Methods combating AOLdrive

Project Home Page

RVwebForum

TKR @the Dojo Psi

Help make it possible for everyone.

RV CHAT

Monday Nights
9:30-11:30pm Eastern
6:30-8:30pm Pacific
dojopsi.com/chat/

Weekly RV Chat

CS Labs
Ingo Swann
Joe McMoneagle

Baylands Nature Preserve
Pete's Harbor Restaurant
Lucid Dream Example
Radio Listening Post
Test-Bed Trials
Video ABC Put to the Test

The Home Made Viewer

P.I.A.

TKR Blog

Noetic Vision

Serious Kilowatt

Red Cairo

Cosmic Spoon

Psychic Journey

Psyforce

Remote Review

MindBlogging

BadMoJoe

Dojo Blog

Firedocs RV Blog

the McMoneagles

LFR/CSL

RV Roast (alt)

RV Library

[wizopeva]

I think we've already discussed a bit about aol drive in the past.  That's when, during a session, a viewer gets sucked into a lot of conscious analysis such that the data gets more and more corrupted by conscious castle building.  Now I strongly suspect that just about all sessions have at least some of that.  But some sessions are worse than others.  

So what methods do that different rv methodologies use to help combat this prob?  For instance, Pru has said that one way is go back to the beginning parts of the session where you may not have had a chance yet to overthink the situation.  You can go back and sort of jump off from those early impressions again.  

Lyn teaches other methods like during the session trying to forget about other stuff you have written.  Hence, the often quoted advice that, "there is no line above the one you are working on," the idea being that forgetting is a good way to avoid hypothesizing about previous stuff too much.  

I'm curious what some of the other methodologies may have in place to help combat this problem or if any solo practioners have come up with anything that works for them.  
-E

[Damien]

      The method Ed taught me I believe is the basic CRV method.  Everytime a word comes up that is too definitive I.E. World Trade Center, Soccer Ball, AirPlane, you are supposed to declare it AOL by writing AOL- then the word that popped up. Example  AOL-WTC and then drop your pen for a second or two with the intent of letting it go.  For the more persistent AOL's or Visuals you get in the early stages, taking an entire sheet of paper to sketch it out is reccomended.  Then drop your pen again and let it go.  Objectification of the AOL's is the basic CRV/TRV method to get rid of imaginative invasion.  I guess the reasoning behind that is you can't get rid of it if you don't declare it.  So that is most important of all.  Although this data may be crucial to the session and resolution of a problem, it is best to get the idea out of the viewers head that he or she 'has' the target just a little way into the session or even almost done with it, so that data may be obtained objectively.   This concludes my late night thoughts on AOL
          Damien

[PJ]

In my experience (it's always fwiw, since everyone's experience is different of course), the attachment of the AOL concept to words/terms is very elementary.  By that I mean, it's simplistic.  I have come to think it is the most obvious but also the easiest to deal with.

A more subtle and insidious danger that can be more fully called AOL drive is a very subtle assumption, not that I 'know' what the target is (that is only the most overt from of AOL-D) but more like, a "pattern of thinking about" the target and/or the session process.

When you have something actually in mind, viewers with even moderate experience can deal with that, ignore it, put it aside, specifically task themselves to describe any legit part of the target that does NOT match that assumption if such exists, things like that.

It's when you don't have anything specific in mind, but the pattern of thinking is in a model inappropriate to the target and you don't realize it, that one really runs into trouble.

The most obvious--this is the most simplistic, too--example I can think of is literals.  Most people doing formal RV practice on targets which are very literal--they are usually physical--and which are usually very specific either in form or in time.

So for example, there is usually photo or article feedback, and the target will be a given location, or a given person at that point in time, or a given event at that point in time.

So viewer methodologies, both formal and informal, tend to develop around the assumption that this is the nature of 'targets'.

Now you get a tasking that says, "Describe person X during the year 1979."  Or, "Describe the motivations of person Y in situation Z." These are what I call "wide focus" taskings, where the space and/or time factors are actually much more expanded than a training target, and in many cases there is nothing physical in the target and/or not with clear feedback.  

