RV Drama Queens
October 2002 updated July 2004
An editorial essay about the remote viewing experience, remote viewing tasking ethics, remote viewing target content, 'dangers' in remote viewing, the responsibility of remote viewers, and why I don't want to hear any more kvetching about it! -- PJ
Other folks like you can contribute editorials if you wish.
Or tell me how much you loathe mine if that's more fun.
Use my Contact Form.
Let's not tiptoe around the obvious: RV experience generally comes in two forms. Difficult to integrate psychologically when you do badly at it... and more difficult to integrate psychologically when you do well at it. Both have different issues attached, and none are easy to deal with.
One minute RV as a process is as abstract as a half-remembered dream from a decade ago, and the next minute the experience is coming through your gut-heart-mind like you are the first paramedic on the scene.
There is seldom any warning what a target will be. Or how the data will come through when it does. There is seldom any preparation that would make much difference in this regard anyway. And there is seldom any PTSD counseling available for psychics who have a terrible experience thanks to something they experienced "vicariously".
But as they say, if it were easy, everyone would be doing it.
Emergency Room (ER) workers come in only two kinds: those that can take it, and those that can't.
Those that can't burn out quickly, go home traumatized and numb, get ill, have accidents, or other psychologically-derived avoidances that eventually take them out of the job.
Those that can take it, thrive on it. They enjoy the constant novelty (and get addicted to it). The feeling alive. FEELING, period. They come to crave the "reality experience" that what I call a high impact job provides.
Remote Viewing -- assuming one can halfway do it at all, even occasionally for that matter -- can be a high impact experience.
Verse 1: Tasking Trauma
Usually the first drama queen theme you'll hear sung in remote viewing is about tasking.
Egads! -- some moron on the internet says, "Hey, I have a target!" and assigns as a target for blind viewing, some young woman who's been missing for awhile... and who according to the not-very-happy-about-it viewers, is now looking considerably more dead and floating-bloated than the prom queen photo in the newspaper.
Was that harsh realism necessary in an editorial? -- yes. You think it's hard to read? Try viewing it. If you can't even read about such things without feeling appalled and afraid and traumatized, then definitely don't be taking any RV targets unless you know the tasker well.
This kind of target has a variety of problems. The first is, we really don't want to see the feedback, OK? The second is, there is no feedback for it anyway. So obviously, this is not exactly a learning experience. (OK, that's not true. We learned not to trust the tasker.) The third is, there is nobody capable of doing something with the data, so why is this being tasked anyway?
The fourth is, public internet tasking is like using a sawed off shotgun for sharpshooter practice. You're not just going to get a viewer or three who are serious, experienced, interested, and willing to do your target. The internet is bigger than you dream; even the most active discussion areas, only 2-7% of the people there are saying anything. Without ever being aware, you're likely to get lots of "lurkers" who were standing around as well.
The result? A lot of wanna-be's who view this target, on the chance they actually do get decent target contact, might not be stable enough to deal with what they experience from it. So? Maybe this is their problem. That isn't really what this article is about. The point is, "high impact" targets can seriously affect viewers.
The RV field is rife with people who are not psychologically stable enough to be remote viewers. Alas there is never a neon sign hanging from the neck of those people. Instead, you just get viewers who get hysterical, overly paranoid, who become pathological liars, who develop inordinate problems dealing with RV failure and labrynthian efforts to avoid or deny such -- in general, they will become exponentially more unstable than they 'mildly' were to begin with.
Alas, those most likely to be RV Drama Queens and least likely to be able to "deal with" RV-engendered experiences, are almost inevitably certain to draw the worst to themselves. They seldom consider what would be good for them, why they should stick to their own target pool, or why they should not take tasking from strangers on the internet.
In the same vein of real-life-grim-humor as the industrial statistic that 5% of the employees have 95% of the accidents on the job, you'll find that the same people most inclined to RV-drama are those most inclined to go find it, even if it means tasking themselves on human targets that -- frankly without being psychic -- we all could have guessed were likely dead and probably didn't enjoy getting that way. As if the resulting session trauma is a surprise. Oh please.
(The fifth problem, a more minor consideration, is that the majority of people in RV-land probably aren't capable of getting much detail about it anyway. But you never know. Sometimes people who can't sense an atom bomb and are lucky to describe a volcano sufficiently, can completely flip out over being tasked on someone who got shot.)
First Chorus: Blame the Tasker
So the reprise to this particular theme is usually much ado about "tasking ethics." That is, the ethical considerations which anybody tasking a remote viewing target "should" be bound by.
