pjrv : Messages : 1491-1496 of 4038
#1491 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
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?
Reply | Forward
#1496 From: "Nita Hickok"
Date: Sat Nov 23, 2002 4:17 pm
Subject: Re: "Reasons" for Data nitahickok
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
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.