Describing things in real life vs describing things in RV?

Challe77

New Member
Do you think that training to describe objects / places in real life helps you to get more data on an object / place in a rv session.
After I got the feedback for a building, I tried to think of the sensations I missed but some features of the object I couldn't find the words to describe it, some it seems like I need to train on describing things in real life in order to help my rv sessions, do you agree?
 

Glenda

Member
I think that we connect in some way. Real life is a way. RV is another way. We see and feel things. We are told No, in person time to time. I have asked. Ticked me off a few times. Grounded more than once. We are the babies. I argued of course. This is not my first rodeo. I want all people to be happy. I do think that viewing is a moment by moment training ground. We read things all the time - labels, books, whatever, and read better, and the more we view, what is in your mailbox, the more we know. Science. I do think that it helps. I think that anything that increases our intelligence helps. School, words to describe things, hard stuff. It is not magic - it is viewing.
 

Glenda

Member
I am a God person, not popular. I have never worried too much about being popular. People are a little creepy, to be honest. I will tell you, it works. We have a basic hand manual for people on planet earth. We may not always understand the rules and think we are too good for them. Good news - we will all leave here soon. It is the temporary place. Growing older is not fun, but predictable. Predictable is my new word. I get pretty bored. God people are not real popular right now. Attacked. That is not good. Stop. We limp along and this is the hardest place. There are other places. I have seen them. We are the cowboys. Old viewers. There use to be a clean earth. That is hard to remember.Now it seems a little slimy.
 

RedCairo

do you ever dream you're someone else?
Do you think that training to describe objects / places in real life helps you to get more data on an object / place in a rv session.
After I got the feedback for a building, I tried to think of the sensations I missed but some features of the object I couldn't find the words to describe it, some it seems like I need to train on describing things in real life in order to help my rv sessions, do you agree?
An exercise we used to do was to take anything in the world around us, and describe it as if we were viewing. Low-level fundamental descriptives.

You realize pretty quickly that most of us have learned to be lazy in the verbal translation. We say round when we mean cylindrical, or square when we mean cubic. We say "like a wall" when we mean "flat vertical plane" and "bumpy" when we mean "flat but irregular surface" (an issue because bumpy could also mean a motion).

The first time I did this exercise it was to describe what was on my desk, and the very first thing I looked at -- a mailing envelope -- I realized I had no word for that color. Kraft-envelope-color? Er, no... can't describe something with itself. brown? tan? vaguely orange? It was funny but literally the first thing I looked at, the first word I looked for, I realized I didn't have, even when looking right at it.

We also tend to blur shapes and motions. For example "curving" -- is that the outer edge of a shape, or the arc of a motion? And so on.

In the science lab, they said that about 30% of most data could apply to about 30% of most likely targets, and much of this is simply due to the combination of overlap and inexactitude in our language (and sometimes in the viewer communication skills).

On occasion a viewer does something so well that I realize, on looking at their view, that I probably would not have described the target that well while looking at the feedback photo. That always impresses the hell out of me.

But to address the question directly: yes, this is a good and in fact a pretty standard viewer exercise.

I will add to that: ideally, to assist your viewing, work on this mindset all the time. Not just what you see, but how you feel. I had some comments on that in this old blog post http://palyne.com/blog.redcairo/wide-awake-in-dreamland/

Generally viewers seem to do best in the areas that they are attuned to. Artists often do well with the visual elements. Nurses often do well with biology and injury elements. Cops and soldiers often pick up elements of physical threat. If you see what I mean. So I expect that the degree to which you are 'aware' of your environment, in the first person IRL (in real life), might help the recognition factor internally when viewing.

Swann once said that good viewers were neurotic haha. I once theorized that one reason McMoneagle was so good (aside from genetic talent and working his ass off) was a degree of hypervigilance that all his combat time had given him, a much higher 'awareness' of the world around him. Who knows for sure. One thing is clear, though: viewing may be dominantly psychological in process/allowance, but it's a communication skill on the way out. So anything that improves that in a viewer is likely to be helpful.

Regards,
PJ
 
Top