Topic [273] RV in the real world TKR Remote Viewing Forum March 2004

It is the intent of the Dojo Psi that the living-history of remote viewing's development in the public sector not be erased, revised, or otherwise lost to the vagaries of time. In this spirit, the dojo encourages, promotes, hosts and develops archives of online Remote Viewing activity. [Caveats] For current discussion on remote viewing, click the logo at the top of the page to visit TKR's big Remote Viewing Discussion Forum directly.

wizopeva, somewhere around March 1, 2004

I have become intrigued with something PJ said on a previous thread.  She mentioned that in target practice, most targets are physical objects and this can lead to viewers assuming all targets will be physical in nature.  Beyond that, I see that many rv projects focus on either esoterics that can't be verified or on physical search type attempts.  This is interesting because really rv is not as well suited to location finding because many locations look very similar to many other locations.  

So what about all the other things rv might be good for.  How about employee screening, stock market trends, finding out why some gadget won't work, etc.  What other things is rv good for?  For those of you in business, if you had an rver as an employee, what kinds of probs would you like him/her to help you with?  For employees, what kinds of probs do you think your employer would be best served to use rv for?  What kinds of screwups could have been avoided?  What kinds of probs are on the plate right now with a big question mark on them?
-E

Scott_Ellis, somewhere around March 1, 2004

Well finding a good use for RV is really quite the holy grail isn't it?  If there were a reliably good use for it in business, then funding research in RV wouldn't be a problem.   ARV fits the bill wonderfully, except that you can't depend on it.  

Unfortunately, the only answer for me thus far is that it's so strange that I want to understand what it is, how it works, etc.

Scott

Member#247, somewhere around March 4, 2004

A highly skilled remote viewer can choose a target and view what they are currently doing.

Do you not see the value in that? Or are you unable to do that?

Scott_Ellis, somewhere around March 4, 2004

Member 247 wrote:
A highly skilled remote viewer can choose a target and view what they are currently doing.

Do you not see the value in that? Or are you unable to do that?

Scott Responds:
I'm certainly not able to do that to anywhere near the degree necessary to make it of value, at least not as an individual viewer, on a regular basis.  From what I've seen, very, very few are.  

That's a pretty antagonistic posting on your part.  And based on the tone of your comment I'm confident that 1) you can't or haven't, 2) you have not seen a representative cross-section of RV sessions by highly skilled viewers, and 3) you've bought into the false hype which includes that RV is close to 100% accurate by properly trained viewers.   How's that for accuracy?

If there were so much tangible value in RV then all the people teaching RV wouldn't need to because they'd be rich from DOING RV.  If they wanted to share their knowledge about RV for the betterment of humankind they wouldn't have to charge for it because they'd already be wealthy.

I think RV is a completely worthwhile endeavor for its own sake.  The VALUE in doing RV at this point in time comes from doing it and thus knowing that it is real.  If you come up with a way for a typically highly skilled remote viewer to make a living DOING RV I'll be the first in line - I'm trying to find one too.  But first you have to know what to expect from RV.

Scott

kboyken, somewhere around March 5, 2004

This brings to mind something I read in Skip Atwater's book _Captain of My Ship, Master of My Soul_.  If I remember right, somewhere in the book, Skip says that it would be great if college or high school students all took a course in RV, the benefit being that it would expand their concepts about reality and their own selves.  Since very few people are likely to take up RV as a career, this educational use of RV would probably have the broadest impact upon the population.

Karl

EricT, somewhere around March 5, 2004

[quote]A highly skilled remote viewer can choose a target and view what they are currently doing.

Do you not see the value in that? Or are you unable to do that?[/quote]

Thats definately trolling.  Theres been enough of that on the boards of late.  Keep it nice people, or watch your posts get moved into the flame archive section.

Also what "they" are doing suggest spying on others, and I for one think thats just spooky and somewhat threatening.

There aint no reason to have attitude here- were all here to learn.

IF, that was not the intention and the above was just poorly worded, then you have my apologies.  

Play nice kids.

EricT

Fire, somewhere around March 5, 2004

RV is used successfully in business applications.  But privately; viewers don't advertise their work nor do companies advertise their sources (I can see it now--"our CEO has sold his soul to the devil for corporate profit!" lol).  The biggest problem is not RV's lack of application, it is the lack of viewers competent at a level to apply it.  I know one.  I'm sure with a properly run project lots more would be qualified, but funding a whole properly run project is the hard part; that's different than funding one viewer.

