• This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn more.
  • The warm heart and beautiful soul of viewer Elizabeth Ruse, Australia, has left our lonelier world. We will miss her so very much. - PJ
  • TKR's dojo at dojopsi.com/tkr/ is open.

New to RV- Sensing the target

#1
Hey everyone,

I'm very new to RV. So, this may have been covered before, but are there times when you do a target and, well, just nothing comes to you? I mean..nothing. Sometimes I'll be sitting there thinking, 'well, I'm supposed to be sensing something', and invariably that will be when I start to castle-build.

And thanks for such a wonderful free site! It's pretty amazing that so many of you experienced viewers are so willing to share your knowledge and experience. Thank you!

spookydoc
 
#2
Because psi information is below the threshold of consciousness, there is generally an attempt in most methodologies to create a stimulus/response process. This is talked about in the CRV manual, Gary Langford's suggested RV procedure, Joe McMoneagle's Mind Trek, as well as all CRV derivations. The idea is that just waiting for data won't yield information- you have to use a stimulus- be it a word, question or task number- to elicit a reaction from the subconscious.
 
#3
Thank you for the reply. And, I'm sorry, I should have clarified, I have learned a methodology, but truly am very new at it (less than 2 weeks from learning it). And I obviously have not done many RV training sessions. But on a couple of occasions, even with the target number and ideograms, I have just come up completely blank. (and sometimes my ideograms do not look like a true ideogram -sort of a mishmash of 2 ideograms)I didn't know if that may be due to just lack of experience, or still trying to concentrate on getting the protocol down, or if this just sometimes happens.
 
#4
I ended up learning CRV, TRV, SRV and was learning ARV. In full disclosure I have been reviewing all of them along with dowsing due to a personal malady. I had a stroke.

You're vague, at least for me, on what exactly it is you're doing so I'll review what it is I do for a start. Of the styles I mentioned above they all are basically doing the following. There is some variation but then again, I have no clue which of the above you're doing. For all I know you're like me and stick to a "home brew" kind of thing.

I have to be completely ignorant of my targets. Even on practice targets I have no clue what pix my other half is clipping out of what magazines or papers. All I know is the number she puts on envelopes. I did use targets that were already made up and online as well. If you need some links say so.

The more relaxed yet fresh you are helps. It also helps if you have a way to have an empty mind yet attentive to what comes to it first. Non-judgemental to what comes to mind is the best way I can say to explain the mind set you need to be in.

Since I abhor keeping records I don't bother with my name or the date. I write the number used for my target down, immediately make my ideogram and proceed from there.

To jump in here, don't worry about your ideogram. Worrying over how it looks tells me you have already lost focus and allowed ego to jump in. If you're connected, and you may very well be, your ideogram is correct no matter what it looks like.

As soon as you make your ideogram, within a few seconds write down the first thing that comes to mind. Within a few seconds write down the next thing that comes to mind.

You cannot write down things like Ford Taurus, Washington Monument, Eiffel Tower or anything else that pinpoints your target. Well, you do write it down since that's an AOL. It may be relevant later or it may not be. Every single thing has to be descriptive such as red, green, warm, sandy, flowing, hard, rocky, constructed, wooden, rounded etc. You can also use descriptors such as man made or natural. This of course is assuming you're not being instructed to view a human or animal.

If you don't get something within say 10 -12 seconds of making your ideogram, simply start again with the number and instant ideogram. Sometimes you may have to redo that stage 5 - 6 times before you start "seeing" if something is "natural, green, wide, etc". Anything longer than say 15 seconds means ego has had time to think things over and it's time to start over or end the session.

For me personally, if I don't start flowing after 8 or so attempts it may be my other self simply doesn't feel like working today. Either way I physically write down END SESSION to close things out when I'm done. Some do and some don't write down end session. I have to.

Your methodology will dictate where you go from this stage but the above is generally speaking your beginning stage.

This is the first 2 -3 minutes or so of a session. Does it answer your question for you?
 
