Remote Viewing RV Oasis / PJRV Discussion list archives. Dojo Psi dot com / info
Remote Viewing info page spacer

The RV Oasis / PJRV Discussion List Archives

Dojo Psi Library, Archival Material, Remote Viewing and Psi

RV Oasis / PJRV List Archives Menu

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 : 543-543 of 4038 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pjrv/messages/543?? ) ?
?1:46:51
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-PJRV_group---------

#543

From: Weatherly-Hawaii...m Date: Wed Aug ?1, ?00? ?:14 am Subject: Fw: Choices in Tasking maliolana > (No, I am not making this up. :-? ) She's enough > fun already, I don't need to be creative too.? ) Ditto Aloha PJ, Well as a reborn pagan...I got a kick out of Pru tasking that!......A little surprised and then a good guffaw! I was 'appalled and indignant' at the 'repressed types' that made such a big deal out of it in the first place... on the tele and in the press...Have they no shame? Sickened is a good word...Like wow...at least he did a heroic job of controlling himself...until the last time and he did not break his word to his wife......Mostly I thought the prurient/holier than thou types... were all so dry and hypocritical ...they were jealous...Is it just us 60's kids?... or what? > How a viewer would respond depends on the viewers, > which she knew and I don't I guess, so I can't > comment on that aspect. Pru attracts younger/broader minded folks apparently... Dare I say...less repressed?...and several of them are on this board......and some of their sessions were fantastic! > Q 1. Are shocking religious and political > targets (I consider anything related to aliens > or religious history related to religion? ) somehow > more ok than sexual targets? Is it the puritanical > thing in our culture that makes this so shocking? A. No...they are not OK for me...No feedback for the esoteric stuff...I would be highly offended at what I consider to be tasking for fairy tales/myths...without my prior consent...and no hope of feedback!...and yes it is the puritanical/ hypocritical thing in our culture...and maybe jealousy... whereas political is all of life...everything is political... and yes it must be undertaken...for it deals with our very lifes breath... > Q What is it in our RV social culture -- and > our individual lives -- that makes one better > or worse than another? A. Perhaps ones world view/or the limitations of same? in concert with emotional/intellectual stability...but not necessarily better...just more effective/beneficial to life... > Q. This is... because of the privacy issue? > (Hey, my taxes paid for that _____. lol.? ) A.This particular sexual incident is hardly personal/nor private ...in our life experience anyway...I heard about it daily... repeatedly!...and that was far more disgusting than any actual sexual episode......If it is in the general publics venue...then it is open target... > Because personally, in terms of eventual > effect on a viewer, I think the former > is vastly more detrimental. It wouldn't be for me...(it well might piss me off!? )but might well be for many others...even destabilizing...for many...that are caught up in rigid & archaic belief systems...unless of course... I got tasked for Mars/Moon/ ancient civilizations or like that... hahah...I am a science fiction freak ya know......and a science efficienado... > Q?. How much does personal moralizing > actually inhibit our ability to proficiently > remote view? A. I imagine it would effect many...especially those that have never considered or read...outside of their own belief system/culture/ethnic group/socio-political paradigm...Even I could well be effected...but not for esoteric or normal healthy sexual reasons... Political/social/ecological/etc...Yes...If I intuited that the tasker was out in left field...in my book anyway......I would be effected... > Q. What if you tune into a wanted criminal > you're searching for and he is in the middle of sex? A. I could handle that ...but ...Or even raping the small child with him? Now this would freak me out!...I have no idea how I would actually react in session...I know it freaks me out in beta(awake? )... > Q. Will a knee-jerk "oh my god! can't > touch that!" belief system actually > prevent one from getting decent target > contact or data in that case? A...Wheww...heavy question ...to which I know not the answer...I guess I would have to experience it to find out...Not looking forward to it...I already am almost for the death penalty for child rapists/killers...and I am totally against that as well!... But if you mean in general...for the typical knee-jerkers...Hell yes it would... > Then I had this psychological backlash, > feeling guilty. To this day, > while I usually get the people in them, > I never seem to get any detail about them > at all, and I honestly think this is a > holdover from my own "moral inhibitions." A. I have not had my moral inhibitions tested in RV yet...I have never spied on anyone(at least not during RV? )haha...But I have in regular life!......The truth will out!... and I did not feel guilt...of course I did not spy in their bedrooms...OK one time...and they were soooo embarrassed...as they should have been!...but I wasn't... While viewing I don't get personal human details usually either...only occasionally...lots of times I only know it is animal...or biological... > Q. 3. If RV could 'improve or save the > world', should there be limits set as > to HOW it could do useful things? A.From and by whom?...Who gets to set the limits and how would they enforce them?...I set my criteria by..."and it cause no harm"...meaning life threatening...literally or quality of...but I have a broad view of most things... > Q.For example, is it okay to RV illegal seal > killing, or toxic waste dumping, or building code > violations, and the persons responsible? > If so, why is it okay - A. It is OK with me...probably even mandatory...because we owe all life respect and nurturance...now...how should that be manifest?...and by whom?...and how long will it take?...Soon I hope... > they are people too - do we define our > ethics by whether we judge the target to > be a 'bad guy' or not? We can't > all wait for the FBI to task us or damn > little will ever get done in this world. A. I am not so sure the FBI are not part of the bad guys...especially lately...what with the new world order and all...Will the real 'bad guys' please stand up? > Can we task our own little groups on targets > that in some way interest us, like that example > -- might the "black market use of RV" in the end > be vastly more productive to getting RV into > use in the world and subtle recognition by more > and more people, than more formal, less controversial > ways of going about something? A. Probably...ethics does come in here...for me anyway... but who's to say that a particular RVer has good ethics or not?...PSI has always been around and so have the 'bad guys'...at least in our history...and good people do differ on exactly 'who' the bad guys actually are...and exactly what is appropriate...Should we take a consensus?... or what? > Q.4. How does our choice in taskers > determine our path as viewers? Might > the radical, controversial taskings, > despite their shock value, produce viewers > with a degree of experience that has value > to their skill? Or would all people be > 'traumatized' and damaged or something? A.I intuit that it takes all kinds and the strong will survive...I am very concerned about the mindset of any tasker I would get...of course I have not had one as yet...so I guess I have no right to answer this...but that issue does worry me!...I worry about their mind-sets ... and/or limitations there of... I worry about a lot of peoples mindsets......especially those in power...and carrying the weapons... I do intuit that the more interesting/compelling/ meaningful the targets...the better the hit...or at least the more adventure... I'm interested in any serious thoughts about these topics you guys might have, whatever they might be. > Gotta go. Gotta make chicken for dinner. LOL. UMMMM...sounds good...Now I am hungry!...All this RV talk makes me hungry...hahah...I gotta go eat now... Aloha... Love & Light & Laughter Mali'o...aka...Dawna pjrv : Messages : 53?-56? of 4038
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pjrv/messages/53??? ) ?
?1:47:59
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-PJRV_group---------