But usually the viewer is trying to translate every impression into something physical, because that is what they have learned to 'expect.'  Of course for early training this is the kind of target that is appropriate, but over time viewers 'open up' their experience set, and the more I do that, the more I run into seeing my own limits and mental-patterns.

That is an obvious example of thinking 'patterns' viewers fall into.  It isn't just making an impression of red-speed into 'car' as an AOL, that's the easy stuff to recognize with time.  It's keeping our minds from making assumptions about the type of data we're going to get (methods that require certain types also limit the tasking options for obvious reasons), or the way in which it is going to come (like how some people expect everything to be visual), this is harder.

The issue with gestalts is another example.  Many people are taught a limited 'set' of 'what is a gestalt'.  They think 'manmade' and 'organic' are gestalts.  They don't realize that 'fog' and 'rolling' and 'cold' and 'long' and 'fun' can be gestalts too, depending on the target.  So they tend to limit their session right off by subconsciously filtering into the few alleged 'gestalts' they have been taught are appropriate.  This isn't necessarily bad, I am just using it as an example to point out that the 'mental models' viewers hold that are unconscious are usually far more dangerous to them and their work than the obvious word-phrase AOLs, which time will teach them to recognize.

I find that analytical overlay (aol) and AOL "drive" (structuring a session portion or entirety within an analytical or as I used to say "affected" assumption) are always or at least still an issue with me but that the best medicine seems to be constant RV on a really wide range of targets.  The more I am constantly forced to realize that I just have NO idea what targets are, that no matter how obvious something seems it probably will be something else, the more it pounds into my little brain that I just don't know and may as well give up making assumptions.  Constant practice with a widely varied target pool is the only thing I have found that makes real inroads on this issue for me.

Regards,
PJ

[wizopeva]

It reminds me of one session I did.  I got swampland and desert and a beehive and mossy trees and a whole bunch of other seeming contradictory or divergent type impressions.  By the time I got done, I was kind of at a loss as to what to put in the summary.  The session was all over the map.  The tasking turned out to be something along the lines of 'describe the area where you live.'  

I was laughing cut it turned out the session was actually quite decent.  At the bottom of my hill is a swampy area and at the top is a desert like area.  In front of my home, I have cultivated a lot of spanish moss that hangs all over a tree.  There is also a beehive under the roof tiles of the main house.  Most of the other stuff matched too.  My mistake was assuming there must be any kind of comprehensibility to a good session, LOL!   But then again, if I were really good, I would probably have had a better idea of how the parts fit together.  Oh well.
-E
   

[PJ]

My mistake was assuming there must be any kind of comprehensibility to a good session, LOL!   But then again, if I were really good, I would probably have had a better idea of how the parts fit together.  Oh well.

I dunno about that.  Somewhere here I have an email addressing that, hold on... yeah, pem from Joe, he said:

...it's the fact that we try to bring it all together in some understandable format that screws it all up. As far away from that as you can get would be the proper place to be.

When someone like him seems to get 'context' incredibly well, maybe it is not always something gotten in session (maybe so, but maybe not always)--maybe it's also 2 or 3 sessions on certain taskings, and having experience with some self-analysis, that results in a good context after.  

I mean there are so few people doing RV at that level in public that I think it's hard to say, but maybe we the public/viewers simplify the 'ease' of it just because it looks easy for people like him on camera.  

Personally, I think he's got one of the most amazing brains I've ever known--totally apart from RV--and he's got a whole lot of resources assigned to RV that aren't even about psi, but surely do contribute to its use and understanding.  

My point being that maybe it really isn't that easy--except on unpredictable occasion--for anybody, and maybe we shouldn't expect that if we were better context would be coming through regularly.  

Maybe when that is obtained--other than the spontaneous stuff--it's due to mental processing that isn't even in-session and/or is quite apart from what we would normally expect to find in/around a session.

PJ

[Mariette]

This topic is of acute interest to me.  

I am new to CRV but I have sensed enough specific data  that I cannot doubt there is a lot to it.    

When I am working a target, sometimes I get very clear snippets -- not the entire target but a detailed piece of it.  

