Down and up analyzing

[EricT]

Something I have been thinking about of late in relation to my viewing.

A little background - down analyzing is, I think, a Joe M term. It is the practice of taking a piece of data in an RV session, and breaking it down. For instance, if you were to get a "red rubber ball" and down analysis might be - round, red, soft, pliable. And the resulting target, or piece of the target could be a red hot air balloon, or something similar. IE- youre pieces might fit, but your interpretation of it may not.

What I am trying to get my head around is this: constantly down analyzing data seems to suggest that the brilliant flashes get downplayed into bits and pieces, and in small bits and pieces its easy to fit to a fair amount of targets. I am trying to come up with a method of "up analyzing" where I take the pieces and start assembling things back together.

Any thoughts? Don W - for some reason I think we had some discussion along these lines a ways back, but only regarding down analysis. I would be curious to see what you think of doing the reverse. Just trying to figure out how to do this without turning into an AOL factory of sorts!

Eric

 

[Scott_Ellis]

Eric wrote: What I am trying to get my head around is this: constantly down analyzing data seems to suggest that the brilliant flashes get downplayed into bits and pieces, and in small bits and pieces its easy to fit to a fair amount of targets. I am trying to come up with a method of "up analyzing" where I take the pieces and start assembling things back together.

Scott: Over time I guess I've come to do 'down analyzing' a lot during a session. I'll note data that I get, but try to not get too attached to its meaning. MUCH of my visual data (esp. early data) will be correct, but interpretted with incorrect meaning. Example: During one session, I saw an open parachute with 5-8 very pronounced ropes, spreading out kind of like \|/, everything else was very muted. The target was a windmill, which happened to have about 5-8 really robust looking tethers or poles to the ground, apparently to stabilize it, in a \|/ pattern. This happens a lot, especially early in a session.

I don't know if there's such a thing as consciously 'up analyzing' during a session for me. The data does seem to become more complex and congruent as a session goes on, with more and more perceptions of the target. I do notice recurring themes - in your red ball example, I might perceive the red round pliable object in several different contexts. My conjecture is that at some point, context probably starts to arise subconsciously, within which to place the low context data. (That said, there are the occasional times when my first bit of visual data is an exact and complete match of a photo target, which seems like a good amount of psychic bandwidth is probably always available.)

Thoughts from you, Don?

Scott

 

[daz]

Eric,
isnt the total feel of the session/data the 'up' you are looking for with each of the smaller clusters of data the 'down'?

I dont think its the 'up' thats important - this would lead to identifying the target- which isnt actually the objective - although I know we all like to. The best sessions I see are filed with great/large amounts of descriptive data.

I am finding 'mind mapping' is working very well. Near the end of a session I go back and look for strong words that seem too strong for th stage - hence AOLS or just really out of place/descriptive words. I then mind map this by placing it in the centre of a sheet of apepr and breaking it down into all the indeiviual parts for that word. -
for example:

FIRE - hot, red, warmth, comfort, need
family, house, heat, glowing... and so on.

This now genrally gives me quite accurate traget descriptive data. But aksa this is breaking down again.

 

[Don_Williams]

Hey guys,
This is something that's always bothered me too, the way a list of basic descriptors can fit almost anything.

The basic question is how do we get from "down analyzing" - as Joe suggests - to a place where we are sketching near-exact replicas of the target - as Joe does. Right?

I think both Daz and Scott hit on the answer to some degree. And I believe you've all mentioned the pitfall we have to watch for when we attempt to do the reverse of down-analysis - AOLS.

Personally, my remote viewing seems a lot like yours, Scott. I get the same sort of incorrect visuals with exactly correct elements - like the parachute image you got for the windmill target.

I recently came across an old session of mine stuck in the pages of Dean Radin's "Conscious Universe". The target, stapled to the pages of my session transcript, was a painting of Saturn. But I sketched all kinds of Saturn-like images instead of the real thing. I didn't even get any perceptions of space or planets or anything like that.

First was a victorian-style house with a railing that went all the way around the roof. The railing was in a strange place, sitting out on top of the shingles and encircling the center peak of the house. Next, I sketched a round bench in a park with a hedge directly behind it that also made a rough circle. In the center of the circles made by the hedge and the bench was a round table.