#53?

Date: Tue Aug ?0, ?00? 6:07 pm Subject: Choices in Tasking dennanm I won't normally put 'temporal' or 'field politics' stuff on the list, but this time a current event has actually brought to mind questions I'd like to hear RV Oasis members thoughts on. Serious thoughts here -- discussion from real viewers. Not just armchair moralizing, that's so easy (and so overdone everywhere else!? ). Pru Calabrese posted an article on her Psychic Spy website called 'Tastes Like Chicken' -- about a class tasked with remote viewing Bill Clinton's penis (or I believe it was, the experience of Monica and Bill's first sexual encounter, which amounts to the same thing apparently? ). (No, I am not making this up. :-? ) She's enough fun already, I don't need to be creative too.? ) Well it's been there for awhile, but it just recently (thanks to some backend gossip? ) got attention in the otherwise mostly dull and quiet layman's field of late, and now it is the latest topic, not only on the occasional board but in my PEM box as well. Not surprisingly, the response is 'appalled' and 'indignant'. Actually I sometimes think this field seems to have a pretty limited range of emotions and those are two of the main ones. If it weren't for occasional outrage you'd have to shake half the this field to be sure everyone's still alive. I guess I'm downright politically incorrect for finding it tasteless, shocking -- but funny as hell. And hey, at least it DID have feedback. How a viewer would respond depends on the viewers, which she knew and I don't I guess, so I can't comment on that aspect. Half the targets tasked by various trainers over the years are things like, your own death, the lifespan of the guy training next to you, the aliens heading for earth to kill us, the galactic hall, jesus christ, and a variety of other targets that (a? ) can create PROFOUND cognitive dissonance in a viewer and seriously screw them up psychologically, and (b? ) often have no feedback whatever. Now that's training, which is one thing; there's always the separate and equally relevant issues for us as viewers, period, whatever skill level we might be in. You go around the internet, you see targets with no feedback all over the place. So, my questions are these: 1. Are shocking religious and political targets (I consider anything related to aliens or religious history related to religion? ) somehow more ok than sexual targets? Is it the puritanical thing in our culture that makes this so shocking? Or are they all totally off-limits? If they all are, then why aren't a long list of 'trainers' picked on weekly for that kind of stuff, rather than just suddenly this trainer? What is it in our RV social culture -- and our individual lives -- that makes one better or worse than another? Having your lifetime of spiritual beliefs blown away by a target that infers something other than your church teaches, is more common in the field than perceiving any aspect of sex. This is... because of the privacy issue? (Hey, my taxes paid for that _____. lol.? ) Because personally, in terms of eventual effect on a viewer, I think the former is vastly more detrimental. ?. How much does personal moralizing actually inhibit our ability to proficiently remote view? What if you tune into a wanted criminal you're searching for and he is in the middle of sex? Or even raping the small child with him? Will a knee-jerk "oh my god! can't touch that!" belief system actually prevent one from getting decent target contact or data in that case? I once went through a phase where I was tuning into people, particularly a friend of mine, in the sheer delight that at least for that time, it was working really well with the slightest intention. Then I had this psychological backlash, feeling guilty. Remembering how, when I got to know this one viewer, I was neurotic for awhile. You know, like what if he tunes into me while I am in the bathroom or doing something that I just do not wanna share with others. ;-? ) I finally had to figure, if he was that good, he'd better have developed understanding about such things, and I'd just have to let go of that. So I realized suddenly that here I was, just tuning into anybody I felt like, without any concern for THEIR privacy. I felt really bad about it. And instantly I was lousy at targets with people. To this day, while I usually get the people in them, I never seem to get any detail about them at all, and I honestly think this is a holdover from my own "moral inhibitions." 3. If RV could 'improve or save the world', should there be limits set as to HOW it could do useful things? For example, is it okay to RV illegal seal killing, or toxic waste dumping, or building code violations, and the persons responsible? If so, why is it okay - they are people too - do we define our ethics by whether we judge the target to be a 'bad guy' or not? (Because you know, that is how everything up to genocide is rationalized.? ) We can't all wait for the FBI to task us or damn little will ever get done in this world. Can we task our own little groups on targets that in some way interest us, like that example -- might the "black market use of RV" in the end be vastly more productive to getting RV into use in the world and subtle recognition by more and more people, than more formal, less controversial ways of going about something? 4. How does our choice in taskers determine our path as viewers? Might the radical, controversial taskings, despite their shock value, produce viewers with a degree of experience that has value to their skill? Or would all people be 'traumatized' and damaged or something? I'm interested in any serious thoughts about these topics you guys might have, whatever they might be. Gotta go. Gotta make chicken for dinner. LOL. PJ

