pjrv : Messages : 15?4-15?4 of 4038 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pjrv/messages/15?4?? )
?
 ?3:07:?9

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-PJRV_group---------

#15?4

Date: Sun Nov ?4, ?00? 5:56 pm
Subject: After Feedback 	dennanm



Lately, I've been doing more after feedback than I have in session
sometimes.

I've taken to attempting to sketch, in a 'perfect world' scenario,
the target (using the feedback as my guide? ) as I might have done in
session were I Nearly Omniscient (TM? ).

The first obvious thing is that I can't sketch worth a damn. Part of
this is just to get some practice in that.  My art is still at the
six year old phase.  Don't laugh -- but I had what for me was a real
trauma at age 6 related to drawing, and from that time on, I took up
coloring mostly instead, and of course as I got older I did music and
writing, but never did art again.  (I spent literally an entire day
drawing a picture for my parents, of a man walking down the street.
I added every detail I could think of so they would be really proud
of me.  I spent SO long on it.  I was so proud I was nearly bursting
at the seams.  And I finally ran in and made a big production of
giving it to them, and they both started screaming at me that I was
bad and nasty and mom whacked me.  In my attempt for detail, I had
drawn the dashed line down the middle of the street he was standing
on, that led up to him.  Not being real good with perspective, it
ended between his legs.  So they thought I was drawing a man peeing.
Odd, as I wouldn't react that way to my kid even if she DID draw such
a thing, but times were different then.  Anyway, they were mad and
disapproving of me the rest of the evening and I was so profoundly
upset that I swore I would never draw again and for the most part,
didn't.? )

So I'm really retarded with it, if the shape is any more complicated
than a square or something I'm doomed.

I'm trying to work through my utter lack of hand-eye coordination for
sketching because it has long been very frustrated to me that I can
*visualize* on paper -- literally every line that would be in a
sketch of something from life -- it's like there's just
some "disconnect" between my brain and my hand.  So I'm working on
that.

Anyway, sketching the feedback is really helping because it's making
me notice some things I didn't before.  It really makes me pay
attention to the feedback.

For example, I did a pool target yesterday.  I got that there was
this slightly elevated area, and a sort of slope downward from the
edge of it, and there were... I wrote 'steps, like... steps.' I knew
there was something else I needed, but had no word.  I got that there
was a tall, vertical, light colored thin structure on the elevated
area. From there on it was downhill aoldrive LOL. I'd been praying
earlier and pretty much everything I focused on felt like it was
designed for and blessed by God, which wrapped into a tower shape on
an old church or something.

Anyway, the target was the infamous 'windmill farm' that McMoneagle
once got in the lab.  The photograph I have for feedback, when I
looked at it at first, didn't seem to match much data.

When I sketched it, I saw that it shows the slightly elevated area
they are on, and close to the camera is the slight sloping of that,
and oh yeah, I'd gotten 'brush - sage' at the bottom which from the
looks of it, it probably is, but what confused me was the terrain.
It's desertish, but there are rocks and bulbous protrusions sticking
out of the ground that look a little like irregular 'stepping
stones' -- I imagined to myself that if I were walking down that
area, I might step on some of them coming down.  Then I understood
why I had a sense of sloping down and a stepping down but the
word 'steps' didn't seem right; the shape didn't seem right but I had
no other word for that concept.

I probably wouldn't even have noticed the slight elevation, the
slope, the 'stepping' stone-shapes, had I not sketched the feedback,
and so had to pay really close attention to it.

I've also been trying to get in a good state and meditate on the
feedback a little bit, imagine myself there at the location at that
moment, imagine how it would feel to see/feel something towering
above me or whatever the target has.

After all, I think it would be nice to be able to "tune into" things
like psychics do - totally frontloaded. I am so left brain that any
amount of that destroys me right now.  Even if I am merely deluding
myself that I am really psychically perceiving the target when I am
looking at the feedback and then 'imagining myself there', it really
doesn't matter, because the ability to "go with the flow" is more
important to my overall learning at this point than the finer points
of detail.

Which is my way of saying that RV at the inception of it is hard for
me.  It is damn hard to get into it, and every time I sit down for it
some part of my brain scoffs, "but how would you KNOW?!" and I have
to shut it up - yes, after all this time - a sign that I have not
done enough practice.  When I get "in the swing of practice," that
dims and it's easy to "jump into" a session, and I may or may not be
right but at least I can get INTO it.  I am at the point where I
consider being wrong better than being unable to allow myself to go
with it and let data through. In the long run I am more in need of
acceptance of the process, psychologically, than obsession over the
details.

Well that's my rambling for today.

PJ

pjrv : Messages : 15?8-156? of 4038 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pjrv/messages/15?8?? )
?
 ?3:11:07

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-PJRV_group---------

#15?8
 	From: aeonblueau8008...
Date: Sun Nov ?4, ?00? 3:56 pm
Subject: Re: After Feedback 	terri8008



> PJ wrote:
> I knew
> there was something else I needed, but had no word.  I got that there
> was a tall, vertical, light colored thin structure on the elevated
> area. From there on it was downhill aoldrive LOL. I'd been praying
> earlier and pretty much everything I focused on felt like it was
> designed for and blessed by God, which wrapped into a tower shape on
> an old church or something.

IMO as usual-
On some targets only so much is gonna come in no matter how hard your try or
how long or push, so you need to know when to Stop.
Photo targets/pools don't yield much data for me- feel very flat,(I suspect
the same for others? ) so I don't work them, but if that's what you are used to
that's what your used to.
Some targets you get stuck in/on need retasking, that's just the way it is-no
way around it (if they are tasked in the first place? ) that will free you up a
bit, un stick you, move you.
That's just the way it is.

Your initial (open? ) influx/signal was accurate (gestalt? ) (S1? ), from there on
you tried to 'make it thus an so' and there was nothing else to "make" on,
you were foundering or out of session from there on, whatever excuse.
No structure to help/guide/compliment/pull you out you as you are opposed to
any structure, (and as structure was designed to help not hinder? ) but to each
her/his own.
Then again you may have or work PJRV structure.

Keeping in mind hopeffully, I assume (IMO? ) .. RV is for descriptive,not
labeling not identifying, not visual (all of the previous could be old
school? ).

Don't try to nail that target in one session.
One in twenty you'll nail.
Cut your self some slack.

