Now let's talk about the power of the tasker's intention. How important is this in the process of CRV? I am beginning to feel that intention is everything.
I know that Joe talks about the power of intention, but I have fought this from the very start. I have seen so many times when the intention was to lie to the viewer, to hide the target from the viewer**, etc., yet the viewer plods right along and gets the target, anyway. Gene "Kincaid" felt that having a good session would cause the viewer to have pride, and that pride would mess a viewer up, so he used to try his damndest to really screw us over, especially right after we did a good session. He even brags to his students, these days, of the many ways he would "put those viewers in their places" by giving us virtually impossible targets and doing all kinds of dirty tricks to us before, during, and after a session. Yet, the viewers kept to the structure, and as Ingo says, "When all else fails, the structure will carry you through." It did.
I think I would have to say that, for a viewer who doesn't practice and who doesn't develop a rock-hard faith in the process, almost anyone's intention can be "everything" as far as their session's success is concerned. I would also say that, for a viewer who does practice, and who does build a rock-hard faith in the process, someone else's intention is nothing. Analogy: a concert pianist who is really insecure can have his/her entire concert messed up by someone coughing or someone getting up and leaving in the middle of the number. But a real pro - nothing stops him/her from the quest for perfection in every performance.
** "hiding the target from the viewer": I don't know how many times we were tasked with a target, with the full knowledge that we would get only lies and subterfuge for feedback. If we got the target correctly, we might even get raided and our files taken away (it has happened), but no honest feedback would be forthcoming. One of our directors once gave us a form of "ARV" tasking, in that he was illegally tasking us against a US citizen, and gave the tasking and feedback on a totally unrelated (but legal) target, with the hidden understanding that whatever we came up with on the associated target would answer his question(s) on the illegal one. We have had times when we were purposely given the wrong feedback, and other times when we were purposely given no feedback at all. Yet, the structure has carried us through these times. I have seen it happen. It works. It gives you, as a viewer, a strength which will stand up to anyone else's intentions, good or bad.
>If the tasker has doubts about the RVer, his abilities, or "moral" feelings about the way this particular viewing is being used, will this effect the outcome of the RV process. Could the viewer be doomed for failure prior to session start? I think this could happen!
Of course, it can. But like I say, it really depends on how well the viewer develops his/her own ability to stick to the structure and do the work correctly. For a "weak" viewer, failure is everywhere. For a "strong" viewer, it is not a worry. As for the feeling on the part of a monitor: If the monitor starts treating the viewer with an air of superiority, and starts taking over the session, the weak viewer will fold and fail. I have thrown many a monitor out of my sessions, and try to teach every student who comes through my course to do the same. When I break into the student's session to make some point of instruction and the viewer cuts me off and tells me to wait - I personally feel like I have succeeded in teaching that student the most important rule of CRV: The viewer is in charge of the session!" Not even, I, as trainer, have the right to interrupt. If the viewer ever relinquishes that position of authority, then anyone's doubts, dirty tricks, etc. etc. etc. will quickly plow the viewer under.
>If there is a collective unconsciousness between viewer/analyst/ tasker then all parts are equal and a positive mental state and intention must be kept "up" for the process to achieve it upmost potential. How does this sound? Comments?
It sounds logical. But it doesn't sound like good CRV. The collective unconscious between the viewer and all other parties should NEVER be equal. The viewer MUST be in charge of the session! Remember a long time ago, when you were going through training, how I mentioned that it would take you years to learn how totally and how completely the first rule applies? Well, even on the level of the >>>collective<<< unconscious, the viewer MUST be in charge. It is absolutely the prime directive of CRV.
>This also says a lot about the mental state in which the viewer should enter a session , all doubts should REALLY be set aside or you could be doomed from the start.
>I know what you are thinking, "Just like any athlete you should have a positive mental attitude about your RV work" OK, I agree but come on, we all doubt ourselves a little, and could this "particle" of doubt block the session, could it grow exponentially and kind of automatically veer you towards a bad session? Is it that strong?
Yes, it is. That is exactly why there are so many hundreds of rules in CRV: In those times when you begin to doubt yourself, always remember that "the structure will carry you through". You do a hundred sessions and study and analyze them and see that your best work was done when you stayed in structure. You build a faith in the structure, and one day, when you begin doubting yourself, you grab back hold of that structure, and it carries you through. That was the design of the system, and it works.
Should the tasker/analyst tell the viewer prior to the session, "OK, I know this summary which I will receive will be accurate, so there is no need to worry, view like you normally do and there won't be any problems" I think that would be a great way to "cue" a viewer. Lyn doesn't say much about this, so maybe there is some hidden negative side effects to a approach like this, I don't know.
No, I don't know of any negative side effects - only positive. In fact, for a fledgling viewer who needs encouragement and bolstering, that is something that taskers and monitors should do a lot more of. Personally, though, there is something which really makes me feel great when the quality of my work is accepted without comment or concern - when nothing less than my best is even a consideration, and when people don't feel that I need bolstering. There are times when I do, but it feels great when I don't, and everyone around me seems to instinctively know it. Maybe that's just me. I don't know.