thought you know... hell! This is why I felt consciously concerned about the tasking in the first place, as I would feel about the tasking of *any* individual.

I let social factors override my concern: I decided it was a target that a lot of people in the field would like, and it was novel compared to what I'd tasked thus far, so I decided to go with it. Also, tasking is going to open to others for Missions and as folks are different, someone is likely to choose that kind of target if not worse eventually, so...

I'm not sure that was the right decision on my part.

Your comments play up exactly why. It becomes a viewer trust issue. Do viewers trust the tasker enough to be utterly honest about their data? Or are they worried that the target might be the president, the pope, themselves? If they worry, their viewing will suffer, or they won't want to share it anymore.

I am usually slightly nuts about the "tasker ethics" issue, which I hold as profoundly important and am very concerned about as a tasker. I hoped that the tasking intent and directive of that would be ok, but maybe what we see in the sessions is as you suspect, more a social-psychology phenomenon than a tasking issue. And of course, doing something publicly vs. privately might make some differences, and the galleries are new for me, too; I am learning too.

I'm in a few viewer groups online. I believe there is a difference between "sharing with" and "giving to" when it comes to sessions. I put my sessions for groups up as a TKR Window Gallery 'Open Session' and just paste the link to it into an email or in the files area of the group if required. This way, I still control the session.

If I don't want anybody to see the session after the period when we're jointly working and discussing that task, I can make it private later, or even remove it. If I want to just add feedback and have it show up in the display Galleries, I can do that. Point being, it is under my control, I manage everything for different taskers in one place, and it might be that at some point I don't WANT to share that anymore.

In the Galleries proper this isn't an option because of the dilemma with the file drawer issue. Most viewers and viewer groups who put sessions online, have file drawers the size of star clusters. ::) It's a given that what ends up online is such a teeny % of the actual work (let alone that more than one viewer may be involved to choose from), that it amounts to a 'best-of', not a real example of how RV goes, and as such, is of a little interest but not a lot, as it isn't trustworthy after the fact as the real thing.

In the galleries, once you get feedback, you can't delete a session. You can make it anonymous, so nobody knows it's yours. But you can't remove it, because if I scripted it to allow that, we'd be sharing the same filedrawer problem as everybody else, where good sessions are online and lousy sessions are hidden.

This makes it a real dilemma in an instance like this. But there may be others, even in the practice gallery. If the target is someone or something that the viewer respects, and their data is negative, should they be forced to leave it online? As a tasker and project manager I say yes, it's honest data, and it is not 'righteous' to be politically correct after the fact and remove RV data because it's uncomfortable. Yet as a viewer I say no, it's my session and I might share it with someone but it's mine to give or take away.

I've been targeted on myself a few times, and consider it a major invasion of privacy, worse that the viewer is doing it to themselves. I won't be able to stop other taskers in the mission area from that kind of tasking I suppose, if they wanted to. Should we add a note about who the tasker is, to the info one gets with a generated task? So if someone dislikes a given tasker they can avoid them? Would that automatically be frontloading about nature of the target in some cases?

Should we allow viewers in the gallery to petition taking a session offline for tasking (not viewing) reasons?

I suppose to compensate I could at least make it so the date, viewer and task was left as info but the session data was gone, so it would be known that the individual had pulled it offline. While people couldn't see it, it wouldn't really be file-drawer if it was publicly acknowledged as having been there and then having been removed.

There are a lot of questions about a lot of different subjects above. But all of them are worth considering I think, especially as the Galleries Wizops.

blu -- I have sessions farther off on mars than that one, believe me. But you know, when I see a session on something in the galleries that doesn't seem to have locked onto the target, you know what I think? I think, There's a viewer who has the guts to go out there and DO it, not just talk about it, and if they don't let this ruffle them and they keep on, that's a viewer worth respecting. All viewers can only be judged by a wide span and long time period of their work, and since those of us learning are in the midst of a development cycle, one really can't "judge" anything at all, as we made no claims, and one gradually gets better, and most of what helps us get better is learning from our mistakes.

I am so wildly off target sometimes that it just makes me sit down and laugh, and it's most frustrating when it feels like a really GOOD session and I honestly believe that it's going pretty well and data is coming and I have high hopes--and then I look at the feedback and I feel like... ok, what WAS I describing?! I mean it feels like I really was describing "some" target, not just imagination.