If AOLs bug you declare them and set them aside, end off, if they persist
just describe them or keep describing them, ramble them off the paper on to
the table off to the floor.
After a fashion AOL will disappear, they will almost totally disappear, the
less you acknowledge it, the phenomena- the left brain.
AOL will disappear.

If you can't dump the AOL try declaring a TO (to much? ), your overwhelmed.

Dump/ban the word "like".
Rarely is your/ones 'like' the actual signal or site.

A word paints a thousand pictures.
A picture paints a thousand words.

(Keeping in mind this is IMO? )
Words, images, equations, image streaming, symbolic.. don't belong in RV.
May be a way cool personal metaphysical experience but makes a goofy hard to
read analyze all over the place session.

Capitalize on your AI, for me that's the biggest indicator of all both in my
sessions and in (teaching? )analyzing.

It was a couple of years before I started sketching.
(Trained in ERV let the monitor do the work? )

Sketching (the artist in me? ) tends to lead me to "put in", fill in detail,
color the picture, usually detail that I "think" (left brain? ) is there or
should be there or should go along.
In sketching, stick type figures, lines a bit of shading, sketchy bits, basic
shapes are fine, the less detail as in my case the more accurate the sketch.
I am not trying to identify or label or name.
One in 50(or more? ) sessions will you be able to draw out in detail,
correctly, accurately a tgt site. Usually it's beginners luck.
Just because you have seen some, very few RV images/sessions .. don't think
it's common place or happens all the time even for the best of them (RVers? ).

RV is hard.
RV is descriptive, should be totally.

Save the "like" and "it'sa this and it'sa that" for session summary, try to
keep all that away from the session, keep to clean hard data.

Discipline yourself in session.
Cut the noise, the analytical, suppress it, bury it.
With self discipline (after a fashion, a year or two? ) you should develop you
own sort or form of session structure naturally and usually that's just the
way you are and will be and it works for you.

Try to stick to one form or method of RV give it at least a year practice.
Bouncing all over the place (methods teachers? ) I don't feel helps you, it's
more a confusion.
Confusion, instability, insecurity is a downfall for session, out of session,
not in session.

RV mode is a delicate niche.
You are on or you are off and if you honest with yourself you know when
you're "on" and when you take the fall(off? ).

You might try this..
work a session total descriptive, even if there are just five(words? ) or a
hundred and five.
Write the session summary all the "likes" and such.

Step away from it for and hour or two or a day.
Go back to it and take away all the labels and identifiers, write more
descriptive if pertinent, you'll know(sensual or intuitively? ) what areas have
more "depth" can be described more in depth or thoroughly..
Discard the crap, the (you? ) stuff additives that doesn't belong.

Words paint the picture instead of making the site fit the session.

just my ?cents  ~~Terri

	
#1557
 	From: "Eva" 
Date: Thu Nov ?8, ?00? 10:00 pm
Subject: Re: After Feedback 	k9caninek9



> Dump/ban the word "like".
> Rarely is your/ones 'like' the actual signal or site.
> just my ?cents  ~~Terri

I am curius where you learned that from.  You are the only one I have
heard say that "like" was a problem in a session.  Lyn even suggests
using it to keep words more descriptive.
-E

	
#156?
 	From: Bill Pendragon 
Date: Sun Dec 1, ?00? 1:33 pm
Subject: Re: Re: PJ could you ask Joe Mc this question? 	docsavagebill



http://www.innerworlds.50megs.com/obe.htm

Above is a URL that discusses the interesting finding
that electrical stimulation of the Right Angular Gyrus
( about one inch above the right ear? ) produces an
experience of OBE's. Another article recently said
this same gyrus was important in pulling togeather
disparate sensory information and ogranizing it into a
recognizable intelligeble pattern. Yet another article
mentions that once a patern is "named" even if
INCORECTLY this portion of the brain stops working on
it. All this makes me suspicious that this may be
important in psi input and  reception. This may be
where psi information is reorganized into something
recognizable to us. Joe McMoneagle wrote that some
portion of the brain would be discovered early in this
century that would permit RV to be 99%+ accurate. So
Palyne , PLease ask him if the spot  one inch above
the right ear ( maybe slighty to the rear? ) is the spot
of interest in his viewing!

Best Regards,

Bill

pjrv : Messages : 1561-1693 of 4038 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pjrv/messages/1561?? )
?
 ?3:17:31

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-PJRV_group---------

#1561
 	From: aeonblueau8008...
Date: Sun Dec 1, ?00? 3:14 am
Subject: Re: Re: After Feedback 	terri8008



> > Dump/ban the word "like".
> > Rarely is your/ones 'like' the actual signal or site.
> > just my ?cents  ~~Terri
>
> I am curius where you learned that from.  You are the only one I have
> heard say that "like" was a problem in a session.  Lyn even suggests
> using it to keep words more descriptive.

It is by far easier to label then to describe. But how many times are your
labels spot on.

"like" leads to AOL/drive and labeling, thinking (left braining? ) the target
or signal, instead of 'getting' the tgt or signal. "Like" leads to mental
meandering, equating, and image streams or streaming, usually to AOLing and
out of session, off tgt.
Like I said rarely is someones 'like'(image/label? ), like the tgt site.

I have read sessions with 'like-s' in them.
Often, from then on the viewer is in some kind of a .... (not? )RVsession
describing their 'like', instead of writing down (or not wanting to? ) or
declaring the AOL/drive it triggered, and getting back on signal, the "like",
left brain analytical takes over, in control (left brain now telling you
'what it is' as opposed to actually being, reporting on/at siginal/site? ).
I have also seen, several consecutive sessions worked (solo? ) without
re-tasking, and the sessions continue along the 'like' theme in other words
floundering/self perpetuating in AOL drive, not really RV, not really in
session no where near it, not on signal/site/tgt no where near it.

Maybe there is a new L column for 'likes' or a new I column for 'it's a'..
it's a this- and it's a that-  .. jus kidding :-? )? )? )? )? ).

But no I had never heard of 'like' being OKed, but I have a feeling I'm way
behind the times as RV is evolving.. perhaps in some very early training
exercises?