Especially in the second sketch, I had all the elements of the planet Saturn along with its rings but my mind actually GAVE me incorrect images. Why? This mental phenomenon has always bothered me. Why do I get plain, exacting (if somewhat quick and fleeting) images of objects, structures, and scenes that are only "like" the target in some way. I mean, if I'm going to get a good visual, why doesn't my subconscious give me the RIGHT visual? Why should it only approximate the target in various ways?

I wish I could figure out the reason the mind does this. I have an intuition that this one problem, if solved, would really open up remote viewing for spectacular results.

As it is, we have to down-analyze each complex perception. In my example above, I should have realized that several of my visual perceptions had these things in common: round, circles within circles, a solid object within those circles, etc. But think about this: both the railing on the roof and the bench were white - Saturn is not white! If I had focused on that I would have been noting totally incorrect things (as it was, I missed the target pretty badly anyway, lol).

Okay, sorry about that bit of digression. Back to the topic:

Scott,
you wrote:
" I don't know if there's such a thing as consciously 'up analyzing' during a session for me."
and:
"I might perceive...in several different contexts. My conjecture is that at some point, context probably starts to arise subconsciously, within which to place the low context data."

What I really keyed on in that was the word "consciously". Because I think the process of down-analyzing might serve two purposes: (1). (the more obvious purpose) to break down what are most likely incorrect AOLS into what are most likely correct general and vague bits of data, and (2). (what is not so obvious) by breaking down the complex perceptions into their more basic components, we are spending time on-target consciously AND SUBCONSCIOUSLY. The result might be that, at some point, as you said Scott, context starts to arise. We start to sort of "home in" on the target more and more.

This might be thought of as almost a form of dowsing, in which the conscious mind is kept busy - but it is kept busy with the target (not just allowed to meander aimlessly) while, the whole time, the subconscious is still in the background working on the problem.

So Eric, in answer to your question, I think Scott is on the right track in that it tends to happen subconsciously. The biggest problem for me is keeping my conscious mind from moving into a guessing mode or even taking over too much of the process. It's almost like you don't want to allow your conscious mind to start trying to solve the overall problem of what the target is. Instead, it must be kept busy working on small - but related - problems such as breaking down complex perceptions. In this way, we stay focused both consciously and subconsciously while, at the same time, keeping the conscious mind out of the way.

I'd say the only sort of SAFE up-analyzing we could do would be to toss out the broken down simple data bits and only keep the ones that applied to all of our compex percpetions. If the basic data bits aren't in at least two of our complex visuals, etc., then throw them away, disregard them. That would at least be a possible way of getting rid of wrong information.

But it doesn't get us any closer to achieving a detailed, extremely correct result.

It's frustrating because, as Scott mentioned, I'll sometimes get a flash that IS the target. My result then is a sketch that looks like one of Joe's. But that only happens maybe one or two out of every hundred - if that. The frustrating part is that these kinds of sessions shows us what is possible and what we should, hypothetically, be able to achieve every time. But even with those direct-hit sessions, sometimes I'll have other information that's totally incorrect right there on the same page. Very frustrating.

I like Daz's use of mind-mapping - which I don't know much about, I've only read about it a little online. It seems to serve the same purpose I described above, of allowing the conscious to stay busy while the sub is still working on the problem.

Lately, I've noticed a certain state of mind that seems to always be present when I have my best sessions. It's a sort of muted enthusiasm, an anticipation. It's almost exactly like the creative urge I get when I want to sketch or write or write music. I've tried - with only a little success - to "force" this state of mind when it's not naturally present. I do this by reading inspiring literature or praying or actually sitting down and playing the guitar or something for awhile.

I'm aiming for those incredible sessions time after time. I know I'll probably never reach it but if I can just get closer, I'll be happy.

I'm interested in hearing your guys' ideas on this and what we're already talking about. I always feel as if there's a whole new level of RVing just around the bend, if we can only figure out these sorts of problems.
Don

 

[Tunde]

Lately, I've noticed a certain state of mind that seems to always be present when I have my best sessions.  It's a sort of muted enthusiasm, an anticipation.

Yep, Iam with u on that one. Another is not feeling particulalry interested in what the session reveals or
how well or bad you might do.

