pjrv : Messages : 3939-3946 of 4038
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pjrv/messages/3939?)
16:21:00
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-PJRV_group---------
#3939
From: "pjgaenir"
Date: Wed Mar 31, 2004 1:17 pm
Subject: Mercy Street -- Volunteer viewers for public needs. pjgaenir
Hi you guys. The TKR Remote Viewing Galleries are nearly there...
One thing the Galleries host, as the sw/server are there/paid for
(someday the program may move or rename) is Mercy Street. I put off
the devel detail of this till last, partly 'cause it's not a Gallery
itself, and partly 'cause I've just been so... ambivalent about it.
Mercy Street allows the public an opportunity to make requests for
remote viewing assistance, and viewers an opportunity to volunteer
for a good cause.
I've been waffling on this for like a year. There's so many issues.
Like, that most data is pointless without an investigator willing to
use it. Like, that most viewers aren't that great. Like, that RV
really needs to be done in a team framework and using other forms of
data collection. Like, that most things people want, either cannot
be reasonably fulfilled with RV, or... well you get the idea.
My idea was first off, to heavily vet incoming requests, if they
exist, for things which are... workable (the list of criteria and
conditions for that is complex, of course).
Secondly, to make sure the potential client is aware of all the
caveats and iffyness associated with such info so there's a big dose
of salt and a signed waiver and some other things going on, including
an ability to follow up and ask for FB if it comes about.
Thirdly, all sessions default to anonymous, nobody sees them except
the client and taskers, and the client gets the uploads--raw data--no
third party interference. Although I'm a fan of analysis, I haven't
seen much evidence that anybody outside a select few are truly expert
at analysis in an RV context anyway, so I feel it's best to give good
advice and then hand over the data and it's theirs to deal with.
Most people wanting psi info and in an appropriate situation for it
are desperate. The situation's often kinda pitiful and they have no
other options. So we are not competing with radio satellites or PI's
here; and while it may or may not turn out to be of literal use to
the recipient, one chance in a million is still one chance more than
they started with.
Most viewers I know, whether novice or expert, want to view something
real. They want to help. Maybe they can't always, because RV isn't
the tool, or even if it is and is done well it might not be used to
proper effect, but they're willing to try. If there is a person with
a genuine need, and they're willing to jump through several hoops to
arrange getting a Mercy Street case set up, I know there are viewers
out there who'll be willing to do a session.
Mercy Street, being in TKR, would simply be making this kind of
opportunity open to the public to find, and open to viewers and
psychics of any stripe who want to give it a try.
I'm in the final stages of creating this using the Gallery s/w
framework, and making it includes a lot of the conditions,
situational considerations etc. It's giving me a headache!
I'd appreciate some input about this (any aspect of it), via this
list or via PEM is fine, particularly from psychics or viewers with
some experience working with the public, and/or who have a personal
interest in this kind of thing in general.
Is it a good idea? Bad idea? What things would you emphasize? Or
avoid? Are esoteria taskings out of line? Whatever.
Regards,
PJ
Reply | Forward
#3940
From: mike reid
Date: Wed Mar 31, 2004 5:12 pm
Subject: Re: Mercy Street -- Volunteer viewers for public needs. mikr46
It is an interesting idea! However, I am not
registering how the tasking gets established. Who
determines the "good caus" aspect? Is the TKR staff
establishing the task with the requestor and setting
up a project task list from wihch possible viewers
will select sessions and send to the client and/or
tasker via a TKR account? IMO, the working on
something 'real' is better than 'practice'. It has a
more of a sense of purpose, I guess. Of course, I
have only done viewings for free and client
intentions/ expectations were realistic according to
my tasker.
Mike
Reply | Forward
#3941
From: "pjgaenir"
Date: Wed Mar 31, 2004 10:33 pm
Subject: Re: Mercy Street -- Volunteer viewers for public needs. pjgaenir
Hiya Mike,
> It is an interesting idea! However, I am not
> registering how the tasking gets established. Who
> determines the "good caus" aspect?
As long as it doesn't violate good sense (e.g., missing children
should go to a formal org to work with an investigator, not with a
board like ours using newbies and no formal analysis...), and as long
as it qualifies as something that RV might glean at least some info
about and it isn't inappropriate to pursue it (plenty of things are
not... proper), then it oughtta qualify for consideration.
I don't have a short list of what is or is not allowed--it doesn't
exist yet, so nobody's asked for anything yet, so I really don't know
what'll come out of it. It's going to have to be one of those
situational, "decide each based on merit" things.
Since the program is starting inside the TKR Galleries, TKR-G Mgmt
will be initial taskers/decision makers. Over time if this feature
gets activity, we might bring in someone(s) just to focus on this
area.
