REMOTE VIEWING

RV Articles & Editorials

www.firedocs.com/remoteviewing/RVEditorials.cfm


Retro-Tasking: Is It Possible?

March 2003

With additional comments from viewer Joseph McMoneagle.

This editorial is something I posted on two yahoo groups in 2003 (Farview and RV Oasis/PJRV). So it was an "ad-hoc" editorial of sorts.... probably the writing reflects that. IMPORTANT WARNING: If you are not already a viewer and well familiar with subjects such as overlay, displacement, retrotasking, rapport, etc. then this may or may not be decipherable to you.

Retro-Tasking, for those who don't know, is a word assigned to a concept, and the concept is that a person looking at a session after it is done, comparing it with the target, or a different target, or various potential targets, can "influence" the viewer (and via that, their session) back in time, so that their session will also reflect some degree of the 'other' (targets, decoys, potentials, etc.).



Other folks like you can contribute articles if you wish.
Use my Contact Form.

In my head I've been modeling the concept [of retrotasking] kind of like so:

X is the actual target. Let us say, the Seattle Space Needle.

Information about X resides in some netherland of consciousness which apparently we are all part of. For simplicity, let us just say that X is a 'coordinate' point as well as an energy.

Connected to the information about X is anything that actually relates to X. Its past, its future, people who have interacted with it, events which have related to it -- everything, literally, which consciousness ever touches related to X, is connected with X.

To keep it simple and semi-linear for our brains, think of a flow chart. Now if you remove linear 'time and space' from the equation of what causes the formation of anything, and you map it out on a computer screen like a flow chart might be, what you'd get is something that probably looked a lot like a fractal.

Things growing out of other things. Repeating 'patterns' that somehow mirror the primary nature of the original geometry itself and spiral in on themselves. Something simple yet very complex, with connections that might be infinite if explored far enough.

Consciousness in this model is like a kind of energy that by touching the fractal, is seeding the growth of new fractal arms (expanding the creating-consciousness of X itself).

When you look at this, you think of it as one fractal picture. You don't really think of it as just one tiny piece of it. All the other growth and connectiveness has become an integral part of the fractal we are calling X.

Now a remote viewing session is done on X.

This might explain why viewers often get data that does not exist at X during the session but does later. Or did previously. Or that reflects some prevailing cultural theory about X even if it's wrong. Consciousness is touching that fractal, and potentially getting a lot of things that are part of the overall fractal, but perhaps not a part of the "root" of it only.


Y in this illustration is the remote viewing session data. Let us consider Y (the session data+experience) as one of the "fractal arms" of X (the actual target).

Many of the connections and growth-offshoots of Y, are related to the consciousness of people who considered the data, who judged it, who analyzed it, who had an opinion about it, whatever. Y is a "part of X" but now it also is its own identity, its own fractal arm with independent evolution and aggregation of consciousness so to speak.

Now Y (the session) is a much more complex fractal than it would have been, had only the viewer seen the feedback, and considered one target as possible for it. Y as a fractal grows somewhat for every connection, just like the target itself (X) does. The more people who perceive it, the more connections it gets in terms of how its perceived and so forth, the more it grows.

The fractal arm of X -- which is the actual root fractal for the arm of Y -- grows and expands and develops its own arms for every time consciousness touches it. Every perception, event, etc. in some way touches it and seeds the growth of that new fractal of consciousness.

The session ITSELF is consciousness. The paper, the ink, the experience, and the "gestalt of it all" that we're calling Y, it ITSELF consciousness. Everything is. It's not that RV is consciousness but the data is something physical. Fundamentally everything is consciousness, including your coffee table.

Because of this, everything is, fundamentally, subject to varying degrees of "mutual co-creation" with consciousness that touches it. Luther Burbank grew a spineless cacti by gradually convincing the cacti that it didn't need thorns because he would protect it. I can't think of anything more obviously physical than a cactus, yet consciousness affected it.

So the concept of retasking comes down to the connection of all consciousness. Technically, if we exclude retasking as being relevant to a session, it is possible that we are trying to suggest that in the isolated case of remote viewing, the interaction of consciousness does NOT have an effect. This seems unlikely to me.

Given that RV as a process seems more involved with "consciousness" than nearly anything else that comes to mind, then if anything, I would expect an RV session to be quite a bit more "malleable" than for example, your coffee table or a cacti.

In this model, it makes sense that 'retasking' a session could potentially contribute to the overall fractal of Y which is the session.

However, HOW MUCH it contributes, and HOW DOMINANT that contribution is and WHETHER THE INTENT OF THE VIEWER CAN AFFECT SUCH are the questions that I ask. And these might in fact be the most important questions of all: because their answers might indicate what is most important in RV, that being, who drives the session? The viewer, or "anybody else"?

It is possible that the session, as a 'founding intent' of the viewer, sets the 'rules of the universe for that session' so to speak: in other words, sets the geometry for that particular arm of the fractal, the pattern from which all development, however creative, will follow. In other words, that 'intent' of the viewer (who is the Prime Creator of the session) is dominant over all.

(I might add that the geometry will be in compliance with the probabilities set forth by the root X fractal - the target. In other words it is not impossible that sessions (Y) done on the target (X) can have some inherent subtle pattern that was part of the creation/intent of X itself.)


This model actually brings us right up to two commonly opposing viewpoints in the RV field, regarding Telepathic Overlay.