I wonder sometimes if there is some kind of psychic "redirection" like, you know that Local Sidereal Time study which found a 400% increase average in effect size in psi experiments during a certain window, and a nearly dead zone in another, I used to think of that like there was some kind of 'interference' going on, but now I wonder if instead of a block/filter it's more like some kind of redirection, like an optical lens out of alignment where the telescope may see things just fine--but, just not what was aimed for. Those are difficult to understand. But, unless we deny reality and find a way to 'rationalize' how we must be right or it must be something about the tasker, envelope, number, or some other excuse, then every viewer just has to accept that sometimes, it happens!

PJ
 

PJ

Administrator
Staff member
Hi nightworking,

Most of my sessions catch only few, if any, basic features of the target. Nevertheless, I think I can improve by practicing hard enough. This implies mistakes, many of them.
Everybody starts somewhere. If we were surrounded by 101 version of viewers like McMoneagle then maybe we'd have room for a complex, but since in fact great skill is incredibly rarely seen, and we're all at a different place in our own development, moving at our own speed, and learning in our own unique ways, then you're right, it implies lots of mistakes and we make 'em and so what. All of us start with a little info and gradually start expanding the info we're aware of and the depth of it.

I don't feel ashamed of making mistakes. Success doesn't teach me anything. If RV is a teachable skill, I can learn. Perhaps others can learn from my mistakes too, so why not share them.
A wonderful attitude. Would that all of us had more interest in the genuine learning involved than the threat to ego in case of failure. ;-)

Moreover, I believe that the hit percentage is not much higher than 30% even for pro RVers.
Vastly higher in McMoneagle's case at this point, but remember there's a diff between what % of the time a viewer can provide useful data for ops, vs. the % of time someone else can choose a target from 5 decoys when they're all carefully vetted targets in the lab. There is a difference between science statistics and operational usefulness, and although they are obviously correlated (a good viewer is a good viewer anywhere), science is set up in such a way as to likely have a lower measured rate than the more flexible ops viewing.

It's all fun. I think if someone practices regularly and has a positive attitude about it, they are bound to get better eventually, no matter what it is they're doing.

PJ
 

waterway

Member
I am interested in continuing to post my sessions for everyone in the universe, including my parents or children, to view.

This isn't some voyuristic blog though, I do not have some desire for everyone to pay attention to me, but I think the RV event really is a psycho-social event. I also know that my own pet hypothesis must be tested and explored in the open, so that is why I do it. If I thought that Local Sidereal Time was the only factor, I would just keep a clock beside me for research. But I know that the communication about the process and the evolution of relationships is the energy that fuels the RV success.

I hope the taskings WILL NOT be limitted for fear of scaring off RVers. Your motivations and actions in choosing that task were just fine. This public RV experiment is NEW, in that its really open to everyone. I wager that most other online viewing events were relatively closed to "true believers" of that school. I do not know that for sure, but that is my impression. Its just that the internet is still new in many respects, and certainly is in its use in the RV education department.

It seems to me that my openness to judgement by my peers says a lot about me TO ME, and if I were afraid to share it with everyone, then it seems to me that I am not ready for some other honesty with myself that is needed. Does that make me a hero or better than anyone else? No, but it makes me better than who I was a few weeks ago, and it allows me to guage my own strengths and frailties. I do not know what about RV skills are important in YOUR development, but you do, so you can USE RV as a tool in your own development and evolution. At some point, every RVer could benefit from hanging out the laundry, so that opportunity needs to exist.

I still think the RV event, whether on the requested target or whatever, is provided by the sub or primary consciousness, for some other reason than to show us to be a great RVer. If presenting you to the public as a great RVer is in the best interest of the primary consciousness.... then that is what will happen. This thread alone shows me that the embarrassing session is inviting a solution to the very pain it created.... so had I nailed the session, I would still be where I was.

