IRVA code of ethics.

Tunde

"Keep Moving Forward"
Mycroft said:
I am sure glad you guys are seeing this in the proper light.

Mycroft
Mycroft,

Ive been seeing the light since TDS was taken out of the picture and hate sites
springing up discrediting her work and targeting her family....all because she did
something deemed to be unethical to one of her students and ran a successful
Civilian RV company.
I still speak to some of the ex TDS guys and the truth is alot scarier than you can imagine.

Put it this way, most of them wont even discuss RV over the internet anymore after
what certain govermemt agencie/s did to them. If you run a successful psi company
and do some work for the government trust me you will be monitored at some point.

So when i see calls for guidlines no matter how innocent and innocuous those guidlines
appear on the surface you can bet I will scrutizise the motives of those trying to
introduce regulation or "codes" in any shape or form concerning professional RV.

T
 

daz

Remote viewer, author, artist and photographer.
Staff member
lol
So Tunde you believe TDS was 'removed' from the Rv scenes in some form?
That would tie -in with the last thing pru said to Jon Ronson - 'there is a much bigger story here'.

I do have my niggles that rv a sa field has been moved down certain routes - in a controlled fashion - a bit like the serious disinfo campaign that kicked into play within ufology from the mid nineties - mmm about the same time as remote viewing, mmm and some of the same people...

I do believe the rv community needs a code of ethics - but I feel it should be created by the community for the community - and im just not sure this is what is happening - there is now way im not going to give up my freedoms to go anywhere and view anything - if that makes me unethical then so be it.

All the best...

Daz
 

Mycroft

Active Member
Tunde said:
I still speak to some of the ex TDS guys and the truth is alot scarier than you can imagine.
I'll take your word for it.

and do some work for the government trust me you will be monitored at some point.
Singing to the choir, as I have posted elsewhere here, I had my first face to face with MiBs during the Nixon era. Couldn't they have just said "Thank You"?

OK, well good everyone is on high alert about this guild creed.

Mycroft
 

Tunde

"Keep Moving Forward"
Daz said:
lol
So Tunde you believe TDS was 'removed' from the Rv scenes in some form?
That would tie -in with the last thing pru said to Jon Ronson - 'there is a much bigger story here'.
Daz,
As you know yourself, ive spoken to ex members both before and after TDS was closed
down. I recently tracked down one of their senior viewers world class IMO and he pretty
much confirmed the whole thing. Ive spoken to members from Ireland and Holland
who MOVED to the US just to work as TDS professionals and witnessed some of the stuff that went on first hand such as surveillance, phone tappings, intimidation etc....

Bottom line Governments know this stuff works and works very very well. They also know
RV in the hands of civillians running efficient PSI companies with no obligation to
toe-the-line as you would expect from a Millitary run outfit can lead to all sorts of
"complications".

These innocuous "guideline" proposals while still early days wont really affect the common viewer working at home viewing whatever he wants. Its mainly directed towards
professional Civillian RV Companies working either for the government, financial
sector, Healing sector or law enforcement agencies.

T
 

RedCairo

do you ever dream you're someone else?
Tunde said:
Its mainly directed towards professional Civillian RV Companies working either for the government, financial sector, Healing sector or law enforcement agencies.
You mean... anybody useful... anybody doing anything that looks suspiciously like remote viewing.

Well, no worries then. I suspect most of IRVA won't be affected.
 

PJ

Administrator
Staff member
Having slept since then, I'm thinking maybe we (especially me) are being too hard on IRVA.
 

Marv_Darley

New Member
Staff member
Having slept since then, I'm thinking maybe we (especially me) are being too hard on IRVA.
OMG THEY GOT TO PJ.

First Daz starts advertising their courses now PJ is their new spokesperson. Be afraid, be very....hang on, there's someone at the door
 

Marv_Darley

New Member
Staff member
You know, I'm thinking of having some I LOVE THE IRVA t-shirts made up and distributed. Would anyone like to join me in some fund-raising acivities to garner some cash to do so? Any surplus will be sent straight to the organisation itself. Cos they're the BEST.

Marv ;D
 

PJ

Administrator
Staff member
{Note to controller: Remote Influence is not working on Marv. Please up the frequency.}
 

Marv_Darley

New Member
Staff member
Have you guys ever been here? Check it out, pretty awesome:

http://www.irva.org/

They've got a message board, free magazines and a yearly conference.

See you there! :)
 

blackcat

New Member
Here are my thoughts on the proposed IRVA code of efforts taking each one by one.