#6
Thanks, Fletch. That is very helpful. Actually the method is TDRV which I think is similar to CRV, but with some protocol differences. It was a short course, but extremely well done and by an excellent instructor. In retrospect, it is really quite remarkable the amount that we learned in such a short time. And I think where I may be getting hung up is on the ideogram. I like the idea that if something doesn't come to mind within a quick time frame, to rewrite the target numbers and do the ideogram again. What you describe is what I feel like is happening, that I am waiting too long for something to come so my conscious mind is jumping in to 'help out".
I wasn't so sure how important the look of the ideogram was. (I have seen mention here of doing ideogram drills). I am trying to keep it basic, but catch myself using terms like "cup-shaped" or calling liquid 'water' right off the bat. It seems like such a small thing at times, but I am really beginning to see how much that is analytical overlay, and how much it can really throw off a session.

This is very helpful and I will try what you mentioned. I am sorry to hear about your stroke and hope that you are doing better.
 
#7
Thanks so much snorble, but trust me, some of my sessions were completely off the mark! But I have to say, that that particular session really was that "omg, this really works" moment. And I so wish I knew what, if anything, in particular I did that time that was different. Honestly, right as I ended the session, I was convinced that I was just making up random stuff. And then when we got the feedback, I was stunned. Immediately, I was trying to sort of rationalize it away, but what are the odds of somehow just guessing at the target when it could have been anything in the world? So for me, that was kind of a defining moment that yes, this really is something we can all do if we train ourselves. The one thing I do remember about that particular session is that I went a little faster, and didn't let myself dwell too long on any one thing.
 
#8
snorble said:
I find it useful to see different methods that have worked, to see what's different and what's the same, and get an idea about what is actually important.
We're on the exact same page on this. It's hard as heck to explain why each session will look different and the only way to explain it is the session controlled things, I didn't.
 
#9
Spookydoc said:
Thanks, Fletch. That is very helpful. Actually the method is TDRV which I think is similar to CRV
YW. Glad I was able to help. I haven't looked into TDRV as of yet and can only assume that essentially it's probably not that much different in that it will rely on your state of mind, the cue and ideogram.

Spookydoc said:
I like the idea that if something doesn't come to mind within a quick time frame, to rewrite the target numbers and do the ideogram again. What you describe is what I feel like is happening, that I am waiting too long for something to come so my conscious mind is jumping in to 'help out".
I don't know anyone personally that does RV beyond the folks here on the net and haven't talked to any of them extensively. I'll wager though that many of us will "restart" a few times more often than not to get a strong[er] connection. There is also the fact that there are times your other self just flat doesn't want to play today and it doesn't matter how many times you restart. The real trick is,,, don't over do it. Learn how to reward yourself for a job well done and the other self will want to play more often.

Spookydoc said:
I wasn't so sure how important the look of the ideogram was.
How does not at all sound to you? Zip! Nada! Who cares? Yeah it looks like a scribble. And? Your conscious mind doesn't have to make sense of it, your subconscious does. When starting out it's going to look like a scribble but once you've done several of them you'll figure out, Oh, this is a life form, that is flat land, that has a hill in it, this is probably a forest etc. etc. Your subconscious will use a similar ideogram for a life form over and over because that's what it "see's". The same for flat land or a hill, water etc. etc.. Still, it's not the job of the conscious to figure it all out even though you recognize most of it. When you learn to probe the ideogram it might surprise you in what else is hidden in there like, holy crap! this thing is thousands of years old!

Spookydoc said:
(I have seen mention here of doing ideogram drills).
Nothing wrong with that. There was a link somewhere to help learn what you use to define a life form etc. Again, all you're doing is learning to recognize what squiggle your subconscious makes when it "see's" whatever. Either way you'll figure it out.

Spookydoc said:
I am trying to keep it basic, but catch myself using terms like "cup-shaped" or calling liquid 'water' right off the bat. It seems like such a small thing at times, but I am really beginning to see how much that is analytical overlay, and how much it can really throw off a session.
Actually there's nothing wrong with using "cup-shaped". It describes a shape. It's almost the same as hollowed yet cup-shaped tells me it's in the horizontal with an opening where hollowed could be from any angle and mean more than one thing. You do want to refrain from using water though. Water isn't the only thing that is >>wet<< or >>liquid<<. So is lava and it even flows. Yup, AOL can end a session if you don't recognize it for what it is.

