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 : 581-581 of 4038


From: "k9caninek9" Date: Thu Aug 22, 2002 8:23 pm Subject: Speaking of targeting issues... k9caninek9 Offline Offline Send Email Send Email Invite to Yahoo! 360 Invite to Yahoo! 360 Yeah, I have used the PJRV targets interspersed with other sources. Speaking of the devil, I think people should be warned that some of those targets for this list are IMO not anything that any beginner should use. Some are fine but others are the type of target that some trainers might not ever give to a student and never to a person that they didn't personally know very well, due to negative content. Now I realize I am sounding all judgemental on this issue and I don't really want it to come out that way. But I do think people that are considering using them should realize that the term 'advanced target' in this case can mean 'horrible and gruesome.' Maybe people could PEM PJ for a list of the few that they might want to avoid. I haven't done all the targets yet so I don't know what's on all of them yet either. -E -------------------------- Moderator's note: See my response post on this. -- PJ pjrv : Messages : 583-583 of 4038


From: "dennanm" Date: Thu Aug 22, 2002 9:14 pm Subject: Re: Speaking of Targeting Issues. dennanm Offline Offline Send Email Send Email The introduction to this list which members are expected to read says about targets: "I offer tasking for psychic practice, but much of this is not for beginners. At best, many such targets may offer little data for one in an introductory phase. At worst, they may be confusing or deeply upsetting." The primary firedocs target page says: "These are not for beginners. Many of these are intermediate to advanced targets. Introductory targets are selected with different things in mind, and advanced targets may be more unusual, abstract, symbolic (or grim)." I do not task a bunch of gross or weird. My goal is certainly not to traumatize. But past the 'beginner' stage, at some point, a person is going to have to have a target that in some way may relate to violence or crime, or war or death, or deep sadness about humanity or a situation. Experience is part of development. There is only one target in those currently up on firedocs that has anything disturbing about it in my view -- and it is a very mild one compared to some stuff in my pool, I was being gentle as these are for a group of others. In fact, for any who would like to NOT view this target, I will as of now take it out of the 'blind' pool by giving you the target number. You can look at the feedback just as a photo, and know to avoid that # and everyone can use the others. I kinda feel like you've made everybody think the target pool on firedocs is gross and terrifying or something Eva, so, I think list members should just look at the one "shocking" target and know that it's around the worst they are likely to get for 'impact' of feedback. There is no blood or anything horrible. It is a b&w historical photo of a civil war sharpshooter who was killed. http://www.firedocs.com/remoteviewing/PJRV/2002_07_wk1_07July- 15July/pjrv_rvt006.html (wrap this whole URL together) I left the photo really large because being b&w and grainy, it's hard to see any detail otherwise, and there's not too much in the environ, so what little is there I wanted to be clear for feedback. That is not a beginner's target by any means. But your comment > realize that the term 'advanced target' > in this case can mean 'horrible and gruesome.' I consider car crashes, dead kids, anything with blood or guts or pieces or deterioration, to be horrible and gruesome. I consider an old photo of a dead soldier to be potentially disturbing, but not outside the range of what an intermediate to advanced viewer ought to be able to handle. Those who do not want anything that may contain -- or infer, or be the aftermath of -- violence, disaster, death, or tragic life situations, should not be using this pool. Even though such things are by FAR the LEAST in quantity of what's posted. In each 'group' that I've made up of regular RV targets (one exists that isn't online yet), I've tried to put an extremely wide variety of things. So every group is a good range of stuff for viewer experience. From simple gestalts to complex conceptuals, from offbeat stuff to very practical basic targets, from cool anomalies, history, technology, archeology, nature, memorable events of the last century, social and other events, macro, micro, representational, et al. The larger target pool contains everything from people, events, animals, documents, every possible manmade thing, situations, etc. Much of my target pool was hunted down on the web and the national and international photography awards for the last century were fantastic sources. And some war targets, those tend to be a bit grim, but I wouldn't post anything "gross". Some of those are news pics and are grim or at least very emotional. But the stuff posted on Firedocs is not horrifying IMO. I wouldn't task stuff I thought would freak people out. This list is not for beginners, and I have two clear warnings about the targets, both prior to joining and on the main target page. I can't be any more explicit than that, without giving everybody major AOL that every target is going to be frightening or something, which they're not. A target I did myself recently was a photo of a search helicopter with the floodlight in the night, two rescue workers were visible in the light, ref the Swissair plane crash. But that was it in the feedback. I got the data for some kind of fire or explosion or disaster, probably people dead, emergency sirens, and various stuff about the copter including the sense of flying in it and the sound. Another viewer could have chosen on some level to experience the actual plane crash itself, like as a passenger (after all, my target was not actually the plane but I got that data), and have been totally wigged out about it. I consider much of viewer experience self-designated by psychology, though not consciously. If I should happen to task a target where, for example, someone is dead, (a) the feedback would NOT be gruesome (apart from the issue of deadness...) and (b) technically, the target is a body. Not a really gross body, just a body. Half the viewers I know want to help find lost children. Well most stranger-kidnapped children are bodies, not kids... this is a target operational viewers may occasionally come across, so the kind of target - and mine are probably much 'cleaner' and less horrifying than the real world, I am sure - that viewers with some skill might want to once in a great while encounter. Personally I would like to be able to tell the gestalts "alive" and "dead" from each other as a fairly basic skill just past the more traditional gestalts. Short of doing targets where on occasion something or someone is dead, I'm unlikely to develop that skill. Now a viewer could describe the feedback, and just get a body, and maybe the situation or time period or environment. Or the viewer could experience the entire process of how that person died. I do not believe any tasker can "control" what a viewer does NOT experience -- it is a miracle enough when taskers successfully control what a viewer DOES experience -- I can only task on the moment of feedback photograph being "the target", and choose feedback photos that even when occasionally on a difficult subject, are as far from disgusting as possible. Of course, this ties into the other thread about 'tasking', which was taken to be 'ethics' but I just consider tasking issues. I made it as clear as I could in two major places that the nature of the targets could be difficult. There is not much else I can say without giving massive AOL about the pool at large. PJ

// end archive

Top of Page