#1 Abide by laws is good. I would skip the part about 'especially blah blah blah.' EIther you are abiding by all rules or you are not. Saying there is a special area of extra abiding makes it sound like there are levels of abiding. Also, are there even laws about viewing persons? I would think not. If you are wrong, it could be considered slander. I don't think there are any laws that would say rv info, which would be according to the law basically be considered guessing, would apply as any actual divulgence of private info, since the law does not recognize rv info as actual info. So I would not mix apples and oranges here. I would basically say this section says obey the laws of your area (Of course, if you were viewing for a terrorist state with weird laws, then abiding by the laws of your land may not be ethical at all)

#2 Tell the truth is good.
#3 Safeguard confidential info is good.
#4 I see what you are trying to get at but the paragraph as written doesn't seem to make much sense. What laws? What authorization? How can you get authorization when no force of authorization exists? How can you follow laws on rving when none exist? You can't say follow the laws when no laws exist on that subject. And if you are just saying to follow any laws that may exist, you already said that clearly in #1. No sense in being ridiculously redundant.

If you are trying to say do not slander people, that counts as lieing which is also already covered. If you are saying you can't view other people and then divulge that info without their permission, then just say that plain and clear. I am not sure if that is a good idea or not, but at least say it clear so we can discuss it. It may be that it is impossible to make rules that will cover all 'bad' things that rvers may do without also accidentally covering things that are commonly accepted. FOr instance, I like to see 'next president' targets and of course such publically posted targets may easily contain private info about the next president in an 'unauthorized' way.

#5 While I agree it is a good idea to do this, it has nothing to do with ethics of the viewer and I think does not belong in an ethics listing. It would be great in a suggested business practices section though, but why make the ethics rules more complicated and list something that is not actually ethics? Again, I applaud the effort, but I think ethics should be restricted to ethics or we end up sounding kinda stupid!

#6 Overall good, you should not misrepresent skills. However, note #2 could easily and in fact basically says only CRV since only CRV has much documentation or peer review, although even much of that is either classified or not very well documented. It may be that nothing truly qualifies and no new systems have a chance of qualifying with 10 years. For instance, HRVG has been around for eons but I have not seen any peer reviewed stuff on them unless you count stuff that has been posted online and then we all argued about it! ;-) Does this count? Because I don't think any researcher would count things that do not have controls and double blindness protocols and replicability and statistics of probability and nothing other than the military stuff has much of that. Maybe a more realistic goal at this point in time would be something like 'methods that have been reasonably proven to work.' I know that is super vague but I think it's all we can say fairly right now about rv methods in general.

I also think that note #1 should be added into the main body of the rule. The separate notes, IMO at least, do not look as professional as just saying the original rule in a very clear manner in the first place.

#7 Overall good but I would change it to say something like rver should be endeavor to insure that those under the employment or associated with his/her organization shall follow these rules. I would not want to be responsible for the actions of any other group that might be on the same case or job as me but not affiliated with my organization.

#8 I don't like this one. Basically it is saying don't make rv look bad. However, it may at times be in conflict with other laws like telling the truth. I would vote truth as more important. Besides, most things that make rv look bad are already covered under the other laws. I appreciate the sentiment, but being ethical should automatically help a great deal with making rv look better and when ethics clashes with appearances, maybe ethics should win! So I would say that #8 is largely redundant and otherwise may in fact clash with other rules at times and the other rules.

#9 This one also could fall into the realm of good business practices, I think it also falls far enough into the realm of ethics and making sure a client understands in advance of payment.

#10 is redundant. You already said follow all laws in #1 and this would include all national security laws. If you mean anything more than to follow the laws, then you better spell out what kinds of things you are talking about. Otherwise this thing could be interpreted in all manner of ways according to whatever is convenient at the time. And again, any following of ALL laws assumes the laws of all states are ethical, which is in fact probably not true. And some are just dumb, like these ones in California (note the fortune telling one..):
http://www.bitoffun.com/stupid_laws_california.htm

-Eva
 

PJ

Administrator
Staff member
I'm going to have to post this in sections as it is long. (Everyone is already SO sorry I decided to opine on it, and they haven't even seen it yet, LOL.)

I think if I'm going to discuss some detail that I'd like some context present. You might say, that everything that imposes anything upon others, directly or indirectly, becomes "a politic" in some fashion. So as an introduction I'd like to address some of that, because it is the basis for my views on the issues both general and specific.


Overview

One problem is that every creative form reflects the core intent of person(s) creating it. This tends to mean that some things will be "political" in underlying substance even when they are not overtly so in surface presentation, because the people making something, or the group, has that element innately.

Some of my impressions about the code and its 'precedent or implications' stem in part from that.

A second problem is that a code of ethics is not quite the same as a code of conduct, although obviously they are related. I feel much of it was written as a code of conduct, which I have some issues with no matter what the source, but which I think if created should be created literally AS that, separately. A code of conduct is enforceable; a code of ethics is more like a charter/slogan/philosophy, and not enforceable. By creating something which reaches into both areas, it begins to add enforceable elements to those of doctrine, to impose the philosophy of some upon the behavior of others, which is where I feel it diverges from reasonable.