#536

From: "Docrose_??" ----->-- Arlene

#537

Date: Wed Aug ?1, ?00? 1?:1? am Subject: Re: Choices in Tasking dennanm Howdy Arlene! > You wrote: > It has to do with ethics and our opinions of them. Well, we could take that as the focus, but really, ethics is not the "only" focus here, though it comes up instantly as a main one. As individual viewers and as a community -- what DOES define a set of RV ethics? And why, for each tenant? And what kind of tasking is, or is not, appropriate -- or is that even ever a question? Does it depend only on the skill of the viewer, whether it's "private" vs. public, or what? If we can't RV people because it's so deeply unethical, how does one learn to RV people? OK, generic sports photos, whatever -- how come I can RV a target of say, a guy hang gliding -- isn't he a person? Is that hangglider less a 'person' who deserves privacy than a man I met on the internet in my RV group? (I am JUST KIDDING! Not to make every male in the group paranoid or anything, lol!? ) How come, some say I can't RV the current US President but I can RV say, a 1950's photo of the US President? Or you can RV Custer at his last stand but not Schwartzkopf now? If time doesn't really exist, a serious issue in RV, well heck, privacy is just as much an issue in 1950 and for Custer as it is now and for the General isn't it?! What about the future? What if we RV the assumed US President ?0 years from now? Is that equally unethical? Oh, but what if the 'end goal' was to find out if we were in a war, for example, so some person (who knows whom? ) was targeted for that or some "other" indirect reason -- we at least think there will BE a president while we're not sure of anybody else's position -- does that change the ok-ness? How come it's okay to RV a target where someone DIES but not okay to RV a target where someone has sex?? What, dying isn't personal or intimate?! I'm hard pressed to think of anything MORE intimate. Would RV'ing X's birth be a horrible invasion of privacy? It's highly personal to his mother who was naked and bloody and so forth. I'm being devil's advocate just a little, but these are VALID QUESTIONS that thoughtful viewers really ought to have some real discussion about. So, I guess animals don't deserve privacy because they poop openly, is that why nobody has 'morals against' viewing animals? -- even though anybody who's done so ought to know they are sentient creatures with spirit and opinions (though significantly more 'in the moment' than we can generally conceive of? )? What about Dolphins, which are different but potentially MORE conscious than we are? Or do our ethics -- true to Western culture -- ONLY apply to those "like us"? For that matter, for those into the alien thing, is it ok to remote viewing a suspected 'alien' but not a person? If they exist at all, and if they're sentient as some say, do they not deserve privacy? > I'm sure there > have been many distasteful targets done by many, religious, > political, sexual etc. I'm sure even many done by friends or lovers > that shouldn't have been done. Most likely regretted afterwards. I actually meant common targets in training, not that viewers did themselves. But yes, on one's own, it's a whole other story -- and one worth considering as a community as well as individuals. > I suppose we should think twice before thinking too hard Yeah. Never "secretly" fantasize about a psychic. Sigh. Really, I mean damn it, how embarrassing. > But, invading the privacy of > others is ethically wrong. We all agree on that statement, but what constitutes privacy, under what conditions? We can say, "Oh yeah, RV is just like the FBI, you got the constitution, can't do crap without a search warrant, yada yada yada." But hello, see my examples above -- obviously, it is NOT except on the surface. That is 'armchair moralizing' without any in-depth consideration of the unique issues that remote viewers face. I would like to see viewers, especially those who've been doing this to some degree for years, provide their feedback on this. I am genuinely interested in what people think. Is the complete lack of serious discussion about such topics in the last few years online (I read YEARS of archives many months ago when I stopped 'into' the field briefly to see what was up? ) because nobody is really remote viewing? Or everybody just considers the whole topic insanely personal and will not share even an opinion? Or there was no place/group to intelligently discuss such things? Or what? I mean wouldn't you think in a subject that could be complex and intimate, and would have to come face to face with this issue the minute viewers began developing, there would be more in the field at large on the topic? If you are Jane Doe and you are interested in remote viewing, and you have some thoughts about such topics, you can go to a zillion RV websites, and where exactly will you find this addressed with anything more than a professional caveat? We've got about a zillion copies of Joe's ancient sessions and the Big Hoopla of the founding of the gov't program and so on, but where is the current stuff of current viewers, and I don't just mean sessions -- actually a number of sites to provide sessions (HRVG for instance? ) -- but intelligent discussion about obviously viewer-related topics? Well, if we can drag it out and discuss it, the RV Oasis archives will at least have a little something on it. > So, I guess what we are really getting at > here is should we do these viewings > in the name of RV for the > betterment of our society, > such as finding criminals and the such. What defines a criminal? If they're already known to be criminal, the authorities might not need RV help, and might not use it even if they did given the current state of things. If we wait till they're convicted (innocent until 'proven' guilty? ), there isn't a whole helluva lot of need for RV at all. If we do viewing for a DA, gee whiz, the person isn't convicted YET... Does breaking the law make a person criminal, and hence subject to RV without 'ethics' in the way? What if they couldn't possibly be caught without the RV heads-up? So in my original post I talked about people doing stuff like illegally killing animals, illegally dumping toxic waste, illegally forging building specs -- the latter two could kill people, the former is already killing something, anyway -- these are serious, these are illegal, these are desperately watched for by various watchdog groups who could probably use some "black market RV" as I call it to get some leads (they could use their own forms of intell once they had the lead? ). What do people think of the ethics of this sort of thing? RV isn't going to put anybody away after all -- it would point investigators (often layman/political/environ groups, not just PD? ) in a direction. This is one of the most VALUABLE and COMMONLY USED approaches for RV in the StarGate program I am told -- actually pointing more mundane investigative/intell sources in a good direction/concept/place/person to look. This is really what RV has proved itself in bigtime and could be used for even now. If a corporation needs a session targeting the person selling their secrets, that person is certainly not already convicted, the corporation is not a legal authority, and is that person's privacy subject to the criminal clause (if we believe only the convicted or wanted by PD can be viewed? ), or not? We have the government trying to convince everybody RV is useless (ref: CIA/AIR and so on? ), and the mainstream media is worse than useless at presenting only the most crazy or hyped or unrealistic versions of RV or viewers, and the one REAL option that RV MIGHT have to actually get a foot in the door of our "culture", be used for worthwhile things, even generate some money so viewers can do it, is at some point definitely going to come up against the issue of targeting a person(s? ) without 'official PD/Agency tasking'. I think what I call "black market RV" may, in the end, be the only actual saving of RV -- of applications opportunity beyond a few corp gigs and a teeeeeny number of PD who are willing. Like bootleg anything, stuff available OUT of the mainstream often survives and thrives much better than it would IN it when the culture is not ready for that yet. But I think ethics are VERY important, because really bad exposure for RV could end up with legislation against it, which could literally put not just RV and viewers but our entire culture massively back in accomplishment -- and could even do such things as, say, lose us a war we could have won with the tiny but critical help of RV. So who defines RV ethics? The people in the RV field, you would think, would at least have some thoughts on it. PJ