What I find is that the more I do RV, the less I focus on the practical side of it to be honest; the more I do it, the more I pursue it because I need to, like it's addicting, like I love that part of myself, that size of perception, that sharing (RV is my drug! :-)); I love the constant reminder it's possible, and the side effects that has on my thinking even in my daily mundane life.  I love how it opens up me, opens up my universe.  The discipline is an end unto itself, like Scott says.  

This is actually something that every viewer needs to get to.  Many come into RV thinking they will save the world in some form; RV doesn't really seem to stick until someone begins doing it for themselves, just for the experience--never mind other issues.

I used to be more logical about RV, and I still work hard to be, but I'm starting to realize, both with myself and with others, that the most left brain commentary is often a result of people armchair theorizing about it more than actually doing and experiencing it.

Eva, it's a good question.  Many of the easiest applications for psi frankly seem better addressed by dowsing than by RV, I sometimes think.

I can see it doing employee screening, but what specifically is one looking for?  One would almost have to target "How I felt about person X in one year" or something like that--a very ill-defined target, yet still, any conceptual level viewer can probably do that.

But it would take a long time as it'd have to be mixed into a pool of at least a few others of similar nature so that one wasn't too frontloaded at least as to what the target likely was (you can task a series of targets all of which are emotions, of course, that's FL but at least the basic data wouldn't quickly give the target away).  So what I mean is, it isn't that this target would be difficult but that doing it on demand for multiple people would be difficult as there is a time limit involved in such things.

I've had psi readings on things like, "I'm considering buying some land.  Can you tell me anything about it?" and being told, "I see major flooding.  I think it's in a flood zone."  I ask, the realtor hems and haws and says no way I've lived here 40 years and it never has, and come to find out, it is totally in a flood zone but it's like a 50 year cycle of 15' underwater for quite some time--and it's been about 40 years since the last one... good thing I asked for advice.  So that's an example of an application I guess.

Thinking, here... I suppose RV could also be used in a comparative way.  For example, say you have two kinds of building materials, or two different marketing plans, or two different employee candidates, or whatever.  You could say, "describe a fairly unique and recognizeable identifier of which X would be most successful [financially, or whatever]" and hope the description would well enough match one of 'em to figure it out.

You could dowse some things.  You could ARV others. But I'd rather dial-direct with RV on some targets, because you get info you wouldn't get otherwise and which might lead to more useful questions.

PJ

wizopeva, somewhere around March 7, 2004

LOL, well I see most of the posts on this idea have not gone the way I'd hoped!  My goal was to open people's minds to the possibilities, not argue if any exist.  The idea is that one would have some kind of proper team of viewers so that issues of frontloading could be avoided.  PJ is trying to rescue the thread though.  

But IMO, the prob with 'my feelings in a year' for employee hiring is that it sorta assumes that the person gets hired.  If the session indicates bad feelings, then assumedly the person does not get hired, hence changing the session to something else or making it wrong.  I don't know what this might do to the rv process in general.  That's another great question about rv.  What if your session about the future changes the future thus invalidating your session?   I think I've heard people agree it's best to avoid such a situation, but I don't think I've heard much evidence on what will happen if it's not avoided.  

However, I think the potential usage here for rv is clear, but the tasking might be tricky.  Perhaps one could task for most significant aspects of the person that relate to work performance.  IMO, hiring is one of the most important aspects of a successful business.  Beyond that if one is considering hiring or promoting someone, one could task for best position in the company for person X.    

But lets look at other aspects of a business.  You need customers right?  How can rv be ethically used to find customers?  Maybe you could task for the one thing your company can offer that will most impress customer X.  (ethics means you only offer things you can actually deliver on)  You want to keep your customers too so how about tasking for the thing your company can offer that will make Customer X most happy.  Other things to task on are future stock splits, mergers, bankruptcies, etc.  

Lets look at your company's latest important project.  You could task for best course of action with the project.  You could task for most important problem to avoid.  If something is not working, you could task for the most significant prob in the project.  If a machine is broken, you could task for the problem area AND the solution.

It seems to me that just about any action that is being considered could be viewed in advance if artfully tasked.  Yeah, dowsing could also be used in many cases.  To be honest, I don't know if any comparisons have been attempted between the accuracy of dowsing and rv.  Maybe using them both would be the best case scenario anyway.
-E    


[quote]

Eva, it's a good question.  Many of the easiest applications for psi frankly seem better addressed by dowsing than by RV, I sometimes think.