In areas where that isn't an issue I think it's fine.


First some personal foundations

Being a flaming US-constitutionalist as a politic and philosophy, I am very much against any 'authority' attempting to entwine their control structure into the private lives of individuals, any more than is necessary than to prevent chaos and destruction of others. (There is seldom, in my view, a reason to legislate against the destruction of oneself. If people want to self-destruct I believe that is a right as well. Too many egregariously stupid and injust laws designed around 'to save people from themselves' or 'think of the children!' have really dimmed my view of that. I believe that medically-assisted suicide for terminal illness/pain, and legalization of harmless-to-others drugs such as marijuana, and strenuously overseen but legalized prostitution, should all be a given.)

Politics are forbidden on TKR, but politics can also be "philosophy" and in this case, I'm trying to example my philosophy, to give some context to why I feel how I do about both 'attempts to govern' and 'personal rights and responsibilities'. Hopefully my examples serve as "examples of how my philosophy is reflected in real world issues" to better explain it, as opposed to trying to make some political pronouncements; this is only about me.


I believe in fundamental freedom, e.g., 'you have all possible rights in your own world, but your rights to your own fist end where someone else's body begins' and all the many variants on that of course. Which makes people living together possible, and stealing from/harming each other illegal. That philosophy also includes 'you have all responsibility for yourself, the world owes you nothing but an environment of some variable potential opportunity, and what you make of that is up to you'. But in my head this includes recognition that if 'yourself' is someone who is elderly, a child, a veteran, or seriously disabled in some fashion temporarily or permanently, that not letting them starve or overly suffer becomes the responsibility of others as a group, for human (as a group) survival reasons.

This philosophy applies to remote viewing as well, because people who have some 'soft authority' in the field, and people who are merely 'viewers', and people are 'new or in training', have different levels of assumed responsibility sometimes. By this I mean that in some cases, we are all as a group indirectly responsible for the welfare of newbies and students and the public, for example, while also having full rights of our own, up to the point where specific harm is done to others.


I also happen to believe that churches, or some modern form of it, are critically important in any capitalist society, because they can provide the social structure and extended family and support needed by most human beings which government, in its hopefully minimal form, should not be expected to provide, or it is no longer a remotely minimal form. I think the 'Mormon' church is probably the best example of this social structure there is currently, although I'm disinterested in the religion for several reasons. What is a shame is that there is no social structure that isn't a "church" that can do this as well, so that religion could be separated from this, as I think the 'social structure' is necessary and many non-religious people cannot have it as a result.

This also I mention ('debates about religion' are also forbidden at TKR) because it's a philosophy that relates to my perception of the field. TKR and IRVA are both a form of a non-religious 'social structure' attempting to provide their own version of 'support' and 'extended family' to a given population. I feel this is tremendously important and that both groups have important roles in the field. (And both could probably do better at them.)


Note: Anybody who wants to argue anything that verged-into-political above, please (a) don't more than 'verge' yourself or the message bounces to the fever board and/or locks because politics/religion are off the list here, and (b) verging alone, may bounce to The Ledge for ongoing discussion that doesn't interfere with the focus of the thread, the 'Proposed Code of Ethics'. So best to just copy something to quote and start it there if you want to go there. Thanks.

So, having exampled some of my own personal philosophy about personal rights and freedom, personal responsibility, and paragoverning social structures, let me move on to the specifics. I will quote some piece of the code as published to respond to.
 

PJ

Administrator
Staff member
The Code

> and thus marks a significant milestone in meeting one of IRVA's founding objectives.
Ten years later, literally. Maybe it's better late than never. I'm not against any group having a code of ethics, though, and so if the members wanted it and many seemed to, then it's about darn time they got around to it.


1. A Remote Viewer shall adhere to all applicable laws, statutes, and regulations of the state or province in which they are working, as well as of their nations of work and residence, in carrying out any remote-viewing activity on behalf of clients, and, in particular, of any living human person or persons as targets.
There are no laws about remote viewing so this one is pointless. Because they bothered with it, I'm forced to assume they have certain built-in ideas.

It has often been publicly said by some of the people involved in leading IRVA that remote viewing should be considered subject to the same laws that say, a professional investigator or intelligence group would be subject to. Perhaps this is why this was included (in which case they should have said so plainly, not by implication). So, using those laws, this translates to:

You are not allowed to view any human, anywhere, period, for anybody but the cops or FBI etc.
That's what it would entail in the USA.

Is that really something that any viewer who wants to do applications wants to commit to?