In PJs session as I recall or if I recall correctly.. after her "like"(steps? )
she went down hill or out of session. (point being or as I see in many
sessions..? ).
If the session were monitored, monitor would say 'steps' is a label..
describe.
Steps could be, colors.. brown white purple black, netural, natural..
tiered, levels, layers or layered, stacked, solid continuity, ups and downs,
ins and outs, horizontal vertical, perpendicular angular sharp rough smooth
hard soft porous gritty bumpy slick, rigid static inanimate flat narrow wide
vast flowing, open enclosed contained dark light, manmade natural wet dry hot
cold, not to mention what does all of that smell taste or sound like like..
boring one word descriptives.
Keep descriptives simple, simple words, they are initial impressions, don't
try to "think" more up, don't "think" the tgt.

After having a belly full of describing the 'steps'.. (or I think she was
attracted to a main element first, tall verticals I think? ) (I dunno can't
recall exact? )
let the peripheral/s come in, or start describing the bits of, or flashes of
data that came in or you know are also there on site. Without a monitor to
move you I guess you would call this a self movement exercise.

anyway, thats my cents, IMO as usual, an just using an example,
tall verticals, sketched out in stick or partial figures, lines,  then layers
or levels added, that would have sufficed for a session or first session, as
she was on site at that point.. very much so actually.

Sometimes without help or guidance or structure, it's just hard, really
really hard.. or even when you have your own devised structure I guess I
should say...
Sometimes all that will come in is no more than half dozen descriptives and
your stuck or doorknobbed at site. Re task or monitor is needed, or you
figure you just did poorly at that one shot session I guess.

  To each her/his own or whatever ..  ~T~

	
#1565
 	From: "Eva" 
Date: Mon Dec ?, ?00? 8:48 pm
Subject: Re: After Feedback 	k9caninek9



Well heck I've seen about a jillion sessions in which viewers got
sucked into aol drive.  Some had 'like' in em and a lot of others
didn't.  I think the main prob is the same regardless of if you
use 'like' or 'aol=' or 'SC' or whatever.  Either way, you are
getting a label and writing it down and if you get too attached to
it, it can lead you down the garden path.

Really, I think the story about aol drive is a heck of a lot of
practice and mental discipline.  One word is not going to make you or
break you either way.  Either you sufficiently detach from your
perceptions in a session or you don't.  That comes from your own
inner thoughts.

And yes, Lyn absolutely does say that 'like' is OK and says that if
you can't think of a better descriptor, then use a noun plus 'like'
to make the word an adjective.  It wasn't an exercise, just what he
said to do in a session.  He brought it up and suggested we use it if
we wanted to.  I don't know of any trainer who has ever said 'like'
is bad.  If you could name me one, then I could check on it.  I'm not
saying there aren't any, but for the life of me, I haven't heard that
ever anywhere.  Who says it?  Is there any research on it?  Inquiring
minds want to know.  If it's important, than surely there is an
origin for it and I want to track down the source of it.

And yes, I think most people agree that breaking down aols and higher
concepts into descriptors is very useful and should be done whenever
possible and as best as possible. And I'm sure you would agree that
often times, that process is not as easy as one would like, language
being as limited as it is.  THat to me is a separate issue.

-E

	
#1566
 	From: greenmn900...
Date: Mon Dec ?, ?00? 3:54 pm
Subject: Re: Re: After Feedback 	greenmn900...



Hi,

I have to disagree with this.  Using the word 'like' IS part of a
description.  It's a way to objectify information that you have no specific
descriptor for.  Many times in a session you might get brief flashes of tons
of data all at once that leave you with an overall impression but nothing
specific.  A good example would be "park-like".  This could mean that
something in the data stream has led you to be aware that this might NOT be a
park, but for some reason it IS "like" a park.

You can then go back and try to ferret out what the information was that led
you to say it was 'like" a park.  Although, often this is impossible because
the data stream is so fast.  But, at the very least, you are left with a
description of the target that you wouldn't have otherwise.

I also think that since you have specifically stated it is ONLY "like" a park
(or whatever? ) this in itself helps to protect you from slipping into aol.
You already know it probably isn't a park, only like one for some reason.  It
also has always seemed to me that using the word "like" with it's vagueness
helps to prevent the left, analytical brain from interfering.  You haven't
taken the time to remove your focus from the target to try to find the exact
descriptor that fits, so you can maintain your focus on the data stream and
keep RVing.  I believe the ability to stay out of aol is something that is
learned slowly over time by learning to remain noncommittal about all your
information until it finally resolves itself into something more specific.
It's a matter of letting the RV session move along at it's own pace without
trying to hurry it by making assumptions or coming to conclusions based on
what you've gotten up to that point.

As for "labeling", I've never understood the problem people have with this.
If I see a canyon, why should I spend several minutes coming up with
descriptors for what I've just seen when I know what I perceived WAS a
canyon?  Or if I hear a phrase that originates from the target, should I
spend a lot of time trying to come up with descriptors for it?  I prefer to
just write it down and keep RVing.

Best Regards,
Don

	
#1568
 	From: "Eva" 
Date: Tue Dec 3, ?00? ?:33 am
Subject: Re: After Feedback 	k9caninek9



I agree with just about everything you said.  My only issue is with
the labeling.  I do see the reason for designating stuff as aol.
It's a reminder not to get too attached to something.  And if the aol
is incorrect, often the descriptors you pull from it wills still be
correct, so breaking out the descriptors is a way to increase your
accuracy.  Now if the aol was accurate, then the descriptors will
still be accurate, so it's hard to go wrong with that.

As for the speed of the incoming data, yeah it's hectic, but good
stuff will always come back if you spend enough time on the session
to get it all.  However, on a diff not, I think that as you progress,
what you consider to be an aol that should be broken down may well
change.  For instance, I used to feel that 'glass' was an aol and
would break it down to hard, clear, flat, etc.  Now it seems like I
can more safely say 'glass' and feel reasonably confident glass is
probably there.  So now 'window' is an aol, but glass is a descriptor
for me.  I think the longer you rv, the more you will find the line
shifting and you can be more confident of higher and higher level
descriptors.