> Is the TKR staff
> establishing the task with the requestor
If a request made it all the way through the various considerations,
they'd end up on the phone with one of us, giving personal info so we
could reach 'em for feedback, and probably faxing a signed form. So
to that degree yeah they're establishing it with the requestor.
> and setting
> up a project task list from wihch possible viewers
> will select sessions
No, viewers have zero info or it wouldn't be double blind.
The taskings are put in the system, and Mercy Street viewers request
a task, and would get one (randomly selected from these type of
taskings by the system, and assigned a unique number for them).
They'd have no idea what project/tasks are there. Eventually they'd
get tasking info, if not literal FB, so they wouldn't wait forever;
at that point they'd at least know the context.
They can't choose what they view. That's the point of my needing to
document basics, so I'll have some good info for viewers who might
want to know what the likely rules are for taskings before they agree
to be part of it. I'm a little iffy on many areas of this, which is
part of why I want input from others (and thanks for responding).
> and send to the client and/or
> tasker via a TKR account?
No. TKR Mission taskings, practice Version2 (special for hrvg) and
Mercy Street taskings all work in the same way, in this regard:
1 - Tasker sets up task in system. Open date, close date, feedback
date. Form of feedback available if any (pic? news article? etc.). FB
info known, to what degree, for space, and for time (for dowsing).
Tasking instructions given to viewer. Psi "intent" that is part of
the tasking (given to viewer at feedback time). Whatever feedback
info that exists. All that is part of the original tasking record.
2 - Viewer requests a task. System looks for tasks which are already
open and have at least 12 hours before they close. For practiceV2,
it checks the viewer's "practice settings" to see what categories of
targets they're open to getting. In the Missions Gallery, it checks
to see the viewer's minimum required feedback, and limits choices to
tasks that have at least that degree of FB.
I don't have any parsing for Mercy Street set up, but that could
change, if someone has ideas (I might make a separate category
for 'esoteric' taskings, which are psi not RV of course, but the
Galleries are for psi/dowsing as well. Not all viewers would want
that, so they could choose only 'practical' sorts I guess).
The system finds all the tasks meeting the parameters, puts 'em in a
list, then randomly selects one of them. It then 'clones' this
tasking record in the system, and assigns it a new unique tasking
number, notes for reference the original taskingID that spawned it,
and then locks the record to that viewer. It is now their task.
3 - Viewer uploads session. Not required for practice. For Missions
and Mercy Street, you don't get FB unless you upload something. This
has to be done by the "task close" date/time or... too bad. Special
overrides can be done but hopefully won't be common.
At this point, for Mercy Street, and any research projects or sponsor
groups working inside the Galleries toolset (we'll have some stuff
that most people don't see going on behind the scenes, probably--the
tools are too handy not to use :-)), AFTER task close, the tasker can
see a list of sessions that are all referenced to the original
tasking. The system shows an actual page with a menu of linked
sessions that all relate to that tasking. We might make it so the
client, reg'd to TKR, could see this page, or we might make it so all
these are spidered out by a Wizop into a single PDF file which is
then posted or emailed--with password--to the client (I prefer the
latter way). All sessions would go in. No selectivity by Wizops.
In the Demo Gallery (where all practice/mission/window sessions are
found), there's a "group by task" option, that groups all sessions
done on a given root tasking together for reference. (This is for
the practice area as well, but it'll be a long time before, by
chance, people "happen" to get the same targets (diff taskIDs). I
think eventually this'll be the most fun thing (well, that and being
able to comment to viewers in the peanut gallery).
> IMO, the working on
> something 'real' is better than 'practice'. It has a
> more of a sense of purpose, I guess.
I agree; there is a sense of purpose that I think many viewers want,
and that is difficult to keep alive with nothing but photos. I also
think that some people have a 'gut instinct' that calls their psi
out, for real world things, and that impetus just isn't there for
them, for practice.
> I have only done viewings for free and client
> intentions/ expectations were realistic according to
> my tasker.
There is some amount of simply having to trust the tasker's decisions and
judgement on these things, for certain. If you can't trust the tasker to be
serious and do it right and protect the viewers, that'd be a problem.
All Mercy Street stuff is free. No funds involved at any level.
That's one reason it's currently inside TKR Galleries... the TKR
project (sponsored by me) is, as a project, sponsoring Mercy Street,
which has no money for programming and servers of its own. This
kind of thing can't be run without massive personal time investment,
unless these kind of s/w tools are available.
