The Self Correcting Mechanism

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

Project Home Page

RVwebForum

TKR @the Dojo Psi

Help make it possible for everyone.

[Marv]

A noted phenomenon in the ideogrammatic stage of CRV and its derivatives, the self-correcting mechanism occurs if an ideogram has been mis-interpreted by the viewer on the page. For instance, if a L - type ideogram is interpreted and recorded as a 'natural land mass' when it is in fact a manmade structure then that same ideogram will reappear the next time the viewer reasserts the co-ords and scribbles with their pen. Only when that ideogram is decoded correctly will the repetitions stop and the next gestalt reveal itself (via a new and different ideogram). 

Like other viewers I frequently experience this and just accept that it happens, though recently I have begun wonder why. Essntially it is some aspect of our subconscious signaling (via the repetition of the wrongly interpreted ideogram) that we have got things wrong.

Think about that a second. A red flag, waved by the subconscious, actively asserting that we have erred. How and why does this occur? If it can alert us to a mistake in interpretation here then why not elsewhere in the viewing process?

The fact that this occurs at all suggests a subconscious preference for (and ability to insist upon) correct perception of the target. I wonder whether this Self-Correcting Mechanism could be expanded to provide a 'commentary' on later stages of our viewing? Imagine if there was some way of applying this same mechanism to data gathered during S4...a sweep of all AOLs perhaps to weed out the total fabrications from those pertinent tio the target.

Don't forget that the SCM operates on the basis that 'the viewer has written something wrong on the page'. Surely there must be a way of developing this mechanism to apply to later, more specific data....?

Thoughts, anyone?

Marv 

[katzenhai2]

Dames "new" TRV is set for self-correcting: You do several movement exercises on different target aspects. It is supposed to be a self-correcting mechanism before you get to the "site template", a collection of the aspects finally put together.

So yes, self-correcting works everywhere when you give the subconcious the chance to correct. Thats only possible in repeating what you've done before (ideograms, movement exercises).

[Benton]

It does make sense that the self-correcting would work if it were given the opportunity to do once you have the aperture open more, later in the process.  Like mentioned, its just that ideograms allow for correction where later stages do not. 

How could the progressive stages be altered to allow multiple  passes, or questioning of each piece of target data?

[PJ]

Ref: ideograms, I think that's actually a known; that when it repeats it's usually that it was not decoded properly. Well, whether that's a known to everybody I am not sure.

This is important as it has other direct applications. If you get data repeating over and over there is something you're not forking out of it. If you get AOLs you can often become aware that there is a similar 'key component' of each AOL, no matter how different they are. The rest is just context. The key component is the point. But the 'change' is the point of the differences. It isn't that perceptionA or perceptionC were 'the' target. PerceptionA was 'about' the target; perceptionC was "that key component point as modified by the differential in that between A and C.  This can be simple, so for example, you might get a shape accurate, and that there is a multiple of it, and that it is arrange in alignment with the other things of the same shape, and that they are objects. But if you see a flash of something 'stacked' and then you see a flash of the same shape arranged like flower petals, it isn't that either of those 'are' the target; it's that the mind is saying, 'no, they are not stacked, they are laid out beside each other horizontally'.

In other words, the second data point was not "about the target" but instead was "about what I needed to adjust in my perception of the target". Which is important to know because the 'data' may not be data about the target but communication about the session and that might explain quite a bit of 'wrong data' people get, that we don't see the difference. That's why I often say you can get as much info about your session as about the target.

This subject is larger than that though, and I think you're on an important road. I've talked about this off and on through the years but I think you're the only person online who has ever just up and started mentioning it themselves or even wanted to carry on a conversation about it; I find this pretty important.

LD pointed me to this thread because we were talking about this a couple of years ago by phone, and he said I should explain here what I was saying back then. I've brought this up over years, in fact 1998 on a target on a green bridge was the first time I think I talked about it, but usually people yawn or lurk.

Any data that repeats more than twice (and sometimes that) is trying to tell you something ELSE.

Think of repetition in RV like someone raising their voice. I'm sure we've all had a conversation where someone repeats something "but louder" -- as if that is going to make us 'get it' better. Really, they need different words, but they're using the hammer they have, so to speak. I think viewing can be like that, where the mind finds something that works, but you don't get it or you only get part of it or you mess up some part of it, and so it "tries again louder" -- it gives it to you again. 

It can even start giving it to you in completely different ways like AOLs or perceived data that is actually not target data but the data "shares a fundamental" with each other even though aside from some component it may be totally different stuff.