What if you're being requested for a task by a corporation trying to get a clue on 'who' of 18,000 possible employees to investigate for possible embezzlement? Not that they can do jack without evidence of course, so it's not like your data is going to ruin someone; but if they have to investigate all 18,000 employees to get it, it's damn straight going to take awhile. A viewer telling them it's a man in his 50's or later would hugely cut down their pool. The viewer saying he has a beard would help; saying he limps would take it down drastically. They might stand a chance at finding this embezzler prior to 2012 now. But alas! They are not "the police or the FBI" so the viewer can't view any target that is a human because you cannot collect intelligence on an American citizen without specific directive from military, government or civilian law enforcement authorities, and they are none of those. Presto, you just wiped out a potentially useful application of remote viewing.

If the goal is that nobody but some form of government can get viewer help, that nearly amounts to the same thing as limiting viewers to working for the government. I suppose if it can't be accomplished one way it can be accomplished another!

[Babalon 5's "Psi Corps" is being born here indirectly, possibly, though my extended paranoia may be part of this suspicion. ;-)]

I do not believe any serious viewer who intends to do any amount of real-world work would agree to that. If someone did, I would honestly suspect that they were either
(a) in the armchair, not really viewing, so happy to agree to such rules unlikely to affect them personally;
(b) already employed by a legal or government authority, publicly or privately;
(c) willing to agree with anything publicly but do whatever they wanted privately so they don't care; or
(d) too simple to understand the implications of what is suggested there.

Or they simply go with the first note: that there is no law related to remote viewing so the whole clause becomes pointless.

My suggestion is that if there are specifics intended here that some of them be spelled out, in the code or in a footnote to it. Using a generality makes it either inapplicable or over-applicable, neither of which make it useful to the code, the latter of which makes it a dangerous precedent and room for sociopolitical interpretation down the road.


As a secondary note, how would #1 relate to practice? ...in particular, of any living human person or persons as targets... could be interpreted to mean anything.

If viewing based on feedback photos of people (unknown pics from internet, or celebrity pics, or missing people in the news, for example) is truly bad, most viewers I know will have to turn in their scout badges and genuflect. You cannot learn to view people adequately unless you practice on doing so. I have no intention of giving up my development as a viewer in that area by never targeting another human until some legal authority assigns me the case; and if I didn't practice on humans I'd be unlikely to be good enough any legal authority would have interest in hiring me anyway, so that makes it a catch-22.


As a third note, obviously there are 'related behaviors or actions' which are unethical and/or illegal, which may be part of what they are aiming for here. If I RV Britney Spears and publish something lousy about her as my psychic insight, that ranges from unethical to rude depending on the context. If I RV a criminal and publish it, the same issues still apply; without feedback, any public comment about the data on a living public person is probably inappropriate. (Practice targets are *based on feedback focus.*)

If I view 'future doom' and frighten as many other people as possible with it, especially to make money or notoriety by breeding fear, that is definitely unethical.

If I illegally enter the house of someone I psychically 'suspect' of being a criminal, I'm breaking actual laws.

The viewing is not what I see as the issue but the "behavior related to" the viewing.

All of these things amount to behaviors, not to the ethics which drive the behaviors.

I feel the "ethics of good intent" (harm ye none, do no evil) should be the baseline here. Everything that extends beyond that becomes a code of conduct.

If the desire is to create a code of conduct, specific examples should be given to better facilitate this clause not being over-interpreted in the future. The problem with being fairly generic to cover broad territory (which such a document in some respects must), is that the 'power politics' of the leadership are going to set the "subjective interpretation" of this, both now and in the future.

This is why legal documents are so mind-numbingly, pedantically detailed, so that no subjective elements can be misinterpreted or misconstrued by either side in the future.

***

In defense of whomever wrote it, I would say they probably had a 'good-faith assumption' about what all members etc. would think of their own intentions personally, professionally, and within the field, so a sort of generic "don't screw up" seemed like it oughtta work.

The problem is that people (in authority or 'dominance' at IRVA, which mostly means former-intelligence people):
a) whose professional income is based in the field, and
b) whose personal soft-social-power/ego is based on the field, and
c) who are former government agents which has its own baggage and field-concerns on a few levels, and
d) who have notoriously and infamously revised and reinvented history and reality to suit them,
are not really in a situation to make others having that "good faith assumption about now and later" about them easy, if possible at all.

As a result, the way that such a code might be written by a relatively innocuous, mostly apolitical group of leaders of some professional organization for example [if I should ever see such a thing, I'll let you know...] and be accepted, is not the way it can be written in this situation. There is not necessarily the 'assumption of good faith' present.