But with regards to the main gist of the this thread
i think there are so many things we need to look out
for that can help increase target contact and its not
always going to be possible to be in the same frame of
mind or view at an optimal time lST etc...
Its just the way RV is but practice does help in the end.

The way i work is to force myself to break down
descrptors to a level that will aid in my sketches
for each stage and gradually build on the data as i go along.
By the time iam at the matrix stage i can afford to use all available data at once (aols and basic getsalts) to get a feel of what iam dealing with. That means go through stage 1 right through to the last word on the summary sheet.

I can relate to daz mind mapping but for me the summary
is where i pull it all together to form a coherent idea
as to what is going on. Another problem ive seen from
hundreds of sessions (not just mine) is that viewers tend to get bogged down with "drawing exact descriptions" of the
target and rely to much on basic sketches which we all know
are notoriously unreliable. Maybe we need to focus more
on the data than try getting a visual or sketch down to quickly which the concious mind will lap up and try its usual tricks to induce immediate aol overdrive.

We have to realize that sometimes we are just not gonna get a clear signal to the target but at least if we focus on
the data/descriptors via a disciplined methodology
it might make all the difference between a bad/average session to a very good one (even without sketches)
In short, start small, end BIG then add sketches.

Tunde

 

[Don_Williams]

Hey Tunde,
I agree with just about everything you wrote there.

With the sketches though, for me there's a big difference between the detailed drawings of the target and quick, rough sketches of general shapes and/or movements that I perceive. Like, for a picture target of a train, I might get a sense of rectangle shapes in a row. So, I sketch that without trying to add any detail beyond that. But you're right that when i start trying to add details - that's when I get off-track and head down the old AOL path.

Something I should have mentioned earlier but didn't think about is the difference between complex visuals that you perceive versus ones that you create. There's a marked diference but I think only constant practice allows the viewer to differentiate them. For example, if I get a visual of the front end of a car with no additional input to go along with it, I sketch it and accept it as exactly what I "saw". On the other hand, if I get a lot of additional impressions such as metal, smooth, hard, some glass, lights, silver sections, etc. - that's when I break it down.

In the first case, there's really nothing to break it down into. Because I didn't get any basic perceptions; the image just hit me, already fully-formed and complete. But in the second case, I didn't PERCEIVE the image, I MANUFACTURED the image from the basic perceptions.

The problem is that it all happens so fast that sometimes, especially if I'm out-of-practice, I can't really tell the difference.

I got really frustrated today. I did 2 targets. All through my first session, I described what I later realized was my second target - totally missing the first one. My perceptions during my second session only had a few details that matched the second target. I don't know where I was or what I was describing then! Maybe it'll end up being my first target tomorrow! lol!

That's what I get for not RVing for the last week or so, I guess. We've been busy doing hurricane cleanup from Wilma. The eye passed right over my neighborhood and it looks like a war zone around here.
Don

 

[EricT]

Cool answers guys.

Some things I am trying to avoid - when data is broken down to the most basic descriptors, its easy to fit alot of different targets. Throwing darts in the dark and being happy about hitting the dartboard isnt what I want to be about.

On this weeks mission, I got a whole heck of alot of garbage. But, I had one visual that was dead on. One of twelve mind you. But it was so on, so specific I just broke it down into basics, and somewhat missed the point of it.

The other sketches were all either symbolic, or just garbage. Hard to tell the diff. Anyhow, I am just mulling over how much to break down when a data piece might be totally good unto itself.

More practice cant hurt either.



Don/Tunde, good thoughts here.

 

[Tunde]

I got really frustrated today.  I did 2 targets.  All through my first session, I described what I later realized was my second target - totally missing the first one.  My perceptions during my second session only had a few details that matched the second target. Don  

Happens everytime
Here's a short session I did this weekend very quick without allowing my concious mind to mess about too much
but just goes to show how easily large data bits relavant to a target can screw up a session if taken literally.
Luckily it wasnt all bad and i did pick up the main subject
at the target.

see link :
http://www.sciencehorizon.com/os.cfm?ID=20114​

 

[LD]

Re: Down and up anal

Yes, good food for thought guys.

Neat session Tunde. I always thought the coral castle would make an interesting target. Nice sketch of Leedskalnin.