One more thing... I know that all this is a great example of hypothesizing where EVERYTHING fits. No matter what happens, I use it to explain my hypothesis. But as hungry as I am for RV research to be good and model science... I don't know if we can tease out the variables unless we jump right into the muck and start pulling stuff out.
 

nightworking

New Member
Hey PJ,

concerning your reply (#3),
I think you definitely should extend your target database by "stuff that matters". The latest mission was an excellent beginning, and I think there should be no limits. RV is for persons who love to get their view of the world shaken. So why not take a step further?
I'd love to see the results of missions like these.

nightworking
 

Joe_Black

Member
Sometimes the data is embarressing... From the consious mind of the pope...

themes: beer, sex, beer, sex.

Just kidding.

i have to stay up till 3 in the morning now too be a super viewer if you go by LST :| Gotta get those lottery numbers for saturday though!

I know alot of viewers who view regular and say generally it does not make the slightest bit of difference. Don't know if i believe then though.
 

PJ

Administrator
Staff member
Hi waterway,

I hope the taskings WILL NOT be limitted for fear of scaring off RVers.
So far my only rules have been that a target seems like something I would like to view, that I find very interesting, either by nature of the inquiry or by novelty of the feedback, if there is some.

I try to plan tasks that have at least a tiny bit of -- if not feedback, at least decent 'context' for viewers to consider their data within. And, I try to be fairly innovative compared to previous taskings, so viewers don't build expectations of a certain kind of target.

Shelia Massey had two Missions she was kind enough to task for us, one was the cool 'ice shelf collapse' and its cause (I really liked some of those sessions and the implications of the data), and the other was a precog that due to my delays and feedback questions ended up getting moved back till it was too late to view it. She's at the RV conference right now, but she's a good tasker so I'll hope she'll continue to add some now and then.

I've kind of been dragging my feet on finishing (and hence opening) the tasker stuff for all staff and board owners, partly because I'm working on several things at once, and partly 'cause there's only a few active viewers willing to do missions, and if we had more people tasking we'd have too few sessions on a target to play out the potential of the group stuff.

It seems to me that my openness to judgement by my peers says a lot about me TO ME
Well I guess we all have that. I mean I think part of human survival skills relate to social cooperation, basically.

I wonder though. I suspect that highly independent personalities (comparatively) might be the 'one viewer in ten' that sees through an attempted overlay, or perceives something differently, or gets the facts even when feedback contradicts them, etc.

I have noticed that the most impressive psychics and shamans I have known have had a streak of something that is difficult to describe, an almost severe sense of independence. It tends to come off to many people on the outside as slightly anti-social or even arrogant. It may be the former a bit but it isn't the latter in the normal sense of the word. There just aren't many people in our culture who are really self-contained and self-validated as far as ego is concerned, and who are objective about reality in a way I guess we could compare to the hindu/buddhist stuff about avoiding 'attachment'.

I think socially we are so used to the 'subtle ways' in which we all 'conform' for social smoothness that when we encounter someone who'll have none of that, they come off as subtly (or not so subtly) rejecting, almost constantly, stuff that we may perceive as just kind or casual or manners. I've also noticed that many people when they're starting to develop more independence tend to lack diplomacy as they experiment with testing it out in their life lol.

if I were afraid to share it with everyone, then it seems to me that I am not ready for some other honesty with myself that is needed.
You think? Maybe so. Now you see, being a recluse myself (a professional deformation--until I was forced to take up programming for a living, I was an extrovert), I think a lot of people are capable of being very honest with themselves yet have zero desire to open their innards to the rest of the world. In most ways I'm one of those open folks who can share stuff in an email to a stranger things many people wouldn't share with a friend of five years, but I have some exceptions and RV is one of them. Not sessions in general, but things I've come to be sensitive about.

One is methodology; one option in the window gallery for method is 'none of your business' LOL -- you can tell I was in one of those moods that day. The other is session process-data I consider personal. Sometimes, a session on an ordinary target can reveal a lot of personal stuff about someone. Sometimes I have a lot of personal notes in my session, which relate much more to me and the process than to data.

For some reason, remote viewing is... "intimate" to me, comparable only maybe to sexuality and spirituality. It feels very personal and is something I feel like protecting, and often keeping in privacy. I find I feel more strongly this way all the time, and I'm not sure if doing more RV is bending me that way, or if some natural ego-based paranoia is slowly filtering up and this is just the way I choose to manifest it. I don't mind doing sessions with others, but I have a stronger all the time sense of a need for.... hmmmn. You know, I don't know that I can explain this. 'Privacy and self protection' is what comes to mind but I think those aren't exactly the issues, though closely related.

