• This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn more.
  • The warm heart and beautiful soul of viewer Elizabeth Ruse, Australia, has left our lonelier world. We will miss her so very much. - PJ
  • TKR's dojo at dojopsi.com/tkr/ is open.

Source and origin

PJ

Administrator
Staff member
#2
Sure, the words mean different things, but can you give some more context for your question?
 
#3
I think some people put a lot of emphasis on playing mental gymnastics to aim for an ultra precise task, under the idea that the subconscious can’t know the intention unless you get the best English word in the task.

So for example, some would say if you task the source of that sound you might get an amplifier, but if you task the origin of the sound you might get Jimmy Hendrix. I don’t know that it really matters, because the tasker has one or the other in mind even if they use an imprecise word.

So I guess the questions are, 1. Does that example of source vs origin seem correct? And 2. Does it matter?
 
#4
If it's from the view point of the tasker... then it will only mater if the viewer is also o little bit telepathic and gets informations from the mind of the tasker... and even then the language will not be that important... just look at this site and the many international participants.

For example: I'm portuguese and it still works for me... even with me thinking in Portuguese.
 
#5
Origin is past.

Source is present.

Origin is where the beginning was.

Source is where something is flowing from.

They can mean the same thing sometimes when the looking at the beginning.
 

PJ

Administrator
Staff member
#6
Yeah, the thing is, when you do dowsing, you see how changing the smallest word can change the result even when it's the same intent by the same person.

I have not seen RV have that same degree of effect but this might be because anybody can dowse (right or wrong), but to even much see clear target contact in a session a viewer has to be a little bit decent. And by that point in their efforts they should be able to view based on knowing they want to view -- even if the target is not yet defined, or not yet selected, or to be provided by someone they don't know yet.

So if you can view something that happened 82 years ago, the task randomly selected by a computer, three days after you viewed the target -- then seriously, you can deal with the word selection variables of the tasker of the kind you example.

The question you example of the sound vs. the guitarist is a funny example. For example, you may think it's a choice between "Jimi" or the "Peavey amp" but what if it's a choice between say, Chicago and 1966? ;D The 'source' or 'origin' of the 'audio frequencies' could be either of those, too. :D Intent is everything.

You do have to trust that your larger self is not jerking your chain just for fun.

I might add that the above should not be interpreted as allowing actual misdirection or damage or mindlessness (or stupidity) to interfere with protocol though. If "inexact words" is something like "describe the target" and the target is "the courtyard" but then you go for feedback and they make you stand IN the courtyard and LOOK OUT at something wholly separate and say (pointing to the other-place) "does the data match what we see?" That's just bad protocol, somewhere between morons and evil minions, because they spec'd one thing (the courtyard) as THE target and then on feedback spec'd what you saw FROM that location as the target instead. Obviously that's an example of messing with protocol and it's not just an example of inexact words.

PJ