pjrv : Messages : 3565-3565 of 4038
#3565 From: "Glyn"
Date: Sat Dec 13, 2003 4:46 pm
Subject: Retro-tasking experiment
#6 - Part 2 glynis5799
Here are Lizs reply about this experiment, and my comments at the bottom.
From: Elizabeth Hambrook
Sent: 13 December 2003 13:48
Subject: Re: Retro-tasking experiment #6
Hmmmmm it's hard to make a clear cut decision on this one.
I'm typing as I think..........
Both scenes were bathed in 'gold' light.
'Pole' I took as being the centre pole of the pyramid and yours might have been
part of the seating.
'Cross or star' shape was the birds eye view pattern cutting from corner to
corner of the pyramid,but also could have been the Christmas decorations.
Both had people.
'Spiked or flared':.....I saw this as a light distinctly flared but didn't know
what to make of it. It was like an exaggerated star shape made of light. Hmmmm
not sure of that one either way but the wording sure fits your crackers. (yes we
do have them. LOL)
Aqua/turquoise didn't match mine at all unless there is something I don't know
about inside the pyramids that fits. grin. And it wasn't an outstanding featured
colour of yours.
'Glowing/shining could apply to both.
Natural, hard, and smooth, could be applied to both.
Polished......not really applicable to mine but is to yours.
Stone applies to mine but not yours.
Cool applies to mine and could be applicable to your drink.
Hmmmmmm. I don't know. It's hard to say either way on this one. If I had said
something like natural outdoor setting involving water sand trees and blue sky
it would have been an easier decision. I think there may be too much detail
within the pub environment to pin this one down. But it is a 'maybe' IMO.
From: Glyn [mailto:glyn.flyers...net.com]
Sent: 13 December 2003 22:17
To: Elizabeth Hambrook
Subject: RE: Retro-tasking experiment #6
Yes, I agree with you&.my Christmas do was far too broad in content, and that
probably accounted for the apparent correlation of some of the impressions. The
session you sent was very short, as we agreed, so to try and lessen the
possibility of chance matches &.but I guess that goes for the target too. LOL!
My outbounder may have been the wrong sort of target for this sort of
Ive been giving things a bit more thought about how retro-tasking is supposed
to work..&..about your idea that the past may be influenced, either by yourself
or a retro-tasker (me in this case), &whereas I dont think it is possible to
change the past.
What I am trying to do (from a Future Memory Theory point of view remember), is
to make available extra feedback associated with a session you are going to
send me, and hope that back there when you did that session you picked up on it
as well as the intended feedback. It is a sort of a loop, in that if I did not
provide the extra feedback you could not pick up on it though, so OK it is an
influence, but I am not changing the past, I am adding something to your
present (now, not then) which you pick up from the past at session time.
The thing is, if FM theory is correct, when you did that session and your focus
extended further down the timeline than the intended feedback, looking for
memories associated with the session, then you were likely to incorporate it.
Thats all&.perfectly natural (well to an FM enthusiast anyway ;-). Yeah, well
OK, I concur, I am trying to influence your past; but its not the same as
changing it&.just making you aware that it is more than it seemed at the time&.
LOL!!!. Enough! Enough! I have knots forming in my brain. :-)
The thing is, I am not having much luck at the moment am I? So either
retro-tasking is not possible and apparent results are just chance,..or, as you
suggested, your sub has been alerted and your focus for the sessions that you
are sending to me for these experiments has become much tighter. No real mystery
how that may work either IMO, just future memory again. I think that people have
been worried though about not being aware that retro-taskers are using their
sessions this way. This would mean that they never consciously received feedback
from the RT. However, (again from an FM standpoint), they would have had to. The
only way I think that could be done would to not make it obvious&which may be
easier than it would seem.&&so, if that could be done then your sub would never
be suspicious and it may be easier.
Or maybe Im just not any good at it&.so I wont ever be an evil retro-tasker
and cannot take over the world! Agghh foiled again! LOL
OK Liz, please send me another when you can, and I will try yet another tack.