I have been trying to keep a sharp eye on what I need to break down
and what I can trust as more high level data.  Of course, I don't
always guess right, so I try to stay on the safe side of getting
extra descriptors vs neglecting something.  And as you said Don,
sometimes a thing has such a strong feel to it but it doesn't really
want to break down and that is when parklike, boatlike, etc is useful
to me.  I guess I could just say aol=boat, but sometimes it's just
not exactly the same nuance of meaning that I am looking for.  And rv
is all about nuance now isn't it!  ;-? )
-E

	
#1569

Date: Tue Dec 3, ?00? 7:13 am
Subject: Re: After Feedback 	dennanm



> I do see the reason for designating stuff as aol.

I think as you and Don have pointed out -- and this is a really good
point -- often in session one KNOWS whether something is an AOL or
whether it is literally-that-thing.  I write stuff down as AOL until
or unless I am sure it is that-thing in which case I quit labeling it
AOL because for me it's become a descriptive.

Many times the value of labeling something AOL is that it would not
*normally* be -- but my labeling is an alert to me (and to review
after the fact? ) of something. This can be concepts, not just
descriptives.  For example the other day I had a session where I
declared a tall thin light colored structure was "designed for and
blessed by God." And then I declared it AOL, because I knew that my
prayers somewhat prior to session had been so intense, *anything* I
focused on was likely to have that "overcast" to it.  (LOL - I was
right - no, I was not praying for my RV, but I should have been!? )

I long ago realized that even gestalts are often AOLs and often
gestalts can be things not normally considered in basic level RV and
multiple-combined terms (e.g., "rolling, rolling, cold, fog..." is a
gestalt.  Not just 'manmade/organic/etc'.? ).  'What' to label AOL is
as much a subtle art as anything else in RV.  I often label things
AOL in RV that objectively would not be, but I label them that way
because the data follows "logically" on data that came previous in
the session, so I know there is a high risk for it being analytically
affected or produced.

I have a current problem in sessions where, I will not understand
what the terrain is made of, and guess water for OTHER reasons --
because it is basically flat but doesn't seem green or stone/cement
(so I say water, uncertain; turns out to be desert? ) or because it has
similar qualities, such as being 'flowing, and in motion' (turns out
to be lava? ).  I'm learning though that when I can only grasp one
thing fairly clearly about the target, if I cannot get the proper
terms for it, the session will fail utterly -- I mean I will never
make the degree of target contact I should.  If my contact is not
solidifying to the point where I start to get a lot more data and/or
sense of the target, I know that something primary about my data thus
far is just wrong.

> I have been trying to keep a sharp eye on what I need to break
> down and what I can trust as more high level data.  Of course, I
> don't always guess right, so I try to stay on the safe side of
> getting extra descriptors vs neglecting something.

Yes, the water note I made above is specifically a problem of being
too air-head while in session to remember to delve more deeply into
the details of the 'water' that I'm not sure about...

PJ

	
#1570
 	From: "Scott Ellis" 
Date: Tue Dec 3, ?00? 10:07 am
Subject: Re: After Feedback 	scottrver



I think the differences of opinion on this stuff is due to the
individualistic nature of RV perceptions, which is also due in part to
difference of methodology.  It might be useful to describe how you
perceive information.  In general, I agree with Don.  My perceptions
are mostly very clear visuals.  However, sometimes I'll get enough of
them in rapid sequences that it will create an impression that is LIKE
something.  Also, I have learned that when I see little movies, they
are usually LIKE something whereas the still photo type images ARE
something.

Scott

	
#1587
 	From: Bill Pendragon 
Date: Tue Dec 3, ?00? 1?:54 pm
Subject: Re: Re: After Feedback-analysis 	docsavagebill



Hi Eva and PJ,

Once everything is broken down to a bunch of basic
sometimes conflicting descriptors... which might go

up/down  big  small... bitter sweet.. blue brown green
red yellow..  soft hard... etc.. now you want to
finally synthesize something.. how do you put it
togeather????? It seems hopeless to me. I'd almost
rather have the aols and keep it simple.

Best Regards,

Bill

----------------------
Moderator's note: The above would be an example of a session in which target
contact never properly advanced.  Sometimes early viewers in particular, and
viewers working in highly left-brain structures, suffer this "dichotomy in data
without resolution", because target contact simply does not increase (as it
should as part of the session process? ) to where eventually they can make more
sense of things, or go with another line of data.  Usually descriptives like you
mention are mostly early-session data; as target contact increases the concepts
should start building a bit more of a framework for things, and those elements
will come back or fall into place within the larger concepts.  PJ

	
#1567
 	From: Richard Krankoski 
Date: Mon Dec ?, ?00? 10:56 pm
Subject: Re: Re: After Feedback 	Rich_crv



> greenmn900...rote:
> As for "labeling", I've never understood the problem people have with this.
> If I see a canyon, why should I spend several minutes coming up with
> descriptors for what I've just seen when I know what I perceived WAS a
> canyon?  Or if I hear a phrase that originates from the target, should I
> spend a lot of time trying to come up with descriptors for it?  I prefer to
> just write it down and keep RVing.

I agree.  Everyone tells you to develop your drawing skills to make your
sketch as accurate and descriptive as possible.  Why not your written data?

Imagine going to Stage 6 and doing a clay model and being told "It looks too
much like a castle."  :? )

Rich

	
#1571
 	From: aeonblueau8008...
Date: Tue Dec 3, ?00? 3:47 am
Subject: Re: Re: After Feedback 	terri8008



It's Ingo if I recall, vaguely.. correctly, historically.
Lyns suggestion to use "like"...
Could be it worked for him, so he incorporated it in his 'lessons'. Could be
he suggests it for the novice trainee, but then again IMO it's just a lax bad
habit, and for  newbies all the more damaging to even entertain or
incorporate.
Like>>> AOL>>> break>>out of session.
Just a matter of opinion on training I suppose.. but I am not competently
trained in CRV so what do I know, but I think it's an early Ingo rule, and
not a later additive or development.
I don't use it can't/won't allow it in proper session.

When 'like' or 'it's a, or akin too' crops up, for the most part (an? )AOL
follows, like is an indicator or clue or cue. But I think i've said all that
..
'Like" is(IMO? ) more of a problem in early session, but as session progresses
in the latter stages, it, the 'like' would/could be considered of more or
possible value, accuracy sake, as the viewer has spent considerable time on
site, signal, or the aperture has widened (all old school terminology i'm
shure? ).
The AOLs in the latter stages (could? )tend to be more spot on.
But I rarely see any net sessions that make it out of S1.
But that would be for someone following an Ingo style structure I guess.
Working with..in structure lends (some? )control to the process and
(somwhat? )train the mind, neither being easy.

