RV Oasis / PJRV Discussion, Yahoo Groups.
Source Location: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pjrv/
Filetype: Archive. Topic: Remote Viewing. Blocked: by topic detail.
Archive Storage: www.firedocs.com/pjrv/ and http://www.dojopsi.info/pjrv/
Archivist: Palyne PJ Gaenir (PJRV, Palyne, Firedocs RV, TKR and the Dojo Psi.? )

begin archive

pjrv : Messages : 13?7-1340 of 4038 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pjrv/messages/13?7?? ) ?


Date: Mon Nov 18, ?00? 11:35 pm Subject: Frontloading & Retasking dennanm I think the issue of getting the info from the tasker, ASSUMING one has no contact with them of course, is a non-issue, not because telepathy can't happen, but because it is unavoidable, and for all we know some of psi is telepathy with ourselves in the future ... or with anyone who's knowledgeable about the target, etc. As a caveat I will say that in the case of taskers working with a viewer regularly over time, I do believe rapport develops, and I do suspect it becomes both a win/lose situation, depending on how that is approached by the team. It becomes a win situation because the viewer may gets better at picking up detailed focus and even subtle intent consciously unknown to the tasker but that they had, these may increase the more rapport which is had. It can be a lose situation, if some kind of dependence develops -- but I don't know if it would, I'm merely leaving that open to speculation. This assumes everything is double blind. Rapport issues combined with non-double-blind situations are IMO incredibly detrimental to viewers. But time will probably prove that out more effectively than any of my ranting about it, so why bother. Comments about what the tasker knows -- the tasker needs to know the target situation. If the tasker knew the 'target', they wouldn't need remote viewing, now would they? :-? ) But tasking is a bit like detailed project management. There is a joke in many fields of work that customers bitch because you gave them "exactly what they asked for but not what they wanted!" In RV I imagine that is even more an issue as most people aren't real educated about it or experienced with it. A tasker needs to be able to consider the many aspects of how to find the information sought and be able to assign different taskings for different people. The issue that gets confusing in discussion is that so often in the layman's RV field, the tasker is ALSO the monitor. That is unworkable within protocol of course. I may have misinterpreted some comments, but my point here is that keeping the tasker 'blind' is funny -- unless one is sort of merging the tasker/monitor roles, which many do, I don't see how that is functional. Much of what it is hoped a tasker can accomplish, they need to have a very clear intent of exactly what info they would like to have. "Um, an answer!" is convenient, but probably not specific enough I'd guess. :-? ) PJ


From: "Scott Ellis" Date: Tue Nov 19, ?00? 9:5? am Subject: Re: Frontloading & Retasking scottrver Hi PJ, > But tasking is a bit like detailed project management. There is a > joke in many fields of work that customers bitch because you gave > them "exactly what they asked for but not what they wanted!" In RV I > imagine that is even more an issue as most people aren't real > educated about it or experienced with it. Joe McMoneagle recommended to me once that I add to my routine to set the intent to explicitly IGNORE the tasker's cueing/instructions and simply retrieve all information required of the target. Scott ---------------------------- Moderator's note: Well he'd know. He is usually primarily trying to make viewers understand that they are only, solely, responsible for their data, and that the REAL target is "what is most important about the target" -- period, although, the viewer's belief system weight on importance (to them? to the tasker? to the police? to the media 6 months later? to themselves with additional feedback 5 years later?? ) is a sort of big question. He also comments in his third RV Oasis/pjrv interview that his wife arranges 'targeting materials' and what needs answered for him etc., which suggests that it's not like she just writes down a name and he just does a session on 'whatever is important' - she is functioning to some degree as a tasker, even if that merely means splitting up things desired as info into 'separate' targets for example. There is more we could learn from Joe asking him about these subjects specifically. If only we could download his brain. :-? ) -- PJ pjrv : Messages : 1334-1344 of 4038
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pjrv/messages/1334?? ) ?


From: Weatherly-Hawaii...m Date: Tue Nov 19, ?00? 1?:16 am Subject: Re: Frontloading & Retasking maliolana Aloha PJ, I am pretty sure I gave 'an' answer to Rich's tasking...but it was not the one he thought was the fact of the case......I have no firm idea personally ... but my session did look real interesting in that regard...The tasking part is a bit esoteric at this point...but I did get answers...of some anamoulous sort anyway... Love & Light & Laughter Mali'o...aka...Dawna


From: greenmn900... Date: Tue Nov 19, ?00? 10:18 am Subject: Re: Frontloading & Retasking greenmn900... PJ, > You wrote: > "If the tasker knew the "target", they > wouldn't need remote viewing, now would they?" Yes, PJ, they would - in applications - which I was referring to. But in applications or in practice, the tasker should be blind to the exact target that is currently being RVed. This especially holds true in situations such as mine, where the tasker chooses and sets up the targets (I don't even want to get into the RVer creating their own target pool - this creates a whole new set of problems? ). We do this by pulling the targets at random from a large pool. This way NO ONE knows exactly what the target is - so, the tasker is almost as blind as the viewer. The only exception to this scenario is some other way of giving the Rver the target ID without any direct communication - like doing it in writing. So, I agree that the tasker should know what information is being sought, in most cases. But I still say the tasker, if they are to have any communication with the viewer before the session, should not know when that specific target is being Rved. Warm Regards, Don You're right in that the tasker acts like a project manager. But it's not a good idea for your tasker, knowing what the target is, to give you a set of coordinates or a number while they're looking you in the eye. This isn't doubleblind anymore. That's why I think it's so important that targets be done randomly or that a different person, also blind to the target, is the one who communicates with the Rver. I never use a monitor so that's never been an issue with me. ------------------------- Moderator's note: Howdy Don. Think we're talking apples and oranges here and we don't disagree. The tasker doesn't know the "exact" target, that is what is being RV'd. The tasker "knows what information is being sought." The part of my paragraph that didn't make it into your quote might've made that more clear I think. I don't know whether the tasker 'knowing when the session is going to happen' matters or not. We ought to ask other experienced viewers about this as well, it's an interesting question. If there is "no time" then I'm hard pressed to think it should matter whether the tasker knows you're doing target XYZ now or sees a week from now that you did it at that time/date. Re: the last, I mentioned the dichotomy where tasker is monitor and I wasn't referring to that, because then most of the 'tasker rules' become monitor rules which are totally different. 'Tasking' on something like practice is also a slightly different subject, simply that 'operational' considerations may not be part of the mix. I think. LOL. PJ

// end archive

Top of Page