pjrv : Messages : 3945-3950 of 4038
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pjrv/messages/3945?)
2006/07/01 16:21:15

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-PJRV_group---------

#3945
 	From: "Jon Knowles" 
Date: Thu Apr 1, 2004 11:19 pm
Subject: Gallery si, Mercy Street no 	jonknowles8
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°
  	  	

Hi PJ,

?I like the Gallery idea and agree it could be useful in providing some
<> practice
for people who would like to develop their skills. I think posting the
guidelines by which
the Gallery is to be run (if this hasn't already been done) and getting
feedback would be
a good step, and then post the revised guidelines and open it up.

You and TKR have tried to accommodate pretty much all known perspectives in
the Gallery, a
very difficult task in this field! But regardless of how it is set up, the
Gallery may receive
criticism from various quarters. There are many opinions in the field as to
how to
structure practice sessions, as well as operational sessions, and opinions
vary on
practices to avoid. However, the way it looks to me is that no one group or
technique
has gained ascendancy with a demonstrated method and practice. The field is
still
developing and in ferment. As such, experimentation such as this should be
welcomed,
especially since it is part of an effort to help develop ties in the
community and build it.

With regards to the 'mercy street' taskings, though, I agree this would
open a "can of
worms". One concern is that, in the extreme case, unscrupulous people bent
on
discrediting RV and/or TKR/you, might find this a suitable target. Despite
any and all
disclaimers, attacks and charges (including legal) could be made. This
could also be
the case with the Gallery itself, but these taskings are more vulnerable,
it seems to me.
A recipient of "raw data" could act on the data and negative consequences
could result
such as psychological injury/trauma, loss of money or reputation, or worse.
This in itself
is a powerful argument not to open up the mercy street taskings. Or such
consequences could be alleged and publicized. And we see how the mainstream
media
functions today where image/ impression/spin are all, and getting at the
truth often
requires going outside it. Lawsuits with no genuine basis in fact can tie
up an individual,
organization or movement for years, which is why they are filed. This may
not seem that
likely now, but if and when the field gains more currency and legitimacy,
then those who
don't want it to develop, for whatever reason, would have this as an attack
venue. Of
course there are other targets in the RV field, plenty of them. But not TKR
on this issue,
so far.

Another concern is that giving people raw data without any interpretation
is problematic
from a "technical" point of view. Analysis is vital. Knowing your viewer is
vital to fully
meaningful interpretation of the data. Team effort gets the best results
(notwithstanding
the successes of Ingo and Joe McM.) Who knows what recipients with little
or no
knowledge of RV will make of this raw data? Although some people in the
field are
silent about it, some data is symbolic (in my experience, it routinely
appears in
sessions). All agree that some data is literal. I believe some data is both
literal and
symbolic at the same time. Then we have conceptual data. There is no agreed
on
taxonomy of data. Analysis of the data is a skill that takes time to
develop. Giving
people raw data absent all the above factors is asking for trouble, it
seems to me - for
them and potentially for RV itself.

So I would favor opening up the Gallery for practice objectives (which are
very valuable in
its own right) but not opening up "mercy street".

Jon

Reply | Forward
	
#3947
 	From: "Glyn" 
Date: Fri Apr 2, 2004 12:06 pm
Subject: RE: Gallery si, Mercy Street no 	glynis5799
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°
  	  	

Hello PJ,

> Jon said...
>  With regards to the 'mercy street' taskings, though,
> I agree this would open a "can of worms".

I agree absolutely with what Jon says, including his concerns about analysis.

> So I would favor opening up the Gallery for practice objectives
> (which are very valuable in its own right) but not opening up
> "mercy street".

I second that.

'Mercy Street' is a wonderful thought...maybe some time in the future when the
rest of it is off the ground, and the 'way' is clearer.

Ultimately though it is up to you of course.

Kind regards,
Glyn

--------------
Thanks Glyn. I've been thinking about this for awhile. I have responses and
comments to Jon's post but haven't finished them yet, will post later.  I happen
to share all of these concerns, which is why I have been ambivalent to begin
with of course (if I didn't share them, I'd just have done it as planned all
along and never brought it up).  Yet facing the concerns from someone else has
made me able to think about the other side a bit more.  And it may also be that
nobody applies; or the people who apply, don't have the kind of questions we're
willing to take on; so even if we opened it, it might not really get used...
it's hard to say.  I am leaving this issue open for at least another week to
hear as many people as possible on it, and I have asked several people I know
who actually operate an RV business for the public for their private thoughts as
well.  It is still undecided.  Thanks again.  Best regards, PJ

Reply | Forward
	
#3948
 	From: "pjgaenir" 
Date: Fri Apr 2, 2004 1:45 pm
Subject: (Guidelines) Re: Gallery si, Mercy Street no 	pjgaenir
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°
  	  	

Howdy Jon,

Thanks for the thoughtful and multi-point response, I appreciate it.