 

[Gilain_Irongrinder]

It's a good thing I don't actually know how I do it, or even if I do it well. It just means I don't have to explain it  

However, there was a book that I read in trying to understand this stuff that deals with this issue of analysis. I can't remember the exact title, but it dealt with creativity and the authors were touting their LARC method (left and right-brain creativity). It dealt with breaking down a concept and then reordering the ideas to create new concepts. I think you might find it helpful. It was in the 150.'s at the library.

 

[wizopeva]

I consider down analyzing to be primarily what we do in rv at least in beginning stages. This is why I think it works. I think that the part of us that knows the target percieves the target differently than would the conscious mind. If you have ever done OBEs, you may notice how differnetly the OBE mind processes data. IMO, the part that knows processes and sends the conscious mind discrete small tidbits of info in rapid fire series that if put all together give a very clear description of the target. However, the conscious mind is slow and weak and only gets some of the info and distorts some of it as well. So in the act of communication, the end result is generally that much gets left out and some of what gets in is not well interpreted just because the conscious mind thinks so differently that it doesn't always understand accurately. Then the conscious mind takes what it has and forms some kind of conclusion. What we get in the conscious state thus tends to be aols of varying degrees of accuracy.

Over time as we practice more and more, or tidbit processing improves. We get more accurate and are able to process morre and more tidbits into each 'guess,' thus making the guesses more accurate. We also learn to not impose our suppositions into the process thus making the data even more inaccurate.

So this is why I think down analyzing works. I think it works because it often undoes the screwups of the conscious mind and gets back to the basic raw data. The downside is that as you said, the stuff can be sorta vague. However, the longer the session and the more accomplished the viewer, then even this 'base' data tends to get more complex and more specific. It just takes a lot of work to get there. Perhaps it is like chess in which a beginner thinks one move at a time and then tries to spin these moves into a serious or plan. But a very skilled player thinks in much larger blocks of moves and spins these blocks into a series of blocks, such that even the base 'moves' are more complex. So I guess my point is that I think with practice, the 'basic' descriptors slowly become more useful and specific. You will notice times in which something is not just 'metallic' but is instead' carlike' and 'carlike' will seem very basic to you and not feel like it can be broken down. So eventually you will not consider this an aol anymore but a basic descriptor. It just takes a long time to get there. In my experience also,k the few times that my visuals are most accurate, seemingly perfectly accurate is when I don't even know what I am looking at and am therefore forced to describe instead of name. LLike one time I saw all these gritty seems shapes and patterns and lines that seemed like some sort of very strange looking hill withe ridges on it. Turns out the target was a sand castle. I was seeing it but just didn't get what they heck it was! Perhaps the conscious mind just got those visual tidbits rather cleanly that time but couldn't come up with a label, thus making the data more clean than it often is. (not sure on that one though)

Also consider the dangers of comparing yourself to another viewer. Some of the best viewer arre not good at sketches but excell in other areas of rv that McMoneagle may be weaker at. Maybe sketching is not your thing but even so the skill with improve with practice and other areas may be much more your strength in the first place. Sketches make a good show for a book, but are not the only thing that is useful in rv. Sometimes in ops you already know exactly what something or someone looks like and having a viewer give you a perfect sketch would be absolutely useless to the analyst who might only be concerned with what a thing is used for or what a person is thinking at that time.

Also, on discussions of up analysis, I consider that to be the basic job of the analyst, not the viewer. It's the analyst's job to make the logic leaps and try to figure out more precise answers. That's not to say the viewer can't do it, but lets just say it seems like many come to the conclusion that for most of us at least, it doesn't see to pay try to be the up analyst while the session is still in progress. Perhaps we have to consider also how long Mcmoneagle has been doing thisand how many sessions he does per day compared to how long we have been doing it and how often we practice. Maybe it's hard to play like Tiger Woods when we practice like Homer Simpson! ;-)
-E

 

[Don_Williams]

Tunde,
That was a good session and a very interesting target. It's really fascinating to me because I did this same target several years ago and I also got stuff about stonehenge. You did a better job than I did, however. If I remember correctly, I aoled about stonehenge all over the place, couldn't get it out of my mind. I think I DID write "something about Florida" in there somewhere but that was about it.

