Palyne

I tasked this week’s mission over at TKR that closed earlier this evening.

Tasker Instructions: Relax and let yourself describe whatever you feel about this target.

All work is in a doubleblind in TKR. I considered whether to have that instruction, but decided it really didn’t give away anything at all about even the nature of the target, only encouraged viewers to go with their less physical-fact feelings which is hard for some, so I thought encouragement was in order.

Tasker Directive & Feedback was: Describe the experience of a human woman giving birth to a baby. Describe it from a first-person (personal) perspective if possible.

Additional tasker notes at feedback were: You are welcome to seek out verbal, written or visual information about this experience as additional feedback. I put that in because some people really like specific feedback and I figured that way if they wanted to hunt some down they could.

I really loved how this went — loved the sessions. From fairly objective descriptions of some of the biological detail, to emotional and other details in there. It was an archetypal tasking, so there is no ’specific’ feedback aside from what is common to nearly all women having babies, but there’s enough to think that the viewers did a really fab job. Some info is funny even (one viewer was downright grossed out by something slimy inside a body), and some is really rather touching… some is intriguing, as well.

I wondered how the men would do. One seemed to get symbolic data, one seemed to objectify it a little bit, and the other was neck-deep in target contact — they all did well in different ways. The sessions are at TKR at the Dojo Psi — http://www.dojopsi.com/tkr/index.cfm?M=1 gets you right to the missions page.

Archived from the former firedocs blog. 07 March 2006

Unless a tasker is an investigator or scientist (and maybe even then), when it comes to “social viewing” (in groups), it helps if a tasker is also a serious viewer. As a viewer, a person understands and relates to the freedom that must be had, internally. The more someone views, the more laid back they tend to be about the results that other people have when tasked by them.

The less a tasker views, the more dangerous the ‘control’ position of tasker can be. Since avoidance of personal viewing and a desperate need for control often go hand in hand (for psychological reasons I won’t get into here), people who really want to task but really don’t view should probably be avoided.

Next thing you know they’ll be wanting to “analyze” session data—as if most people really know anything at all about either (a) analysis, or (b) remote viewing data, let alone (c) the two combined. This usually comes down to “subjective evaluation” of data, which anybody can do… and which, outside of applications, the viewer should be doing for themselves. Any moron can tell that their data is accurate, wrong, or the various options between or unknown. But only the viewer knows how it felt inside, the way it ‘came in’ to them, how that feeling relates to feelings about other data, etc. Other viewers can helpfully point out things they see in a session (such as is done in TKR’s Remote Viewing Galleries), but the point of evaluation is in the hands of the viewer.

The less specific the tasking and the less clear the feedback (a common combination in social viewing), the more people seem to think analysis is necessary. I don’t argue that it is more or less necessary; I argue that it has a point at all in that case. If you can’t be specific in your tasking, you don’t want a remote viewing session, you want a big glob of data you can sift through for what you think matches or is probably so. You might as well let the analyst write the result they want and save the viewer time.

Now, if you’re just curious and you’re tasking/viewing for fun, then sure, you can size/shape/arrange taskings in whatever way makes your heart happy. But in that case, I wouldn’t expect anybody to be “critically evaluating” much of anything.

In social viewing (by that I mean, viewing which is not specific to applications and is shared among people), ideas about analysis inevitably lead to someone in an armchair deciding what they think is good vs. not. In my view this is little more than a game for the person in the armchair. If the tasking and feedback are clear, the viewer themselves can do that just fine. If they are not, nobody is fit to do it. And if anybody was, it would be the viewer, with tasking context, not anybody else.

Nothing is more exasperating than watching someone assign a tasking the width of a horizon, with feedback that barely exists if at all on the focus, and then they want to decide what viewers did good vs. poorly and where. In a social sense this almost inevitably, eventually, will lead to some other factor starting to take the lead for determining who-is-most-ok, such as shared belief systems or methodologies. Eventually you have cliques that aren’t clicking, unless your viewers are all submissives. Which the best viewers usually quite pointedly are not.

Archived from the former firedocs blog. 07 March 2006

You never know what a control freak someone is until they start tasking remote viewing. Give a tasking role to the most gentle, good humored, laid back person you know and watch the morphic mutation begin. (Bring popcorn.)

A task is not just words about a target. It is a creative composition. Every tasker has hope for sessions done on their task. A tasking is like a painting, or a song. Even if the tasker dislikes it, don’t you dare insult it. It’s part of them.

And of course… whatever you do, for godssakes, don’t mess up their feedback loop. Nothing will set off a tasker faster than someone else “interfering” with the intent-tasking-session-feedback cycle by interjecting additional feedback, opinions on the tasking, or whatever. It doesn’t matter if your tasker has the gentle nature of Ghandi. They will morph into some science-fiction-themed Wrath of the Venusian Polar Bears monster if you screw with their viewers’ cycle.

Trust me on this.

I got to task TKR’s mission last week. Feedback was yesterday. It was a tasking experiment, or rather, more like a “let it be” kind of approach. I normally believe pretty strongly in a very clear definition of what a target is and the ‘focus’. But this target was an entire situation, with background from years ago, plus recent events, plus current interview (with two people involved). So I simply tasked the viewers to describe whatever they found most interesting about the target, and made the entire thing the target, so they could have feedback on the larger situation.

It’s quite a trip. I’d never read anything like this before. This guy says when he was a kid he had a “merging” experience with a grey alien. Whether or not this happened he obviously believes it did, to the degree that he feels so much “one with it” that he eventually had this plastic surgeon redo his face and head to look more like an alien. I mean, they cut off his ears for godssakes, all kinds of stuff. The feedback (which you’ll have to log into TKR and go to that mission and one of the tasks to get the link to and see in detail) is kind of shocking. Partly that governments would let surgeons do this for “artistic” reasons (!) (this doc is from France).

It got me thinking about the issue of ‘identity’, of course. In a somewhat more normal but still rather unusual social world, we have people who feel they were born the wrong gender, and they have physical surgery to change what they look and feel like. So, in a way, I’m not really sure how this guy differs psychologically, aside from the whole grey-alien thing. I don’t have any reason to doubt his experience, given it sounds like it has profoundly impacted him ever since.

Because the tasking was so ridiculously wide-scope there’s really no way to say who does well vs. poorly on that kind of thing, at least on a detail level. But I thought several of the sessions had some nice info. Bear in mind that because this doesn’t have a specific-clear task with feedback on that focus, it is not qualified within the Remote Viewing protocol; it becomes “psychic work”. Some missions are.

Visit http://www.dojopsi.com/tkr/ and click the box to jump directly to “Missions” on the login page.