Some of your points apply to RV field-wide, not just this project, and as such
are doubly valuable to address.

As there are many diff points to respond to, I'm breaking this into
three separate topic emails.


~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-PJRV_group--------------------

Re: You mentioned Galleries Guidelines

> I think posting the guidelines by which
> the Gallery is to be run (if this hasn't
> already been done) and getting feedback would be
> a good step, and then post the revised
> guidelines and open it up.

Each Gallery has an info page. As the system is automated, ~anything the system
lets you do you can. There's a lot more to say about options than rules...there
aren't many rules outside typical online membership stuff. There's a Q&A/FAQ in
each gallery for questions.

Most "Guidelines" are either already built into the programming or aren't up for
debate. How things work had to be decided prior to beginning it all.

As for management, folks in this field don't agree on anything, so while the
project is free and open to everybody it's not a democracy. Its base rests on my
"founding intent" and detail rests on the leeway found within the path of that
intent, and how the staff running the project feel about the details.

Guidelines always stem from intent. I'm not waiting til everybody agrees and
approves... basics have been run past a ton of people on the backend already.
There is 'something' for everybody, but not everything there is. That's
impossible, there are so many different approaches.  So, if someone wishes some
aspect were diff, they can let us know, and if we think it's workable we'll add
that option in.  That kind of stuff can shake itself out over time I think.

> There are many opinions in the field as to how to
> structure practice sessions, as well as operational
> sessions, and opinions vary on practices to avoid.

Aaack. A perfect example of Core Intent drives Guidelines.

It's not just built to allow all methods of RV (and dowsing) but all kinds of
psi too, done in an RV protocol (abbrev as d-blind w/FB where possible).

So it's _nobody's business_ how anybody else structures sessions, or what
practices they engage in when they do.

It certainly isn't OUR business how people get info. That kind of thing is not
in the scope of any "set of tools" to dictate to anybody.  We couldn't support
all viewers and all psi if any such parameters were put on things.

(We do NOT do training. TKR is about tools-info-community only.)

As far as tasking goes, practice is generic.  The Missions Gallery will have
several diff people tasking, their own ways, so sometimes we'll like the
approach, or not... we'll learn from that. Then we'll gripe about it on the MBC
thread for that tasking.  Missions is an area where the diversity in the field
is all pouring into one place, not just for viewing but tasking too.  If people
don't want to deal with that, they can stick with practice.

> The field is still developing and in ferment.

Especially ferment. LOL! :-)

> As such, experimentation such as this should be welcomed,
> especially since it is part of an effort to help develop
> ties in the community and build it.

I agree of course, and I'm glad you support the idea. I feel the strength of the
field and its future requires some degree of community, somewhere.

As we are not competing for training monies, nor operational monies,
nor clout as experts, there is nothing overtly offensive about the
project. Free tools. Diff viewers from all over helping run it 'cause
it's a good cause. How bad can it be?  It'd take a major personal
problem on anybody's part to pick on it, and I think that'd be
obvious to anybody in the field who sees such a response.  So I expect that
enough serious viewers will appreciate the existence of something free and
useful for viewers, to help weigh against any critique on the details.

Best regards!
PJ

Reply | Forward
	
#3949
 	From: "pjgaenir" 
Date: Fri Apr 2, 2004 1:46 pm
Subject: (Team Analysis) Re: Gallery si, Mercy Street no 	pjgaenir
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°
  	  	

Howdy Jon,

-----------

Re: You mentioned team analysis

> Another concern is that giving people raw data without
> any interpretation is problematic from a "technical"
> point of view. Analysis is vital.

Yes, I agree. But there is no open evidence that anybody in this field is really
competent let alone good at RV analysis (although 'data-matching' and
'interpretative analysis', anybody can put their hand to).  Everyone is
re-inventing the wheel in this area and doing their own thing.

If we DID analysis we'd have the argument about which of 101 opinions in the
field on that topic should be the one used!  And then if we picked someone to do
analysis, they'd be going, "OK now, everybody needs to use the same method to
make this workable!" -- which is the opposite of the whole point of TKR to begin
with.

> Knowing your viewer is vital to fully meaningful interpretation of
the data. Team effort gets the best results

Yep, I agree.  But "fully meaningful" and "best results" does not
preclude getting ANY meaning or SOME results without it.

Sure, more confusion, too.  But one chance in a million of it being
useful, is one more chance than the recipient had without it.

The recipients would be fully aware that it's an entry-level group and likely to
have a lot of wrong and just plain confusing stuff involved.  Taskings that are
"large potentials" for harm wouldn't be cases to begin with.