At some point, every RVer could benefit from hanging out the laundry, so that opportunity needs to exist.
I'm sure that's true.

I think sucking at practice targets now and then is good for anybody LOL -- I mean, do that a few times and after its there for awhile, the success/failure mentality seems to diminish a whole lot. Do really well at something, and then suddenly the success/failure fears are stronger, I notice.

I still think the RV event, whether on the requested target or whatever, is provided by the sub or primary consciousness, for some other reason than to show us to be a great RVer.  If presenting you to the public as a great RVer is in the best interest of the primary consciousness.... then that is what will happen.
Viewing for validation, which can come in a myriad of forms (we have other threads on this topic on the board, mostly you and I!). I guess maybe one of the things contributing to viewer skill, just like deliberately setting up certain belief systems, might be deliberately focusing on certain 'wants and needs' of one's own personality and seeing if one can align them for RV in a way contributing more to accuracy than anything else.

I know that all this is a great example of hypothesizing where EVERYTHING fits.
Maybe. Then again, we dream, and any interpretation of the dreamer likely has some validity; I suspect that our interpretation of what affects us might have some validity for the same subconscious-knows kind of reasons.

PJ
 

blu

New Member
... It becomes a viewer trust issue. Do viewers trust the tasker enough to be utterly honest about their data? Or are they worried that the target might be the president, the pope, themselves? If they worry, their viewing will suffer, or they won't want to share it anymore.

I've been targeted on myself a few times, and consider it a major invasion of privacy, worse that the viewer is doing it to themselves. I won't be able to stop other taskers in the mission area from that kind of tasking I suppose, if they wanted to. Should we add a note about who the tasker is, to the info one gets with a generated task? So if someone dislikes a given tasker they can avoid them? Would that automatically be frontloading about nature of the target in some cases?

PJ,

I'm not particularly worried about what target I get, though I do think there should be some boundaries/limits as to what are acceptable targets and what aren't for future tasking uploaders, and if one doesn't qualify as acceptable it could be taken off with a reason why sent to the tasker perhaps? Maybe there could be an open discussion about what viewers think should be classified as "between the flags" or not though so everybody feels involved in the decision.

...and it's most frustrating when it feels like a really GOOD session and I honestly believe that it's going pretty well and data is coming and I have high hopes--and then I look at the feedback and I feel like... ok, what WAS I describing?!  I mean it feels like I really was describing "some" target, not just imagination.

I wonder sometimes if there is some kind of psychic "redirection" like, you know that Local Sidereal Time study which found a 400% increase average in effect size in psi experiments during a certain window, and a nearly dead zone in another, I used to think of that like there was some kind of 'interference' going on, but now I wonder if instead of a block/filter it's more like some kind of redirection, like an optical lens out of alignment where the telescope may see things just fine--but, just not what was aimed for.  Those are difficult to understand


That's exactly how my data feels alot of the time, it feels like you're on the right path and then you see the feedback and shake your head and wonder what happened LOL! I like your telescope theory alot :)



blu
 

andy2001

New Member
I've just done a session where I felt sure it was about xmas and opening presents. When a got a cue it was

Leon Besnard/Exhumed/Event

LOL at least it was about opening somthing!
 

Glyn

New Member
Hi,

I think sucking at practice targets now and then is good for anybody LOL -- I mean, do that a few times and after its there for awhile, the success/failure mentality seems to diminish a whole lot.  Do really well at something, and then suddenly the success/failure fears are stronger, I notice.

I agree with that. It's almost as if when we hit the hot spot that we back off a bit because we think we won't be able to do it again... and we get embarrassed if we dont. Well.... it's natural to feel like that, but it's something that is probably working against us when using psi because the sheer worry of not performing well can lead to a self-fulfilling prophecy.

That's where the Galleries come in...and doing sessions in public. As PJ says, we all have better ones, so-so ones, and the real 'bummers' when we seem to be anywhere else but at the target..and those happen far too often :p. But those occasional good ones, the ones that make us say "Yes!!!!" and grin all over our faces........well they make it all worthwhile! ;D. All the fuss and practice is about making those good ones happen more and more often, and if we can try to get rid of this 'performance' worry, and not care about what others think and just do our best come what may.....then I honestly think that can help us.

