how do i focus on naming a target

matrixlee

New Member
im getting close to the targets i can get whats going on at the sites just

struggle to name the objects and persons at the site
 

LD

Member
Staff member
Most say our jobs as viewers is to describe the target, not to name it. When you try and start naming targets, usually it blows it. I understand wanting to name it, it's a hard urge to resist but time and again people will have a session full of great descriptors and then go and name it wrong. That's what analytic overlay is all about. It's a real bugger. If you're getting close enough in session that you feel like you can almost name the target, stop while you're ahead and you'll probably be the better off for it.

LD
 

matrixlee

New Member
LD said:
Most say our jobs as viewers is to describe the target, not to name it. When you try and start naming targets, usually it blows it. I understand wanting to name it, it's a hard urge to resist but time and again people will have a session full of great descriptors and then go and name it wrong. That's what analytic overlay is all about. It's a real bugger. If you're getting close enough in session that you feel like you can almost name the target, stop while you're ahead and you'll probably be the better off for it.

LD

i see so when you get close to naming just let more info flow out
 

PJ

Administrator
Staff member
If you actually get data that is 'labeling', then that's just the data. Sometimes you just know. Of course sometimes you think you know and it turns out to be AOL, heh. But to some degree you have to have at least a little bit of trust in your data since that is part of 'letting it flow'. It's a sort of 'walking the borderline' of trust/allowance and not trusting TOO much. Your own facility with viewing and vocabulary is likely to expand the specificity of your data though that doesn't mean "make you able to label things".

With a few exceptions (often related to dowsing topics), RV is focused on "describing, not naming". On purpose. Often the requestor for data already knows the information that would be part of a label and it's the details they want. RV's specialty as free-response psi is "describing" and the minute you start labeling you are restricting that (but as noted, if that's the data, then it just is).

There's degrees of labels of course. Technically 'door' is a label just as 'Sears Tower' is... just not as distinct. If things are too far from labeling you get 30 pages of "bright" and "fuzzy" which is kinda pointless, but if they're too close to labeling you tend to get major AOL drive and you think you know what the target is which can be as bad or worse.

Sometimes the things sought or avoided in RV aren't so much for the end-use of the data as for the effect they have on the viewer's process. There are things you can do at the end of a session, or in a second session, that might be likely to really mess up a first or early session. You just have to bear in mind that the primary resource you are managing in viewing is your mind. The process is as much about a safe space and gradual unfoldment of the mind, as it is about the data itself. If you take care of the former, you tend to do better on the latter.

To more specifically address your surface question though, the only suggestion I have for attempting to better-label something would be to get as familiar as possible with some genre in life and then start targeting (even frontloaded if necessary; use Taskerbot to reduce or eliminate that issue) that genre. Usually the more intimately a person knows subject X, the more likely they are to be able to describe subject X well, sometimes to include full recognition (labeling/naming).

Best,
PJ
 

matrixlee

New Member
ok thanks but what if ie. your tracking criminals and you need a street name how would read a street sign ???
 

morgan

Member
first off - if you are tracking a criminal - you would be better off to dowse their movement rather than RV it, generally.

If you are RVing - you can look for landmarks.
or you can try for a first person perspective and try to follow them i guess.. looking for things you recognise.

Reading things.. such as street signs and advertisments and the such.. when RVing is actually very very difficult.
Its not impossible, I have heard of one or two viewers who were able to read words at the target, but it is very hard. Most cant do it. If you want to develop that ability there is no tried and tested method to go about training that. You could practice by making up a target pool of targets with words. e.g. streetsigns and such. The mind is very adaptable. If you tune it to any particular kind of target it will generally improve on that kind of target with practice. Possibly words are no different.
 

PJ

Administrator
Staff member
Yes, I agree with Morgan. One of the standard responses is, "It's not remote-video." ;D A lot of people trying to sell you something will make out that RV is a great deal more predictably amazing than it is.

Amazing things do happen but they're not predictable, and people can do this and sometimes very well, but aside from astounding inborn talent (more than the average bear) it usually takes many years of practice.
 

Tunde

"Keep Moving Forward"
Hi There
For a beginner like yourself its crucial you learn not to name the target just describe it as larry and PJ have pointed out. Naming streets is someone elses job not yours. Take the recent TKR mission as an example. Viewers were specifically tasked with describing the national flag of the Winner of euro 2008.
It was the analyst/s who 'named' the correct winners based on the accurate 'data descriptions' of the Viewers. always describe, never name and let go of the outcome and your ego.If your having problems naming stuff constantlt, practice techniques such as image streaming.
 

Negrodamus

New Member
I'd have to agree with just about everything thing they said. Reading road signs or house numbers with rv is practically impossible. Naming things is also a big no, no, imo. I am just a beginner like yourself, only about 2 month in, so good luck with your training, it takes time and practice to get this skill repeatable, aol's can be a pain in the butt.

Later.
 