I can see it doing employee screening, but what specifically is one looking for?  One would almost have to target "How I felt about person X in one year" or something like that--a very ill-defined target, yet still, any conceptual level viewer can probably do that.

But it would take a long time as it'd have to be mixed into a pool of at least a few others of similar nature so that one wasn't too frontloaded at least as to what the target likely was (you can task a series of targets all of which are emotions, of course, that's FL but at least the basic data wouldn't quickly give the target away).  So what I mean is, it isn't that this target would be difficult but that doing it on demand for multiple people would be difficult as there is a time limit involved in such things.

I've had psi readings on things like, "I'm considering buying some land.  Can you tell me anything about it?" and being told, "I see major flooding.  I think it's in a flood zone."  I ask, the realtor hems and haws and says no way I've lived here 40 years and it never has, and come to find out, it is totally in a flood zone but it's like a 50 year cycle of 15' underwater for quite some time--and it's been about 40 years since the last one... good thing I asked for advice.  So that's an example of an application I guess.

Thinking, here... I suppose RV could also be used in a comparative way.  For example, say you have two kinds of building materials, or two different marketing plans, or two different employee candidates, or whatever.  You could say, "describe a fairly unique and recognizeable identifier of which X would be most successful [financially, or whatever]" and hope the description would well enough match one of 'em to figure it out.

You could dowse some things.  You could ARV others. But I'd rather dial-direct with RV on some targets, because you get info you wouldn't get otherwise and which might lead to more useful questions.

PJ
[/quote]

Glyn, somewhere around March 7, 2004

[Quote]
But IMO, the prob with 'my feelings in a year' for employee hiring is that it sorta assumes that the person gets hired.  If the session indicates bad feelings, then assumedly the person does not get hired, hence changing the session to something else or making it wrong.  I don't know what this might do to the rv process in general.  That's another great question about rv.  What if your session about the future changes the future thus invalidating your session?   I think I've heard people agree it's best to avoid such a situation, but I don't think I've heard much evidence on what will happen if it's not avoided. [/Quote] 

That's wonderfully interesting ;-). Maybe we could ask questions like that reliably because what we may be doing is viewing down alternate timelines presented by the decision-point.  Armchair theorising yes, and this has been discussed  many times before; but it does neatly sidestep the  paradox situation.  The ultimate decision itself would wipe out the alternates and the final outcome would be resolved.

However, what if we can't view alternates at all though? This could be gotten round by putting the question in other ways...asking not about the potential employee, but about the success of the department/company in one year's time. If the result of such a viewing shows the company doing great then it will not make any difference who you picked as you would always make the right decision.

Mmmm, that line of thinking is getting uncomfortably close to the 'future set in stone' idea, and I don't like that.........so I prefer to think we can view alternate time-lines at a decision point  ;-).

Regards,
Glyn

Glyn, somewhere around March 8, 2004

Carrying on from my previous mail..

There is the ethical question to this too. Thinking as that potential employee...would I want to be robbed of a great job by an RVer(s) whose abilities may not be up to the task? But then would I ever be told about it? Probably not. It could come down to that sort of thing more and more often though.. the using of RVers to decide the fate of others.

Surely there must be standards? Thinking as the employer now...If I were to pay an RVer for their services I would want evidence of their track-record, or at least the opinions of others who have used them. If client confidentially made that impossible then I would want a demonstration of their skills. If that was denied then I would want there to be a minimum 'performance' level so I would get at least a partial refund if the work proved to be useless. This may be difficult to determine to the satisfaction of both sides, but it holds true that without accountablility there can be no responsibility, and there are those out there who would take advantage of that. We wouldn't want RVers to be as unaccountable as garage mechanics or doctors in the UK now would we?  ::)

Seriously though, how do others think minimum standards could be ensured? Should they? Could they?

Regards,
Glyn

admin, somewhere around March 9, 2004

I believe that psi functions at a fundamental level we exist at, and so isn't actually removed from any hiring decision--one just isn't aware of it in hiring decisions most the time. :-)

I've had phenomenal luck with hiring people in my life, which I have for many levels of employment, as well as on behalf of/to work with others.  I can't credit it all to me, but to good people of course.  But a lot of it is just a feeling, no way to explain it--I had no involvement in psi during my dozen years in bizmgmt, so I might have laughed if such an idea had come up at the time.  I've always hired based on gut more than anything.  