> Who knows what recipients with little or no
> knowledge of RV will make of this raw data?

That can never be controlled.  Not with a team, even.  Not with a
paying client, even.  You can work to educate the client, you can
work to filter out the type of taskings with large potential for
harm. Aside from that, one simply cannot control or even predict
every other person and possible circumstance.

So, you're right, it's a risk.  But little is accomplished in life
without some degree of risk.

> Although some people in the field are silent about it,
> some data is symbolic (in my experience, it routinely
> appears in sessions).

We've had talk about symbolic data on this list, going way back.  I agree that
Symbolic data taken literally is wildly wrong, and the recipient will not know
what is symbolic, and they will have to deal with that.  Symbolic data seems to
be (my opinion only) an indicator the viewer couldn't get the
concept-translation along the with symbol, or they'd know it was symbolic and
what it meant when they got it.  If the viewer doesn't get it during session,
it's a
helluva analytic+psi stretch for anybody else to anyway (though FB helps lol).

I agree an analytic team would see more benefit from this type of
data that appears in sessions, than a clueless client would, who not
only won't benefit but will likely just be confused by it.  Well,
it's a bummer.  Life's hard.  This is, in effect, a fun viewer
project which is bottom of the barrell for the clients, because it
allows novice viewers, there is no one methodology required, and
there is no analytic team. So it does not represent RV's potential;
but since it's a nifty project for viewers, we offer it.  Potential
clients are told that up front. If they are still so out of other
options that they want to try it anyway, well, I figure that's their
choice.

In the end I don't want to make decisions for the whole world, that nobody
should be given it because it isn't as good as it could be.  It's not.  But
maybe on occasion it'll be good enough.  I figure only time would tell.

You've voiced my own concerns Jon.  So it's been really useful to me,
to have them from someone else, so I can play the opposite debate
role with myself. ;-)

I really, really appreciate your input, and having the courage to post it
publicly as well.

PJ

Reply | Forward
	
#3950
 	From: "pjgaenir" 
Date: Fri Apr 2, 2004 1:47 pm
Subject: (Vulnerability) Re: Gallery si, Mercy Street no 	pjgaenir
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°
  	  	

Howdy Jon,

--------------------------------

Re: You mentioned vulnerability to critique and attack

> regardless of how it is set up, the Gallery may receive
> criticism from various quarters.

Yeah, I imagine it will, and that a few folks will be in there quick looking for
ANY tiny thing they can find to rant about. Oh well. :-)

I think I'm knowledgeable enough about remote viewing science and methodologies
"in general" that the primary people with clout in this field for criticism are
unlikely to have much to engage.  We are not claiming training or science. We
are merely a toolset and community. I expect the most experienced and expert
viewers in the field are going to really like it. Even if they don't have
time/need for it themselves, I think plenty will appreciate it exists--and how
cool it might have been if it existed when they'd just begun in all this.

There are of course, people with little clout in RV but strident voices, who
will attack much anything and anybody, because that is their nature.  I'm sure
anybody looking hard enough will find SOMETHING to stalk. But, I can't fix the
personal problems of anybody else. I can remain aware of them, but I'll not base
serious decisions solely on them.

I have worked to take such things into consideration as part of planning. For
example, getting an advanced target, a Missions Gallery target, or being part of
the Mercy Street viewers, is such a pain in the butt to get to the FIRST time,
that it'll be a miracle if we get many people very fast, as there
are lots of different things to read, write some comments about (so it's
recorded by the system with their IP for posterity), etc.  I think most viewers
will understand why this is necessary; why we can't, for example, offer advanced
targets that may have violence/death, without requiring a multi-step serious
effort be made by people to "hunt down and get them"--we don't just hand them
out automatically.  That is a big help legally.

This can't entirely prevent folks wanting to sue for trauma or wrong data, but
it can go a way toward it, since enough info/warnings combined with project and
me having no profit to TAKE means even PI attorneys aren't going to care.

> With regards to the 'mercy street' taskings, though,
> I agree this would open a "can of worms". One concern is
> that, in the extreme case, unscrupulous people bent on
> discrediting RV and/or TKR/you, might find this a suitable
> target.

Scoffers might love to try something like this, and then claim that the info was
wrong, or there was no target, or whatever, typical stuff scoffers do. 
Hopefully, a multi-step, personal contact and rather laborious process of
getting something to case status would cut down on the quantity of this.

The reality is that NO RV group, including all those which already exist, can
'prove' something exists if the police themselves aren't asking, and we wouldn't
be doing anything super serious there (not appropriate for entry-level,
non-analytic-group viewing).

I guess it's possible a few rare people in the RV field might try something to
discredit TKR. Which would be a little torqued, given it's free and open to them
and their viewers too, but that doesn't mean nobody'd think of it. (Plenty of
people destroy the parks in their own communities, for example.) But I guess if
so, we'd just have to deal with that when the time came.