Think of this like "analogies" the mind is helping with. If you don't get one analogy it will "wrap the fundamental" -- basically thoughtball the energy--into a different form, but still the same basic, and provide you that different form so you might get it this time. So you know, you can use football analogies with the guys but maybe you use crochet and cooking analogies with your grandmother instead. The conversation is NOT about crochet, football, or cooking -- all of that is 'noise' is 'aol' is 'wrong data' -- it's about the 'fundamental' that all those analogies are carrying. The details are just the packaging; it's whatever fundamental is repeating that matters.

The mind is constantly trying to work WITH us in this process. When you start looking at a session as a two-way communication between two sentient symbiotes with different frameworks, rather than as a one-way filtered/intermittant transfer between something inert and you communicating it, the whole framework changes.

Interesting stuff Marv.
Palyne

[Daz]

Great discussion,
I can only relate this form my experiences and they may be different form others.

My ideograms don't seem to replicate if decoded wrongly. Saying this I have a set language and over years of experience maybe I dont decode them wrongley very often... mmmm
Looking back over a few sessions when I do get what appears to be replicated ideograms they could also be attributed to other target gestalt's.

Also I don't seem to get important data repeated in a shouting type of way that PJ describes. Important data for me comes in words not in my everyday language and in new occurrences - like for example a S1 ideogram in a target this week which was a mass of squiggles - probed it was a dense, dark negative emotional energy. I've never had this in an ideogram before ( the target was Hitler). This was important and new.

But as I've said maybe its personal experience but repetition doesn't seem to be the same for me in session. If repetition is an indicator in session of important data - does this then apply to the larger picture of repetitive data across multiple sessions from multiple viewers on a project.
Is data is possibly important/accurate data because of repetition - I know some people who state that this is not the case.

All the best..

Daz

[PJ]

My ideograms don't seem to replicate if decoded wrongly. Saying this I have a set language and over years of experience maybe I dont decode them wrongley very often... mmmm

I'm not as experienced with Ids as with 'data overall' (since it's been years since I used Ids within the stage 1 context). But I'm pretty sure that someone 'taught' me that about how a repeating Id often meant you were missing the 'true' meaning of the Id, and finding that it was often true for me. Unfortunately it's been so long now I can't remember where I got that idea!

Also I don't seem to get important data repeated in a shouting type of way that PJ describes.

If that's how I said it, I said it wrong. I meant to convey that if data was repeated (as if shouting) it was that I was "missing something", and that was the point of the repeat, was to get something through my thick skull that I missed the first time.

But as I've said maybe its personal experience but repetition doesn't seem to be the same for me in session. If repetition is an indicator in session of important data - does this then apply to the larger picture of repetitive data across multiple sessions from multiple viewers on a project.

That would be in line with some peoples' theory that "corroborating data" between viewers indicates accuracy. I don't really hold that.

Is data is possibly important/accurate data because of repetition - I know some people who state that this is not the case.

That isn't what I meant to convey at all as I noted above, fwiw. Must be I need yet-more caffeine! 

PJ

[LD]

Ref: ideograms, I think that's actually a known; that when it repeats it's usually that it was not decoded properly. Well, whether that's a known to everybody I am not sure.

This is important as it has other direct applications. If you get data repeating over and over there is something you're not forking out of it. If you get AOLs you can often become aware that there is a similar 'key component' of each AOL, no matter how different they are. The rest is just context. The key component is the point. But the 'change' is the point of the differences. It isn't that perceptionA or perceptionC were 'the' target. PerceptionA was 'about' the target; perceptionC was "that key component point as modified by the differential in that between A and C.  This can be simple, so for example, you might get a shape accurate, and that there is a multiple of it, and that it is arrange in alignment with the other things of the same shape, and that they are objects. But if you see a flash of something 'stacked' and then you see a flash of the same shape arranged like flower petals, it isn't that either of those 'are' the target; it's that the mind is saying, 'no, they are not stacked, they are laid out beside each other horizontally'.

In other words, the second data point was not "about the target" but instead was "about what I needed to adjust in my perception of the target". Which is important to know because the 'data' may not be data about the target but communication about the session and that might explain quite a bit of 'wrong data' people get, that we don't see the difference. That's why I often say you can get as much info about your session as about the target.

This subject is larger than that though, and I think you're on an important road. I've talked about this off and on through the years but I think you're the only person online who has ever just up and started mentioning it themselves or even wanted to carry on a conversation about it; I find this pretty important.

LD pointed me to this thread because we were talking about this a couple of years ago by phone, and he said I should explain here what I was saying back then. I've brought this up over years, in fact 1998 on a target on a green bridge was the first time I think I talked about it, but usually people yawn or lurk.