#556

From: "Docrose_??" I suppose we should think twice before thinking too hard Yeah. Never "secretly" fantasize about a psychic. Sigh. Really, I mean damn it, how embarrassing. I see what you mean here, I think. I have never done it secretly though. They either knew about it or didn't mind if it would occur. However, I didn't realize at first that just thinking about something could actually result in the transfer of feelings to another. The guys at work are always teasing me that I can read their minds ;-? ). I just say hell, anybody can read your mind, lol. 7. Is the complete lack of serious discussion about such topics in the last few years online (I read YEARS of archives many months ago when I stopped 'into' the field briefly to see what was up? ) because nobody is really remote viewing? Or everybody just considers the whole topic insanely personal and will not share even an opinion? I think you hit it on the head her PJ. No one really likes to talk about it. When they do, I believe that a lot is keep in restraint, as they don't feel comfortable talking about what they really feel. Some do, but most likely very few. I think not all practice what they preach. Just my opinion. 8. If you are Jane Doe and you are interested in remote viewing, and you have some thoughts about such topics, you can go to a zillion RV websites, and where exactly will you find this addressed with anything more than a professional caveat? We've got about a zillion copies of Joe's ancient sessions and the Big Hoopla of the founding of the gov't program and so on, but where is the current stuff of current viewers, and I don't just mean sessions -- actually a number of sites to provide sessions (HRVG for instance? ) -- but intelligent discussion about obviously viewer-related topics? Agreed. You mentioned when you first started your list up again, that you would like to have guest speakers on "IM" or "Chat" or "Pal Talk" or the such. I thought that was a great idea. You seem to know most of the RV'ers as they were on your old list. Why not try and do this, I think it would be great. I know that most of them are way too busy but ya never know, they might be able to spend a couple of hours. 9. So who defines RV ethics? The people in the RV field, you would think, would at least have some thoughts on it. You would think ;-? ). I think, each individual has to define their own standard of ethics, because some will go by the general rules but most will do as they please. We all know what the difference between right and wrong is now we have to put it into place. These are just my thoughts and I by no means intend to push them on anyone. Thank you all for your time. @}--->---->-- Arlene The edges and boundaries of self are self proscribed. We set them and we move them. Sometimes out of fear, sometimes out of curiosity, but always in accordance with ego. ~ Joseph W. McMoneagle ~