As a (over-simplistic) corollary, when we began TKR, I knew that the politics and history in the field put me as owner in a situation where I was attempting to make some rules, structures, operations and tools with and for people who had no reason to trust me, and in many cases definitely didn't (and in some cases were daily praying I would not wake up the next morning, haha). I went out of my way to put in place a whole slew of elements that would essentially prevent, or build-in the prevention option for members, of me (or any staff) doing them injust harm. Every major method group had someone on staff to defend against their being prejudiced against for their method/trainer/philosophy. Every staff member had one vote same as me so they could overrule me (and they did sometimes). I couldn't change the canned forum software but everything at TKR at the Dojo Psi is designed to allow anonymous proxies, fake email, fake names, and more to assure the confidentiality--even from me [and even from any assumption of lurking-government-hackers watching]--of anybody who wanted to use the toolsets. The policies of the forum staff were arranged to ensure that no arbitrary single-staff action could wantonly abuse the power of management to any extreme. All of these things were planned because there was no assumption of trust, and it's been a major pain in the ass on more levels than I can tell you as a result.

But part of wanting to genuinely serve the field, is acknowledging that many of the people you serve think you are a wicked cretin who wakes up in the morning intending to singlehandedly destroy something and probably them--and being willing to do everything you can to serve them anyway, because they are part of the field. My point is that remote viewing is a bigger picture than one person or one leader or one leadership-group. Genuine service as an asset to/for the field at large does sometimes require taking into account that too many people suspect the worst and so, you have to "build-in" to planning and action, compensations or options which will make such people feel that even if you are all the dark-side they expect, you are still unable to do harm.

It is akin, as an RV analogy, to the double-blind making skeptics feel better about how a psychic can't "cheat" by getting info about the target from another person or the environment. (Although there are other reasons also for the doubleblind.) It's no end of problems and irrational to think that "trust me" is going to suffice in that situation. So you build in a protocol, a set of controls or 'specific declarations', that lay out a framework that is reasonably protective and that they can trust; much like a legal contract does so for a few similar reasons. Although that is a science (or legal) analogy to some degree, it is the same dynamic in a social construct.

Much of what is concerning in the code as presented is not what is on the surface, but how it "could be" interpreted, if not now, in the future. As some of it almost seems worded to allow that, and as some of the people in leadership at IRVA have a history of 're-interpretation' in various forms, the issue becomes more notable.

"Trust me" is something for families, churches, friends and cults and used-car salesmen; it is not for "professional organizations" and particularly in a field that is both fairly new and has extensive dispute within it overall ESPECIALLY on this VERY area. They should say literally what they mean and not imply things and not use a bunch of words that allow for future reinterpretation, is my view.
 

PJ

Administrator
Staff member
> 2. A Remote Viewer shall provide truthful, accurate, remote viewing-originated reports to clients to the best of his or her ability, using and acting in conformance with remote-viewing protocols generally accepted as facilitating the reception of truthful, reliable, and accurate remote viewing-originated information.
I feel this entire statement is a subtle, carefully worded, looks-nice-on-the-surface, but hidden politic for "IRVA supports viewing only via formalized psychic methods like CRV or whatever we the leadership deem to be 'generally accepted' at a given time." For a few reasons:

1. Terms like 'generally accepted' (or even Eva's suggested term "reasonably shown") are completely subjective and limited to the mental paradigm of the group/leadership composing it.

2. This clause IMO shouldn't exist anyway and is the worst in the whole document.

Let me be very clear about the following two points, as I feel it's very serious and reflects a 10-year-problem with IRVA's creatively convenient and lucrative-for-leaders definition of RV:

A. The only 'protocol' legitimately known to 'facilitate accuracy' are the science-based protocols which are designed mostly to 'minimize noise' of varying kinds.

B. There are elements known and used within the larger RV protocols which may be or impinge upon elements of process (methodology) but these would be discrete elements (e.g. arranging for a relaxed and undisturbed environment for the viewer, as one of several examples); these 'protocols' would not constitute or be interchangeable with any "psychic method" like CRV-etc.

Historically there is a deliberate and constant 'mix' of the terms 'RV protocol' (meaning science) and 'RV protocols' (meaning my-psychic-method) -- on purpose to confuse the issue and buy a sense of legitimacy for the psychic methods to which they have no real claim. There is no psychic method with any scientific backing which supports that said method 'more than any other method' will be "facilitating the reception of truthful, reliable, and accurate remote viewing-originated information." None.


Let's look at this one more closely: if any method could do that in reality, Ed Dames's claims on the radio for the last dozen years about [psychic methods, which he calls RV] training making someone 'better than the best psychic that ever lived' and 'able to predict the next major world natural disaster' -- and all within a week of training no less :) -- and more would all be true.