Work your RV any way that works for you, sessions and feedback telling the
tale.
Sessions should become progressively better(in a matter of weeks to a few
months? ) as one becomes comfortable with the process and discipline.
Frankly I just don't see that over the net and I have read/observed some same
folks sessions for years.
Every target, session.. viewer(even newbies? )will be on.. getting, receiving,
merged with, reporting on "the signal".
(Thats my personal opinion? )
What,how the viewer (configure/convolute? )does with the info from there on, is
up to them of course.

  Terri.

	
#1575
 	From: "Eva" 
Date: Tue Dec 3, ?00? 11:4? am
Subject: Re: After Feedback 	k9caninek9



> Terri wrote
> It's Ingo if I recall, vaguely.. correctly, historically.

How did you find out about the Ingo rule?  Is it on his website
somewhere?   I'm curious.  If it used to be a rule, then it seems
like even the old school teachers aren't teaching it any more.  Has
anyone else training anywhere heard of this rule?
-E

-----------------------
Moderator's note: It is probably in the Viewer Archives somewhere. It used to be
'standard'.  It is one of many ways in which training has changed over time. But
"rule" - you know... the primary problem in RV is the "doctrine-ization" of
approach. Not only is it sort of funny as a social result with methods in this
field, but it also ignores that CRV was a *training* methodology. Most of the
things done in it (rules? ) are for a REASON, not for the process itself but
because it had something to do with what is in your head. Not too many people
seem to realize what that reason might be for most of it. If the reasoning for
something is understood, then one can do it, or not, as they wish.  Now Gene
decided to teach what he believed to be ERV, and that was the latter-day unit
version which was sort of like, "If we take what we think Joe was sort of doing
and graft on elements of what Ingo taught us to do, then we get this sort of
"relaxed-state" but monitored and semi-structured thing we will call ERV."  Not
to be confused with Joe's ERV, Hartleigh's ERV, Ken's ERV, Mel's early ERV,
Ingo's ERV, or the ERV of every other billion-point-five psychics, at least a
dozen-point-five of which were in the program. So although Gene included it in
his ERV training, it was a 'rule' that stemmed from Swann's CRV originally.

I think a lot more is learned about RV when any particular 'RULE' that one
learns is taken out and one asks, "Why?  Why do I do this?  What is the benefit
of doing it?  What is the potential harm of not doing it?"  And then one
actually understands something about the process.  If this isn't done -- if one
doesn't break down the methods enough to question them (heresy!? ) -- then we get
"rules" instead of "understanding."  Well that's my feeling anyway -- but Eva
you already seem to understand the point of it all, so I don't think having been
not taught it as a "RULE" has done you any harm.  PJ

	
#157?
 	From: Karl Boyken #1574

Date: Tue Dec 3, ?00? 11:?3 am
Subject: Re: After Feedback 	dennanm



I think like most things, the talking about it is doctrine and the
doing it is as unique as every human mind. Several years ago it was
actually (even with Lyn? ) commonly accepted that one avoided
saying "Like ____" in a session; Lyn however opens up more to the
concept of people doing what works for them than some, and now is a
lot more laid back about a lot of things. IMO the primary reason for
the initial avoidance of 'like' wasn't for AOL issues but was because
it often replaced descriptives. If people can grasp that after
saying 'like ____', that needs to be followed by what it IS that
is 'like' that thing, then the descriptions needed will find its way
into the session.

Sometimes there is flat out no OTHER way to describe something which
is totally foreign and a little bizarre to boot.  I had a session I
did a few weeks ago where I was at such a loss for words, I wrote
something like, "It's like a round thing with a brown skin that grew
or pulled apart and the skin split in the middle and so there is a
lighter area 'underneath' like in a ring around it."  Well, if I
didn't say it that way I meant to LOL.  Anyway the point is, that is
just flat out weird, and the 'like' did not accompany a noun, but I
knew very well that none of that was accurate in terms of what it
WAS, other than the color and the round, but there was no other way
to describe the concepts or result.

I notice that one thing I need to start paying more attention to is
shapes.  I often say round when I mean spherical; I often say tubular
when I mean cylindrical; I often say square when I mean cube-like.
It's like that space station/guy target where I was talking
about "waffling shape, like a potato chip or curtain" -- what the
hell kind of shape is THAT -- I couldn't even draw it (though I've
worked on sketching... next time I get that target in the pool, I'll
be able to sketch that shape? ).  There probably IS a name for that zig-
zag/folding/accordian shape, I just don't know what it is.  It
reminds me of when I first got into RV like 7 years ago I figured I
would describe the room around me just like I would if I were in a
session.  The first thing I started with stopped me in my tracks. I
was looking at a mailing envelope on my desk.  I didn't have a color
for it.  I called it "kraft" but that's a brand.  Brown is not right,
nor is orange.  That was pretty funny, to realize how many things
even in our normal lives we do NOT actually have specific words for,
and we would use "Like ____" even if we were having a regular
conversation with someone about it.

PJ

	
#1578

Date: Tue Dec 3, ?00? 11:58 am
Subject: Re: After Feedback 	dennanm



>I'd written:
> it often replaced descriptives. If people can grasp that after
> saying 'like ____', that needs to be followed by what it IS that
> is 'like' that thing, then the descriptions needed will find
> its way into the session.

I wanted to say something else about this subject that I think is
relevant, though most people know this already, maybe newbies don't.
One reason for breaking down data is because somebody else may be
using your sessions in the future, and it's a good habit.

An example someone used earlier was "park-like".  That is a good
example and the kind of thing that really will come in a session.
However, to someone trying to do analysis, it is MORE useful if that
is *accompanied by* the aspects which prompt the 'park-like'
feeling.  For example, it could be that it is large and grassy.  Or,
it could be that there is a sense of peace or "community coming
together" there. It would be useful for the analyst to have the
data "underlying" the "Like ____" -- especially since they are
putting a puzzle together, and they might actually interpret it in a
way wholly opposite of how the viewer meant it, if it seems to fit
into certain other data or concepts the analyst themselves has got
(the Analyst's Cat, as Buchanan might say? ).