Best regards,
PJ
Reply | Forward
#3942
From: "pjgaenir"
Date: Wed Mar 31, 2004 11:22 pm
Subject: TKR Practice Galleries (was: Mercy Street) pjgaenir
Sorry Mike, I said one thing so badly it ends up actually wrong. It
doesn't even matter to the topic at hand, so I renamed this subject
title. But here's a correction lest I confuse anybody who is actually
crazy enough to read all this text. ;-)
The cloning a primary task and assigning it a unique tasking# just
for one viewer, is how all the Galleries work _except_ Version2
practice. V2P assigns one tasking# to the tasker, and then that same#
is seen/used by all viewers assigned the task.
This is because HRVG uses a system they call 'cueing', where a person
essentially... "meditates on the target# to bind it to the target in
the matrix" is how it was presented to me, but there may be a more
official way to say it. (In fact, I am sure there is a sentence,
replete with 7-syllable technical words Glenn uses, heh heh! Just
teasing.) The viewer seeing the same# as the tasker becomes important
in that light. Nobody else in the field has that framework. But since
they consider it critical to viewing, we built it in as an option. We
figure maybe people can try both.
If none of their people use the system in the first 6 months (we're
hoping at least a few will sneak in anonymously), we'll close that
feature out as unneeded. But we didn't want to make something that
supported every other group and not theirs. E.g., the reason all
tasking#s are unique is because PSI TECH feels multiple viewers on
the same number can result in some degree of telepathic overlay.
I don't think any of it matters. :-) But I made it for everyone, not
just me. We understand a lot of people learn from web courses,
videos, online manuals, books, or even in-person training but which
only lasts usually a few days or a week at a time, and everybody
deserves some online support. Lots of people are alone with RV. Their
family doesn't get it, their associates would be horrified, there's
nobody around to talk to let alone work with. Web tools and
communities are important for those folks. Somewhere out there are a
lot of great viewers who'd get there faster if they didn't have to
play all team positions themselves, and if they didn't have to
reinvent every wheel on their own, and suffer 1001 basic tasking/FB
type errors that is just not necessary to learn the hard way when
others have already done it. It's about time RV got even a fraction
of the free support every other discipline has on the web.
When the tasker and viewers all get the same tasking#, it adds
complication in a system like TKR's, which is set up to be double-
blind. (Even regular staff can't see who is doing sessions, or what
primary task a session's-task is based on. Wizops can. But, since
folks can register for the Galleries anonymously to begin with, that
doesn't matter either!) Seeing someone else's session already done,
could blow all blinding (it's already not provably double-blind alas)
if they all use the same number/feedback. So each version2 practice
tasking has an open and close date (so that no sessions w/feedback
will show up in the Demo/Peanut Galleries until the task is closed
and all sessions for that target are in).
Regular TKR practice tasking (version1/standard) opens whenever you
get assigned it, and closes whenever you feel like getting feedback,
which could be in a year or so. So it's a lot more flexible. This is
because, since every task# is unique, it doesn't much matter whether
someone sees another viewer's session on that target or not. They
have no idea when/if they're going to get that target out of the many
hundreds in the system.
This is boring trivia. Seriously, only hard core viewers thinking of
using the practice area would even care. But I so butchered the
phrasing in the previous email, about a point that is in fact the
entire POINT of even having two practice tasking versions, I figured
I'd better correct it and explain. ;-)
Best regards,
PJ
Reply | Forward
#3943
From: "smitty97006"
Date: Thu Apr 1, 2004 12:21 am
Subject: Re: TKR Practice Galleries (was: Mercy Street) smitty97006
> E.g., the reason all tasking#s are unique is because PSI TECH feels
> multiple viewers on the same number can result in some degree of
> telepathic overlay.
I wasn't exactly sure what you meant by this. Do you mean multiple
people being given the same target referrence number that are in fact
going to be working the same target; or do you mean differing targets
that share a common target referrence number.
Gene
--------------------------
I think more the latter, but the reality is that over the years, what people
training/trained there (or through their materials) say online may not represent
'formal' training (this goes for any source of info, of course) as the students
(even graduates) may be fairly new to the topic and still learning themselves.
I know of some people in the field from other training sources who've said they
feel the former is the case (same target, same number, TO between viewers), but
as I recall (dimly), the comment specific to something about PT was the latter.
I figured I'd resolve all of it by just making all tasking numbers unique no
matter what. PJ
Reply | Forward
#3944
From: Benton Bogle
Date: Thu Apr 1, 2004 2:06 pm
Subject: RE: Mercy Street -- Volunteer viewers for public needs. waterway_21
Regarding "Mercy Street", it looks like it could open up a big ol' can of
worms, but I also think its what needs to be done. This process will really
get people personally involved with the tasked event and it will have
meaning for them. I hope that the tasker and the RVer will have open
communication AFTER the session, to allow personal feedback about the event.