To those who have not yet participated in the Galleries..
do join in sometime, you will be surprised how painless it is, and you can even do it anonymously if you want (I do both ;-). The comments from others are always constructive and encouraging, and that's what it's all about.

About types of target and and trusting the tasker etc. Well I've given some thought to that......

I would never expect to get a target of a sexual nature for practice......and would be annoyed if I did. People should be asked first, and some may like that sort of thing.....but voyeurism is not my scene.

If ever I was in session and started to get impressions that were a bit...er.... ;).. I would not return it or post it; especially in public. I would never post anything that I found personally embarrassing. However I would still look at the feedback and be pleased if I had a hit...but I'd never admit it.. ;D ;D.

The only exception would be in operational scenarios where there could be victims of assault for instance. However I would want to know the person who gave me that sort of target anyway so I could be sure it was not being tasked for the wrong reasons.

I think it is a good thing, from the point of view of experience, to be tasked with extreme practice targets occasionally (violence and strong emotional) in order to gain experience of the 'feel' of such impressions and how my mind deals with them....but only if I have asked for them or am in a group where it is understood that they may be given along with other types of target. If I am concentrating on developing my emotional perception then I don't want something horrific sprung upon me when all I was expecting was love and light. ;D. It probably wouldn't bother me at the moment...but if I ever get good enough to pick up strong emotions it might.

Glyn
 

waterway

Member
I wonder though.... would embarassing targets be easier to get data on?

Think about it... the tasked data is "important" because it is also embarassing....

What is the history of such tasking. I have heard stories from folks involved in the RV field about taskers intentionally choosing provocative targets for fun/attention. How did that go, other than the controversy later. Were the sessions successful?
 

PJ

Administrator
Staff member
I've gotten sexual data in sessions and not even written it down--it's like it embarrassed even ME, privately, lol! (Hmmm, am I a repressed Virgo or what.) And it did turn out to have relation, sometimes just to the gender (like some 5 year old comic book caricature of gender-by-body-part), and sometimes to the actual target (I once described a phallus in several clear ways, was too embarrassed to make clear more than a couple, and refrained repeatedly from declaring the aol. Turned out the target was naked demonstrators. You couldn't see anything but their butts in the pic, no big deal as a target. But embarrassing, what my mind chose to try and get through to me with. :))

PJ
 

Glyn

New Member
Hi Andy,

I've just done a session where I felt sure it was about xmas and opening presents. When a got a cue it was
Leon Besnard/Exhumed/Event
LOL at least it was about opening somthing!

LOL!!!! I've just looked back and seen this. You only have to go through the Galleries sessions to see how often this sort of thing happens.  

It's really interesting isn't it? It's as if the sub sees through the proverbial 'glass darkly' and picks up one of the main 'conceptual gestalts' sometimes rather than more 'physical' stuff...my words and probably not the best, but I expect you know what I mean :).

'Open' can be accurately applied to what they are doing, and the immediate association your mind got out of your memory banks was that of opening a present. I guess as experience builds and we start to get a better handle on what the target is we get better at it.

I think concepts and associations are sometimes ignored or dismissed as AOL or imagination without being examined for possible connection. OK they can be imagination, but the more experienced the viewer is the less likely that may be.

Just my opinions, but I think that sort of thing may be evidence of the sub learning to convey the psi impressions to the more conscious areas of the mind in a way that will be understood, and acknowledging it may be a valuable part of the feedback process back to the sub. A bit like 'Good Boy!!' when the dog gets part of the trick right. ;D


Not a present I'd like though really.   :eek:
Glyn
 

andy2001

New Member
Some of you have mentioned sexual content as a source of embarrassment. I don't have a problem with sexxul content in a session, and did a session recently which was full of sexual content. If I had edited out the sexual content there would not have been much left.

The target cue was

Most devastating future war/cause

I think that this must be about the reproductive aspect of sex, and its effect on the population. If the population of the human race is higher than what the available resources can support, this is likely to lead to wars over resources. This may also have somthing to do with peak oil.
 
Top