A month or so ago, one of the layman RV methods-trainers, Prudence Calabrese, wrote an article about having tasked a group during training with the first sexual experience between former US President Bill Clinton and the most infamous intern Monica Lewinsky. Using the theory that this was the most public sexual experience in history anyway, Calabrese didn't consider this too far out for the group she had in at that moment.
A lot of people in the field got bent out of shape about it, ranted, gossiped, emails flurried back and forth, and in general, the majority of people making noise about it decided that Calabrese had Behaved Badly, As Usual.
This was, of course, pretty much what I imagine she expected -- she wouldn't have written the article, and in such a sensational way, if she didn't want to get some reaction to it after all. Yet as much as I almost-but-not-quite enjoy the circus politics that make up the modern layman's RV field, I found the debate a bit wearying for reasons that had little to do with what everybody else was discussing.
It certainly occurred to me that as tasker and trainer she is responsible for her students' results. And even that, depending on the individuals (which she knew and I didn't), it might have been a bad decision. I considered the entire situation bogus anyway because it wasn't double-blind. But all that moralizing aside, it did not occur to me to blame the tasker for what the viewers experienced specifically. Why would it?
One guy said to me, What if I experienced it from Monica's point of view? You know... experienced giving oral sex to a man?! I'd be totally freaked out. I would have ended the session and slugged the tasker! I tried not to laugh. Apparently, it never occurred to most folks that what and how a viewer experiences something has anything to do with the viewer at all! I realize we do not usually consciously choose our experience--but the same could be said for regular life.
Verse 2: Target Trauma
The second movement of this dramatic overture becomes more personalized. No longer is this an issue about some idiot tasker or some bigger idiot viewer who took it on. (Although you'll notice a strange lack of 'taking responsibility' on the viewers' parts for bad 'publicly tasked' targets.) The focus shifts away from assigning "fault" for the target, and instead toward a soap-opera joint venture of sympathy for the experience.
I recently read on a public list a well-written, thoughtful experience from a woman who volunteered to do a 'real life' session frontloaded as a 'human target'. She says she is somewhat a beginner. She says she volunteered because she figured she 'ought to get one' (operational viewing) 'under her belt'.
The target was two teenage girls who had disappeared some time previously. I don't know the tasking as she didn't say. I don't know if it was current status of the girls, or 'what happened to' the girls, or anything specific. (Related to the point I'll make later is that nobody even considered this relevant or publicly asked about it.)
For weeks, she grieved over the emotions she felt resulting from it. ...suffocating grief, sadness, horror, panic, sickening realization.... In refreshing her exposure to the session to 'detox' from it, she got enmeshed in it even worse than before.
On the world finding out the girls had been murdered by a neighbor and buried in his backyard, the realization of what she was feeling took hold, and then she could project it more firmly into a context. Now that she had the ability to logically (as well as psychically) imagine the experience, she could anchor it more firmly.
She wrote that she has now been deeply traumatized (sobbing, etc.) about this for three months, and continues to be, and doesn't ever want to have such an experience again.
OK, it's true, no viewer can avoid feeling compassion for that experience.
Suck it up! This is LIFE. This is your brain on RV.
Nurses in ER don't want to have incoming patients, even children, die in their arms. Hey, it happens. You deal with it and you move on. You learn something from it and you move on. You do some psychological exercises or banishing rituals and you move on. You journalize about it extensively as catharsis and you move on. You talk to a therapist about it and you move on. There is a point here, somewhere... we move on.
It was a trauma. It was terrible. If you want that kind of targeting, this is part of what remote viewing will be about for you. As much as we'd all love to RV galactic halls and aliens till we know 'em by name, now and then we actually have to do something stemming from our alleged 'consensus' reality, which in case you haven't been reading the papers lately, pretty much sucks in several important ways.
Now maybe it just doesn't occur to viewers that a "real life" target is probably not going to be a happy one. Some might be -- most likely won't be. "Mary Jane married last year and is living happily in Kansas!" There is no need for remote viewing in such cases. But: Mary Jane has disappeared. Mary Jane has been found murdered. Mary Jane is the unconscious witness to a murder. Mary Jane drove off with her husband's car and one of his vital organs and hasn't been seen since. These are remote viewing targets.
(For those who aren't viewers, I should mention that "emotional" results from targets are not limited to human targets. You can have profound emotional responses to targets that are unfortunate but don't seem like that big a deal, objectively. They're like the hangnails of RV--you suffer for them but get little sympathy when you gripe about them.
