i keep getting triangles on animail targets
- Thread starter matrixlee
- Start date
morgan
Member
first off - when you say "keep" how many targets are you talking about? 2? 20? 200?
everyones mind works differently. there is no 'universal' symbol for anything. if you keep getting a particular thing associated with a particular kind of target then you have to ask yourself what is your association between the two. If its reliable then you can use it as a quick indicator of the gestalt.
everyones mind works differently. there is no 'universal' symbol for anything. if you keep getting a particular thing associated with a particular kind of target then you have to ask yourself what is your association between the two. If its reliable then you can use it as a quick indicator of the gestalt.
katzenhai2
Ambassador
In the Dames' RV course it is said, that a triangle means a 'flying' or 'hovering' aspect of the target. That can be a balloon, a kite, an airplane etc.
In your example, if the target was a bird... yes, that could represent it.
But as morgan said, it could be your subconscious telling you something different with this symbol. Find it out, it has a meaning!
In your example, if the target was a bird... yes, that could represent it.
But as morgan said, it could be your subconscious telling you something different with this symbol. Find it out, it has a meaning!
Hi Katzenhai,
I used to be on the Ed Dames team. I began in '97 and stopped working with Ed early 2004. (Nothing dramatic folks, just took a break) This area you mention of triangles, well, it CAn and for early viewers usually DOES mean an active target in motion. Howewver, I feel I must have to add a caveat here. From my own experience I noticed as I did more and more sessions, (after a couple hundred) that certain of my life form circles or loops had been taking on a different character. I noticed (in review) that when the session involved an injured person my ideo would be slightly "bent" or deformed in some way. If the person was dead my ideo loop was upside down, If the person was ill one side of the circle in a stage 3 would be flattened. If it happened to be a statue I saw that the circle would have a point on it. Some times another lne from the ideo would cross Into the circle or loop and it would be indicative of some other thing. Though one can never make immediate assumptions in an RV session based on the ideo (a road to AOL Drive) you own subconscious will, WITH PRACTICE, begin to ADD more info to the ideogram such as mentioned above. It just means you are getting good at signal contact earlier on with the target which, as Ingo would say, "...is opening the aperture of your liminal threshold." That's the net effect anyway. More data is coming in sooner. This can ONLY be the case after a LOT of sessions where protocol is observed, because only then can you trust what you are getting and thus allow yourself the opening of the aperture, which will have the effect eventually of making your Idea Templates superb. This happens because the more open you are to the signal the less imagination comes in thusly making your data more reliable. You'll begin to see a patern. It will become a part of your own style. And regardless of what anyone says about TRV, we do after awhile, develop certain areas into a style, and even these hugely strict protocols allow for that. So, notice what those ideos have telling you over time. Thats all you have to do. Notice it. Morgan is right, theres data in there
I used to be on the Ed Dames team. I began in '97 and stopped working with Ed early 2004. (Nothing dramatic folks, just took a break) This area you mention of triangles, well, it CAn and for early viewers usually DOES mean an active target in motion. Howewver, I feel I must have to add a caveat here. From my own experience I noticed as I did more and more sessions, (after a couple hundred) that certain of my life form circles or loops had been taking on a different character. I noticed (in review) that when the session involved an injured person my ideo would be slightly "bent" or deformed in some way. If the person was dead my ideo loop was upside down, If the person was ill one side of the circle in a stage 3 would be flattened. If it happened to be a statue I saw that the circle would have a point on it. Some times another lne from the ideo would cross Into the circle or loop and it would be indicative of some other thing. Though one can never make immediate assumptions in an RV session based on the ideo (a road to AOL Drive) you own subconscious will, WITH PRACTICE, begin to ADD more info to the ideogram such as mentioned above. It just means you are getting good at signal contact earlier on with the target which, as Ingo would say, "...is opening the aperture of your liminal threshold." That's the net effect anyway. More data is coming in sooner. This can ONLY be the case after a LOT of sessions where protocol is observed, because only then can you trust what you are getting and thus allow yourself the opening of the aperture, which will have the effect eventually of making your Idea Templates superb. This happens because the more open you are to the signal the less imagination comes in thusly making your data more reliable. You'll begin to see a patern. It will become a part of your own style. And regardless of what anyone says about TRV, we do after awhile, develop certain areas into a style, and even these hugely strict protocols allow for that. So, notice what those ideos have telling you over time. Thats all you have to do. Notice it. Morgan is right, theres data in there
Hi guys and welcome Opus to TKR.
