To name or describe?

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

[Liz]

Hi everyone,

I've just finished a ERV session and have come up against the age old dilema of whether to describe or name the things I see. Here is what happened.

I saw two large glass jars filled with preserved pears. The jars had gold lids.

The target ended up being two pyramids bathed in gold light.

Now the jars are a perfect symbol if you see them as being two containers for preserves with gold lids or outers.

If I had just described the jars I would have said:

glass
rounded
smooth
liquid
fruit
gold

Just about all of that would have been wrong.

Neither the description or the naming give any clue to what the target was. Yet I was on target!

Ahhhhhhhh!  

Liz

[waterway]

Preserved pears!  Har!  That's a good one!  Get it... preseved pairs....Since those pyramids often contained a mummified King and Queen.  And I think some of the major pyramids had gold covered capstones too.... yer subconscious has a great sense of humor!  

[Liz]

Hi waterway and energycritter,

I thought is was hillarious too.  

And so awsome. Isn't it incredible that our minds can find the target and then come up with a neat little package that not only describes the target but describes what it's used for as well. That to me is so absolutley awsome.
Frustrating, because it doesn't help me at all....... but awsome.

Liz

[Damien]

     I am not familiar with the exact protocol for ERV.  In the CRV-TRV protocol there is something called Analytical Overlay of the Signal line.  AOL/S which is used for things that are similies or metaphors.  The Pyramids are like the Jars of Pears.  Something like that would be written AOL/S 'Jars of Pears'.  I guess the tough part is knowing if it really is a jar of pears or a metaphor  
                                     mmmmm pears,
                                                               Damien

[Fire]

Liz, I love it!  

(You're posting here with your stripes on, I see.  )

To me, this is not AOL in experience, it is 'symbolic data'. It would be AOL on paper.  The really "visual" clips are always 'symbolic' data for me.  The hard part is, even if you KNOW it is 'symbolic' data (and I have at times), knowing which parts of it are relevant!

In a session I once described on pjrv, I had this really clear fast visual of a person, with their face painted black, and their eyes looking at me, and they were wearing a hat.  I wasn't sure but I had a sense of female/secrets.  That is what I noticed.  I knew it was symbolic.  But which part was the important part??  The female part?  The secret part?  The black part?  The eyes looking at me?  The hat part?  Which were literal and which were symbolic?

The target was an astronaut floating outside the space station, of course with the black-faced helmet.  When I saw it though, I made the 'out in space' connection first, and instantly thought, "Nuit!--the night sky"--connecting to the mix of feminine/secret/woman-of-darkness etc.  Then I realized that "there is a person, their face is covered in black, yet they can see, and they are wearing something on their head."  

That's fine but who the heck knows till feedback, unless you have someone taking the data for use either with other sessions or with tasking info?  While in the session, it is not apparent what part of 'symbolic' data is the part to pay attention to.

I have noticed over time that certain element in symbolic data, for me are usually always relevant:
1) Quantity.
2) Color.
3) Function or behavior or motion of what is seen, there is usually some fairly unique thing going on.

In another session once, I asked if there were people in the target, and I had this visual flash of this young boy, who was painted to exactly match an outdoor wall of a buiding, and I didn't see him until he moved, and then he blended back into the wall again.  (Remember the Adams Family first movie, how they painted the little girl to blend into the wallpaper?  It was like that, yet clearly an outdoor wall.)  I tried to figure out what that was telling me, as I knew it was symbolic.  Something about... a person hidden by walls, or blending into a wall or building, or was it about a boy, or about youth, or about 'camoflauge', or...?!  The target turned out to be an overview of a city.  There were people in it, but of course, they were hidden or blended by the city structures in the photo.

In another visual I had on the space session above, I was trying SO HARD to "grok" the primary focus of the target and getting in my own way.  My mind was trying to tell me but I was messing it up lol.  So I asked specifically for the primary nature of the target.  And I had this visual of ... well it was like something I might have seen as a child given the environ, it was this big hole except the it was broken inside the wall of a hill, so it wasn't downward but inside, yet it wasn't an actual cave, just a big space that was left by the dirt collapsing somehow.  It was black inside, I couldn't see inside.  I knew it was symbolic, and racked my poor little brain about what it meant, thinking, dirt? mountain?  hole?  And then I got the feedback and literally whacked myself on the head yelling, "SPACE!  SPACE, YOU IDIOT!"  hahahaha!

Fire

[wizopeva]

Liz, I think that first of all, you cannot guess how you would have described the jars when you were in the session.  Often, the descriptors that rise to the consciousness in a session are not the most obvious ones but are the ones that match the actual target.  I like to just kind of see what aspects jump out me and write those down.

Second of all, I think it's wise to write down both the nameing (aol) and the descriptors.  Sometimes when you name it DOES turn out to be correct.  Even if it doesn't, the name will sometimes tell the analyst something of use.  The danger of naming is just that you might get yourself kind of locked into a certain decison on what the target may be or have in it.  It takes practice to cultivate a kind of neutrality about the naming and guessing.  Basically, you want to log what you are thinking but NOT make any assumptions about it.  

As for descriptors, when names are off, they are usually at least carrying a lot of useful info so descriptors are how you milk that info.  If the name is correct, then any descriptor will be correct.  But if the name is off, then at least you might still dig out a lot of good descriptors.  That's when I just do that old 'see what jumps out at me' type of describing.  One way to kind of get the ball rolling is if you get a name, say you think it is a tractor, then say to yourself, "I think it is a tractor because:" and then list a few things like, "I think it is a tractor because it is because it is heavy, red, and has a metal arm clutching thingy" Later you might even realize that it's weird to say 'red' cuz tractors are usually yellow, but hey your job is to log down info, not make analytical judgements about it right?  

The only 'judgements' I do try to make are noticing how things come to me and how they feel.  After a while now, I can often tell what aspect of an aol is the really impt one.  Like sometimes I just know it's the shape that is what is relevant.  Other times, it's movement or I realize it's a symbolic thing.  So now I'm getting better at milking the aols cuz I've gotten better at identifiying the 'good parts.'   But I always try to write it all down.  Sometimes stuff has info at multiple levels and it's very hard in the session to remember to look at all aspects.   Also, there have been so many times when i was thinking of things in the session that were spot on and I later kicked myself for not having written it!  
-E
   

\

Hi everyone,

If I had just described the jars I would have said:

glass
rounded
smooth
liquid
fruit
gold

Just about all of that would have been wrong.

Neither the description or the naming give any clue to what the target was. Yet I was on target!

Ahhhhhhhh!  

Liz

[weewizard]

One of the "techniques" often used by a friend of mine is to write down the AOL information as descriptively as possible and then mentally let the image "release" or flow away. If it continues to return over and over, sometimes it is actually the target, other times there seem to be descriptors that have been left out. So apparently the technique is to continue writing down all descriptors until the AOL ish image fades away and is replaced by more and different data.

Just a thought.

I personally write down the AOL image as descriptively as I can and most of the time it passes on in lieu of additional information. I assume that it's a subconscious symbology and move on.

For example, once I saw images of a kind of cloth (like I'd seen used for monk's robes in ancient times) blowing in the wind, and AOL of a flag blowing in the breeze came up, and the flag was shaped in kind of an "S" shape. Well, all of those images were related in some way or another to the final target. The target was a "sheep herding drive" in the highlands of Scotland. The "rough cloth blowing in the breeze was the sheep herd coming over the hills, and the S shape was the shape of the herd as it moved through the valley. The Flag was just a way my subconscious interpreted all this put together. It was a great session lesson for me.

[Mystic_Rhythms]

Reading through all this, I suddenly feel like I maybe havent RV'd at all yet... in that I can't tell any difference between symbolism and target data.

I just write down EVERYTHING.

And I think that is a great thing to do.  Write it all down, don't get too hung up interpreting what you are doing and miss something.

WW you reminded me of another technique I recently started doing.  You said:

One of the "techniques" often used by a friend of mine is to write down the AOL information as descriptively as possible and then mentally let the image "release" or flow away

I have been trying to totally release any concept I come across as I move to the next part of the session.  Seems to work pretty well.  Making sure when I write STOP, I mean it.  

Great RV thread guys!  

MR

[River]

Hi everyone,

I've learnt a stack from this thread. Thanks to you all.  

I have noticed over time that certain element in symbolic data, for me are usually always relevant:
1) Quantity.
2) Color.
3) Function or behavior or motion of what is seen, there is usually some fairly unique thing going on.

PJ, that is an interesting observation and it just so happens that the pears symbology had quantity, colour and function.
I have never thought of keeping note of what qualities my symbols have. I'll start taking note.

In the same session I also got a cross that was shining gold light. On feedback I could see that it was a birds eye view of one pyramid, the cross being the corners.

So this would be shape and colour.

Now at this point I would have gone right back to thinking that it's all too confusing because I could have also said 'round' if I had described the glass jar.

But E went on to say:

Liz, I think that first of all, you cannot guess how you would have described the jars when you were in the session.  Often, the descriptors that rise to the consciousness in a session are not the most obvious ones but are the ones that match the actual target.  I like to just kind of see what aspects jump out me and write those down.  

Yes, you are right, I may have described them totally differently than how I look at them now.

It would be interesting to ask at the time what aspects of 'the symbol' were describing the target. And I wonder how those answers would be shown. And I wonder what would happen if you asked that and you were already being shown the target.

Ahh, so many questions. I'd better go do Eva's next session and hope for something to probe.  

Reading through all this, I suddenly feel like I maybe havent RV'd at all yet... in that I can't tell any difference between symbolism and target data.

Hey Eric, join the club! I have no idea either. I only know that for me if an image is picture perfect like in real life then it's bound to be symbolic........ But not necessarily.  :-/

One of the "techniques" often used by a friend of mine is to write down the AOL information as descriptively as possible and then mentally let the image "release" or flow away

What I do is......I get an image, take note of it and then pretend to begin the session again.

I sort of take the idea that so far I might be wrong and off track so this time I will begin again and be really focused.

After a few images I feel like I stay in the same 'space' and know I'm at least at the same spot even if it's not the target.  

Liz..... babbling along like a..... River  

[Fire]

I'm not sure if symbolism vs. regular data always or even often 'feels' different.  Sometimes I know data is symbolic because I feel as if my mind is trying to get a point through, and I just 'know' that what I'm seeing is NOT the target, not even a part of it, but is rather ABOUT it, which is different.  Psychic charades, basically.  ("2 syllables!  Sounds like...!")

Most of the symbolic data I've so far learned to recognize is only because I've gotten it repeatedly enough over time to figure it out.  And over time I've figured out that for me personally, super-clear, super-fast dynamic visuals are usually symbolic.  Now I was taught eons ago that clear dynamic visuals were usually wrong.  Outside a heavily altered-state RV (where visuals seem more common for many people), if I took this data literally, I guess I would agree.  

But I think a whole lot more data is 'symbolic' than we realize, and it might be that a lot of things have been considered 'wrong' over time just because the whole subject was approached with far too literal a mindset.

PJ