You can even have physical responses to targets. I abreact badly to a certain type of target every time I get it, which I have a few times now. I got one in my first methods training and I instantly doubled over with stomach cramps, a spontaneous nosebleed and my contacts went dry as a bone. My teacher didn't know what the hell was going on. Neither did I. I still don't. But if I abreact badly in that way, now I have a clue that the target is probably an old barn in a big field. Now why would I abreact to an old barn in a big field?? I haven't got a flippin' clue. I just do. Eventually I hope to figure that out.
I imagine somewhere along the line, everybody finds something that they either abreact to, or just "don't get" as data no matter how obvious it is in a target. Joe McMoneagle was infamous in his lab for 'not getting' waterfalls for many years. Then one day he did. Who knows why?
Second Chorus: Blame the Target
The reprise to this variation on the theme is much ado about "the dangers of remote viewing" and/or, the danger of RVing "human targets". That is, the likelihood that at some point, you will share emotions with a human who is having a truly miserable experience, like the ...suffocating grief, sadness, horror, panic, sickening realization... of someone about to be raped and murdered. Now I would imagine that is probably about as terrible as it can get, but don't quote me on that, as I'll probably find out I'm wrong the hard way alas.
So the post I mentioned above inspired many. Discussion went around in a few places about it, and of course ended up in my PEM box in a variety of forms, some hostile to the tasker, some hostile to the target, some carrying a Flag of Warning for everybody about how dangerous human targets can be, or lamenting how they "lost their innocence" on Target X two years ago and it's still with them. (Violins, please.)
Ah. I see. So if it can't be the tasker's fault for assigning it, and it can't be the viewer's fault for getting into something they shouldn't have, then it must be the target's fault for being so horrible!
Ooooooh. Aaaaaaah. What a drama we live.
Bridge: Questions Serious Viewers Might Consider
So to hear everyone tell it, you'd think that...
A Little More Realism
God forbid I should attempt to inject a little thoughtful responsibility into such a liberal world. I know it's politically incorrect. I know I should be waxing poetic along with everybody else about how BAD careless taskers are, and how DANGEROUS nasty targets are, and how VICTIMIZED viewers are by all of it.
I won't. Wake up and smell the -- er, blood -- RV operations work is the psychic ER.
In my view--politically incorrect to say the least--compassion finds a better home in determining who can handle it and who can't as soon as possible.
At some point momma-bird has got to push her babies from the nest. And she knows very well that at least one of them is going to fall like a stone and die on the hard ground. But it has to be done, and the others will FLY. They succeed because they faced that fear and in the process they pulled themselves up and struggled strongly enough to succeed despite the gravity of their situation.
Remote Viewing has a lot more fallen sparrows than soaring eagles. (In fact I'd say we've probably got one eagle, a few hawks (most unknown), several seagulls and a whole lot of penguins.) In seven years of publicity and training and enthusiasm, a bizarrely small number of student viewers have succeeded in public, and most (even who paid thousands to train) are no longer active in the field/practice.
I believe that once a viewer has reached the skill of emotionally connecting to a target, after a little practice with that, they should probably be given a really hard target. I would not recommend the target the viewer mentioned in this article ended up with, by the way -- that is harder than I had in mind. But something considerably traumatic -- something involving violent death probably.
Am I saying we should traumatize viewers as part of an advanced study in remote viewing?
Damn right I am. What happens if we don't?
Well, we already know, because it's already visible. Those who wouldn't be able to appropriately recover and move on from such things, who were not psychologically cut out for this work, would continue on. Mind you, they WOULD be showing symptoms of not being appropriate for RV, but as the targets remained more subtle, so their symptoms would be subtle. They would be small personality effects. Their worst traits becoming more dominant. The "drama queen quotient" in their non-RV life would begin increasing quite a bit. How fast this moved, how severe it became, would really depend on the targets they were doing during this time. Like the frog that will boil if the temperature in his water changes gradually enough, by the time someone gets a clue, they're generally too far gone to bring back.
What I am describing is a gradual psychological degradation in the viewer and their resultant quality of life. I personally think it is far more merciful that someone have a major psychological trauma and leave the practice of RV rather than suffer the lower-level chronic effects. Those are frankly the ones that are the most dangerous.
It should escape nobody that the degree this affects people is in inverse proportion to their ability to be cognizant of it happening. In english, the people worst affected are the most clueless about it.