#558

From: "Viv*" Date: Wed Aug ?1, ?00? 10:04 pm Subject: Re: Re: Choices in Tasking eclecticviv > Arlene wrote: > I think, each individual has to > define their own standard of ethics, because some will > go by the general rules but most will do as they > please. We all know what the difference between right > and wrong is now we have to put it into place. Hi Kids: I think Arlene pretty well summed it up. RV behaviour and ethics for the individual, isn't all that different from the behaviour and ethics of an individual, as they go about other aspects of their life. And that's probably the way it will continue to operate. I would like to bring an addition, to the acquiring of information via RV. And that is the acquiring of personal information through psychic means other then RV. there can be times, when one can be going along, singing their song, and wham, they have personal info about someone they know, or don't know, or maybe someone in the media. This info wasn't purposely sought after, or thought about, or even considered, out of idle curiosity, but there it is. I had a discussion with someone a while back, about what one would do with personal info about another, that was literally, in one's face, without seeking that info. It wouldn't be considered invasion of privacy, because there was no deliberate intent to seek that info. IMO, the ethics are the same, and up to the individual. Except, I would also consider the contents of that info, to be the criteria for making the final decision, as to whether one would forget it, or pass the info on. Viv* A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you're talking about real money. ~Everett Dirksen~

#56?

From: "k9caninek9" Date: Wed Aug ?1, ?00? 9:59 pm Subject: Re: Choices in Tasking k9caninek9 PJ asked me to crosspost this from another list because of it's relevence to current discussion here: --- In crvers...caninek9" #549
From: Bill Pendragon Date: Wed Aug ?1, ?00? 1?:38 pm Subject: Re: Choices in Tasking docsavagebill Hi PJ, Well we didn't do that one in Pru's class..but we did do Madonnas greatest sexual experience. I think those who takes Pru's classes are not the type to be shocked by that kind of target. And in fact I was amazed what I came up with ( no pun ..G? ).. but shall not detail it here. However, whole class was dying with laughter at the various sessions read aloud especially Eve's . The people that go to Pru's classes aren't going to be bothered by that kind of thing. Now this might not be good for some public target on the net. But those were private classes by invitation only at Pru's offices and everyone was fairly sophisticated and mature. However, Pru does stay away from tragic or painful targets except for viewers well qualified, and I think thats good. She emphasizes getting all five sences and emotions and thought..so it could be difficult if one were really on target for the wrong target. Also, if your religious beliefs are so fragile that RVing anything will destroy them..well you had best not take up RV, and perhaps ought to take a good look at your beliefs.. IMHO. Best Wishes, Bill pjrv : Messages : 538-585 of 4038
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pjrv/messages/538?? ) ?
?1:50:30
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-PJRV_group---------

#538

From: "Sharon Webb" Date: Wed Aug ?1, ?00? 1?:54 am Subject: Re: Re: Choices in Tasking sharwebb_3051? Hi, Invasion of privacy from RVers? First of all, I think before we can decide if it's unethical, we need to decide if it is possible. I don't think it is. We play a separation game in physical reality. We pretend we do not know what each other does or thinks. And yet the information is out there...and we are all connected. If that last statement isn't true, then how do you rationalize that psi can exist? I believe that the increasing prevalence of psi of all types is an indication that the separation game is winding down and that we are, at last, beginning to wake up to who and what we are AND allowing ourselves to admit to ourselves consciously what we have always known subconsciously---there are no secrets. I also believe that each psyche is inviolate. You can offer energy or healing or what have you, but it is up to the individual as to whether he/she accepts it. In the same manner, you will not be able to breach anyone's psychic space unless he/she is willing, on some level, to allow you in. Sharon sharwebb...t www.fractalus.com/sharon

#539

From: Timelord?0?9... Date: Tue Aug ?0, ?00? 11:05 pm Subject: Re: Re: Choices in Tasking psitrooper?4 Hi Sharon, I agree with your post entirely (and arelene? ) I was gonna stay out of this one as these issues always end up with arguments left right and center. Personaly, Once we all sit down and think about it we soon realise that this privacy issue relating to RV is crap. I mean what are trying to say here? Either you accept RV and its "definition" or you leave it well alone if you have issue with privacy. We are all connected and there are no secrets. Not sure how ethics comes into play here other than creating dodgy karma if you MISUSE it just like any thing else in life & spirit. As a "Pro" RV'er you must be prepared for ANY target good or bad. PS-Note the emphasis on PROFESSIONAL REMOTE VEIWER as it goes without saying some targets should only be done once the rv is ready to handle them. Peace, Tunde -------------------- Moderator's note: Well there are actually a lot of questions more relevant to viewer development and other stuff than just ethics in there... -- PJ