Binkstir

Member
It's odd how the subconscious mind won't usually give you the name. Might give you something close, or some name of something or someone that resembles the target, but not the name.
Someone once wanted me to view a missing person and I asked her instantly if the person's name was Rachel. Well, it wasn't. It wasn't even a woman. When I saw the picture I realized that the young man's hair was the same color and length of a friend of mine named Rachel.
Another time I was doing a session, and I saw a sign; "something isson" I wrote. Awesome, I thought. Well, there was nothing in the target about it. I saw the sign with the name hanging on someone's door a few days later. So I got sleepy and drifted off target, but the point is I saw the sign and read most of it. Too bad it didn't apply.
When I was really trying to view numbers, there were times when I would get a the sound of a partial number. Usually the vowel and maybe one consonant but slow and deliberate, sort of the way a deaf person might say a number.

lee
 

LD

Member
Staff member
I thought he meant naming the target ala' aol or conclusions, not so much getting proper names etc.

Interesting stuff Lee.

PJ and I were discussing this (getting words etc in session) not too long ago. It took about a day for her to build a new utility in Taskerbot called Alphanum, just for that; practice on words and or numbers. I now have a target pool that consists of about 700+ words for focused practice on this. Just single words (though you could do numbers or phrases too if you're feeling brave.) She describes the app better than I do. The link to her thread on it is here: http://www.dojopsi.info/forum/index.php?topic=3427.0

There's several different ways one might try 'getting' these words. One thing I haven't done is try to get them visually. That just seems pointless to me given the fragmentary nature of signal. I started off trying to get them phonetically. Trying to sense the individual syllables. Upon feedback I make it a point to say the target word out loud several times. Paying attention to the meaning of the word and how it sounds and feels when I say it. Not much luck with that so far. A couple sparks but nothing to write home about.

Recently I was doing a string of them and thought, "What is the next shape my mouth will make when I speak a word?" (Of course not talking until FB when I spoke the target word.) I thought this might give a "live FB experience" element to it and perhaps strengthen the "feedback loop." Interestingly enough, as soon as I cued myself with that, I got a distinct impression of "Guh," like my mouth was about to say a word that started with G-U. Upon feedback, the target word was "GUN." :)

It hasn't worked as well since that one but I haven't done much of it since then or at all yet to be honest. I definitely think there might be something there. I believe it may just be a matter of busting *ss practicing it over a long period of time. Really though, I don't think there's any reason why we shouldn't be able to get words or people's names in session. It dawned on me that it doesn't make much sense that we can't. Why the hell not? Words are just representational carriers of meaning. So is the color green, but we don't have any trouble picking that up do we?

Perhaps it's just hand-me-down dogma that it's impossible so no one ever tries it and therefor never accomplishes it. Maybe it's the '4-minute-mile' of RV lol. It's worth mentioning that 'classic' psychics often get people's names etc in their work. Even when it's wrong, it's often startlingly close phonetically.

I've a lot more experimenting to do with it. It's not for the faint of heart lol. But I think it's definitely worth playing around with. I'd love to hear anyone else's experiences with it.

Link to Alphanum in Taskerbot: http://www.dojopsi.com/tkr/rv/tbot/alphanum/


LD :)
 

Binkstir

Member
LD
I thought he meant naming the target ala' aol or conclusions, not so much getting proper names etc.

Yeah, you're right. Sorry, I tend to drift sometimes. ;D

I've experimented with tasking myself with something and keeping it lightly in my mind while I do other things for maybe a couple of hours before an erv session and have gotten some great pictures that way. I think that during the time preceding the session, I'm not really paying attention to the ultra light flow of data and it has a chance to pile up and form something more substantial. I don't feel like I'm able to let go of the data until I consider/acknowledge it and it remains it holding until I do my session. I remember Leland naming the "hunter moon" target (or something like that) and if I remember right, he named it before he got home to do the session. Just a thought.
 

Binkstir

Member
LD
I got a distinct impression of "Guh," like my mouth was about to say a word that started with G-U. Upon feedback, the target word was "GUN."

See, this mirrors what I was saying would happen to me while trying to view numbers.... one vowel, one consonant.
For example, I distinctly remember getting "iiighn" for "nine".
 

Gene_Smith

Administrator
Staff member
This purposeful getting of sounds was something that was taught by Psitech at one point. My teacher there at the time (Jonina Dourif) said that Courtney Brown (Whom she had had a hand in teaching) was the best at it she ever saw, and she contributed some of that skill due to his voice training (We didn't discuss exactly what that training was though). The short version of their system on this was very late in the session, the person would make sound with their vocal cords, but trying as best they could to allow the sounds themselves to just happen. I'm sure I could come up with a better description if I put more thought into it. But it sounds remarkably like what you folks are describing here. Basically once you feel firmly in touch with the target let your vocal cords do a little free lance work and see what comes out.

I've never looked over Courtney Browns SRV on-line training to see if he incorporates this step or not. If not perhaps an SRV student might coax it out of him, as according to Jonina he was very good at it.

Gene


Binkstir said:
LD
I got a distinct impression of "Guh," like my mouth was about to say a word that started with G-U. Upon feedback, the target word was "GUN."

See, this mirrors what I was saying would happen to me while trying to view numbers.... one vowel, one consonant.
For example, I distinctly remember getting "iiighn" for "nine".
 