Any data that repeats more than twice (and sometimes that) is trying to tell you something ELSE.

Think of repetition in RV like someone raising their voice. I'm sure we've all had a conversation where someone repeats something "but louder" -- as if that is going to make us 'get it' better. Really, they need different words, but they're using the hammer they have, so to speak. I think viewing can be like that, where the mind finds something that works, but you don't get it or you only get part of it or you mess up some part of it, and so it "tries again louder" -- it gives it to you again. 

It can even start giving it to you in completely different ways like AOLs or perceived data that is actually not target data but the data "shares a fundamental" with each other even though aside from some component it may be totally different stuff.

Think of this like "analogies" the mind is helping with. If you don't get one analogy it will "wrap the fundamental" -- basically thoughtball the energy--into a different form, but still the same basic, and provide you that different form so you might get it this time. So you know, you can use football analogies with the guys but maybe you use crochet and cooking analogies with your grandmother instead. The conversation is NOT about crochet, football, or cooking -- all of that is 'noise' is 'aol' is 'wrong data' -- it's about the 'fundamental' that all those analogies are carrying. The details are just the packaging; it's whatever fundamental is repeating that matters.

The mind is constantly trying to work WITH us in this process. When you start looking at a session as a two-way communication between two sentient symbiotes with different frameworks, rather than as a one-way filtered/intermittant transfer between something inert and you communicating it, the whole framework changes.

Interesting stuff Marv.
Palyne

Man. That's why I asked you to explain it PJ. A heck of a lot more helpful than if I'd tried to fumble through it lol.

This was a pretty big deal when you pointed it out to me a few years ago. I can't count how many times this little gem of insight has made the difference between correctly or incorrectly interpreting certain impressions.

I agree that it has deep implications that should perhaps make us consider more carefully how we think of the subconscious mind's (for lack of better term) role in psychic action. Like PJ said, it really changes the entire framework.


LD

[LD]

Daz,

The idea (at least as it works in my sessions, and apparently PJ's) isn't that repeated data = important data, but that there is a corrective factor in two successive, similar but slightly different impressions.

For example (perhaps a poor one,) say I got an impression of an apple with a knife sticking out of it, and then got an impression of a beach ball with a nail sticking out of it. The second impression would be corrective by relating that the target isn't an apple with a knife, or a beach ball with a nail, but that it's something spherical with something long and pointy sticking out of it. It's the similarities and the differences of the two successive impressions that communicate the important right data (sphere, pointy thing sticking out of it) while eliminating the wrong data (apple, knife, beach ball etc.)

Writing it out, it seems like a long process, but it's pretty quick and automatic once you begin to recognize it. A neat thing for "language of the mind."

I used to get this kind of thing in session and never really "got it" until it was suggested to me that it was a corrective act. All of the sudden it was so clear where I'd messed up my interpretations in so many sessions lol.

[Daz]

its certainly an interesting observation and theory and it wouldn't hurt to look at more and see if there is a pattern in the process.

You see the mind can ONLY use YOUR past experiences/memories to convey the real target data. If you don't have an exact match the process will use the next best memory. Which is where the errors start to creep in. This is also why I don't think we travel to the targets in any form - if we did then the data would become NEW memory/experiences - but it doesn't, to interpret the real data, YOUR past experiences/knowledge are used. Its also why targets we have been to or directly experienced seem to be more accurate rv sessions as we have more direct memories to match with the real data.

all the best...

Daz

[Marv]

I'm not as experienced with Ids as with 'data overall' (since it's been years since I used Ids within the stage 1 context). But I'm pretty sure that someone 'taught' me that about how a repeating Id often meant you were missing the 'true' meaning of the Id, and finding that it was often true for me. Unfortunately it's been so long now I can't remember where I got that idea!

The phenomenon is presented in the online CRV Manual at www.crvmanual.com. This is lifted directly from the early 'structure' section:

5.  Self-Correcting Characteristic: The tendency of the ideogram to re-present itself if improperly or incompletely decoded. If at the iteration of the coordinate an ideogram is produced and then decoded with the wrong "A" & "B" components, or not completely decoded, upon the next iteration of the coordinate the same ideogram will appear, thereby informing the viewer that he has made an error somewhere in the procedure. On rare occasions, the ideogram will be re-presented even when it has been properly decoded. This almost inevitably occurs if the site is extremely uniform, such as the middle of an ocean, a sandy desert, glacier, etc., where nothing else but one single aspect is present.