(As time passes I'm beginning to realize that Ed wasn't actually nuts for no reason; he was just quite literally advertising what he was genuinely trained to believe and the habits he worked in. Which explains the crashing demise of the stargate program, despite its auspicious beginning, until the DIA and the method-experiment-trainees came in. His coworkers often said similar things as him but with far less volume/hype, in the early days as I recall; but most the others saw the reaction to him and regulated public image based partly on that, and also for competitive reasons of seeming more legitimate. But in retrospect I think Ed didn't just fall off the edge prior to going on the radio; he is a product of his environ and decently reflects it in some ways, which explains why, with more subtlety and finesse of course, many of the same bizarre inaccuracies he has promoted publicly related to RV over time are reflected in the others as well. This is an interesting context you see, because it explains why he was never really truly 'separate' from them. Which is why for the second year in a row, the 'experts' at IRVA are featuring Ed Dames as a speaker at their Remote Viewing conference. Although how anybody with a shred of respect for science OR remote viewing can even associate with the organization given that is beyond me. But I digress.)

For that matter, if any method could do that in reality, we would not have 12 years of -- at the least -- many thousands of people trained, resulting at this point in only a very few people willing to view publicly IN db protocol online using said methodologies -- and as my favorite point of humor, pretty much all of those being (a) self-trained, and/or (b) trained in a seriously-very-derivative method (TDS) and/or (c) having abandoned the methods or revised them to hardly recognizeable, and using mostly the elements of the methodology that are known before/apart/around it [not limited to or created by that method] anyway so it doesn't even count. The more 'training' they sell for 12 years now the more we have reason to wonder where the successful products of that training are and how they can claim anything given the stunning lack of evidence for it.

Even making the claim this clause presents, 'the protocols' -- as used by the people leading/dominating RV for a dozen years this always means their psychic methods -- demonstrates a doctrinal belief system which has no validation at this time outside of someone's head. Which is their right to believe, anything they like. But not to impose that on the entire IRVA membership directly who are not all part of their model, nor the RV field at large by proxy based on IRVA's perceived central legitimacy (thanks in part to their associated scientists).

If the writers wanted to say 'within a science protocol' or 'within a protocol including the doubleblind' as those are the two most critical possible points that could legitimately be made here, they could have. They did not and it's difficult to think this was not intentional. The history of IRVA's leaders and most dominant members concerning the evasion of, resistance to, teaching against, and in a couple of cases openly lying about, the use of the double-blind, makes this an especially hot-button of "trust issues concerning their intent": this is not phrased as science because their interest is not scientific legitimacy, it is the legitimacy of the method(s) that is their doctrine and/or their income and definitely their entrenched perceived authority.

They phrased it beautifully, in a way that I bet scientists reading it thought, "Hmm, sounds reasonable." Because the scientists have not had to wade through the crap online for a dozen years that some of us laymen have and don't realize that this is a standard M.O. for term-swapping, and don't realize that the writers are not referring to science protocol or they'd have said so, and that a long history of this exact behavior on this exact point makes it pretty unarguable.

Additionally but related, I believe this was phrased how it is so that gradually this could be ever-more-interpreted to mean, "Method X is not as good as Method Y that IRVA's leaders or most-socially-approved-members happen to be selling or teaching or authorities upon, so if you are using any other approach, you are "not being as truthful/accurate/reliable" and hence you are treating RV and your customer unethically." \

In short to regain the slipping-from-their-fingers social power that the CRV and Intelligence elements of IRVA have, particularly now that more laymen--and worse, "un-officially or un-trained laymen"--are viewing in public and building their own history and sense of legitimacy.

As a code of ethics this clause is bad enough. As an implied code of conduct it is The Intell Man's Club and Finance Group. Not 'international remote viewing'.

This entire clause is deadly to remote viewing as a larger subject and IMO should be veto'd by every serious viewer who supports RV's legitimacy, viewer's rights as individuals to their own style, and accurate representation of remote viewing, period.

***

You see, in my view -- I am being honest here, of course this will be perceived as "an attack!" as it basically amounts to as much, but I am telling you what I personally think because some of these issues run into "politics and philosophy and control" not just simple words-on-the-surface:

(THIS is why I did not want to share my views publicly because I'd already informally done so privately and I knew it would amount to such!):

This ties back into the disinformation that Dames kicked off this field with: that remote viewing was
(a) defined as 'the methodological steps' he and his coworkers call 'the RV protocols' (as opposed to RV meaning something like 'free response psychic functioning as performed within a legitimate science-based remote viewing protocol'), and
(b) that the methodology itself guaranteed accuracy.
(There are other implications of the presentation(s) but those are the first two.)

Both of those (and their related follow-ons) have in my view done profound harm to the field, being indoctrinated into people both en-masse in media and individually in training. The whole way they put this sounds exactly like that same schtick all over again. Carefully nestling that snug in the middle of the 'ethics paper' is ... insidious.

Interpreted in the future (and as I do not have the "trust factor" of the leaders involved here, obviously I am concerned about the "potentials", especially if those potentials just happen to match historical patterns of behavior), it could mean if someone has in some fashion changed or altered CRV, whether slightly like Daz or moreso like Brown or more greatly like Calabrese, that this wording will enable a flexibly interpretive context to suggest that only the 'stargate [their interpretation of Ingo's] methods' [and anything else they conveniently choose to recognize at a given time] count, and anything else does not 'facilitate truth' etc.