#545

From: Pame #547
From: Karl Boyken #553
From: joan003....net Date: Wed Aug ?1, ?00? 5:36 pm Subject: Re: Re: Choices in Tasking joanie003 <> Hi PJ, Tunde and all... I hear what you are saying and I agree that there really ARE no secrets, have long "bought into" the notion There are no secrets and there are no accidents. I'm also a long time fan of Jane Roberts and the Seth Material :-? ) I think it's a little more complicated however...this is NOT about the fact that we are interconnected and there are no secrets. This is about the issue of what is an ethical choice to make in tasking and further in tasking beginner students in rv and the implications for the choices that we make. Pru already knows I'm not crazy about her particular choice in this matter, but I love and appreciate Pru in so many ways...I think this is just one of those areas in which we will agree to disagree. I don't expect her to agree or approve of all my choices either. And I am also aware that my opinion may be an unpopular one...at least on this list. I think that rvers have the response-ability to uphold and practice ethical principles. This too applies especially to trainers tasking beginning students with targets. Joe McMoneagle has a good chapter on ethics in RV in his book, Remote Viewing Secrets and I resonate with his viewpoints. To me there's not a whole lot of difference between the ethics of the choices that we make whether we are in the physical attention or the psychic attention. If one is willing to stand outside the Oval Office and peep through the window to watch Monika and Bill go at it...then publish an article detailing what was seen, then that's one's prerogative. That kind of thing is written about in the National Enquirer all the time. Personally I wouldn't do that...frankly I wouldn't want any peeping Tom watching me uninvited while I was in ANY intimate moment with a beloved one. There are laws in society that prevent sexual voyeurism and people go to jail for breaking those laws. I agree with those laws and feel they should be upheld. Which brings up another issue - If one would not choose to break the law in physical reality, why would one choose to break the law in psychic reality? Also, I am not a swinging type and I don't get off on voyeurism...that's just me....:-? ) prude that I may be to some others :-? ) O well...To each his or her own - so it's said. I suppose the question I ask myself regarding these issues is: If I want to do it psychically? am I also equally willing to do it in the physical and accept the consequences of my actions impact on others? If yes, then go for it...if no, then don't do it. In this case, I'd have to up front examine the potential impact of my actions on any feelings that Monika and Bill may have about my peeping into their bedroom uninvited and the voyeuristic nature of my activities...(but I don't think they were all that crazy that Linda Tripp and Ken Starr did..:-0? ) So knowing that, I would ask myself why would I then wish to cause further potential pain and humiliation to these two people when they probably don't want me there in the first place.? If one is comfortable with one's answers...then by all means do what one feels compelled to do. The decision for me in this case, would be easy and it would be no. I don't feel the need to exploit others to prove a point..and I would hope that I have a larger imagination to figure out how to make my point in a way that wouldn't potentially hurt or cause harm to others. Now the evil dictator...of the third world country...I may be all for causing him or her extreme pain and humiliation. I don't know. Comes down to choices that we make..and those choices define the kind of persons that we are. I TRULY realize the grave painfully complex issues regarding stressful and life/death operational viewings that may well in fact violate other's privacy as well. I don't have all the answers. I would make choices on a case by case basis and have to trust that my tasker shares a similar value system to mine. In the Spirit, Joanie

#554

From: Weatherly-Hawaii...m Date: Wed Aug ?1, ?00? 3:57 pm Subject: Re: Re: Choices in Tasking maliolana Aloha Pame, Excellant points... >How many believed OJ did it... did you RV it, or psychic it? before his trial? after his trial? Did that amount to an opinion, RV or fact,,, I didn't know about RV educations availability... in those days...I am not much for 'belief' when a persons life is at stake...(I had to fight off my prejudice though...I have a lot of opinions about cheer leaders/football players lifestyles/ culture...really had to work at clearing my mind on this? )...but I did intuit much ... especially during the pre-trial...and I won $?0 bucks in a bet (He refused to bet more darnit!? ) with a person that was convinced of their astuteness...... regarding the final jury verdict(not to mention guilt with little or no time spent on the actual evidence? )... The losing party was mortified... to say the least...hahahah...I rarely bet cash... but I just could not pass this one up! This is one issue that really makes me wonder about many ...who claim to have 'superior gifts'... I was physically quite ill (bed ridden? )...for the duration of this pre-trial and trial...So I observed every possible television observable moment(beginning at 3;00 am in Hawaii...and taped what I would have missed while at the physicians offices and studied them ...even dreamed about it? )...the intuition/psi told me the rest...plus much... much more......I appreciate excellant science as well...great clues...Perfect test for cognitive skills...thinking out of the box... I rarely share this any longer...because so few can handle it...especially in the caucasion community...as well as...justice has been served... It is so sad...Sure glad those 'so convinced' people (that watched new bits only? )...others claiming psychic gifts... weren't the deciding factors...ummmm... back to mindsets...Not to mention levels of broadspectrum education... ...and then...back to mindset... ummmm...bet I have some new enemies now...$?0?...hahah...What the hell!... The truth will out! hahaha > Maybe i should get into sci-fi book writing, i think i just made a good start at it...< I definately agree...If you don't write it... someone else surely will......or if we are very very lucky...It could turn out to be a Herstory book......new paradigm... Love & Light & Laughter Mali'o...aka...Dawna [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