I think enough viewers are getting sick of the political BS and bad behavior
toward others in this field that they're not buying into it anymore and are
seeing it for what it is.

It's also possible a tiny number of people who cause trouble in the field just
for the hell of it, might try something just to discredit me personally. But
this has to be about what is good for the core intent and project, not me.

The factors weighing against it, would need to be things that affect
the viewers, or affect TKR.

> Despite any and all disclaimers, attacks and charges
> (including legal) could be made. This could also be the
> case with the Gallery itself, but these taskings are more
> vulnerable, it seems to me. [...] Lawsuits with no genuine
> basis in fact can tie up an individual, organization or
> movement for years, which is why they are filed.

Yes, you're right.

Truly, you know, the RV field is a walking example of the fact that
RI has serious limits, or several people in the field would no longer
be walking around. ;-)

As for the lawsuits thing, people who behave this way for the sheer
evil delight of it serve no purpose to our species. Since I'm not an
assassin though, I'll just have to deal with it like every other
mortal: take it into consideration, do everything I can to avoid the
situation, be as prompt and honorable as possible in dealing with any
such complaints, and hire Guido if all else fails.

I'm just kidding.  I think.

Since there is no funding for psi science right now, and that's ignored by
scoffers anyway, the only actual evidence for psi will have to come in the way
of real world applications.  No, I don't actually expect that an entry-level
project like we're discussing is going to provide much of that. But the
experimenting by doing and psyche interest involved could contribute to viewer
development, and they might as a result eventually be part of providing that.

If we can't study it scientifically 'cause The Science Elders prohibit funding,
AND we can't study it in school 'cause gov't-academia has deemed it forbidden;
and if we can't do it in the layman's field in an applications sense no matter
how small, 'cause someone might get mad or try to foil our plans;

Then... what?  We take up knitting instead?  We resign ourselves to
viewing pictures till we die 'cause anything else might make someone mad? There
might be problems, challenges, even dead ends.  But sometime-somewhere, someone
has to be proactive, make the effort. As the saying goes, you can't steal second
with one foot on first.

> Of course there are other targets in the RV field,
> plenty of them. But not TKR on this issue, so far.

Right.

I think any person, and any project, who does pretty much anything of
note in this field, is going to have detractors. Whether they're
scoffers from outside the field, or the few free-radical-scavengers
inside the field, or other viewers with different ideas, that's life.

I realize that 'detractors' and 'stalkers' are two different things.
But, what can be done... I feel like it isn't fair to be too afraid to try. If
we try, and run into some insurmountable problem, then we'll know.  The field at
large will learn from our experience.

> This in itself is a powerful argument not to
> open up the mercy street taskings. Or such
> consequences could be alleged and publicized.

They could be.  And that is a strong argument weighing against the
positives of the idea.

On the other hand, if we base our viewing and our personal work on
what non-viewers or people hostile to viewers demand or how they act,
then we are not really living our own lives. We are living in the
shadow of their tyrant ways.  I don't know that I can do that.  (I
grew up under tyrants; as an adult, I can't be that imprisoned.)  I
have to feel, in my life, that I am doing the best I can within the
situations I have and that my decisions are based on what I feel is
right, just and true--not on how worried I am that some psycho will
try to sue me, just to ruin RV, and TKR, and me.

The only actual issue with lawsuit would be TKR's operation. At this
point, due to a snowball of issues that all hit in the year 2000, the
IRS pretty much has claim on every dime I make until I die. Nobody
else will ever--ever--see a penny of it. Including me.  So I am not
actually real concerned about someone suing me, especially since few
attorneys will bother with a zero-dollar case.  I am more concerned
about harrassment to RV-TKR, one via the other.

Besides.  The last eight years has seen *so much* horrible stuff on
the radio, on websites, including public projects and predictions and
stuff that really DID mess up people's lives... TKR is not only
innocent by nature, but comparatively is nearing sainthood.  If all
the lies and lousy intentions and hoaxes and libel/slander and more,
over the last 8 years, has not done RV in already, then I tend to
doubt that--even if challenged--this good-faith free toolset for RV,
even with a non-crisis RV project is going to destroy it.

Although such negatives are real in our world and in our field, I
can't expect the worst. I've thought about this a lot overnight. I
think, I have to expect the best, and deal with the worst. If I don't
expect the best, I think I set a lot of reality-experience up for
myself and the project.

As founder and driving intent, I have to have faith. Faith that a lot of people
will like it, that it will eventually be well used and appreciated, and that
despite any issues that may arise from time to time, things will be fine and it
will be a good thing for RV and for viewers.

Fortunately I have realists to give me feedback though. ;-)

PJ