Or, that people not 'officially trained' could not possibly be using even the actual methods 'correctly', hence everyone must go through a former US government person and pay a ton of money in order to "be" a remote viewer -- in order to not be socially shunned for being 'unethical' or 'not really RV' by the perceived 'RV authority'.

If ANY definition of 'psychic methodology' is thought to do these things (basically make you more accurate/truthful/reliable) then it is just a matter of the doctrine of your psi-method, and how devout the orthodoxy about it. Such things are subjective, they are notorious for being the "soft social weapons of sociopolitical control" in any group because of leadership setting the definition for subjective things and this changing over time. Doctrine and degree-of-orthodoxy-required for that can change in the blink of an eye.

I think this clause should be both specific and science-literal if it exists at all, or to me it is just a devious political ploy: the only legit protocol is science and the primary factor one could refer to (though it is not the only point) is the soloblind/doubleblind condition. Saying anything else is just carefully NOT saying that. Also, it is building in the ability to pretend (now or later) that something else not proven (but for sale or in power or providing authority) belongs in there and is what it really means.

It's easy to be clear and they were not, and they pointedly used the same wording that has been publicly and privately used to deliberately mislead the public for 12 years now. To me it seems this was dominantly designed for the convenience of those providing training who run or dominate IRVA, and to continue the deception of the public by substituting a psychic methodology for a science-based protocol, and using the same words to mislead both watching-scientists, 'trained'-viewers, and the general public.

Not that I'm opinionated or anything.
 

PJ

Administrator
Staff member
> 3. A Remote Viewer shall safeguard all confidential information provided to him or her by clients and exercise the utmost care to prevent any unauthorized disclosure of such information.
Sounds reasonable to me.

As a point of trivia, I use the term 'viewers' as slang. You do not know if anything IS 'remote viewing' until feedback has successfully validated a psychic session as accurate. Then you can say 'a remote-viewing has occurred', technically. Using the term 'remote viewer' as an official label for a person does tend to imply that the title means whatever they do is remote viewing, when really, RV only exists to the degree of accuracy within any given session done within protocol to validate it's really psi and not anything else.

This is not a big deal since using the term that way is not uncommon in the field I realize.

I just mention it because how one models RV in their head matters and the "methods as RV" (used outside protocol) are not remote viewing; they are sold, often taught, and definitely media-promoted as such, so I kinda like to kick the tires of that implication when I see it, just in case any innocent onlookers haven't grasped that subtlety yet.


> 4. A Remote Viewer shall maintain confidentiality with clients to protect the privacy interests of all persons involved in the remote-viewing activity, unless duly and properly authorized otherwise.
Sounds reasonable to me.


> The targeting of persons and the collection of personal information about them shall only be done for lawful purposes
Remote Viewers are soloblind/doubleblind and even project managers may know only generalities. So there is no way to know this until after the fact.

Even if you knew the intent, you would not know every possible use that client may put that information to in the future, aside from their present plans.

One could do their best, but a soft "to the best of one's knowledge" caveat is not included here, it is stated very literally.

There is no real way to determine it is a lawful purpose unless it comes from a law enforcement agency. (I could see this subtlety creeping in later to imply one could only work for governmental factions... don't let it go there.)

This statement also wipes out practice on people. (On the bright side, I'm sure all CIA agents breathe more easily knowing that even the folks most serious about psychic functioning, are mostly incompetent about targeting people, since they have no practice or development, due to their 'ethics' about viewing humans.) If this statement was only intended to apply to "applications work" instead, then that should be specified. (E.g., "No viewing to help locate someone the mob wants to take out. No matter how well the mob pays.")

With a couple good caveats and clarifications added this could potentially be reasonable IMO.
 

PJ

Administrator
Staff member
> and, subject to the exception stated in paragraph 5 following, any information so collected shall not be disclosed to any third party without the knowing permission being secured beforehand from the particular person or persons so targeted, identified, or about whom personal information has been collected. No remote viewer shall make a disclosure of information to any person not authorized by the client or by applicable laws, statutes, or regulations.
1. There are no laws regarding remote viewing.

2. If we 'assume' that laws about 'work-for-hire' of any kind apply here and that is the intent, then that is a business issue not a remote viewing issue. Sharing my physics or chemistry textbooks from work prior to their publication, with people who are not my coworkers or vendors, is also wrong. But that's behavior more than the ethics which drive it. So:

I think I would model the framework of the whole concept a little differently, such as that "If a viewer makes a commitment to a client, official or implied, whether business or behavioral or in terms of the data collection, they are expected to honor their commitments. This includes but is not limited to a certain degree of privacy or confidentiality about the data they are collecting." This way it is less of a specific conduct example and more of an overall ethics example: if you make a commitment, honor it.