Reply | Forward
#3946
From: "pjgaenir"
Date: Fri Apr 2, 2004 11:08 am
Subject: Re: Mercy Street -- Volunteer viewers for public needs. pjgaenir
Hi Benton,
> Regarding "Mercy Street", it looks like it could
> open up a big ol' can of worms,
Yes... probably several cans of worms, a whole bunch of chickens and
a couple hungry stalking jackals. I'm aware... of the potentials.
> but I also think its what needs to be done.
> This process will really get people personally
> involved with the tasked event and it will have
> meaning for them.
One thing that factors in here, is that my core priority project-wide
is stuff that contributes to the personal-viewing development of
viewers. Everything else the project supports--RV orgs, RV biz, RV
training groups, RV practice groups, etc.--is solely because these
indirectly contribute to the development of individual viewers.
It's been 8.5 years since I got into this topic and it's about damn
time I saw more good viewers. I expect a lot more development of
skill would be forthcoming field-wide if, frankly, RV were not such a
pain in the butt in some ways to do alone. Not only practically (in
terms of tasking/FB) but psychologically (in terms of motivation,
sharing, community, inspiration, etc.).
So, this focus does not always mean solely RV (sometimes, general psi
and psychology matter as much to the end result, as they are both
entwined heavily with the viewer's personal development).
It does not always mean science, for certain, since science by nature
has to doubt them, give them no options or trust, rather than tools
and an environ that is not about controlled proof but about proper
practice and communal enjoyment, and those are different things.
It doesn't always mean what's best for the public's end-result
either, whether it's media (how we 'look' by doing it--as much as I
usually am so concerned about that) or practical (whether the
requestor actually benefits from the viewing, as odd as that may
sound, is actually only one of the possible goals here).
I see public-wish cases as something viewers are psychologically
drawn to, both because they want to work on real world issues, even
if small ones, and because there is some psyche need for a real-world
tie to the often abstractly esoteric practice.
This would offer an unbiased, unexclusionary, fair and open chance
for anybody to participate in such a thing. Over time, as viewers
hopefully develop, they may reach a level of skill where they are
better equipped to then join one of the formal analytic project
groups that work on more serious issues or for-pay projects. At least
to begin, Mercy Street would be basically an entry-level project.
Psi will never get accepted in our society until it has real world
results. It will never get enough quantity of real world results
until it gets enough quantity of halfway decent viewers. And it's
unlikely to get a quantity of decent viewers until the tiny % of our
population both interested and talented no longer have to reinvent
wheels, learn the hard way on 1001 things, and work alone. Given
psyche stability is in my view the #1 ch
allenge facing the tiny
number of people who press forward in regular RV world, that means a
proper protocol (not method--protocol), other viewers to talk
seriously with when needed, and a positive community environment are
important.
> I hope that the tasker and the RVer will have open
> communication AFTER the session, to allow personal
> feedback about the event.
I can build it in. I did not, on purpose. There is a place for
feedback, so after say 60 days, even if there is no FB, the tasking
itself can be put up as FB, so the viewer has some context, and the
tasker can make notes there, whatever they want. This FB would go to
everyone who viewed that primary task (though each viewer would have
had a unique task#, so they wouldn't know they'd viewed the same
task, even if they talked to each other privately, until FB).
It's been my sad observation that the majority of protocol problems
and perplexingly unsolveable issues in RV group work is the tasker
and viewers "chatting" about stuff after the fact. I don't believe
in literal time, and I do believe that viewers view for psychological
validation foremost if it's available, and I do believe that what you
hear from your tasker or other viewers can function as a form of
feedback and, particularly with novice viewers, impact the session.
(Like many issues in RV, it does not *have* to affect it, and the
more one believes it can-should-will, the more it will. But in the
real world, esp. for newbies, it usually does, and that has to be
taken into consideration.)
Anyway, so in other words, I'd planned for the Missions Gallery, each
tasking will have its own MBC thread that goes live when the feedback
comes in, so viewers and public can talk about all aspects of it to
their heart's content. Those taskings may include ops-"type"
targets, current and world events, esoteria, etc. both basic and
advanced.
But conceptually, for Mercy Street I had planned a pretty serious
case of privacy, anonymity, and system-based FB only. No discussion
about taskings or sessions. While we can't keep viewers from doing
this privately, I felt it good to example a professional environ in
that regard. There's lots of other stuff to talk about in the
overall Galleries environ, after all.
I greatly appreciate any and all feedback. Thanks for the response
Benton. I encourage anybody on the list to let me know their
thoughts. It helps me to see them, and it helps me to talk things out.
Best regards,
PJ
|