I too noticed a few years back that my human life-form looped ideograms had vertical stems, whereas my animal ones braked abruptly off to the right. Thanks for your post Opus; you`ve encouraged me to go back and re-examine my ideos. I've been getting a bit sloppy with them of late.
Marv
I too noticed a few years back that my human life-form looped ideograms had vertical stems, whereas my animal ones braked abruptly off to the right. Thanks for your post Opus; you`ve encouraged me to go back and re-examine my ideos. I've been getting a bit sloppy with them of late.
Marv
Just in case you are not referring to ideograms (I didn't notice that in your post), just a mention: you can get nearly anything as a kind of 'associative symbolic data' during RV (meaning, "see or get a sense/feel of").
For example, I often get a sense of "evenly spaced" things either in a row or grid. Not just in general the same spacing, but a real sense of deliberately perfect even spacing. Although it does often represent something physical in the target, not always; the one thing it usually does mean, is "this is something made by man". (Eg, orchards and stones are pretty much never evenly spaced like that over more than a small span. That's part of how they find lost ruins in jungles and underwater, is looking for subtle signs of too-regular spacing/shaping.)
You can try retasking yourself on "describe what that triangle represents/means to me" (or whatever) if you like. Be aware that when you do this you're shifting away from describing the target and into describing your data. This can be a good thing (ala Stage 5 tools) or it can be disastrous for AOL or distraction, so you just gotta try it and see how it works out for you -- I do recommend not trying this until you've been in session for a bit.
When you get data that you don't think is literal, if you have a feeling about what it might mean, be sure you write down both. Sometimes you might actually 'kinda know' that X means Y; sometimes you might have a 'vague overlay' that X relates to Y; sometimes you might get the association (sort of leap-to-label) of Y; and sometimes you might analytically know from the past that X often relates to Y; and sometimes you might analytically think during the session that, based on logic alone, X might relate to Y. These are five different types of ways to "layer on" perceived symbolic data -- there are probably more but these are the ones I've run into most -- you don't usually choose that, it just happens. You want to be sure and write down what you perceive literally but then what you "feel" about it (in terms of translation) -- but be sure you write down the *kind* of translation.
For example I write down something like
Data XYZ sym> Thing Y {to represent that I think it's a symbol and 'feel' it means Y} or
Data XYZ ana> Thing Y {to represent that my brain simply logically and/or from memory thinks it could mean Y} or
Data XYZ aol> Thing Y {to represent the 'leap to label' impression or what structured RV would call AOL -- although depending on the method sometimes nearly everything that isn't literal data is AOL}.
The reason this is important is because you are learning. I learn far more from going back through old sessions than the ones I'm doing currently most the time, I suppose because there is a sort of zenlike "removal of attachment" once some amount of time has passed. We always think we will remember everything in our sessions later but it's not so. If you write it down like that, you will be able to see a lot more objectively how that data experience worked -- or didn't -- and how it affected you from that point on. Otherwise, when you write down XYZ and you kinda know it isn't really that, and the feedback shows you that you were right about it being Y, you'd want to kick yourself obviously; no point in being wrong when you know you're wrong. Yet if you just write down Y, and it isn't correct, then later you don't have insight into what you really *perceived* in as raw a form as possible, and that's where most of the insight comes in. You can also start to see patterns of behavior in-session this way, such as noticing that when you start to get a few Syms you have a tendency to hit AI type data after that ('Aesthetic Impression' that means, and any emotional reaction such as "it's huge" or "I don't like it" or "very pretty" is an AI), and that's important to recognize, because once you hit that point is a good time to start sketching if you can. So writing all this stuff down is important.
If you are using some structured method that makes "your own notation" verboten, then disregard all that. ;-) Most the viewers I know have or develop some degree of that in their personal work, even inside structured formats.