Often a flurry of AOL follows, so that I am doing AOL breaks more than noting data.    Sometimes I get the same image but more often an array of impressions will keep rearing up,  like a person who will not be ignored.   I understand that I have to train my subconscious to give me data in manageable chunks and that sooner or later, it will.

But when I view the target, darn if if those specific, persistent snippets aren't part of it.    Today's target had a the filigree of leaves and cloud strewn sky very like what I AOL'd.     One of the AOLs I had had to declare was the impression that it was a park.   It was not a park, but there was a building that closely resembles building I know is in a park.  

One time I got AOL data that had zilch to do with the target but was dead on, colors, objects, proportions and what it was - for the next target I worked.

When you declare AOLs are you rejecting data or just telling your subconscious 'not yet'?    

[Gene]

Hi Mariette,

There was a TKR thread on this a short while back that might be of interest to you titled, How to combat aol drive: http://www.tenthousandroads.com/wbbs/WBB.cgi?board=rvgenl;action=display;num=1074622343;start=1

In regards to your last question of: When you declare AOLs are you rejecting data or just telling your subconscious 'not yet'?   It is my experience and training that it can be either and in session is not the time to decide which it is, you just put it down as AOL and worry about the analysis or identification of it afterwards.

Addressing some of the other experiences, which are items everyone wrestles with to my knowledge, as one student to another I would suggest the following:  Speed up, as simple as this sounds it really solves a myraid of problems by not giving your left brain enough time to think up such things.  Secondly if faced with an AOL that just won't go away, then take an AOL break and sketch the thing out with every detail you got in it.  Do not start making up new things to add to it, but put down every single detail of the recurring AOL via a sketch, then set it asside with the full knowledge that you've noted it completely and resume the rest of your session.

Best regards,
Gene Smith

[PJ]

Yeah, AOL drive is deadly in proportion to how slow the session is, I find that as well.

Mariette, how the data is interpreted depends on the type of RV, and if it's a formal methodology, depends on where in the session timeline it occurs.  AOLs per se are not considered to be wrong, merely 'highly processed' data.  

At early stages of a session, they are often wrong, because the viewer's contact with the target isn't very deep yet (basically, they are usually getting shallow data, so a depth/complexly processed data point is more likely to be analytical than psi-based).  

As the session goes on, they get more likely to be accurate, and by the time you hit the matrix in stage 4 of CRV for example you have a place to write down nouns etc., which would have been noted as AOL at previous points.

Which leads back to another of Gene's points: it isn't really the viewer's job to make a decision about what is correct or not within a session.  They're just supposed to record what they get.

Now, when you get a seeming 'aol' that is really, really visual, or has a certain element of reality to it that most stuff doesn't, that is usually how I recognize symbolic data in a session.  This is technically, not usually accurate in a literal sense; it is totally created by the mind, which is often a much clearer, more vivid perception than the subtle abstract nature of psi.  The symbology is my mind's attempt to communicate something to me.  Whether or not I get it is another story, haha!  But if you learn to recognize when it happens--often these get mixed with AOL for many people and they never flesh them out as a different experience worth pursuing and better understanding--it can be of value to notice such things as being symbolic as it may both help you data-wise, and prevent you being led astray by the clarity of it into AOL drive.

Regards,
PJ

[Joe_Black]

I have found treating the target like a exercise helps, get colours. get aspect, put data down on scetch. Its when you put it all together that is goes wrong.

[polka_dot PUH_JOMMIES]

 

A few weeks (?) ago I promised someone (?) I would find some information I had regarding ( think ?) helps on identifying AOL vs non Aol. My notes are from a course I took.

Well, I found it, (I think), but forget who for and on which thread.....sigh    

Have lots on my mind these days and somedays 2 plus 2 is an effort. (yes, middle age sucks on these days    )..come to think of it though...I had days like this as a teen also  LOL, so maybe this isn't an age thingy....  and BTW, who cares!!  

Here it is, but I'm thinking I still may have more...will continue looking.