Everyone knows you can communicate with another person non- physically, and we use the word telepathy for this.

Everyone knows you can pick up the expectations of the person selecting the target, and we use the term Tasker Intent for this.

What some disagree about, is whether Telepathic Overlay is unable to be avoided by a remote viewer.

Some suggest that a session 'suffers' from it, with all the apparent helplessness of an ant in the bathtub.

Others suggest that the intent of the viewer can "demarcate" the "relevant" information (the root fractal) from that of the many other fractal-arms that may be part of the larger fractal.

In short, that if the viewer is focused enough and has a strong enough intent/will, that they can avoid being influenced by such factors.

Most viewers I know who have experimented with this find that the more they "allow themselves to accept that their data was right, but it was telepathic overlay" tend to get a lot more of that; those who refuse to consider it and simply consider the data wrong, tend to get less. This may have less to do with the nature of T.O. then it does the intent of the remote viewer.

So on one hand you will find viewers working hard to disbelieve it or invalidate it or consider it unimportant, because this attitude is beneficial to their viewing. On the other hand you might find these same viewers discussing how to deal with it or lessen it. This often really confuses people new to the field. :-)


If everything at a fundamental level is consciousness, then there is no division; as the wise men say, we are all One.

However, in "perceptual experience" of reality, it's perfectly apparent that we are NOT all one, as evidenced by the opinion of any ex-spouse.

What "separates" consciousness if consciousness is everything? Perhaps consciousness itself. Consciousness formed in a way designed, creatively, to be the "divider" for experience.

"Intent" appears to be the motive force of the universe; your coffee table, on some level of its combined components, intended to be a coffee table; your child intended to be your child; and so forth.

If intent can create the diverse perception of the universe as we know it, including how we organize information as individuals and as a species, then I think intent can certainly be utilized to affect a remote viewing session.

This suggests that a remote viewer could clearly delineate their session data to apply specifically to the most important facets of the target, and to be presented in such a way as to best address those facets, and to not include information that is not relevant to the target and/or the usage of the session.

That the viewer's "intent" -- their WILL -- could arrange this.

It also suggests that a tasker's will could affect the session.

What it comes down to, is the stronger will: Which will be dominant?

And with that, we have moved remote viewing right back into the cradle from which it came: magick.

Love is the law, love under Will.


Later I had some discussion with Joe McMoneagle about the subject and he gave me permission to excerpt some of his emails about it for RVland online:

PJ: Can a tasker, we'll call her Kelly, assign a second tasking intent -- a second, different target -- to one of my existing sessions, and have any effect on that session whatever?

Joe: No. Again, sorry. I will repeat what I was saying earlier. With a lousy remote viewer that might be possible, but with a remote viewer who knows what they are doing - it shouldn't make any difference what Kelly does aside or in addition to what the original tasking and expectation might be.

PJ: Is the answer to that dependent on my own 'strength of intent' as a viewer?

Joe: Of course. How malleable you might be and how easy it might be to [mess] with your mind.

PJ: The 'why' might be, to get data on a target that the viewer does not know about.

Joe: You will always get the data on the target you want if you do the protocol properly and set up the intent and expectation correctly. Why do it any other way? Unless of course you are someone looking for a reason why it doesn't work right.

PJ: It seems a little similar to the effect of accidentally getting two targets, which I've done, such as trying to RV the target in the envelope and it turns out there's two. Mostly the result is just what I've seen myself in that particular case: the viewer has a difficult time making solid contact, seeming to go back and forth between the targets, and usually ends up with a "conglomerate" of the targets -- enough to seem like a real session on either target, but probably not as good a session as they might have had if their targeting/tasking/feedback had been singular.

Joe: I could respond with a very egotistical statement like; "a good remote viewer would know when there are two targets and would differentiate between them." I've had to do that on more than one occasion when being targeted live on camera by bozos who do not follow the protocols and rules with regard to how they identify the specific target they want me to work. Having said that however, it actually is simply that - something the remote viewer has to learn to deal with and recognize. [...] In real life, this stuff happens, and the viewer should be learning to cope with it, instead of coping out with "I got it wrong because the person who set up the target didn't do their job." I hope you hear what I'm saying here. The viewer needs to focus on "intent and expectation" with regard to the target - not the target alone.

PJ: Might it be that 'intent' is really the secret law of the universe here, and that all the shamen and casteneda-ish sorcerors were right all along -- that it's really whomever has the strongest intent that will dominate any given energy transaction? Could this apply to RV as well?

Joe: Yes that might be true. But, whose intent carries the day? Really bad remote viewers are swayed by the intent of someone standing in the corner of the room. Really good remote viewers develop their own intent and methods that are designed to override all other forms of intent. Really bad taskers never understand intent at all. Really good taskers use really good viewers intent to work for them. Really bad judges never understand why intent is even necessary, and really good judges understand that they are being just as psychic and are just as blind as the remote viewer and intent is everything.

PJ

[end]

You can send email to PJ Gaenir about this editorial.

Editorials Menu



The Firedocs Remote Viewing Collection is now a static archive (Feb 2008). Click here to see what's still online for reference.

All contents on this website are Copyright © 1995 to present by Palyne 'PJ' Gaenir. All rights reserved.
Permission is given to reproduce anything in small quantity, but online only, and please mention/link source.