Spookydoc said:
This is very helpful and I will try what you mentioned. I am sorry to hear about your stroke and hope that you are doing better.
RV is easy on paper. Not so much when you're trying to control the ego. Glad to be of any help at all. Improving here. Still have a small problem remembering things like,,, WORDS. The primary thing that hinders RV. :mad:
 
#10
Spookydoc said:
I think where I may be getting hung up is on the ideogram. I like the idea that if something doesn't come to mind within a quick time frame, to rewrite the target numbers and do the ideogram again... I am waiting too long for something to come so my conscious mind is jumping in to 'help out".
I wasn't so sure how important the look of the ideogram was. (I have seen mention here of doing ideogram drills). I am trying to keep it basic, but catch myself using terms like "cup-shaped" or calling liquid 'water' right off the bat. It seems like such a small thing at times, but I am really beginning to see how much that is analytical overlay, and how much it can really throw off a session
It is completely acceptable to do multiple ideograms. If you could see my sessions... Just about everytime I do a self 'prompting' question I do another ideogram to solidify it. So I have no less than six ideograms per session.

The real TRICK with the ideogram is to define a particular language. The ideogram is the first physical representation of the target data. It is a language in itself. You can train that language in BOTH directions. If you just make a 'chicken scratch' that is barely recognizable, yet natural, you can still probe it for data. But you can also consciously practice drawing ideograms which will effectively tell/train your subconscious what ideograms you would like to see to represent certain data. After a bit of practice you will find a middle ground between the 'automatic-drawing' of the subconscious and what you train it to give you. The rest will come from doing many training targets and looking at the feedback data compared to the ideogram.. this effectively trains the conscious mind.

So, ideograms are a two way street. And this is very akin to learning a new foreign language.. with one exception, and that is you are already naturally talented with this language. It will take practice, but you'll get a rhythm soon enough.

Just remember that even if you can't quite understand the ideogram you can still probe it .. IF.. and I stress the IF.. the ideogram comes naturally. If you feel that you forced it then your best bet is to do another. Try closing your eyes and looking away from the paper when you write the target number and ideogram.. this works quite well.

Next.. drawing a blank... this is natural. When this happens move to the next bit of data and come back to it later. If you are trying to decode a smell and draw a blank.. then move on to textures.. then colors.. then.. after a bit more target contact try smell again. If you really feel blocked on a particular bit of data wait until mid or late session and come back to it. Some aspects of data can be trying for some odd reason. But there are ways around that. Another excellent tool is to do a movement exercise around the target and try for the data again. Oddly enough a movement exercise, more often than not, tends to reset the data. "Ok, I'm going to move 10'ft back from the target and 20'ft above it and describe"...Blockages can clear just that easy...

The rest of the story is practice I'm afraid. You are building up your own language between the subconscious and the conscious mind...unfortunately it is completely subjective so there is no Rosetta-Stone so to speak. But it does start to form naturally and quickly with practice and attention.. more quickly than you probably imagine.

Best of luck
 
#11
Thank you all very much. This is very helpful! My ideograms come naturally, but then I don't know what the heck they are sometimes. Sometimes they are very straightforward. Other times, they are more like a combo between 2 ideograms, like liquid/ mountain, a being/ liquid, or mountain/ structure. Interestingly, my energy ideograms always comes out as energy only. And I am beginning to see that it is a matter of practice and repetition!

I guess I am just going to have to figure out with time what language my subconscious is going to use! :)
 
#12
Spookydoc said:
... 2 ideograms, like liquid/ mountain, a being/ liquid, or mountain/ structure....
It's not quite cut and dried as you seem to be thinking it might be. Even if you're just practicing by saying mountain then allowing an ideogram to be drawn you're still dealing with ego.

Assuming you're practicing,,, are you getting a mental image when you say the word? I'll wager the answer is yes and the image will be of something you have already seen/experienced.

Mountains have streams, beings take baths/swim/drink liquids/are near water such as streams, lakes etc and there are cabins/electrical poles/etc on mountains.

Even when you're not practicing more than one "object" in an ideogram isn't unusual because you will normally see an entire "area" until you're able to focus on the actual target. Depending on your target of course.

More than one item in an ideogram is nothing to worry about. It in fact is a step up when you recognize it is more than one object.
 