I find writing stuff down like useful for another reason too: because if I write down HOW I perceive something -- literally the way it comes in -- it often tells me something about the data, about me, or about the likely accuracy or inaccuracy of it. For example with visuals, if something is moving (dynamic), pretty much... it's always wrong, LOL. In fact, the super vivid-clear ones, I can almost guarantee will be a literal, 100% pre-memory replica of something I experience within 24 hours (usually within about 3) after the session. If the visual is static (still), it's usually a memory clip that isn't "the" target but is "about" the target. So if I see a barn it is probably not a barn but very well might be a structure of wood. If I get a "gut-energy that translates to visual after immediate memory" (you really gotta be quick to catch this!), it varies. If I get "a sense of flying over it, and a "fuzzy sense of visual" (but not real visual) of what's below, yet a sort of "rough-concept-knowledge" of what that is, well so far that has always (always) been accurate data. If I get a song clip telling me something, it usually represents an emotional or situational concept, not physical stuff. If I get a voice telling me something... it varies. If I get a visual of some aspect (person, maybe dressed up) "acting out" something like charades, it is always what they are acting out -- NOT them -- that is the data; they may contain data but it's never matching to the target (eg if the target has a lot of white they may be wearing a white shirt, but I can guarantee nobody in the target is LOL--don't ask me why!--but if they are standing or walking a certain way, it generally *will* match something in the target). These are only personal -- they will likely not be this way for you (who knows) -- it is different for every viewer, and that's just part of recording your data, keeping your records, reviewing your past work, and getting to know yourself and your viewing and what's going on in your head.
Concerning ideograms, I agree with the others: it'll come clear eventually. I don't always use them now, but when I did, some things were kinda cool and predictable, like a hard 'stop' usually meant a lifeform and a really major stop-with-emphasis like a dot usually meant a human. (Not counting loops etc.) (Bear in mind that while some formats like TRV tend to have pre-made ideogram shapes, other formats like some kinds of CRV and Warcollier-style [original] ideograms, are often free form and so different for everybody.)
So for now, if you are new, the first rule is: write it down. As everyone else above said, "it means something." What it means, you might not know now, or even for a long time, but if you write down WHAT data you get, HOW you get the data, and -- on occasion, if you think it's symbolic or something you know, your assumed translation -- then you will LEARN from that overall process. Note that if you were viewing for a final-use of your data (eg a live project), then any notes to yourself you'd keep to yourself; it would only confuse the session and evaluation if all that was in something designed to be useable data by others. But most people working on RV are primarily doing it for the learning value, in which case, this kind of observation and documentation and review of your stuff will help a TON toward fleshing out symbols, obscure stuff, "furled data", etc.
Best,
PJ
Criminy if I'm going to post on the board three times in a day I really ought to take the retired off my name I guess!
For example, I often get a sense of "evenly spaced" things either in a row or grid. Not just in general the same spacing, but a real sense of deliberately perfect even spacing. Although it does often represent something physical in the target, not always; the one thing it usually does mean, is "this is something made by man". (Eg, orchards and stones are pretty much never evenly spaced like that over more than a small span. That's part of how they find lost ruins in jungles and underwater, is looking for subtle signs of too-regular spacing/shaping.)
You can try retasking yourself on "describe what that triangle represents/means to me" (or whatever) if you like. Be aware that when you do this you're shifting away from describing the target and into describing your data. This can be a good thing (ala Stage 5 tools) or it can be disastrous for AOL or distraction, so you just gotta try it and see how it works out for you -- I do recommend not trying this until you've been in session for a bit.
When you get data that you don't think is literal, if you have a feeling about what it might mean, be sure you write down both. Sometimes you might actually 'kinda know' that X means Y; sometimes you might have a 'vague overlay' that X relates to Y; sometimes you might get the association (sort of leap-to-label) of Y; and sometimes you might analytically know from the past that X often relates to Y; and sometimes you might analytically think during the session that, based on logic alone, X might relate to Y. These are five different types of ways to "layer on" perceived symbolic data -- there are probably more but these are the ones I've run into most -- you don't usually choose that, it just happens. You want to be sure and write down what you perceive literally but then what you "feel" about it (in terms of translation) -- but be sure you write down the *kind* of translation.
For example I write down something like
Data XYZ sym> Thing Y {to represent that I think it's a symbol and 'feel' it means Y} or
Data XYZ ana> Thing Y {to represent that my brain simply logically and/or from memory thinks it could mean Y} or
Data XYZ aol> Thing Y {to represent the 'leap to label' impression or what structured RV would call AOL -- although depending on the method sometimes nearly everything that isn't literal data is AOL}.
