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 : 1491-1496 of 4038


From: "PJ Gaenir" Date: Sat Nov 23, 2002 10:35 pm Subject: "Reasons" for Data dennanm Something I've been thinking about for some time. Since I wrote an editorial on Firedocs called 'RV Drama Queens', where in the midst of writing it I got sort of carried away (like THAT never happens, right? LOL!) and went into how I believed that the data we receive from a target, and how, is mostly related to the viewer's psychology... I theorized this for a couple of reasons: First, I believe we create our own reality, and that hour of session time is part of reality, hence, it's subject to the same rules. ;-) Second, there is a lot of data in any given target, and even a lot of different ways to 'receive' data. Everybody does so differently. This makes me think it is obviously unique to the individual. So, this led me to conclude that it's about psychology. Say someone targets you on a murder: a man was stabbed. One viewer gets the violence; another gets death; another describes the knife. Another 'experiences' the stabbing a bit as the victim and gets the emotions and pain as data. Another 'experiences' the stabbing a bit as the killer, and gets the rage and satisfaction. But flip this a little. You could get the stabbing as either party OR as a "quoted term", as a voice mentioning it, as a concept, as something you don't even know is a stabbing but only know the general motion and puncture concept of. 1. What is it that makes us get the data we do, and makes us perceive it in the way we do? If I experience 'being' stabbed and am very upset about it, is that because "on some level", my psychology chose that experience? I mean beyond the deeper cosmic ineffables for a minute, I am talking about basic psychology here: did I choose to perceive being stabbed or having those horrible emotions? Or did the nature of the target "make" me perceive that? If so, why did it not "make" John Doe Viewer over there perceive that same data and the same way? Is there something else at work? My 'RV Drama Queens' editorial suggested that it probably is viewer psychology that determines these things. That some RV *is* deeply upsetting and people may need counselors, meditations, whatever, to deal with it. But, that if one is going to do RV, one can't carry on endlessly about how a target has traumatized them -- one has to deal with it and move on, or they're probably not cut out for this work. But now I am re-thinking my opinions about psychology determining the data. What if it's something else? 2. What if a viewer really *does* have NO control over what data they get or how they get it? You know, I really hate it when I write something like it's carved in stone and then change my mind. It would be so much easier if I could just be right in the first place and save the wading through it. But I'm starting to think that maybe I was wrong. 3. Does the data received depend on skill? Talent? 4. Would the identical psychology with two more years of practice invested get different data or receive it differently? 5. Is that because their psychology changed or because it was ability, not psychology, that determined both 'what' and 'how' something was received? This ties sort of indirectly but still clearly into a discussion on the FARVIEW list (a good list, for those of you who aren't on it, it's open to the public), wondering about: 6. Is it the conscious interest in a given aspect of a target that causes us to get it as data and/or strongly? 7. If that is so, why is it that a viewer can have a session on something they are consciously fascinated with and get almost no data? Or a session with something intriguing they didn't 'get'? What do you guys think? PJ Reply | Forward


From: "Nita Hickok" Date: Sat Nov 23, 2002 4:17 pm Subject: Re: "Reasons" for Data nitahickok Hi PJ This might be rather long. I was trained in a different way so any confusing terminology ask me about it. OK. I was taught that the difference between how one person views and another views the same thing depends upon how widely they can open the information. The best explanation I have for it is it is like layers of a onion or layers pressed into a tissue. Someone will be able to pick up 10 layers of information while another person picks up only 2 layers of the information. The different layers relate to different things. The emotional layers might be easily picked up by some people. The visual by other people. and it goes on and on. A person who practices all of the time can pick up all of the layers at once or most of the layers. The reason for this is we start trusting ourselves and believe that we can do it. Belief is a very important part of this and it is very important that no matter what happens you know that you can view things. You may be right or wrong but you still saw something that existed somewhere that your mind picked up. The sub is not a unruly child but most of us do not have the communcations open to make ourselves a integrated person. I have been taught that we have a physical, mental, and astral self. We filter a message through all of these layers until we can integrate them all into one and live in a constant state of elemental equilibrium. We then receive input in all three levels at once with all of the layers included. We can not judge or sort the information we receive. We can only write it down and be introspective enough not to allow anything that is not of our energy signature stay in us after the session. It is the purpose of shields. It makes it where you can get all the input but it can not root itself in the viewer to bother them later. Trying to judge or protect ourselve from input means that we exclude some of the very information that we might need as a functional viewer that can work upon anything. I have also noticed something really interesting. It seems like the tasker is very important in this way. I find that if my self does not trust a person when I am integrated and viewing then the data gets corrupted. I have had people who I made mistakes with because it was like time in a linear fashion didn't exist and I knew what they would do. I would always try to give them the benefit of the doubt but it never worked. Nita

// end archive

Top of Page