PJ

Administrator
Staff member
#13
There is a "tasking context" and then there is "the target" which is the "focus" -- and the psychological definition for this ('within' whatever the actual tasking and cue are) is "what is most important and relevant" about (the tasker's request, or whatever else you want to gear your viewing toward).

In any feedback there are many things, but we don't care about the light poles and postal boxes (unless those were the target), we care about the building that is the focus (for example). What is most important and relevant to the tasker's desire (or the viewing outcome need) could be anything -- and not just physical data of course -- but it probably won't be trivia.

Basics of the target's foundation for existence will usually come through in a session. E.g. unlikely to have a good session on a war plane without something related to the war. Unlikely to have a good session on a bikini without the curvy girl wearing it (or even the archetype of curvy girls wearing them). And that may be so even when that data is not part of feedback (aside from "implicitly implied"). But that's in session; hopefully the ideograms will be the basics.

For ideograms, the 'potential' of this is a boatload of information "furled up" into something akin to a spontaneous symbol. Yes, it is true that nearly all targets will have multiple gestalts, as we call them, although you can actually entrain yourself to ideograms that cover all kinds of things not just gestalts (you can "stage 1 a session" as I call it -- use S1 itself, repeatedly, as the whole collection process, though usually some 3 (sketching) or 4.5 (~sentence describing) is needed eventually).

It's important when you are talking to yourself, your mind, that your expectations are clear. Your mind is your friend and you're establishing a communications relationship with it. If your aims are tenuous, armophous, vague and fuzzy, your data may be too.

Particularly when you are beginning something new, there is nothing wrong with getting a small collection of data, stopping, get feedback. The emphasis on many stages and often 3 hour sessions kills more viewing enthusiasm... and worse, both creates a ridiculous emphasis on emotional reaction to result (because it was such a huge effort), and ends up with either so much data you don't easily know what data point 'experience' of yours in session, relates to what data in the target, or, the experience was simply so long ago, and in the midst of others and other things, that by the time feedback comes you don't even remember it well. It's good to use tasks that aren't so difficult to come by as those made by another person just for you right then, in this case, so you don't feel like you are 'wasting' a task.

If you're doing fairly traditional viewing, you want to set an 'expectation and demand' of your mind and body: it is going to give you a spontaneous 'reflex motion' in the hand with the pen, which will draw a shape on the paper (Scribbliograms as my buddy Ed the Toad humorously called them), and that process plus 'revisiting' a focus on its end result on paper, will lead to at least some impression about what gestalt it may be. That is your expectation and request of self.

So, you want the gestalt/s that is most important and relevant. You don't want every gestalt there can be or you start losing the point of it. If a person using a machine is the focus of the feedback, you want what is most important about this target, which may be either of those, both of those, or something else not even in feedback but implied (e.g. a person the machine is affecting).

There may be more than one 'major' gestalt in the target, true. Only if it's important and relevant do you really want it though. You want to exit stage 1 -- in a perfect world, which is not always going to happen -- with a sense of the major focus. If it's a giant bulldozer/landmover, it doesn't matter that it's sitting in a nice stretch of flat land, just next to a small mountain, in front of a small body of water. What matters is that it's a thing, as opposed to a person or a river or an event. You might get the bulldozer and also its "process" in a session like that, once you get the hang of this. But for Stage 1 you really just want the low-level gestalts that mean the most.

Your mind may give you more than traditional gestalts, sooner or later. 'Death' is something that came through in my ideograms pretty early. Trees or recurring-vertical-like-structures often come through for people. "Composite" ideograms (to which Fletch referred earlier in the thread) are not uncommon but are obviously a little more difficult to figure out. If you lean on your mind to give you 'one important thing, and then I will ask if there is something else' - so if it wants more data to get through, it will have the opportunity - hopefully it will agree. Ids can be as complex or simple as desired, and some people can 'feel' a lot from 'touching' them with pen or finger and other people just have to get used to recognizing the shape from experience.

But ask your mind for what you want, be firm, 'expect it' and 'accept it.' (And say thank you for it.) Doing stage-1 only exercises I consider fairly important, as long as you don't make it into a trivial/throwaway thing. You want every data collection exercise to have a sense of single-focus and importance.

Best,
PJ