Eric,
From what you've said, I'd suggest trying hard to discern when you are producing a manufactured image versus a real, complex perception, as i wrote about in my last post. The complex perceptions probably shouldn't be broken down like the manufactured ones. I think that will help you a lot.

Eva,
I like your ideas about the mind works in RV -especially the part about how the mind processes differently in OBEs. That's a very good point. I've never really thought about that before. It might be important.

I agree too about sketching versus writing, etc. I just do whatever feels right for the session. I've found that when the target is a written question, I tend to respond with a lot more written material and fewer sketches. Many times I won't sketch until the end of the session. But It seems to me that the best, most informative sessions have a combination of sketches, writing, diagrams, etc.

An added complexity we should keep in mind is the presence of metaphoric and symbolic impressions. Practice allows us to begin to differentiate between these kinds of images and direct target-related images, but even then, it can't be done perfectly nor all the time. But practice eventually gives you a sense of when your perception is a symbol or metaphor. They FEEL different - and you come to realize your symbols are like a language and have a certain continuity. It takes a lot of time and a lot of sessions to get to this point, however.

One thing that can REALLY get an RVer off-track is when he starts to down-analyze a purely symbolic image. It gets you nowhere, lol.

This is why I feel it's so important to begin to discern what types of data are coming into your awareness, whether it's (1) a direct complex perception of the target (do not down-analyze), (2). an image or concept that you've put together from several basic perceptions, which sometimes happens at a pre-conscious level and you won't be completely aware that you've manufactured it (these SHOULD be down-analyzed), or (3). an impression that's entirely symbolic or metaphorical (do not down-analyze). The more I stay in practice, the beter I am at differentiating between these. There's really no replacement for daily practice.

So much of the learning that takes place in RV is below conscious awareness. I recall how, when I first started RVing, I kept thinking, "I know I'm learning but I don't know what it IS I'm learning". And my session results were changing but all I was seeing was the end result, The changes in what i was doing all took place below the liminal threshold.
Don

 

[EricT]

So, it seems youre conclusion Don is - just practice alot and dont worry about it, since it cant be conciously worried about. Great!

Hehe.

Gonna think over your comments. Good ones, all.

Hmm.

Eric

 

[Don_Williams]

Eric,
you wrote:
"So, it seems youre conclusion Don is - just practice alot and dont worry about it, since it cant be conciously worried about. Great!"

LMAO!! Yeah, I guess that's the best answer I can come up with! I guess I'm not much help, huh? lol!

Seriously though, I think figuring out which kinds of complex perceptions should NOT be down-analyzed (as I described in my last post) and allowing the subconscious to do the up-analyzing, is the way to go. And, of course, practice is the only way to get good at doing both of those things.

I think the danger of trying to do any up-analyzing consciously is just too great. It's a direct path to a string of AOLs. When you consider how little info is usually there to even up-analyze with, I think it only leads to making many incorrect assumptions, jumping to conclusions, and forming unsteady judgments (which then tend to get firmed up in the mind as the session goes on, unfortunately).

But the subconscious, having access to more information, will hopefully begin to do the up-analyzing for you (or it operates in away so that it appears to be doing that). The sub is probably not analyzing at all, apart from analyzing the best way to make your conscious mind understand what it's trying to communicate (whether to use memory-associations, symbols, metaphors, direct perception - and of the direct perceptions, whether to provide visuals, sounds, smells, or more abstract information like emotions, concepts, ideas, etc.).

I just can't think of a good way to up-analyze consciously without it leading to worse problems. And since, as Scott mentioned, the sub will begin to provide context as the session goes on (hopefully), it's a job probably best left to the sub.

That's not much help, I know. Sorry I couldn't do any better than that. I just don't think there IS a better alternative, unfortunately.
Don

 

[EricT]

Hey Don-

No no, you misunderstand - that is good help. Instead of just focusing on the data coming in, I need to focus on how it feels seperate to what it is. Thats a really important concept.

One thing that someone PMd me about (Ill let him jump in here on his own if he likes) is that breaking things down into basics all the time can make the data vague, and then it fits just about every darn target one way or the other. Kinda like the whole concept of a cold reading - justmaking BS up that is vague, so it fits when you turn it around just a little. I dont want to be that kind of viewer, I dont think anyone does.