Blind

New Member
As I was reading this thread earlier the same thought occured to me as well. Why cant I view numbers and words? Who says so? I've had some (small) success at guessing playing card numerical value and suit (away from home, to tired to concentrate on a target, ect.) so I know that single digits are attainable. The taskerbot Alphanum generator is a great addition to the wealth of tools here but it seems a bit, sterile.....for me anyway. So I thought I'd start making a pool of targets somewhat inbetween the simple photos and the Alphanum. Below is an example of a photo I took for the pool. Once I get enough photos for the pool to be useful Id be more than happy to share it.

http://i195.photobucket.com/albums/z98/Wiki_04/Targets/0831081.jpg
http://i195.photobucket.com/albums/z98/Wiki_04/Targets/0831082.jpg
 

PJ

Administrator
Staff member
Yep, that's a great idea Blind. I agree that pictures "of" things are probably more fun (less 'sterile' in your term) than simple words and phrases. (All the "styling" for feedback impact in the world isn't as interesting as an actual THING.)

Although I'd probably try to find pics that only had ONE word -- not several -- for that kind of tasking (there are only so many sounds in english after all and it'd be hard to tell what I was getting or almost-getting on feedback if there are multiple choices in the target).

As a note, the 'News' section in Taskerbot is actually useable for any target source that is based on a URL. You can make a simple spreadsheet list of URLs and then just upload them all at once so it's pretty fast/easy. You make 'sets' of task sources (URLs) and name it what you want. So for example you could make a set like 'MyWords' and upload lots of URLs of photos that had words in them, just like you exampled, and use that if you preferred. (Not that anybody needs to bother if they didn't want to. I mention it because because it tends to be easier to have software 'randomly distribute' tasks than make envelopes and such.)

Both Alphanum and News can kinda be tweaked to doing a wide variety of different kinds of targets. If I hadn't made some focus for them nobody would have any clue what to do with them probably. But their main 'focus' isn't a limit.

The Alphanum, for example, will do any task with up to 300 characters. That was conceived to be one or more letters, numbers, etc. but it could be verbal taskings, too (such as on things that don't have feedback). It would save the trouble of entering tasks one at a time esp. if there's no feedback anyway. And you can import a big list directly for that one too, so it's fast. And like News, you can make/name sets as you choose so you can choose tasking from the set you want (it's only random within that set).

-- PJ
 

Blind

New Member
...hmmm...I had never looked at taskerbot before, lol. I was (am) waiting for some moment when I felt comfortable moving away from the basic gestalt targets, my participation in the missions lately is my comfort level expanding to include other things. That's neat stuff there! Though I'd wonder how long any URL would last. I'd imagine some would eventualy end up a broken link so some URL batch pruning might be in order from time to time. I'd hate to task someone, or myself, what might end up in feedback of a broken link. I see the wisdom in the one word/number photo though, and I'll stick to it.

Not to highjack this thread though ;D.
I dont see why pulling out words, dates, times, numbers shouldnt be a priority with targets. As I dont use a -method- I would have to gently focus for that info and try my best not fall into AOL. Using RV for real world targets and end users would make this skill very useful I think.

Wow looking at all the stuff you can do with taskerbot...I wouldnt know where to start.
 

PJ

Administrator
Staff member
The 'Tools' section which is not yet open to the public -- tBot's going to split off into its own proper area before long (outside TKR) and it will open then -- will actually go get images or webpages for you, save 'em to disk as an image or a flashpaper file, and then attach 'em to tasks as feedback. Nifty eh. So issues with broken URLs when people want to use something on the web for tasking, should reduce with that. I've run into that myself With one of my viewers I used URLs in the various feedback options for many tasks, and ended up having to hunt down the image again when their feedback came and the link no longer worked! Bummer. Pain for both of us. The net isn't very trustworthy as a source of targets, I agree.

tBot is not really for beginners... it's got a lot of options and a person kind of already needs to know what they're doing in order to even understand what to do with most of the tools. It's actually something I've made for me and my friends, but want to be public for the occasional die-hard viewer who'd really benefit from it. I've considered making brief little video tutorials that show how to do a variety of things in there. I can't decide whether it'd be worth the trouble. ;-)

PJ
 

blueapple

New Member
Binkstir said:
It's odd how the subconscious mind won't usually give you the name. Might give you something close, or some name of something or someone that resembles the target, but not the name.
Someone once wanted me to view a missing person and I asked her instantly if the person's name was Rachel. Well, it wasn't. It wasn't even a woman. When I saw the picture I realized that the young man's hair was the same color and length of a friend of mine named Rachel.

That is so frustrating. Why does the mind do that? Why can't we make more accurate associations? It looks as if whatever part of the brain that processes the psi data has access to our stored memories so it can make some association, but sometimes it appears to grab the nearest one as if to say "That will do". No dammit it won't do! ::) So how can we get our minds to attempt to associate with something a little more relevant? Yes, I hear the words "practice, practice, practice". Surely there's a quicker way? If only someone could think of one. :)
 
Top