#560

From: "Sharon Webb" Date: Wed Aug ?1, ?00? 8:55 pm Subject: Re: Re: Choices in Tasking sharwebb_3051? Hi, Since the discussion has wandered into ethics, I'm enclosing my favorite view of the subject. Pick your own stage and level. :-? ) Sharon sharwebb...t www.fractalus.com/sharon http://www.xenodochy.org/ex/lists/moraldev.html Stages of Moral Development by Lawrence Kohlberg (1971? ) I. Preconventional Level At this level, the child is responsive to cultural rules and labels of good and bad, right or wrong, but he interprets the labels in terms of either the physical or hedonistic consequences of action (punishment, reward, exchange of favors? ) or the physical power of those who enunciate the rules and labels. The level is divided into the following three stages: Stage 0: Egocentric judgement. The child makes judgements of good on the basis of what he likes and wants or what helps him, and bad on the basis of what he does not like or what hurts him. He has no concept of rules or of obligations to obey or conform independent of his wish. Stage 1: The punishment and obedience orientation. The physical consequences of action determine its goodness or badness regardless of the human meaning or value of these consequences. Avoidance of punishment and unquestioning deference to power are values in their own right, not in terms of respect for an underlying moral order supported by punishment and authority (the latter is stage 4? ). Stage ?: The instrumental relativist orientation. Right action consists of what instrumentally satisfies one's own needs and occasionally the needs of others. Human relations are viewed in terms such as those of the market place. Elements of fairness, reciprocity, and equal sharing are present, but they are always interpreted in a physical, pragmatic way. Reciprocity is a matter of "you scratch my back and I'll scratch your", not loyalty, gratitude, or justice. II. Conventional Level At this level, the individual perceives the maintenance of the expectations of his family, group, or nation as valuable in its own right, regardless of immediate and obvious consequences. The attitude is not only one of conformity to personal expectations and social order, but of loyalty to it, of actively maintaining, supporting, and justifying the order and identifying with the persons or group involved in it. The level consists of the following two stages: Stage 3: The interpersonal concordance or "good boy-nice girl" orientation. Good behavior is what pleases or helps others and is approved by them. There is much conformity to stereotypical images of what is majority or "natural" behavior. Behavior is frequently judged by intention -- "he means well" becomes important for the first time. One earns approval by being "nice". Stage 4: The "law and order" orientation. The individual is oriented toward authority, fixed rules, and the maintenance of the social order. Right behavior consists in doing one's duty, showing respect for authority, and maintaining the given social order for its own sake. III. Post-Conventional, Autonomous, or Principled Level. The individual makes a clear effort to define moral values and principles that have validity and application apart from the authority of the groups of persons holding them and apart from the individual's own identification with the group. The level has the two following stages: Stage 5: The social-contract legalistic orientation (generally with utilitarian overtones? ). Right action tends to be defined in terms of general individual rights and standards that have been critically examined and agreed upon by the whole society. There is a clear awareness of the relativism of personal values and opinions and a corresponding emphasis upon procedural rules for reaching consensus. Aside from what is constitutionally and democratically agreed upon, right action is a matter of personal values and opinions. The result is an emphasis upon the "legal point of view", but with an additional emphasis upon the possibility of changing the law in terms of rational considerations of social utility (rather than freezing it in terms of stage 4 "law and order"? ). Outside the legal realm, free agreement, and contract, is the binding element of obligation. The "official" morality of the American government and Constitution is at this stage. Stage 6: The universal ethical-principle orientation. Right is defined by the decision of conscience in accord with self-chosen ethical principles that appeal to logical comprehensiveness, universality, and consistency. These principles are abstract and ethical (the Golden Rule, the categorical imperative? ); they are not concrete moral rules like the Ten Commandments. At heart, these are universal principles of justice, of the reciprocity and equality of the human rights, and of respect for the dignity of human beings as individual persons. [end]

#561

From: joan003....net Date: Wed Aug ?1, ?00? 9:10 pm Subject: Re: Re: Choices in Tasking joanie003 << Sorry Joanie, I know how strongly you feel about this. But, I believe that each and every person has the right to choose whatever it is they wish to do. I don't always agree with the choices some people make, however I have to defend their right to make them. I, personally would never invade someone in that way. I also realize I couldn't stop someone from doing it to me, at least not to my knowledge. >> Hi Arlene and all... Yes Arlene... I do feel strongly and I just posted up Joe McMoneagle's ethical guidelines regarding privacy issues in remote viewing and psychical work and for which HE apparently feels just as strongly as I do. Well you know how direct and pointed I can be...when I get going so just understand it's just me...I do love ya... Remember that Voyeurism is specifically against the law in many states and where there are not specific laws, there are laws protecting people's privacy with regard to trespass, disorderly conduct, and breach of peace. Do you support people choosing to break the law? :-? ) I don't think you do. Do you defend the rights of people to break the law? I don't think you do. And yet above you say seem to say that you do (even though I don't think you meant to!? ) think about it :-? ) Granted there are some laws that perhaps we ALL would defend the rights of people to break...like in cases of civil disobedience...and yes....I'm sure that there are some remote viewers that due to their belief system in the notion that there are no secrets, that no one has the right to privacy, or that if your psychic space is invaded, you welcomed and allowed it... would like to see these laws banished. I don't agree with these notions, no matter HOW much and to what extent we are "interconnected." If we are to evolve our natural biomindsupers, we must also parallel our use of them by nurturing a true embodiment of our spiritual qualities like compassion and respect, born of a lioness-like protection FOR and in gratitude TOWARDS our fundamental interrelatedness with all subjects of the Universe. In this way of thinking and developing our psi, we are called to acknowledge and truly and deeply EMBODY that the universe is a community of subjects to be respected, not a collection of objects for one's personal toying and unnecessary exploitation. Isn't this what we are moving towards? Isn't this what this paradigm shift is all about? Just because its "remote viewing" doesn't mean that different ethical considerations apply to choices that we would make for our actions in physical reality. However, some people apparently DO think so. This is going to sound trite - but one of us are perfect...we've all gone places and done things that later we may have regretted or felt guilty about. And we've all been "sucked in" to doing things for others that we trusted at times that we probably wished we hadn't. I think that Joe's guidelines are SOLID, SOUND, WISE, ETHICAL, SENSIBLE and GOOD and perhaps should be considered for adoption into an RV code of ethics if there is ever one created. His suggestions/guidelines as he says are merely a STARTING point... I think that there are some things remote viewers shouldn't do even if those things AREN'T against the law....but they are just simply common human decency and the ethics of the heart...and the same kind of ethics practiced in many professions. To task innocent students with something that they wouldn't do in real life I feel is also unethical and the way I see it is why as Pru reported: " All the giggles cease and give way to this realization. The viewers are unusually somber when they leave the hall on this day before the last day of my class." I'd have been feeling pretty somber too, especially it having been a training class. I WOULD have felt "sucked in." no pun intended A serious operational viewing to help solve a crime or stop a criminal is much a different story, a different circumstance, with different intentions....but that comes later, MUCH MUCH later in a viewer's development. I think this has mirrored what you and others have said...I'm not saying anything new - doh. also I'm not meaning to beat up on Pru, though she's probably wicked mad at me by now......the story came out so I see this situation as a springboard for discussing the issues, not beating up on personalities. Pru has in fact, given us a gift in sharing how she tasked that we may have the opportunity to truly contemplate for each and every one of us inside, how we would personally deal with these issues....as it's truly something that seems to be controversial and thus, probably well deserves consideration and dialogue. It's all good and all unfolding as it should, right? One other thing I'll mention...just because this happened, I DO NOT approve of certain people threatening to sic fortune-telling blue laws on rvers and stating that rvers should register and get finger-printed. GIVE US A BREAK . And since this story came out , that is NOW a threat from a lawyer at the Department of Justice. We'd all be better of viewing illicit sexual acts than dealing with the New Inquisition iy yi yi yi yi yi yi. All this entertainment then jail for illicit practice of rv :-( Thanks for posting this and enabling this dialogue PJ. (((sigh? )? )? )...in the Mystery.... joanie