That is what has been bothering me. Perhaps what I will start doing are shorter sessions, just 3 or 4 dips for data - and note what they feel like in addition to the data, try to start getting a "feel" for what stuff ... feels like, be it complex exact or complex built that needs to be DA'd.

So that was a really good tip Don. Most people in the field offer up the Zen wisdom of "just practice often and alot" and say nothign else. An old drum teacher I studied with for several years used to preach that 20 minutes of 100% focused practicing was far superior to 3 hours of not really paying attention practicing, which is what more people do. Including myself! I think thats what I need ot do, start structuring what I am after instead of just "doing a session".

Yeah, that was a good tip - but practicing with a certain intent of learning a certain aspect of viewing, that might be a better way to go.

Eric

 

[Don_Williams]

Hey Eric,
Yeah, I agree. Just a few minutes of practicing with every ounce of concentration you can muster is worth a hundred times that in lackadaisical practice. I think I'm guilty of this very often, just doing session after session without getting as much out of them (or putting as much in to them) as I ought to be.

Based on that, doing some training and concentrating on the problem, as you said, will probably yield some good results. Keep us informaed if you make any breakthroughs, okay?
Don

 

[wizopeva]

I would agree that part of the session as to eventually be that you are paying attention to how things feel. In part , I think this comes naturally after a while that you won't always get just an impression but also an idea of how it migth fit and what areas are best for you to pursue. I think the subconscious will try to point you to certain areas and your job as a conscious mind in the session is try to pay attention. What does this mean? Why is this important? What have I missed? You can ask all of these questions right in the session! Its not just a passive process but also one of inquisitiveness.
-E

 

[Don_Williams]

Hi Eva,
you wrote:
"What does this mean? Why is this important? What have I missed? You can ask all of these questions right in the session! Its not just a passive process but also one of inquisitiveness."

I agree somewhat - you just have to be extremely careful that your conscious questioning doesn't cross the line over into the realm of guessing, making logical deductions, assumptions, etc (since these mental actions seem to be the source of a good percentage - maybe most - of incorrect responses).

Hey Eva, you mentioned the difference in how the mind works in OBEs versus normal consciousness recently. I'm familiar with that too but I've never heard anyone else mention it before. Could you describe what the differences are like for you? Thanks.
Don

 

[wizopeva]

Don, I don't know of it's possible to describe the OBE thought processes that I experience, but I'll try. It's like when we see things consciously, certain thoughts immediately come to mind, so much so that you really can't avoid those thoughts unless maybe you are a skilled monk or something. For instance, if I saw a dog chew toy on the table, I would immediatly ID it as a chew toy. I could not look at it and not know what it is and what it is for. I basically am forced to know what it is just by looking at it. The conscious mind IDs things I guess and that is how it works.

However, in an OBE, if you were to look at the same toy, other aspects of it would most likely come to mind first, perhaps it's beautiful red color and interesting shape and texture, maybe it's position on the table and the angle of the way it is laying there. But you might have to actually concentrate to bring up it's name or function. Those concepts are simply not paramount in the OBE mind. Later if you wake up and remember the OBE experience, you will THEN know that you were looking at a dog chew toy, but you may not have thought about the fact that it was a chew toy at the time, or if you did, well you probalby had to make some what of an effort to drag that memory out of he milieu of other bits of knowledge. Anyway, it seems that is how it seems to be with me and OBEs.

So perhaps that is one reason why descriptors are more accurate and favored in rv,because perhaps descriptors are more up the alley of the subconscious mind whereas the naming and guessing tends tocomefrom the conscious mind so easily but not so much so from the sub.

Of course there are others aspects to the OBE mind as well that are hard to describe. A very large amount of understanding fromt he OBE mind seems to simply not have a corollary in the conscious mind and so much of it becomes incomprehensible when conscious. Seems like the OBE mind can be like a super computer, processing and understanding super complex weird aspects of things that I don't really have any way to understand when I am awake. I think that is why OBE stories often tend to sound rather silly. Much of it just doesn't translate and much of the understanding just doesn't exist in our current conscious state. It would be like trying to transfer an understanding of quantum theory to a neanderthal. It would probably be just too far out of their understanding and world view to make any sense to them at all. What did come from it would probably be a very poor and weak interpretation of the original message.
-E