Also:
CRV has a concept that when you vent ACCURATE data (move it through
your body? ), that it promotes target contact.  I actually have come to
believe this is true -- that everything inaccurate slightly diffuses
it (but, must be let go of, or it will sit in your brain and tint
incoming stuff? ) and everything accurate helps solidify the contact.
So, park-like might be accurate but might not do too much for your
target contact either way. But if you break it down, you might find
that the moment you say, "A sense of peace; a sense of pleasant, and
a community-drawn-together feel..." suddenly more data is coming in,
and you might go on awhile in that vein. You've just tuned into
something specific and accurate which might "open up in you".

Essentially, NOT breaking down data which needs it is just not
bothering to actually record all the data you got.  Now like Don
said, sometimes you just know it IS a park or something, in which
case, fine.  But otherwise, one's head is filled with what I
call "subtle knowns".  They don't come in as specific points of
data.  They are not "things" that pop up in the mind to be written
down.  They are sort of like "accepted assumptions" which
just "accompany" some data, and these are the things which tend to
not get written down.  Any and all practice at "fleshing out" the
detail of data from your head is a good one for RV in my opinion.

PJ

	
#1585
 	From: Bill Pendragon 
Date: Tue Dec 3, ?00? 1:01 pm
Subject: Re: Re: After Feedback 	docsavagebill



Hi PJ,

Thanks...this is the first time anyone explained why
this breakdown might be more important than the
original visuals.. and  makes sense!

Bill

> Also:
> CRV has a concept that when you vent ACCURATE data
> (move it through
> your body? ), that it promotes target contact.

	
#1579
 	From: "Eva" 
Date: Tue Dec 3, ?00? 1?:00 pm
Subject: Re: After Feedback 	k9caninek9



> PJ wrote
> I notice that one thing I need to start paying more attention to is
> shapes.  I often say round when I mean spherical; I often say
tubular
> when I mean cylindrical; I often say square when I mean cube-like.
> It's like that space station/guy target where I was talking
> about "waffling shape, like a potato chip or curtain" --

Dude, if an analyst can't understand that, then he/she is in
trouble!  I know what you are saying there.  Hehe, I usually use
potato chip and curtain as shape descriptors myself.  It's faster
than trying to draw the thing.  But I don't say 'waffle' because to
me a waffle is the shape of little squares in a circle.  Instead I
say 'wavy shape like potato chips'

> what the
> hell kind of shape is THAT -- I couldn't even draw it (though I've
> worked on sketching... next time I get that target
> in the pool, I'll
> be able to sketch that shape? ).  There probably IS a name
> for that zig-
> zag/folding/accordian shape,

Yeah, but if you say 'accordian,' that implies the ends/corners are
pinched instead of rounded,  hehe.  PLus you have to remember the
distinctions during the session!  That's why 'like' can really help
describe something in a pinch.

> reminds me of when I first got into RV like 7 years ago I figured I
> would describe the room around me just like I would if I were in a
> session.  The first thing I started with stopped me in my tracks. I
> was looking at a mailing envelope on my desk.
> I didn't have a color
> for it.  I called it "kraft" but that's a brand.
> Brown is not right,
> nor is orange.

There's another time I need 'like,' ie for colors.  I can say it's
brown like a shipping box color or tan like the color of a computer,
etc. Otherwise it's hard to describe a specific color.

> That was pretty funny, to realize how many things
> even in our normal lives we do NOT actually
> have specific words for,
> and we would use "Like ____" even if we were having a regular
> conversation with someone about it.

Yeah, basically I realized our language is like that of a caveman.
Most things don't have a name.  THe other day I was trying to
describe that there was something bumpy and knobby like oversized
joints on a robot.  I also drew a little picture, but without the
added verbal descriptors, an analyst would not get the finer detail
of what I was trying to say.   I was NOT saying there was a robot,
only that the shape reminded me of that particular part of a robot.
I could have said 'nodules' but that has a slightly different nuance
of meaning from what I wanted.  First of all, 'nodules' kinda implies
they are small and more round.  I guess I could have said 'nodules
but larger and less round,' but heck, it's hard to spend 15 minutes
pondering now to say one little thing in a session.

-E

	
#1584
 	From: Bill Pendragon 
Date: Tue Dec 3, ?00? 1?:57 pm
Subject: Re: Re: Reverse dictionary 	docsavagebill



Hi PJ,

Does anyone know of a Reverse Dictionary..where you
supply the definition  "zig zag round thingy" and you
get a word??? If so I want it!

bill

	
#159?
 	From: "Viv" 
Date: Tue Dec 3, ?00? 5:55 pm
Subject: Re: Re: Reverse dictionary 	eclecticviv



Hi Bill:

Would serpentine, help?  Round image with teeth shaped
edges?  Series of sharp turns in alternating directions,
bordering a round image?  Brick brack on a doily? 
Is it the round blade, on a skil saw, or a tacky ball, kind of
thing?
Is the round thingy, ?, or 3, dimensional?

Curiouser and curiouser,  

Viv*

> Does anyone know of a Reverse Dictionary..where you
> supply the definition  "zig zag round thingy" and you
> get a word??? If so I want it!

	
#1577
 	From: "Eva" 
Date: Tue Dec 3, ?00? 11:44 am
Subject: Re: After Feedback 	k9caninek9



So what ever happened to Gene?  Doesn't seem like he has any
successors.  DId he used to train?
-E

-----------------------
Moderator's note: Gene used to train via telephone, email and occasional brief
in-person meetings.  Just a few people (including me? ), ad-hoc, although after a
few he got a little more organized with it.  He has the typical overload of war
veteran health problems and that is partly responsible for the "Ghengis" part of
his nickname, which was well deserved.  I could tell you the rest of his
disappearance from the field but it would be politically incorrect to state in
public.  Suffice to say he is a good guy and has other interests now.  His wife
has more sincere interest in RV than he does.  PJ

	
#1593
 	From: "Eva" 
Date: Tue Dec 3, ?00? 7:03 pm
Subject: Re: After Feedback 	k9caninek9



One reason I ask is because Lyn floated on the CRV list that he heard
a rumor that Gene died.
-E

-----------------------
Moderator's note: Lyn. {sigh.}  No, Gene is alive last I heard a couple of
months ago when I spoke with his wife.  PJ

	
#1573
 	From: "Sharon Webb" 
Date: Tue Dec 3, ?00? 11:16 am
Subject: Re: Re: After Feedback 	sharwebb_3051?



