Ideograms - literal vs dictionary question


New Member

First of all, I see that the forum is almost new posts, lots of deleted threads (dont know why)...Well, any way, my question is this:
Some remote viewers prefer to create a list of ideograms to describe everything, for example, across-down will be always a structure or artificial thing. So, if the target is Eiffel tower, a roof, a car, a tunnerl, a bridge, whatever, they will use the same ideogram.

But others, and I think thats what I found on CRV military full docs and some authors, prefer to look at the shape: if its go up and then down, it may be a rooftop, a mountain, etc. Across. and down can only be something with square angles. And so on.

What is the most advisable thing to follow?


do you ever dream you're someone else?
Hi RickDan.

We have an ongoing spam issue (bot registrations that immediately post anywhere they can), so the deleted threads/posts are from that. By policy/charter, TKR doesn't delete anything except spam. Anything else gets kicked to the Cat Scratch Fever section. :)

Ideograms are really up for debate. Some people's ids nearly all look the same but they can feel the difference. Some people have no official work at making them the same, though they will have certain commonalities (e.g. vertical lines, sharp points, big loops, etc.), but can feel it more than see it anyway so to them it doesn't matter. Some people use ids more for a sense of grounding/anchoring than for actually trying to decode a gestalt. And some diligently work on them. You can stage-1 a session all the way through if you want, an ancient moment of obsession with it took me there for a bit as I fuzzily recall. There aren't any consistencies in this unless the person or people are all doing the same thing in the same way on purpose for the same reason. Some people don't use ids at all. Some people expanded it way beyond its actual meaning into a whole pseudo-sketching thing, which kind of evades the whole "ideomotor response" concept, but which my old buddy Ed the Toad once hilariously called "Scribbliograms..." - perfect.

Some people keep ids limited to primary gestalts; others a larger collection of 'loosely called' gestalts; still others might attempt to create them for every imaginable thing (including emotions, aesthetics, situations, etc.). I suspect this is easier to filter and focus if one is fairly experienced and doing work repetitively in a certain genre of target. Otherwise the library gets so huge that unless you view several times every day and do drills constantly it'd sure be easy to forget half of them or not have the body be auto-responding the way one intends.

Also, depending on the format someone's using, some people actually try to filter their data into fitting with the id, some people believe all data stands alone without regard to what came before. In short... you can either do it the way it is taught in CRV (complication: CRV is taught with variation too) or you can just choose-one-alphabet-RV and do what they do... or make your own way. Whatever you do, if you do it consistently, document what you're doing and why and the results, and then do some reviews on things every few weeks at least, you probably learn more that way than choosing any given thing 'just because.'

It is likely that just like everything else, how well Ids work -- and how well they work done in a certain fashion -- may depend somewhat on the viewer, the task type (the data), etc.



New Member
Hi! Thanks for answering!

I think thats an important topic because everybody teaching ideograms says exactly that. So, if they are that important, one needs to know how to make ideograms. This is how my question arised in my mind.

Maybe the important thing about ideograms is using them (whatever the way you use them) in order to kickstart your mind and make it able to grab information.
you pick your appraoch and make it work.

they can be really valuable if they work for you. you can use visual ideograms too or any other basic gestalts as a gateway