The reason this is important is because you are learning. I learn far more from going back through old sessions than the ones I'm doing currently most the time, I suppose because there is a sort of zenlike "removal of attachment" once some amount of time has passed. We always think we will remember everything in our sessions later but it's not so. If you write it down like that, you will be able to see a lot more objectively how that data experience worked -- or didn't -- and how it affected you from that point on. Otherwise, when you write down XYZ and you kinda know it isn't really that, and the feedback shows you that you were right about it being Y, you'd want to kick yourself obviously; no point in being wrong when you know you're wrong. Yet if you just write down Y, and it isn't correct, then later you don't have insight into what you really *perceived* in as raw a form as possible, and that's where most of the insight comes in. You can also start to see patterns of behavior in-session this way, such as noticing that when you start to get a few Syms you have a tendency to hit AI type data after that ('Aesthetic Impression' that means, and any emotional reaction such as "it's huge" or "I don't like it" or "very pretty" is an AI), and that's important to recognize, because once you hit that point is a good time to start sketching if you can. So writing all this stuff down is important.
If you are using some structured method that makes "your own notation" verboten, then disregard all that. ;-) Most the viewers I know have or develop some degree of that in their personal work, even inside structured formats.
I find writing stuff down like useful for another reason too: because if I write down HOW I perceive something -- literally the way it comes in -- it often tells me something about the data, about me, or about the likely accuracy or inaccuracy of it. For example with visuals, if something is moving (dynamic), pretty much... it's always wrong, LOL. In fact, the super vivid-clear ones, I can almost guarantee will be a literal, 100% pre-memory replica of something I experience within 24 hours (usually within about 3) after the session. If the visual is static (still), it's usually a memory clip that isn't "the" target but is "about" the target. So if I see a barn it is probably not a barn but very well might be a structure of wood. If I get a "gut-energy that translates to visual after immediate memory" (you really gotta be quick to catch this!), it varies. If I get "a sense of flying over it, and a "fuzzy sense of visual" (but not real visual) of what's below, yet a sort of "rough-concept-knowledge" of what that is, well so far that has always (always) been accurate data. If I get a song clip telling me something, it usually represents an emotional or situational concept, not physical stuff. If I get a voice telling me something... it varies. If I get a visual of some aspect (person, maybe dressed up) "acting out" something like charades, it is always what they are acting out -- NOT them -- that is the data; they may contain data but it's never matching to the target (eg if the target has a lot of white they may be wearing a white shirt, but I can guarantee nobody in the target is LOL--don't ask me why!--but if they are standing or walking a certain way, it generally *will* match something in the target). These are only personal -- they will likely not be this way for you (who knows) -- it is different for every viewer, and that's just part of recording your data, keeping your records, reviewing your past work, and getting to know yourself and your viewing and what's going on in your head.
Concerning ideograms, I agree with the others: it'll come clear eventually. I don't always use them now, but when I did, some things were kinda cool and predictable, like a hard 'stop' usually meant a lifeform and a really major stop-with-emphasis like a dot usually meant a human. (Not counting loops etc.) (Bear in mind that while some formats like TRV tend to have pre-made ideogram shapes, other formats like some kinds of CRV and Warcollier-style [original] ideograms, are often free form and so different for everybody.)
So for now, if you are new, the first rule is: write it down. As everyone else above said, "it means something." What it means, you might not know now, or even for a long time, but if you write down WHAT data you get, HOW you get the data, and -- on occasion, if you think it's symbolic or something you know, your assumed translation -- then you will LEARN from that overall process. Note that if you were viewing for a final-use of your data (eg a live project), then any notes to yourself you'd keep to yourself; it would only confuse the session and evaluation if all that was in something designed to be useable data by others. But most people working on RV are primarily doing it for the learning value, in which case, this kind of observation and documentation and review of your stuff will help a TON toward fleshing out symbols, obscure stuff, "furled data", etc.
Best,
PJ
Criminy if I'm going to post on the board three times in a day I really ought to take the retired off my name I guess!
Banded_Krait
Member
Heh, heh...TKR is like crack cocaine--it is really difficult to quit it forever.
Good to hear from you, P.J. I hope this signals you will be able to swing by more often.
Well I'm not fully returned. But recently I got ColdFusion 8, that's the software middleware I use for dojo programming. And I got really excited by a lot of the new features in it. Started thinking about stuff I could do in the dojo with it, and stuff I hadn't fully done that it would make easier to finish. So I ended up going back in there and restarting some coding again. I honestly don't know how much I will be here on the forum only because the whole job/single-mom/viewing/coding/life thing tends to make time pretty limited, sigh. But there were a couple good threads and I couldn't resist posting on them and now I am doomed--sucked back in, auuuggghhhh. Will visit when I can. It's good to see you BK. Howz viewing?
Will visit when I can. It's good to see you BK. Howz viewing?