I've also, at times I was hunting for jobs, thanked them and left in the middle of a lot of interviews, as my gut told me the situation and/or people just weren't appropriate for me.  I think this, though, is because work is in my 'survival' category so I tend to be more 'tuned in' in that area.  I'm an oblivious clod in most others, I notice. ;-)

[quote]But IMO, the prob with 'my feelings in a year' for employee hiring is that it sorta assumes that the person gets hired.  If the session indicates bad feelings, then assumedly the person does not get hired, hence changing the session to something else or making it wrong.  I don't know what this might do to the rv process in general.  That's another great question about rv.  What if your session about the future changes the future thus invalidating your session?   I think I've heard people agree it's best to avoid such a situation, but I don't think I've heard much evidence on what will happen if it's not avoided.[/quote]
The general theory of Buchanan on that, as I recall, is that the subconscious really doesn't appreciate it when you jerk it's chain like that, lol, and if you do it enough you start getting a sort of psychological kickback.

("Jerk its chain" -- that's the technical term, of course.)

[quote]but the tasking might be tricky.[/quote]
It's amazing how many RV conversations end up coming down to tasking. :-)

[quote]Perhaps one could task for most significant aspects of the person that relate to work performance.[/quote]
That's a good idea.

[quote]one could task for best position in the company for person X.[/quote]
That would be very difficult without a large associative pool of representative targets.  In other words, picking something that is part of each job and assigning that as the primary 'focus' of the viewer and the viewer describes one of those focii so hopefully you can figure out the answer.  Still the tasking doesn't specify what kind of best.   What's best for the employee might be what lets him screw off more easily lol, what's best for the company might be where his greatest personal strength lies, but it might actually be best for the department if first he spent six months in a different job learning it and then found his eventual best-place.  It's damnably difficult really as there's more to placing a person than the obvious sometimes...

[quote]How can rv be ethically used to find customers?[/quote]
Good question.  I'd like to know how to best task an RV question like, "I need to look for a new job.  What line of work is (a) going to find me what I consider a really good job, and (b) going to be something that is really good for me personally as well?"  Even that tasking has some issues.  But to me, that's an important one, it overlaps slightly on the 'perfect life path' stuff but only a tad bit.  It's difficult to task because it's difficult to figure out the answer from the session usually.

[quote]To be honest, I don't know if any comparisons have been attempted between the accuracy of dowsing and rv.  Maybe using them both would be the best case scenario anyway.[/quote]

Well that's like comparing basketball to baseball or something.  It's all the individual.  RV can't be measured cleanly, there are 101 ways to analyze 'accuracy' and they're all fairly arbitrary; dowsing however can be boiled down to something like 'IS within 5 mile radius or IS NOT.'

Hmmmn... again, of course, tasking wins the day as the most critical point.

PJ

wizopeva, somewhere around March 9, 2004

The general theory of Buchanan on that, as I recall, is that the subconscious really doesn't appreciate it when you jerk it's chain like that, lol, and if you do it enough you start getting a sort of psychological kickback.

("Jerk its chain" -- that's the technical term, of course.)

I have no special opinion on his theory.  I just think there are a variety of potential probs.  Maybe it's a mad subconscious or maybe it's a time line issue.  Maybe it will even work.  But it seems to me, if it can be avoided, why do it in ops?  It would make for some interesting experimental targets though.  


That would be very difficult without a large associative pool of representative targets.  

I was thinking of just getting a general idea at first and then possibly using further tasking.  Is the best postion even in the company?  If already employed, is it lower or higher or the same?  Is it superviser or worker?  Is it research or fieldwork? Is it in a team or solo? Seems to me a good viewer could give a decent general description.  Some leeway would then be left to the company.  Most likely, the company will have to follow it's own hiring policies anyway, but rv could give them an idea of both if it's good to hire and what types of positions might work best.   A lot of tasking would depend on what the company wants to know and what came in the earlier sessions.    


Still the tasking doesn't specify what kind of best.   What's best for the employee might be what lets him screw off more easily lol, what's best for the company might be where his greatest personal strength lies, but it might actually be best for the department if first he spent six months in a different job learning it and then found his eventual best-place.  It's damnably difficult really as there's more to placing a person than the obvious sometimes...

Most likely I would task, 'what's best' for the entity that is paying the me of course!  But generally speaking, a happier employee is better for the company as well.   The tasking would depend on what the company wants to know.  -)o they want to know where to start an employee?  Then that's the question.   Most of your qestions are not really difficult to decide on if an exact scenario is known.  