This is already apparent to varying degrees in quite a few people who call themselves remote viewers, and I don't just mean the most obviously borderline sorts like poor Ed and Courtney, who both so well embody that saying It may be that your sole purpose in life is to serve as a warning to others.
Verse 3: The Warrior's Palm
Everybody has seized on the "Martial Art of the Mind" concept that McMoneagle mentioned however many eons ago. I even get emails from the general public announcing this to me as if it is their brilliant discovery no less. I think it's safe to say that field-wide, everybody can see the correlation.
In martial arts -- at least, in my own admittedly not very extensive experience with them -- getting your ass kicked is part of the process. Whether it's Judo's Rondori or streetfighting when the sensei isn't around, Aikido with anybody better or Karate's formal competitions, I don't think anybody ends up a black belt without having been at the least hurt, and at the most seriously injured, at some point.
Serious martial artists don't gripe and go on about it. They wrap it up, or do what they can around the cast, or work on learning to walk again. Except in serious cases, they don't cry about it (publicly). They don't crusade to warn others about their impending danger. This is part of the risk. If you can't take the risk, if you can't deal with it, you need to take up something less violent. Knitting, perhaps.
For those who don't know, far-advanced degrees in most martial arts are not held in a studio with judges and points and trophies. In some, an expert comes to KILL you with a sword and you live or you die by your wits, psychic ability and fighting ability. That is how serious martial arts can be. So the next time you hear someone making that comparison between RV and Martial Arts, consider that serious martial arts isn't something one does just for fun and expects to either be good at it or be unharmed by it. Rather, it is an entire way of life that even at the lower levels, can engender some major pain and even serious injury in its aspirants.
So can RV. Seek counseling if necessary. I am not saying things aren't upsetting or we should not deal practically and compassionately with ourselves. ER doctors should get counseling too, in my opinion -- anybody doing traumatic stuff should. But deal with it. Don't whine. Move on, or move out.
Final Chorus: What We Could Be Learning
We choose our experience in RV on the same level that we choose our experience in life. People who feel victimized and/or helpless about their circumstances in life should probably not pursue RV. They will only assign to it the same drama queen set of circumstance and victimization that their non-psi life already has. In Remote Viewing, we are 'wide-open'--on purpose--we are vulnerable, and the effects of a session are impossible to predict.
What's the difference between RV and the 'new age' topics it's usually found in? Well, martial arts and ER rooms aren't filled with New Age sorts who thought it was all about sweetness and light. News flash: becoming the Grand Oneness includes tuning in on the trauma, and on those who cause the trauma as well. If you think it's hard "being" a rape & murder victim via RV, trying "being" the perpetrator and forgiving yourself afterward. All serious remote viewers should have counselors.
This is not an easy road. It's a shamanic path. A damned dark one on bad days.
Fade to Silent: If You Could Find It Within Yourself To...
RV is primarily self-exploration. The universe is holographic. The target is you.
It is you when it's a serial killer or a saint, when it's a rollercoaster or a plane crash, when it's a buffalo or a DNA strand or the moon. The data doesn't come in from somewhere else. It doesn't come from 'over there' on some carrier frequency to 'over here' where you try not to drop it. It's inside you. You fork it out of yourself like a spaghetti squash.
You can't keep data out. It's already here. Thinking of it as NOT already being here can limit your belief-system access to target data in general (particularly time-offset data). You can, however, choose not to perceive it. You already don't perceive all kinds of things about any given target. So you can choose not to perceive what you might think you are "not ready for".
On some level, we choose what we experience. Maybe not consciously, but I believe that an awareness of this and exploration of these dynamics within oneself, can provide less feeling of 'vulnerability to chance' in this regard. What we experience may be boring, it may be ineffective, it may be exciting, it may be traumatic. But our psychology could have avoided that data if it did not think we were ready for it. It could have found other data. It could have missed the target entirely. It could have given us the data in an impartial, indirect way. It could have given us a headache we had to stop the session for. The list goes on.
We will respond to, react to, and move on from, issues in remote viewing just as we will in our non-psychic life. How people respond to trauma in their regular life, in the life of someone close to them, is pretty much how they will respond to it in their remote viewing. We are just as responsible for dealing with things constructively, pro-actively, and moving forward in RV as we are with experiences that happen to us outside RV.
It is hard enough being one person. Remote viewing can let you share the experience of lots of people, lots of events, lots of things -- throughout all time. That might be a tad more challenging to the psyche.
That's the risk,