Would somebody please post a definition of AOL?

Sharon
sharwebb...t
www.fractalus.com/sharon

--------------------------
Moderator's note: Sorry Sharon. AOL=Analytical Overlay.  This can actually be
applied in a wide variety of ways and situations.  Some trainers have different
terms or acronyms applied to some of those ways, and some use AOL for all.  I
use AOL for any impression or data point which I feel has been either 'overly
processed' by my logical mind, or which I feel may be more an intellectual
conclusion based on previous data than a psychic sense, etc.

E.g., if I am getting a feeling of flat, hard, long, spanning, I usually am
going to AOL "bridge" even though at that point, I may not have a literal
psychic impression of "bridge" per se.  That is just one type; there are many.
The common factor in all of them is it is "suspect" data -- that doesn't mean
it's wrong, in fact the most dead-on accurate data in a session would usually be
classed as AOL, simply because it describes literally what something IS vs.
describes its components.

CRV was designed as a training protocol, and the reason for making students
notice this is so they would become more aware of how their mind was processing
information.  If they write down "bridge," they should notice it is technically
an analytical construct, which will either help them conclude YES, it IS a
bridge, or help them realize NO, I don't really feel it's a bridge, I just feel
it has bridge-like attributes, such as... (high, flat, whatever? ).

Of course, ALL words are 'processed' - there is no such thing as 'raw data' in
reality - but AOL refers to things 'more processed than others', lol -- such as,
brown/wood/flat as descriptives, 'door' as AOL.  Beginners usually make black
and white polarized distinctions, e.g., never do this, or that is never allowed,
or AOL is bad, etc.  But the real point of it is only to spark the notice of the
viewer so that such data can be broken down into its real components IF that is
what is needed.  The newer someone is to viewing, the more their left brain
tends to pounce on 'conclusions', so AOL tends to be a bigger deal then (it
ALWAYS is - but it changes? ).  Later on there are a lot of other ways that
analytical/emotional/etc. stuff can impinge on a session or data.

The acronym/term AOL can be applied to a zillion things.  You can have an AOL
that the target is unlikely to REALLY be a rock canyon because your previous
target was, for example!  *Anything* that is a sort of interference with data by
the analytical mind, OR a sign of 'high-level processed' data, is considered
AOL.  But as a few folks have pointed out, as one gets more skilled, and better
at recognizing the feel of some data, a lot of things that began as AOL, will
cease to be for them.  E.g., one might come to recognize "door-ness" just as
literally or raw-ly as some might recognize "flat surface".  At which point door
is no longer an AOL because it is not an 'assumption' but rather is a 'clearly
sensed data point'.

In CRV it is felt that if you don't "vent" data you're holding, even
assumptions, they will torque your session bigtime.  That if you vent whatever
comes through you by saying it or writing it down (moving it through the body? ),
then the wrong stuff will get disposed of, and anything that is 'right', will
likely come back.  This is true in session and over time, viewers learn to "let
go" (a bit more? ) of assumption when they feel confident that anything which IS
valid is going to reappear or be confirmed in some way later.

I hope I didn't make this more confusing than it was to begin with.  Somewhere I
have an entire article about this which was written much more logically, but it
is actually a really big subject in RV, quite a lot to cover and quite a few
ways that analytical, emotional, and other personal issues can impinge on a
session and affect results.

Regards,
PJ

	
#1580
 	From: greenmn900...
Date: Tue Dec 3, ?00? 7:08 am
Subject: Re: Re: After Feedback 	greenmn900...



Eva,

I agree completely.  But for me, an aol has always been where I've taken
several bits of information and sort of used them to come to some kind of
conclusion.  As an example: if I get information about a small group of
people watching something, trees and other indicators of natural
surroundings, something with wings, and binoculars - I might try to deduce
that the target is about birdwatching.  I've made a leap, using the
analytical parts of the mind to try to force the data into something that
makes sense.  When in fact, I don't yet have enough information to make that
assumption.  Hell, the target could be about people watching airplanes from a
forest near an airport.  I was really bad about doing this when I first
started RVing.  It was probably the hardest aspect of RV for me for a long
time.  And I've noticed that if I've had a couple really good hits in a row,
I still have a tendency to do that - self-confidence makes me sloppy, I guess.

Your example of "glass" and not writing down "window" is a very good one.
That's EXACTLY the kind of common, mistaken assumption I make sometimes.  I
guess the mind almost automatically thinks "window" when it perceives glass.
There's lots of things that are like that.  And like you said, it's the kind
of thing we have to train ourselves NOT to do as we develop as RVers.  It's
like we have to force ourselves to break what seems to be a natural tendency.

Personal exploration of issues like this one are the reasons I love RV so
much.  I've really learned a lot about the way I think, the way I process
information, the tendency to make assumptions and leap to conclusions before
I have enough data to safely do so, etc.  And I think the retraining of the
thinking processes involved is carried over to normal, everyday life as well.

I agree that there's a need for writing down "aol" on some data.  Actually,
if I don't do it for the reasons I described above in the first paragraph
(where I've put together different pieces of data to force them into
something that makes sense? ) then I use it in the situation you described with
the word "glass" and "window".  I'll write down "glass", but I'll write aol
above where I've put down "window", mainly to remind myself that I didn't SEE
a window, I just assumed it was one because I saw glass.

Best regards,
Don

	
#1594
 	From: "Eva" 
Date: Tue Dec 3, ?00? 7:14 pm
Subject: Re: After Feedback 	k9caninek9



Well I think part of the prob lies in the nebulous definition of
aol.  Apparently, there is a big pile of subclassifications of aol in
CRV.  According to Lyn, analytic processing can just as easily occur
subconciously.  That makes sense because research has shown that
sleeping on a problem or doing something unrelated and then coming
back to a problem can help give insight to a solution.  So obviously
there must be some kind of subconscious processing going on in our
brains.