#569

From: "Docrose_??" --- In pjrv...n003...e: > Do you support people choosing to break the > law? :-? ) I don't think you do. Do you defend > the rights of people to break the law? I don't > think you do. > And yet above you say seem to say that you do > (even though I don't think you meant to!? ) > think about it :-? ) Touche', Joanie ;-? ) ............. You're right I don't. Arlene ---------------------- Moderator's note: Well I support the rights of people to choose to break laws. I support free will. No matter what one's situation, no matter the tyranny of environment or the limited set of options available, the one thing every man has an innate right to, is the right of free will. That includes the right to make the wrong decision. Of course, the consequences of them doing so may range from fines, to jail, to death. But, it is their right to make their own decisions and to learn from life (and even death? ) how they will. God, or the Universe, or Chance, or whatever each person wants to consider the Way Of Things, apparently gave our self-aware species that choice. It would be pretty silly of me to think it was my right to take it away from those around me. Of course, it is also my right to shoot someone under defense conditions, or at the very least write them nasty emails. :-? ) PJ

#58?

From: "Docrose_??" #566
From: aeonblue8008... Date: Wed Aug ?1, ?00? 7:13 pm Subject: Re: Re: Choices in Tasking aeonblueau Not gonna paste or quote anyone- but(IMO? ), It's no big deal actually once you get over being yourself and get over others being others .. no big(self? ) deal(importance? ) at all. RV is like balancing a fine line, the line is actually very clean and pure no matter what(where/who? ). If you look/gaze/shift to either side you lose your balance and fall into muck and mire. IMO we are not singular only 'think' we are. Not going to get into it, but shelve your belief systems. or keep'em whatever. Dump them if you want to RV, they will only hinder you(IMO? ) I do and utilize any means or skills I have developed no holds barred and don't think twice about any of it, couldn't care less, and that's about the size of it. RV just comes down to being work, applied work maybe. There are no ethics/moral/cultural/religious... 'thought' police force 'out there' quite the contrary there's nothing but you and all, the all is usually virgin non judgmental territory (albeit highly thought responsive as you think so you are if that makes any sense? ) Judgment tends to be(human? ) an earth or in physical type attribute. You and nothing else cares 'out there',not as I have seen yet.. I've heard hype but not experienced it. Just the kind of viewer I am ... Americans(viewpoints? ) tend to be kind of prudish snobby and loud .. All the best ~~Terri [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

#585

From: Richard Krankoski Date: Thu Aug ??, ?00? 9:16 pm Subject: Re: Re: Choices in Tasking Rich_crv > pj wrote: > How come it's okay to RV a target where someone DIES but not okay to > RV a target where someone has sex?? What, dying isn't personal or > intimate?! I'm hard pressed to think of anything MORE intimate. Has anyone mentioned that Shelley Thompson RVed Clinton's personals a few years ago, mentioned it on stargate, and was uhhh chastized? Don't recall if she RVed the big event or just the tools. Rich

// end archive

Top of Page

Remote Viewing info page spacer

RV Oasis / PJRV List Archives Menu

Dojo Psi Library, Archival Material, Remote Viewing and Psi

The RV Oasis / PJRV Discussion List Archives


Remote Viewing RV Oasis / PJRV Discussion list archives. Dojo Psi dot com / info