Good question.  I'd like to know how to best task an RV question like, "I need to look for a new job.  What line of work is (a) going to find me what I consider a really good job, and (b) going to be something that is really good for me personally as well?"  

If you think that a really good job is going to be good for you personally as well, then it's really the same question.   But it seems there are a number of ways to tackle it.  Perhaps one would use a variety of tacks to answer some questions.  You could task for 'what do I do next to find the best job reasonably possible for me."  YOu could task for industry area and specific things you should do to get there.  You could task for location of the job.  You could task for descriptions of those you will meet there first.   You could task for description of the building you will work for.  You can task for desription of the main office or building where you will interview.  Probably, there are many other tacks to take as well.  You aren't limited to just one.  

Even that tasking has some issues.  But to me, that's an important one, it overlaps slightly on the 'perfect life path' stuff but only a tad bit.  It's difficult to task because it's difficult to figure out the answer from the session usually.

Remember this is somewhat of a theoretical mind exercise.  As I think I mentioned you will have a team and access to many sessions.  One assumes the viewers are of decent quality.  But it's just as good if not better to think about immediate personal uses as well.  (but be careful if you think the sessions tell you to sell your house and move to a cave or somethign like that!)


Well that's like comparing basketball to baseball or something.  It's all the individual.  RV can't be measured cleanly, there are 101 ways to analyze 'accuracy' and they're all fairly arbitrary; dowsing however can be boiled down to something like 'IS within 5 mile radius or IS NOT.'

Well yes and no.  It seems to me that if you had access to both rv info and dowsing info and used them both in real life situations on a regular basis, then you would soon notice the strengths and limitations of both and be able to compare them.  WHich one do you find yourself turning to in a given situation?  The answer is whichever one seems to work best.  Or as I said, they may end up complimenting eathother.  
-E

admin, somewhere around March 10, 2004

[quote]Remember this is somewhat of a theoretical mind exercise.  As I think I mentioned you will have a team and access to many sessions.  One assumes the viewers are of decent quality.[/quote]
Oh, I didn't realize a whole team, analysis etc. was the assumption (vs. one viewer).  Well that changes everything, lol!  ;-)

PJ

Scott_Ellis, somewhere around March 10, 2004

Eva wrote:
Remember this is somewhat of a theoretical mind exercise.  As I think I mentioned you will have a team and access to many sessions.  One assumes the viewers are of decent quality.  But it's just as good if not better to think about immediate personal uses as well.  (but be careful if you think the sessions tell you to sell your house and move to a cave or somethign like that!)

Scott responds:
Under what circumstances would an ARV response convince you to do something other than what you thought was likely to be the best choice?  Would you sell your house, change your profession, not hire someone, lay someone off, etc., if ARV (or dowsing) told you to and you thought otherwise?  Or would you only go with the ARV if it agreed with your judgement (in which case it would be pointless to use it)?  There aren't many situations where I sit absolutely on the fence and would use it as a tiebreaker.

It seems to me that using RV to find something might be the best practical application right now.

Scott

wizopeva, somewhere around March 19, 2004

Well if you already have decided on a thing, I don't think one would bother trying to rv it.  However, in a biz situation, I think there are very often a million and one questions that have to be answered.  Some are as simple as determining an opening bid offer or deciding where to advertise.  Sometimes it's a question of who to trust and who not, or who to hire and who not.  Sure, I would absolutely use psi data to help determine some of those things.  I might also use it to help decide if an expernsive merchandise purchase or investment was a good idea or not.   Or what is causing some illness and how serious is it?  There are a lot of situations that involve many unknown factors.  Those are the situations in which logic most often fails thanx to a million and one factors that can't be factored in to the equation.  I don't think I would bother to use rv if I weren't ready to listen to it though.   You can't use a session on everything in life anyway, so you would have to pick your battles to the most useful situations.  Sure, RV can also be used to find location too, but really that's one of the most weakest areas of rv.  -)owsing is a lot better suited to such tasks.  
-E  

[quote]
Scott responds:
Under what circumstances would an ARV response convince you to do something other than what you thought was likely to be the best choice?  Would you sell your house, change your profession, not hire someone, lay someone off, etc., if ARV (or dowsing) told you to and you thought otherwise?  Or would you only go with the ARV if it agreed with your judgement (in which case it would be pointless to use it)?  There aren't many situations where I sit absolutely on the fence and would use it as a tiebreaker.

It seems to me that using RV to find something might be the best practical application right now.

Scott[/quote]

end of messages

[END Topic 273] RV in the real world TKR Remote Viewing Forum March 2004