Signals vs Noise:

Signals are vibrations that relate to you:
  1.  An insight that specifically assists you or someone you are directly responsible for to maximize an opportunity or minimize struggle now.
  2.  An insight about something that you are specifically wanting to receive about.
  3.  An insight about someone else that can directly impact your life now or in the very near future.
  4.  An insight about someone who has asked you for insight where there is not vested interested or cherished outcome.

Noise is vibrations that don't :
  1.  An insight that does not specifically assist you or someone you are directly responsible for now.
  2.  An insight about something that you are not specifically wanting to receive about.
  3.  An insight about someone else that can not directly impact your life now or in the very near future.
  4.  An insight about someone who has not asked you for insight or where there is a vested interested or cherished outcome.

Symbolic vs Literal Signals:

Symbolic signals are insight that there have no accurate reference in your accessible consciousness to accurately interpret so it stays in it's pure form, a symbol.

  1.  There are universal symbols that resonate with global consciousness and have little or no personal reference to you.  These often are sensed as
       a.  more one-dimensional
       b.  don't move or interact
       c.  have little or no surroundings
    2.  There are also personal symbols that resonate with your higher consciousness and some reference to you but not intimately. 
These are often are sensed:
       a.  two-dimensional
       b.  will move or interact in repetitive ways (repeating a phrase over and over)
       c.  have some surroundings that stay static

Literal signals are insight that can stay accurate from the source of it through to your consciousness.  These are often are sensed:
  a.  three-dimensional
  b.  will move and interact with you (you can often ask them questions)
  c.  have surroundings around them that can move (they can even give you a tour)

Observing vs Projecting:

Observing is when you can receive insight about something or someone without vibrating with it or exchanging energy.  While you can have an opinion or even a light feeling (not emotion) about it, you can
easily separate your insight from that opinion or feeling (the insight could even be totally opposite of your opinion).

Projecting is where for either an issue from and/or from the thing or person you're wanting to receive insight on, you vibrate or exchange energy with.  With full permission from the other person and skilled approach this can be a part of an intense healing.  With a lack of boundaries and unstable inner alignment this can happen with people without their permission and including being abusive to their energy field by draining it.


If you can put your intuition into complete sentences, that's really your interpretation of your intuition so to always maintain full clarity and authenticity, start the sentence out with what you actually received and follow it with how your interpreted that.  It will improve your accuracy by minimizing filters.

It is unintelligent to apply only logic to a decision that has unknowns since logic is based on knowns.  Apply logic to the portion of the decision with the knowns and apply intuition to the portion with the unknowns.

Find the area of your life (career, relationships, finance, health, spiritual) where you are most clear and start making a specific prediction each day and evaluate the accuracy.  In twelve weeks you'll see a pattern of where you can and can't trust your clarity to know what to improve.
     
Hope this is helpful.      
     
  modified to add:
I used this guide as a way of placing the data I received.
I 'layered' the data accordingly- from strongest to least and then focused on the strong/clear & strong and then measured this info against other critia... (which I'm looking for and will add later on)
Signals - Strong/Clear, Strong, Neither:

Strong/Clear:
1.  no or little doubt it is a signal (vs noise)
2.  no or little confusion what you are receiving (whether or not you know what it means)

Strong:
1.  no or little doubt it is a signal (vs noise)
2.  not sure what you are receiving

Neither:
1.  not sure if it's a signal or noise
2.  not sure what you are receiving

   
modified again for part of a conversation:

When I go inside, to rv or meditate doesn't matter which, there is a signal I am trying to follow and also a ton of other stuff, sensory data, thoughts, fantasies, etc. It's like a radio tuned to 5 or 6 stations at once. When I manage to pick out the thread of the signal it is spot on for rv but often I don't even know if its there or which bit of data it is due to the amount of other stuff there with it.
Any suggestions for making the signal stronger or the other stuff weaker would be greatly appreciated. (I have been meditating for many years, TM then Vipassana and Dzogchen)

     
     response:
                                                       
learn to concentrate on a single thing and nothing else. you can try it with your breath, a vase, a spot, anything. concentrate and stare at it like there's nothing else in the entire universe. with practice, you can keep the noise out of your head and be more concentrated. astral dynamics by robert bruce has the best info on that.

and for: