pjrv : Messages : 1870-1870 of 4038
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pjrv/messages/1870?)

 23:29:45

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-PJRV_group---------

#1870
 	From: "David Humphries" 
Date: Sun Dec 29, 2002 10:13 pm
Subject: Re: Session on Fuzzy Peanut Butter 	a_healey56
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°
  	  	

It looks like PJ finally has a formidable opponent - but can you type as
fast as she can? :-)

> Rachel the Verbose
> (no, PJ, this wasn't the session I mentioned to you.
> That's still waiting to be typed. I don't even have
> it on me so it'll wait.)

pjrv : Messages : 1869-1975 of 4038
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pjrv/messages/1869?)

 23:32:20

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-PJRV_group---------

#1869
 	From: "Rocheleh" 
Date: Sun Dec 29, 2002 3:30 pm
Subject: Session on Fuzzy Peanut Butter 	rochelehhakt...
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°
  	  	

I've typed this up a few days ago on my notebook, but I haven't had a chance to
send it before.

~~~~

I've did Pru's "Your very first session" target from her Aurora Bomb online
training files earlier this day, and while I'm still in an RV-ish mood, I'm
going to type my session up.

It's possible that it's still not intermediate enough for this list, but I've
commented my session before feedback in CRV lingo because I felt that offered me
another shot at interpretation. So, this is a Pruish-CRV session, and this way,
it may be a little more than a 101-level session... at least I hope so. It's
probably not more -sigh- At least you'll see some stuff made by me for the first
time. I'm also planning on doing Farview targets (beware, analysts! I should be
less verbose, I know.).

I don't have a scanner here, I might have access to a graphics tablet in a few
days' time so the best I can come up with is to trace the sketches. (I guess the
ideograms would look silly redrawn - they'd lose dynamic.) Coming Soon, you'll
have to make do with text descriptions till then, sorry...

It's typed twice, once without comments (TDS), once with both pre(CRV)- and
post-feedback(disorganized) comments. Trained folks will no doubt die upon
looking at what a mess I made of the neatly organised art of CRV... -sigh- Well,
don't scroll down too much is all I can say...

Feedback is here: http://www.aurorabomb.com/objective1.html

Page 1
------

Header:

B"H   [this is a Jewish shorthand that one writes upon starting to write
something... it is short for Baruch HaShem, Blessed is the Name [of G-d]. It's
actually written in Hebrew, this is a transliteration.]
Rachel
2002. 12. 25.
18:11
Dir: Fuzzy Peanut Butter [TDS directive. Another way to ID a session.]
Viewer Blind Solo

PS - I have a cold and I feel as if I had to go to the toilet (I just did, this
is probably because of the excitement)
ES - I'm excited - I was happy just a minute ago, but then [short description of
family business that don't really belong on a list - the end result is 'i'm not
happy any longer']
MS - d3

Tag: 8972 0976

(TDS Transit line)

Page 2
------

[Ideogram]

A: up-arch-down-arch-up-zigzag
contrasted
solid

B: cliff, chasm?
No. The large thing rises up.

C:
metal
grey
white
large
Statue of Liberty
calm
brown
little bear
furry, soft
bored
sour taste
dusty
water

D:
[sketch of a cube - representation of space - and in it, a towering shape.
   _____
   \   /
   I   I
   I   I
  /     \
/       \
--------- ]

Page 3
------

[Ideogram]

A: up-down-across
steep
sharp   soft

B: edge

C:
soft
"gooey" [in English]
green
flat
little bumps
white, curved
snow
ski jumping struct.
black, grey down
across, green

D: [drawing of a wave, a little figure doing ski, greenish little bumps and
indentations to the right - the indentations drawn separately as well, in
multiple views to let the 3D show]

Page 4
------

[Ideogram]

A: up-plateau (means also "roof")-down-U curve
soft
curved

B: something large, indentation

C:
bluish-green
diagonal lines
grey, empty
something boring, not like Pru at all
red, lilac, striking
noise
clowns
upward movement to the left
hard, solid, grey, large
hill, dune
A-bomb
blue, soft, "fluffy clouds" [in English]
Dizzy
carpet

D: [a mountainish thing, little diagonal lines on it, an indentation on the
right side. An A-bomb drawn in the middle of it :) a carpet to the right, fluffy
clouds above it. Clowns in front. Well, Pru said one should draw what one wrote,
LOL!]

Page 5
------

OC:
flat hard
hurts
metallic
solid
aggressive
pills
white
plastic
semi-transparent
white
soft
cold
dizzying
height
funny
empty
green
pain
tired
shallow
water
NYC sea
blast
soft, smooth
fine
giggling
green, grass
[unreadable...oy]
large
open
small things hanging
threads
emptiness
(again)
grey
nothing
large, closed space
short
tall, long
vapour, hot vapour
cooling tower
some tower
fence
red yellow
lighthouse
panda bear LOL! [yes, I wrote "LOL" in-session]
happiness
nice
furry
children
they are having fun
there is no more data
Trabant [an East German make of car, the above three lines rhyme a bit in the
original]
exhaust gas
grey
frequency (of words)
[a make of painkiller]
painkiller
sea sickness <-> against
height
honesty

Page 6 is a large, complicated sketch. It's a towering something with "air"
around it and lots of small indentures on the ground surface, with "NOISE" at
the bottom of the tower structure. The structure has "something in it??" and an
opening to the right of it. Small vertical lines are drawn on it alongside
"grass??". Along its left edge there's an arrow showing "small things upward
movement". Yes, and the whole thing's symmetrical save the opening to the right
- unlike sketches 2 and 3. Text at the indentures says "an other type of
texture". Text to the left of the structure says "there's nothing important
here" and to the right says "but here there is".
There is an other sketch of a Teddy bear, with the text "no interpretable
relation between the two". Additional text reads "1 artificial - 1 natural
inside".

Pru part ends and CRV notes starts at 18:47.

I copy the whole thing again, I didn't want to create confusion with the CRV
notes added at the first time - the original I did with different colours. My
after-feedback remarks directed to the list are in [] brackets. The other
remarks are pre-feedback.

Yes, and it's entirely possible I messed up CRV terminology. I'm a world-class
newbie. (Are those still called lamers? ;) ) Ask if something is not clear.

Page 2
------

[Ideogram]

A: up-arch-down-arch-up-zigzag
contrasted
solid

B: cliff, chasm?
No. The large thing rises up. [LOL, I really write such awkward sentences!]

C:
metal
grey
white
large
Statue of Liberty - AOL - large grey metallic structure famous
calm
brown
little bear - AOL - soft furry brown play loved "fuzziness" - possibly all of
this is overlay from Directive [it's undeclared AI as you'll see below]
furry, soft
bored
sour taste
dusty
water

D:
[sketch of a cube - representation of space - and in it, a towering shape.
   _____
   \   /
   I   I
   I   I
  /     \
/       \
--------- ]

next to the sketch: AOL that went undeclared: cooling towers for atomic power
plant
warm hot vaporous foggy atom danger aggressive [the end is probably for A-bomb,
not as much as for power plant... I actually support peacetime atomic power
usage but that's off-topic]

Page 3
------

[Ideogram]

A: up-down-across
steep
sharp   soft

B: edge

C:
soft
"gooey" [in English]
green
flat
little bumps
white, curved
snow
ski jumping thing [I don't know the English offhand] - AOL - structure, upward
movement
black, grey down
across, green

D: [drawing of a wave, a little figure doing ski, greenish little indent. to the
right - the indentations drawn separately as well, in multiple views to let the
3D show]

next to the sketch: it's possible that all of this is moving and then this is
windsurfing (just a stray thought but it came in rather strong) additional
little sketch: a rectangle, a line moving toward the right. "movement this way -
whole picture"

Page 4
------

[Ideogram]

A: up-plateau (means also "roof")-down- U curve
soft
curved

B: something large, indentation

C:
bluish-green
diagonal lines
grey, empty
something boring, not like Pru at all - AI bigtime! [well, I read "Tastes like
Chicken" and I thought I was in for something really really weird as a target...
compared to those expectations, it was boring, but otherwise not :) This target
was a lot better than the previous ones I did. You remember my all-so-boring
target pool, right?]
red, lilac, striking
noise
clowns - AOL - happiness, noise - AI
upward movement to the left
hard, solid, grey, large
hill, dune - single upward natural undifferentiated structure
A-bomb - came thru from previous undeclared AOL?
blue, soft, "fluffy clouds" E
Dizzy - AOL to "fluffy clouds" - egg-shaped, white, bit of red, happiness,
funny, "warmth" comparable to bear
[this Dizzy is the old computer game character... anyone remembers him? I
_loved_ those games.]
carpet - red, yellow, thatched (drawing of crossed lines) patterns, threads

D: [a mountainish thing, little diagonal lines on it, an indentation on the
right side. An A-bomb drawn in the middle of it :) a carpet to the right, fluffy
clouds above it. Clowns in front. Well, Pru said one should draw what one wrote,
LOL!]

Page 5
------

OC:
flat hard
hurts [now, I don't know how _this_ made it into my session. Maybe the "healing
effect" later on. The whole "transformation hurts" idea is rather central to me,
but I didn't make the connection this time.]
metallic
solid
aggressive
pills - AOL white sour healing effect? compare later
white [I disassembled the image of "pills" in the following lines...]
plastic
semi-transparent
white
soft
cold
dizzying
height
funny AI
empty
green
pain
tired
shallow
water
NYC sea - AOL - structure rising up from water, something on its top (the top
comes later) I get the feeling it's a surfer [LOL! If only I knew]
blast
soft, smooth
fine
giggling
green, grass - AOL - natural small repeated things
[unreadable...oy]
large
open
small things hanging
threads - compare "natural small repeated things"
emptiness
(again)
grey
nothing
large, closed space
short
tall, long [LOL! short and tall at the same time. Well, one of them inevitably
fits, but I want to avoid ambiguousness even if it means I won't do as good.
"You have to be cruel to be kind, you have to leave the past behind...la la la"
- I wonder which song this was in.]
vapour, hot vapour
cooling tower - AOL carried over from power plant
some tower
fence - red white metallic edge water
red white [this "red white" thing is from Dizzy I guess, which is probably still
the undeclared AI-ness]
lighthouse
panda bear LOL! [yes, I wrote "LOL" in-session]
happiness - AI
nice - AI
furry - AI [yes, I actually marked this as AI at this point... but it was too
late to erase the bear. I didn't make the connection completely.]
children - group life-forms young
they are having fun
"there is no more data"  [there WAS no more, apparently]
Trabant [an East German make of car, the above three lines rhyme a bit in the
original]
exhaust gas
grey
frequency (of words)
[a make of painkiller]
painkiller - compare "pills" above
sea sickness <-> against  - undeclared AOL from pills
height
honesty

I didn't write anything on the sketch after the CRV lingo part. I should have -
X out the bear and write "feeling of being protected" or something like that
next to it. I was apparently too green to make the connection completely
consciously (after I did semi-consciously when I marked the simple descriptive
"furry" as AI). Well, this was my very first target that had anything
considerably metaphorical in it... no, wait, I had one previously, but that was
frontloaded like hell. So that doesn't really count. And I didn't go for
anything metaphorical, I thought I'd be cool enough if I described the looks of
it. That messed up things for sure, as I wanted to interpret everything as
physicals. My bad!

Overall, I guess this was a rather good session compared to my previous ones
(especially the final composite sketch), but then again, the target was also
rather good compared to my previous ones :) (Now you have a clue just how bad my
previous sessions were.)

And now a few questions for Pru. (Oy, maybe she's the only one who's read it
this far! It must've been rather boring.)

There is no such thing mentioned as overlay in the Aurora Bomb files this far.
Is it not included in the TDS system at all or does it come only later? I've
found them useful, and failing to identify overlay in this session brought in a
whole Teddy bear for me as you saw :) I'd find them necessary, but maybe that's
only me - the only part I like in Freudian theory is the defence mechanisms, so
that says something about me... I'm a Cognitive at heart.

Something that will sound quite stupid, I'm afraid: just how large paper are you
using for sessions? Whenever you write "you should be at one third of the page",
I'm at less that one fifth. I use standard A4 size paper (210 X 294 mm), but
maybe the United States has different standards. (And A5 is too small.) This
way, there are too large open spaces left, and because I'm also an
environment-conserving type at heart, it keeps on disturbing me somehow. (Folks,
don't laugh! This is my Serious Problem(tm)! ) And struggling to fill the Open
Collector - I had half of the paper left empty, but I couldn't help it.

Also, why is it important to draw exactly what one described? I feel, that way,
stupid overlay can stick in and it's hard to banish later. (Even if I put down
the pen. - That doesn't seem to work too well for me, in any structure, BTW...
probably because I'm not the physical-movement-oriented sort of someone, I'm a
lot more visual. Oh, maybe I should imagine an eraser?) At least, based on this
one session. Or is the Matrix, which comes later, something to sort all that
misinterpreted symbolic data out? Isn't that too late at that stage?

It was good that it seemed to have structure where CRV lacked (well, the sort of
CRV I made for myself considering I never had training anywhere) - like, you say
to do three ideograms, three scans. CRV just says, do as you wish. But I need
guidance everywhere, LOL! So I put the two together and presto! - furrows her
brow - Well, I don't know how'll I do it in the long term, but these training
files are fun. It's nice to know different methodologies, and you have a fun
style that makes my - drama queen pose! - fear of psi issue reduce somewhat.
Thanks! Now back to business, I still have things to say...

The sample session snippets seem to contain (wow, four "s"s!) a lot of seemingly
too-high level data, too, in parts C of the scans... I recall "Middle Eastern
looking man" and such. So I assumed it was legit in TDS methodology and went and
did so myself. Well, it _did_ add to the spontaneity, not having to think about
all that protocol and just enjoying myself, having fun, sure - it was cool :)
but it was also rather complicated to weed it out afterwards and I didn't even
manage to completely do so. I wonder about that Matrix now - you got me hooked,
when's the next update? ;)

Rachel the Verbose

(no, PJ, this wasn't the session I mentioned to you. That's still waiting to be
typed. I don't even have it on me so it'll wait.)

Reply | Forward
	
#1873
 	From: "Eva " 
Date: Sun Dec 29, 2002 11:54 pm
Subject: Re: Session on Fuzzy Peanut Butter 	k9caninek9
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°
  	  	

> Rocheleh wrote:

> It's possible that it's still not intermediate
> enough for this list, but I've commented my session
> before feedback in CRV lingo because I felt that
> offered me another shot at interpretation. So, this
> is a Pruish-CRV session, and this way, it may be a
> little more than a 101-level session...

---LOL, I think you may be overestimating the rest of us!  If the
stuff is even vaguely legible, you may beat half the viewers in
town!

> at least I hope so. It's probably not more -sigh-
> At least you'll see some stuff made by me for the first
> time. I'm also planning on doing Farview targets
> (beware, analysts! I should be less verbose, I know.).

---I have never heard a rule about verbosity.  I know some viewers
often wish they could get more data then they do so I wouldn't worry
too much if you get a lot of stuff.  Of course, a concise summary is
at times nice, but there's nothing wrong with getting a lot of data.
OFten if you don't get sucked too far into aol/castle building land,
then the data will get better and better the longer you go.

> I don't have a scanner here, I might have access to a
> graphics tablet in a few days' time so the best I can
> come up with is to trace the sketches. (I guess the
> ideograms would look silly redrawn - they'd lose dynamic.)

---Ideos are unique to the person anyway so I am not sure how much
others would gain from seeing them, other than just to see how unique
ideos can look in the first place.

> Coming Soon, you'll have to make do with text
> descriptions till then, sorry...
> It's typed twice, once without comments (TDS), once
> with both pre(CRV)- and post-feedback(disorganized)
> comments. Trained folks will no doubt die upon looking
> at what a mess I made of the neatly organised art of
> CRV... -sigh- Well, don't scroll down too much is
> all I can say...

---Well it looks like you were coming in on the basic shape of the
thing and on some of the aspects of it, especially in scan 1.  I
wonder if the fluffy clouds had to do with the 'heaven' aspect.  I
also wonder if there was grass lower down the steps out of sight.
YOu could probably do a net search on the monument and find a pic
that covered a bit more of the surroundings.

-E

Reply | Forward
	
#1886
 	From: "Prudence Calabrese " 
Date: Wed Jan 1, 2003 10:35 am
Subject: Re: Session on Fuzzy Peanut Butter 	largeruniverse
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°
  	  	

Hi R!

I will answer a couple of your questions here. I did send you a PEM inviting you
to post your detailed thoughts and results at the Aurora Bomb forum, where other
viewers in my group can read and comment and then you can get a variety of
opinions and ideas.

On Overlay:

We don't use a formal declaration of overlay (AOL or Deduction).

When you are a viewer, you are a storyteller. You have an experience with  your
objective, and then you tell that story on your paper, your session. Just like
when you tell a story to a friend about something you saw at the Mall or your
Mom's birthday party, you use direct physical details and analogy and  metaphor
to tell your story. Viewing is no different. You use a combination of ways to
relay your experience. So, every piece of data is valid, though it may not be
physically directly  relevant. It's the job of you as a viewer in your session
to think for a moment  every time you draw a conclusion. We don't write the
conclusion down as an  AOL or Deduction because it's real data - you are just
telling your story! But  we do a short breakdown and tell your reader why the
objective is like that  conclusion.

Say you are viewing something and you see a picture in your mind's eye of a 
firetruck, or perhaps you feel you are viewing a firetruck. What we do is sit
for  a moment and think why the ojective is like a firetruck. Then we will write
something like this:

"It's like a firetruck because it's fast, speeding, has wheels, and is red and 
noisy."

Heck, it might be a firetruck. It also might be a sportscar. If you breakdown 
your perception the moment it happens, and honor your storytelling intuition  by
saying why your conclusion (firetruck) is being drawn, then you are home  free.
This really keeps constant AOLs from cluttering in a useless manner your 
sessions. No TDS sessions have AOLs, they just have data that has been  broken
down. We don't allow them, because THEY ARE NOT WRONG!!! They  are pointers to
what is occurring.

The more you 'get into' telling your story, the less likely you are to get
frazzled  by worry about what it is and what it isn't. It becomes something
exploratory  and fun.

We do have a summary and other aspects, but these have not yet been covered at
Aurora Bomb. My webmaster, Susan Grober, had a baby six  weeks ago, and so we
are behind in uploading some materials, so have  some patience.

Cheers and Happy New Year!!!

Pru

Reply | Forward
	
#1888
 	From: "Eva " 
Date: Wed Jan 1, 2003 10:23 pm
Subject: Re: Session on Fuzzy Peanut Butter 	k9caninek9
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°
  	  	

One assumption here is that aol=wrong.  I'm not sure where that came
from.  I never learned it that way, although I can see why people
might come to that conclusion.  The way I learned it, aol in CRV
means you write it in a diff place, stay neutral about it, and
remember to focus on descriptives.  But come time for the summary,
you make your decision about an aol and are free to include it in the
summary if you like.  That's why I never really saw a conflict
between the two methods.  Label it or not, as far as I can see, you
would still be doing the same thing, and that is making no judgements
on the aol and focusing on descriptives.  Each method just has a
slightly diff spin on how that happens.
-E

> Pru wrote:
> We don't use a formal declaration of overlay (AOL or Deduction).
> [snip] We don't write the conclusion down as an  AOL or
> Deduction because it's real data - you are just telling your story!
> [snip] We don't allow them, because THEY ARE NOT WRONG!!!
> They  are pointers to what is occurring. [snip]

Reply | Forward
	
#1975
 	From: "PJ Gaenir " 
Date: Thu Jan 9, 2003 12:14 am
Subject: Personal notes about AOL/sessions 	dennanm
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
  	  	

> Eva wrote (on 1/8):
> that is making no judgements
> on the aol and focusing on descriptives.

I think something I've learned is that the whole concept of raw data
and AOL is itself pretty flawed.  Anything that makes it into an
actual word is SOME degree of analytical interpretation -- it's just
that it might be accurate is all.

Technically there is only SUSPECTED 'AOL'.  If it's accurate, it's
not an "overlay" -- it's not our brain fixing something ELSE on TOP
of data -- it's simply an accurate an interpretation of energy as
your data "thick" or "blue" was.  Technically we don't know what is
AOL until feedback.  What we call AOL is more like "suspected AOL."

When I get deserts, I often get mass water like ocean.  I think this
is some weird response to the similarity on vast-surface or density
(not-hard, you can put your hand in it) of sand or something, who the
heck knows.  Point is, 'water' and 'sand' are both analytical
interpretations.  Maybe they do not have as many details to them as
something like "boat" or "childbirth" but they are both analytical
because they have a word attached.

Yet most people when they think of data, actually think that
something like "brown" or "wood" is "RAW DATA" whereas something
like "door" is an AOL.  I don't see "wood" or "brown" as being any
less analytical than door, it is just less complex and more
conceptual as data is all.  But when it boils up through the
verbal/written processes to an actual word, it is then an analytical
construction/communication of the sense.

Different topic sort of:

Recently it was pointed out to me that writing AOL on something in my
session is a bit of an 'invalidation' of the data -- even though I
technically only do it as 'recognition' as certain type of data, as I
mentioned to Eva on the original thread I'm responding to here, I'm
so aware of something (like "person") being AOL that I often spend
the whole session semi-avoiding person-data so I don't let the AOL
take me away and/or trying to make the person into something else
because I'm sure all person-related data is 'probably AOL'.  Well I
wasn't sure how I felt about this really.

The other night playing 'Battleship', I noticed something funny.  My
daughter and her dad both had the same response.  When they would
guess a spot for a ship, they would then say, 'MISS', as if (a) they
already knew that (then why did they guess it?!) and (b) I then
realized, it was because they DID NOT WANT TO BE WRONG, and did not
want ME to TELL them that they were wrong -- so they wanted to be the
first to say THEMSELVES that they were wrong.  Then being right would
be a pleasant surprise but being wrong would not be difficult to deal
with.

I actually starting chuckling to myself, realizing that in a way this
might be some corollary to me and RV.  That my breezy willingness to
label any conceptual/complex data in my session as AOL was really my
own RV version of saying, "miss!" -- just in case!  So if it's right,
fine, but if it's wrong, then *I* said it was wrong *first* LOL!

I didn't really do this until I started doing sessions for someone
else.  I've never done sessions for anybody else before so I didn't
have that ego/fear-of-failure response.

Another 'Battleship' related thing -- never let it be said that I
don't learn from available opportunity LOL --

Sometimes I feel that a ship is in a certain area of the board, and I
guess something there, and it's a miss.  And maybe I guess a couple
more, and they are misses.  Now, this means little; there are 25
spaces in that section and it's going to take at least 11 to fairly
well cover it so a 3-peg ship (let alone the 2-peg ship) couldn't be
hiding there.

So I go off and guess other places.

Here's the thing though.  There is no MORE chance, statistically,
that the ships are somewhere ELSE, than there is that the ship(s) are
in the area I thought they were but haven't yet guessed.

Yet, if I don't get feedback pretty quick that I am right, then I
assume I am wrong and/or don't want to risk a dozen turns on being
totally wrong, so I wander around somewhere else.

I thought of RV, and some of my sessions not long ago, and my
unwillingness to easily "take a risk" and say, "ITS A PERSON!" and do
the whole session based on that even if it IS wrong. So what, it's
wrong.  But since someone else is seeing the sessions, I have this
fear-of-being-wrong-in-front-of-others ego issue I guess, that makes
me unwilling to 'gamble'.

In my own practice sessions, I gamble vastly more.  I don't really
care because nobody else is going to see it or judge me by it.

In reality, I doubt anybody else is going to judge me by it anyway.
The truth is mostly that I must consider myself a lot more important
to other people than I really am, because I am sure they really do
not give a damn whether my session sucks or not.

But my ego... which has always spanned several large planetoids, is
now approaching being a constellation all its own.  This much
territory is damn hard to protect, let me tell you. ;-)  Next thing
you know I will be paranoid just from the inability to clearly watch
all my borders. ;-)

Anyway these are just personal insights about my own self and RV.
Might not apply to others.

Regards,
PJ

Reply | Forward
	
#1898
 	From: "David " 
Date: Thu Jan 2, 2003 3:21 pm
Subject: Re: Session on Fuzzy Peanut Butter 	jam1433
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°
  	  	

> Prudence wrote:
> We don't write the conclusion down as an AOL or
> Deduction because it's real data - you are just
> telling your story! But we do a short breakdown
> and tell your reader why the objective is like
> that conclusion."

Thanks for that Pru. I have always had a big problem with just
declaring AOL's and including very little actual descriptions of the
images I get. In post-session analysis I usually always discover that
if I had simply just described my aol's at length instead of putting
a label on them, my session would have been much more successful on
more on target. I was trained in CRV, but am open and eager to
investigate and incorporate elements of other RV methods into my
sessions. I have already mixed some of the elements that I picked up
from Aurora Bomb with CRV, and so far I am beginning to see that my
sessions are starting to get better.

David Moore

Reply | Forward
	
#1910
 	From: "Eva " 
Date: Fri Jan 3, 2003 2:47 pm
Subject: Re: Session on Fuzzy Peanut Butter 	k9caninek9
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°
  	  	

David, my understanding of TDS system is that you put the label as
well as the descriptors.  Like you could say, "Toy dinosaur because
it's big, fat, and purple."  So you would still write down the aol
word itself but just not put the word "aol" next to it.  (if that
makes sense)  Instead, you would go ahead and break out the
descriptors.  Actually, CRV has something very similar called phase 5
(in Lyn terminology) in which you simply take an aol and write down a
few descriptors that come immediately to mind.  THe TDS system
emphasizes this more so that you would be doing it on a regular
basis, not just in a special 'phase' of the session.

I have always kind of thought like that when I get an aol so I like
that system.  Whenever I get an aol, I like to think, 'Well what is
it about this aol that sticks out to me?'  Sometimes the thing/s that
sticks out doesn't even make a lot of sense or isn't something you
would regularly consider about that item.  FOr instance, one aol
was 'firetruck.' WHat stuck out about it? --That it was boxy and
squarish.  No, I didn't think any of the usual things, but that is
just fine cuz the target was boxy and squarish.  It seems the weird
answers tend to be the good ones, LOL!  That's why I don't strain
myself trying to get perceptions to seem to make sense during the
session.

Later in the session, I sometimes have trouble breaking down the
aols.  They start to seem more complete and less flimsy (hard to
explain).  This is when, if all is going well, that the aols start to
become better and better representations of the actual target.  Some
people say at this point the 'apperture' is opening wider or
whatever.  Anyway, at this stage, I sometimes don't know what to
break out of the aol as it seems kind of whole and complete and so I
sometimes don't break anything out.  I just write something
like 'reminds me of the galaxy for some reason.'  But still I have
the habit of automatically checking for the breakdown descriptors
even if I don't get an answer at times.

Then later in the session, I don't know if this happens for others,
but I tend to get vague relationship scenarios like, 'There is this
piece that fits into a hole that is molded to be a certain shape and
the way the piece fits in there is impt because it has to be a
certain shape and size.  AOL=kid putting pegs in a toy (or TDS
way=like a kid putting pegs in a toy).  That's the point in the
session where I can get some nice accurate stuff when I'm on a roll.
But I have to be careful to stay descriptive and not fall into aol
drive too much.
-E

pjrv : Messages : 1874-1978 of 4038
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pjrv/messages/1874?)

 23:32:31

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-PJRV_group---------

#1874
 	From: "Rocheleh" 
Date: Mon Dec 30, 2002 9:53 am
Subject: Re: Re: Session on Fuzzy Peanut Butter 	rochelehhakt...
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°
  	  	

> David Humphries wrote:
> It looks like PJ finally has a formidable
> opponent - but can you type as
> fast as she can? :-)

ROTFL!!

Well, I can type fairly fast - though I don't know how fast she types, so I
can't really compare - but I don't have Internet access all the time, so PJ's
the definite winner. At least for the time being.

Dread the day when I get my mailer 24/7 -- mwahaha!

> Eva wrote:
>---LOL, I think you may be overestimating
> the rest of us!  If the stuff is even vaguely
> legible, you may beat half the viewers in town!


But hey, when I *type* something, legibility shouldn't be an issue... Only when
I myself can't read what I wrote in-session, which does happen from time to
time.

>---I have never heard a rule about verbosity.  I know some viewers
>often wish they could get more data then they do so I wouldn't worry
>too much if you get a lot of stuff.

But for the analyst... I'm worried about the poor fellow who gets to interpret
my results. Right now it's me most of the time, and I'm not worried about
myself, but from the next one on, I'm planning on doing Farview targets... A
reason for posting that session was so that I could ask for how I should submit
feedback, compared to that one. Sure, I can type up that much stuff, it's not a
problem for *me* - but someone on the other end of the line will have a hard
time fitting all that into brackets.

>Of course, a concise summary is
>at times nice, but there's nothing wrong with getting a lot of data.
>OFten if you don't get sucked too far into aol/castle building land,
>then the data will get better and better the longer you go.

...I'm trying not to...
This time the final sketch served as a summary - when I do all-CRV sessions, I
have a written summary. But since TDS method as described till what is on Aurora
Bomb doesn't have a written summary, and this sketch should be the composite of
previous sketches, I figured it was redundant to write a summary when I've
already drawn something like that. But in the end, I was forced to describe my
drawing... Looks like I'll have to RI someone to buy me a decent scanner ;)

So er, what I wanted to ask before my verbosity module kicked in was, is it OK
if I send in something this huge, or should I only send the final
sketch/summary.

>---Ideos are unique to the person anyway so I am not sure how much
>others would gain from seeing them, other than just to see how unique
>ideos can look in the first place.

I just thought that would look nice, I could make a HTML page of the session and
it'd look so neat, with sketches and squiggles and all, a real *complete*
session, but then I dropped the idea... It's not just having no scanner, it's
the laziness that appears to be fundamental in my personality -sigh-

I don't gain much from Ids either, I only conclude all the time how weird mine
are compared to those. Probably everyone else feels the same way too, LOL!

>---Well it looks like you were coming in on the basic shape of the
>thing and on some of the aspects of it, especially in scan 1.



I was rather carried away in the rest, but compared to my sketch of scan 3 (it
looks hilarious IRL, clowns and all), I think I was fortunate to be able to turn
back to scan 1 somewhat in the summary drawing and throw out what was falsely
interpreted physicals. Except that huge teddy bear, LOL!

I still don't know why one has to draw *exactly* what one described, but maybe
Pru'll fill me in on that.

>  I
>wonder if the fluffy clouds had to do with the 'heaven' aspect.

Could be. IIRC, there's one screen in Dizzy whose name has to do with fluffy
clouds. (And it came in English.) So I guess it is
1. sky (clouds imply one, at least to me)
2. a fuzzy sense of warmth (not _literal_ warmth, this is for lack of a better
word), which I'd think relates to the eternal-ness of the target.  It comes from
the feelings associated with Dizzy - I guess that's more or less certain since
it's unusual for a whole English phrase to pop up, and it was next to Dizzy
himself appearing.

Funny association: when I was a little child and I felt all alone (this happened
a lot back then... I had very few friends up till grades 5, 6 or so of primary
school), I'd often look up the sky and hope the Care Bears would come for me. I
knew they weren't real, but maybe if I wished for it so much I could make it
real, or so I thought. I couldn't BTW...

If that teddy bear is an aspect of the Divine, I think I'll go bang my head into
the table, LOL!

...



   I
>also wonder if there was grass lower down the steps out of sight.
>YOu could probably do a net search on the monument and find a pic
>that covered a bit more of the surroundings.

Oy vaavoy! I search for everything on the net. When someone tells me s/he can't
find information on X or Y, I tell them with a sort of "you should already know
how to get information" dismay to go and punch it into Google. And who forgets
to do this - me. Argh! I should be ashamed of myself for being so mean to others
at times -sigh-

Probably because I was unconsciously afraid what would turn up might let me know
my session was even less correct than I thought it was.

Either way, thanks for reminding me!



ROTFL!
*This* came up at first on Google.
http://www.joyfulnoise.net/JoyChina56.html
China Jewish Heritage Tours - of all things! 

Apparently there's no grass, but this looks at least like something green,
repeating itself and being bumpy (it's not natural though):
http://www.joyfulnoise.net/Images/ChinaTour2.Pic7.jpg
"Detail of tiles on the walls surrounding Temple of Heaven."

Rachel

Reply | Forward
	
#1879
 	From: "Eva " 
Date: Tue Dec 31, 2002 7:57 pm
Subject: Re: Session on Fuzzy Peanut Butter 	k9caninek9
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°
  	  	

> "Rocheleh" wrote:

> I'm worried about the poor fellow who gets to interpret my results.

----It's the analysts job to look at the WHOLE session.  Now if you
are giving data to a customer or someone like that, then it might be
a good time to only give a summary cuz the session would probably
just confuse them.  So I would say the best bet for FARVIEW is to
absolutely send the whole session plus a summary.  The summary can
help tell the analyst what you think was most impt.  I am not that
good at summaries myself but I think with practice, one can
eventaully get to the point where the summary is more accurate than
the rest of the session.

> This time the final sketch served as a summary -
> when I do all-CRV sessions, I have a written summary.
> But since TDS method as described till what is on
> Aurora Bomb doesn't have a written summary,

----TDS does use summaries so I don't think it would hurt to do one
if you wanted too.  Their summary protocol is not really strict.  I
put in whatever I think at the time, sometimes that means I put a lot
of physicals I suspect are at the target and sometimes I also talk a
bit about stuff that I felt or was confused by in the session, like
maybe I suspected one part of the session was symbolic of an idea and
not physical.

----In one recent session, I did a scan and was writing stuff like
move/freeze, etc.  Suddenly I just 'knew' that it was all symbolic of
an idea.  It wasn't a conscious left brain deduction either.  It was
an inner knowing type of thing.  It was sooo cool, like hey dumbo,
it's an idea I'm trying to express to you here!  There is no frozen
person here!  It later turned out the target was a water shutoff
area.  So I think the idea was supposed to be 'valve' or something
like that.  But what was so cool is just that the qualifier info came
to me in the session.  FOr once, I wasn't quite so clueless.  I knew
that bit of info was symbolic and because I knew it, the symbolic
could be useful instead of just confusing.

> So er, what I wanted to ask before my verbosity
> module kicked in was, is it OK if I send in something
> this huge, or should I only send the final sketch/summary.

----Yeah, feel free to send the whole thing or a lot of it.  I would
probably combine the notes together though.  I am not sure anyone
cares if they are crv notes or TDS notes unless you are turning it in
to one or the other instructors and in this case you would not be.
BTW, TDS has a similar thing to CRV in which it is advised that you
try to break down the nouns or aols into simpler descriptive ideas.
I noticed you listed that as CRV notes, but they could be TDS notes
as well.

> I was rather carried away in the rest, but
> compared to my sketch of scan 3 (it looks
> hilarious IRL, clowns and all), I think I was
> fortunate to be able to turn back to scan 1
> somewhat in the summary drawing and throw out
> what was falsely interpreted physicals. Except
> that huge teddy bear, LOL!

----I wonder if the teddy bear was trying to tell you the fat
roundess of the target.  Sometimes it can be kinda obvious afterwards
but totally slip by you in the session.  ONce you can catch it in the
session and get it written down, it becomes a lot more useful.

> I still don't know why one has to draw *exactly* what one
> described, but maybe Pru'll fill me in on that.

----Not sure on that.  I guess it depends on the viewer.  I am not a
big sketchaholic so often I don't see anything in my head right
away.  After a bit, I kinda see something, then I sketch it at the
end of the scan.  I don't know for sure if it's the same thing I
described or not, but I hope it is!  In the end, I have to sketch
what I see.  I am not going to try to draw it if I don't see it as
psi data to start with, although I do try to work to make each scan
cohesive.  I think that is the main goal, at least in my opinion.
But you can't write or draw something if it doesn't feel right, at
least IMO.

> 1. sky (clouds imply one, at least to me)
> 2. a fuzzy sense of warmth (not _literal_ warmth,
> this is for lack of a better word), which I'd think
> relates to the eternal-ness of the target.  It
> comes from the feelings associated with Dizzy -
> I guess that's more or less certain since it's
> unusual for a whole English phrase to pop up, and
> it was next to Dizzy himself appearing.

----That's the kind of thing that Pru might like to see in TDS notes,
ie that it was weird that it came in English.  It's good to notice
stuff like that.  Sometimes you may notice a pattern that can help
you interpret stuff more accurately in future sessions.

> If that teddy bear is an aspect of the Divine, I
> think I'll go bang my head into the table, LOL!

----Remember you will probably see your own personal symbols show up
in the session, not other people's symbols.  You were hoping for
something kind in the sky to help you.  SOunds a lot like praying to
me, just your own version.  You might notice that childhood symbols
will show up fairly often too.  I think that's why in the TDS system,
if you get something like a Carebear as an aol in the session, they
suggest you kinda ask yourself, what does XYZ (in this case a
Carebear) mean to me?  What aspects of it come to my mind?  Warm,
fuzzy, hope, rounded?  That's what they mean by breaking down the
aols.  CRV has a similar type of thing with the emphasis on
descriptive terms vs aols.  Especially in the early parts of the
session, descriptive stuff is often more accurate than aols.

> 

----Believe me, that little bit of weirdness is not going to turn
many heads compared with a lot of the stuff that you see in
sessions.  SOmetimes I choose not to share one or two of the tidbits,
LOL!  One thing about session data, it often tells the brutal truth
so don't count on any political correctness from your subconcious.

> Probably because I was unconsciously afraid what
> would turn up might let me know my session was even
> less correct than I thought it was.
> Either way, thanks for reminding me!

----The truth is good for you either way!  But if there is grass 5
miles away, I don't think that counts, LOL!  (didn't want anyone to
accuse me of trying to make data fit eh!)

> http://www.joyfulnoise.net/JoyChina56.html
> Apparently there's no grass, but this looks at
> least like something green, repeating itself and
> being bumpy (it's not natural though):

----Hm, that might be another instance of if you had broken down the
aol of grass into descriptives, you may have gotten more accurate
stuff.  For a long time, I couldn't trust my grass aols.  It would
often be other flat green things.  One time there was grass at the
target and I got tennis court as the aol (flat and green).  But I
think finally I am getting to the point where grass actually means
grass for a change.  Yeah!  It pays to pay attention to that stuff so
you keep track of how much breakign down of aols you need to do to
get it right.  OF course, it tends to be dynamic and change up on you
from time to time so the process never ends!

-E

Reply | Forward
	
#1890
 	From: greenmn900...
Date: Thu Jan 2, 2003 8:43 am
Subject: Re: Re: Session on Fuzzy Peanut Butter 	greenmn900...
Send Email Send Email
  	  	

E,

I think it was Ingo, Puthoff, Targ, etc. who first began using the term "aol"
and realized that anything that seemed more like an assumption or a
conclusion was more likely to be wrong that purely descriptive information.
They weren't the first to realize this, however.  I have a book by C.W.
Ledbetter about scrying, clairvoyance, telepathy, etc that was first
published in the 1960s that talks about this.  One of his recurring pieces of
advice is to try to refrain from reaching conclusions and making judgements
based on your psi perceptions.

I agree with you that different methods are just different approaches to
doing the same thing.  Actually, I think this process of breaking down aols
into their component perceptions is what all Rvers learn to do almost as a
reflex eventually.

Best Regards,
Don

Reply | Forward
	
#1897
 	From: "Eva " 
Date: Thu Jan 2, 2003 5:27 pm
Subject: Re: Session on Fuzzy Peanut Butter 	k9caninek9
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°
  	  	

> Don wrote:
> first began using the term "aol"
> and realized that anything that seemed
> more like an assumption or a
> conclusion was more likely to be wrong
> than purely descriptive information.

Well but you see there is a huge diff there.  More likely to be wrong
is not the same thing as being wrong.  Sometimes the aols are spot on
and sometimes they are not exactly right, but carrying some
descriptive info that is right.  And so if you break down the aol
into descriptives, then you are more likely to have good stuff.
Because if the aol was right to start with, then it's descriptives
will also be right, and if the aol was just a carrier, you are more
likely to drag out the correct descriptives.  So again I say, aol
does not equal something being wrong, it's purpose is to cause you to
notice that it is not a descriptive thing but a higher level thing
that may or may not be correct.  So stay neutral and do NOT pass
judgement on it in the session.  Save your judgement for the summary,
hehe.

> They weren't the first to realize this,
> however.  I have a book by C.W.
> Ledbetter about scrying, clairvoyance,
> telepathy, etc that was first
> published in the 1960s that talks about
> this.  One of his recurring pieces of
> advice is to try to refrain from reaching
> conclusions and making judgements
> based on your psi perceptions.

Yup, I think that a lot of people in the past have noticed the
phenomenon.  It's just that rv made it into a more specific rule of
behavior instead of informal advice.

> I agree with you that different methods are
> just different approaches to
> doing the same thing.  Actually, I think this
> process of breaking down aols
> into their component perceptions is what all
> Rvers learn to do almost as a
> reflex eventually.

I don't know if all aspects of all methods follow that rule, but for
the large part at least, I think you are right.  People are trying to
accomplish similar things, but with a diff spin or a diff technique.
For instance, I think a lot of the methods have goals like:

-Focus on descriptors
-Do not concern yourself with worrying about success or failure
(during the session that is, later on, you can worry all you like!)
-Practice often
-Think about what you did in the session and learn from it instead of
just blasting on to the next session
-Keep an element of fun and relaxation in it as much as possible
(obviously difficult with some types of targets)
-Work on techniques to get more and more and diff types of data
-Have techniques to keep you on track in case you are getting side
tracked by aol drive/castle building/assumptions/imagination
-Practice a lot with verifiable targets with good feedback
-Keep variety and interest in the practice material
-Be well versed and capable of working double blind
-Get useful data (obviously)
-Stay grounded about your results
-Etc, I'm sure there's more that I forgot

Anyway, I bet most people doing most methods will agree that all
those things are a good idea, even they approach is from slightly
diff angles.
-E

Reply | Forward
	
#1978
 	From: "PJ Gaenir " 
Date: Thu Jan 9, 2003 10:15 am
Subject: Breaking out AOLs 	dennanm
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
  	  	

> don wrote
> I think this process of breaking down aols
> into their component perceptions is what all
> Rvers learn to do almost as a reflex eventually.

Yeah, the joy of feedback (ha) is that the need for such things
becomes retrospectively obvious.

After several sessions anybody doing RV sees this sort of thing and
begins attempting to work that way -- it takes work and is often
missed even by experts for various reasons.

'Training' can give a headsup about the existence of such a need --
to recognize and break out AOLs.

Unfortunately, no matter how much training you get first, everybody
has to learn that lesson the hard way. :-)

PJ

Reply | Forward
	
#1912
 	From: greenmn900...
Date: Fri Jan 3, 2003 11:26 am
Subject: Re: Re: Session on Fuzzy Peanut Butter 	greenmn900...
Send Email Send Email
  	  	

E,

> You wrote:
> "Well but you see there is a huge diff there.
> More likely to be wrong is not the same thing as being wrong."

I agree.

> You wrote:
> "So again I say, aol does not equal something
> being wrong, it's purpose is to cause you to
> notice that it is not a descriptive thing but a
> higher level thing that may or may not be correct.
> So stay neutral and do NOT pass judgement on it
> in the session.  Save your judgement for the
> summary, hehe."

I agree with this too, but I want to point out that an aol itself is a kind
of judgement.  It's an assumption, a conclusion reached from the available
information, which is the RV data you've gathered up to that point.  The
reason early-session aols tend to be more off-the-mark than later-session
aols is probably because of this.  Later in the session, the assumptions and
conclusions are based upon more information and so, have a greater tendency
to be more on-the-mark.  That's the "assumption" I'm making, anyway. :-)

> You wrote:
> "For instance, I think a lot of the methods have goals like:......"

That was a great list, E.!  Every item you mentioned is something I've had to
pay special attention to at one point or another.  I'm sure there's lots
more, but that was a good general run-down of a lot of the internal
approaches that facilitate successful RV.  I'd like to see that list expanded
and every one add what they think is important.  It could be very educational
and useful for all of us!

Best Regards,
Don

Reply | Forward
	
#1919
 	From: greenmn900...
Date: Fri Jan 3, 2003 1:21 pm
Subject: Re: Re: Session on Fuzzy Peanut Butter 	greenmn900...
Send Email Send Email
  	  	

E,

> You Wrote:
> "Then later in the session, I don't know if
> this happens for others, but I tend to get vague
> relationship scenarios like, 'There is this piece
> that fits into a hole that is molded to be a
> certain shape and the way the piece fits in there
> is impt because it has to be a certain shape and
> size.  AOL=kid putting pegs in a toy (or TDS way=like
> a kid putting pegs in a toy).  That's the point in the
> session where I can get some nice accurate stuff
> when I'm on a roll.  But I have to be careful to
> stay descriptive and not fall into aol drive too much."

It sounds like you're getting "context" and interrelationships between
various aspects of the target.  That's great.  I think this is the kind of
information that becomes very important in applications.  This is the kind of
stuff that allows an RV to "fill in the holes" about an event where only part
of it is understood.  A criminal investigation is a good example where this
kind of data can be important.
Best Regards,
Don