I might add that this wording could have other implications that might limit misleading advertising and promises and/or might extend the effort to genuinely fulfill promised or implied commitments. For example if you say that for a $1000 flat fee you will accomplish X, then it doesn't matter how much extension of your work that takes to accomplish. If you cannot either commit to very long term work to accomplish something, or be totally sure short term work will cover it (and nobody sane is 'sure' about anything in real RV), then definitely no promising solutions is appropriate; a less literal form of advertising might be needed.

(Note: this should not be construed as any comment on Buchanan's company name 'Problems > Solutions > Innovations' which is great name. I am referring here to specific promises of solution to specific things.)

There should be a clause specifying some limitation on this item. If I remote view Al Capone or Jesus for 12 different people over time, I may at some point when talking to someone about one of those personalities, choose to share some of the information I have over time perceived regarding them. Some of that is going to be from sessions I might have done for hire years prior. Unless the individual is (a) a private individual [not public figure] or (b) still living, not to mention (c) a human of course :), only then would I feel that could blanket-level apply as an 'ethical point'.
 

PJ

Administrator
Staff member
> 5. A Remote Viewer employed by a law enforcement agency, whether on a paid or unpaid basis, to assist in the investigation and prosecution of criminal activity shall, before commencing work, solicit and receive from an authorized officer of that agency a signed waiver and release (i) holding the remote viewer harmless from any civil or criminal liability arising from any subsequent claim that may be made for invasion of privacy, non-disclosure of information received via the remote-viewing process that pertains to the life or safety of any living person, or unreasonable search and seizure, and (ii) agreeing to indemnify the remote viewer for any legal costs and damages incurred by him or her that may result from the making of any such claim.

Note: This provision is intended to protect the practice of RV; the legal, professional, and financial integrity of the remote viewers working in the law enforcement arena; and the overall credibility of the field of remote viewing. It further serves to address the potential reporting dilemma posed in the event a remote viewer receives remote-viewing-originated information pertaining to the life and safety of a living person.
I'd change it to, "a viewer or viewing manager should request" this. Not must have it. Most law enforcement agencies will NOT provide this in detail.

Requiring this would mostly prevent even what legal work is available from happening because the cops usually aren't even 'formally' asking -- if they use the info it may be off the record, it may be on an 'anonymous report/witness' form, etc. -- this would require police department ATTORNEYS actually draft up this kind of agreement to the specifications desired and make it a big-official-thing that they are using that viewer. There are instances where this might happen, but it is my belief that *most* of the time the cops are just going to say, "Forget it then" -- they were taking a chance asking a psychic in the first place, but hard up for info, and now they just feel like 'gimme a break!' -- like they're really going to go tell the captain they need an officially legal signed contract with a psychic! Even most PDs that utilize psychics seldom employ them as such (notice on the TV show medium, she is employed as a jury evaluator).

If the actual goal is to prevent much legal work being done by viewers, that one'll do it.
 

PJ

Administrator
Staff member
> 6. A Remote Viewer shall disclose to any client any conflict, whether legal, moral, or personal, that would prevent the remote viewer from performing an objective, fair, accurate, and scientifically sound remote-viewing session.
[a] All these words are making it rather broad; this just allows for 'creative interpretation' later which always becomes social politics. The only thing "scientifically sound" about a remote viewing session "in general" (as applied broadly in a way like this) is performing it pre-planned within a soloblind/doubleblind environ. If that's what they mean they should say so. Given the history of deliberately blurring and mixing 'seeming science' with 'psychic methods' this is important.

{b} Remote viewing is not objective. Every session is a subjective experience between viewer, target, and any tasker intent involved. Perhaps whatever they are really trying to say here would be better if they just said it. Or maybe the word just sounded good.

[c] 'Fairness' is not even a term applicable to a remote viewing session. What is this, the multicultural kinder gentler leftism of remote viewing? Data is data, you get what you get. (To quote someone nameless lest everybody in the ethics community have a collective heart attack.)

[d] Accurate -- the only issue you can track cleanly to accuracy, aside from viewer incompetence on that session, is a problem tasker or lack of doubleblind. The first can't be addressed at all really except by the tasker (not the viewer) and the second should be specified plainly AS the point of science protocol required (see above).

If what they were really trying to say is, "You should not just make sh** up and lie for a session, it should really be a genuine attempt to be psi," then they should find a way of saying that instead.

If they are trying to say, "If you are being paid by the mob or the feds to keep person X looking innocent, and then you get a police request to remote view person X, the manager should refuse this on ethical grounds, rather than just lie about the data to make person X look innocent," then I guess that would work here, but that is quite a stretch to even need to include in something like this.

There must be something they had in mind that I'm not getting as this one just seems odd.
 
Top