So when I think of 'aol' as a term, I consider it to mean any kind of
labeling regardless of why it got labeled.  Maybe the label came to
me fully formed (ie was assigned at the subconscious level? ), or maybe
I took one look at my sketch and my conscious mind immediately
noticed it looked like a volcano (I hate it when that happens!? ).  All
that and more has been given the label of 'aol,' depending on who is
talking and what level they are talking at.  For myself as a matter
of simplifying my life, I just put the term 'aol' when I think it's
probably not there or I am not sure if it's there and otherwise I
leave it off.  When I was first starting, I always used it for any
label because I had no clue what was going to be there or not and so
I just had to break down everything as best I could and cross my
fingers.
-E

	
#1581
 	From: greenmn900...
Date: Tue Dec 3, ?00? 7:3? am
Subject: Re: Re: After Feedback 	greenmn900...



Scott,

>  "Also, I have learned that when I see little movies, they
> are usually LIKE something whereas the still photo type images ARE
> something."

That reminded me of a target I did back when I'd been RVing for only a
couple months.  I saw the Peanuts character "Snoopy"  in an old-fashioned,
red bi-plane, complete with goggles, scarf flying out behind him etc.  He
was flying through the air.  Than I saw black things, they looked like
burnt, blackened leaves, drifting slowly down.  I got a few other bits of
data and ended the session.  When I opened the envelope, it was a picture
of people cleaning up the site of an airplane crash! Lol

Best regards,
Don

	
#1583
 	From: greenmn900...
Date: Tue Dec 3, ?00? 7:?0 am
Subject: Re: Re: After Feedback 	greenmn900...



PJ,

> You wrote:
> "I have a current problem in sessions where, I will not understand
> what the terrain is made of, and guess water for OTHER reasons --
> because it is basically flat but doesn't seem green or stone/cement
> (so I say water, uncertain; turns out to be desert? ) or because it has
> similar qualities, such as being 'flowing, and in motion' (turns out
> to be lava? )."

I do that a lot, too.  One thing that works for me sometimes, using your
water example, is I'll write down "makes me think of water for some reason" ,
or "reminds me of water".  That kind of lets me know that I didn't actually
perceive water when I go back to it later to try to figure out what it is.
Maybe I should explain here that in a session I go through getting all the
data I can, unconnected, disjointed, making no sense at all, and once it
seems to stop coming, then I go back and try to get more information based on
what I've already perceived during the first run-through.  So, in this
example, I'd go back and try to see if I could pick up on what it was about
the target that made me think of water - and also why I was doubtful enough
that I DIDN'T call it water to begin with, what is it that is DIFFERENT about
it from water.

Like you said - and I think this is the greatest value of labeling something
'aol" - it gives you an alert that there's something not quite right about
this particular piece of data or the manner in which you handled it.

warm regards,
Don

----------------------
Moderator's note: Yeah... I know better, too, but I am often really brain-dead
in sessions!  I miss really obvious stuff I should know to question or delve
into because I'm sort of in la-la land. :-? )  PJ

	
#1586
 	From: "Sharon Webb" 
Date: Tue Dec 3, ?00? 1?:50 pm
Subject: Re: Re: After Feedback 	sharwebb_3051?



Palyne,

Thanks for making sense of the alphabet soup.  I have experienced exactly what
you've described, but I simply thought of it as my logical mind intruding, and
trying to make something concrete out of something nebulous.  :-? )

Sharon
sharwebb...t
www.fractalus.com/sharon

	
#1589
 	From: "Mary Ashley" 
Date: Tue Dec 3, ?00? 1:19 pm
Subject: Re: Re: After Feedback 	maryladyoflight



Hi PJ,

> He has the typical overload of war veteran health
> problems and that is partly responsible for the
> "Ghengis" part of his nickname, which was well deserved.

Yes, PJ. I think you and I deserve medals for actually surviving moderating
him.  He was a remarkable teacher, who was very opinionated and didn't
suffer fools gladly. He certainly put the cat amongst the pigeons on my
list on many occasions. Of course he may have mellowed.. or not. Always
worth remembering the nature of the beast, imho. :? )? )

MaryA

-----------------------------
Moderator's note -- LOL.  He was an old combat soldier and a grizzled spy.
Always reminded me of Gene Hackman's character in 'The Firm' - one of those
people who has just seen and done so much they have no illusions about
themselves or anybody else.  PJ

	
#1596
 	From: aeonblueau8008...
Date: Tue Dec 3, ?00? 4:?5 pm
Subject: Re: Re: After Feedback 	terri8008



> Karl writes;
> Not to be putting words in Terri's mouth, but I
> think Gene was the one who didn't like "like."
> I can see both sides of this.

  . . .  No it's an Ingo rule,  write him if you crave clarification, came
about in the early 80's far as I know, early on, It's a given..
It's a good rule. (no I don't know the exact date and time an place an
circumstance? )

I was just reading old sessions from Innerlight list. Boy- did we have fun or
whhhhat,.
Some awesome frickin sessions on that list, (kicks butt? ) some of the best
I've seen, several viewers that I tutored and newbies.. and Bevy. Frankly...
I was shocked to see how far RV has evolved or devolved. There are some
mighty impressive disciplined sessions.
Those were the days.
There are also some "Likes" in some sessions.. I won't mention who's or
names, some are prone to the weakness .. but you can see (read? ) the
difference.

It doesn't take a genius.

PJ... I thought you dismissed Genes training, early on, preferring to do it
your self. yeah? no?

Yep I am thoroughly 100% up front and personally inside and out hand trained
by the Ogre and that I keep and value, it's a rarity.
The IrishBoy is alive and spittin.

he never spit in his life  :-? )? )? )? )? )? )? )? )? )? )? )? )? )? )? )? )? )? )? )? )? )? )? )? )? )? )? )? )? )? )

   T.

---------------------------
Moderator's note: I dismissed all training eventually.  I continue to train and
dismiss it, lol.  Not before doing variants on taking it in though.  Gene's was
informal, mostly email.  He got into formality as he went - beginning mostly
with you far as he was telling me at the time. (I refused to meet with him in
person, so we never 'went all the way' with it though.? )  PJ

	
#1597
 	From: greenmn900...
Date: Tue Dec 3, ?00? 4:06 pm
Subject: Re: Re: After Feedback 	greenmn900...



E,

you wrote:
"According to Lyn, analytic processing can just as easily occur
subconciously.  That makes sense because research has shown that
sleeping on a problem or doing something unrelated and then coming
back to a problem can help give insight to a solution.  So obviously
there must be some kind of subconscious processing going on in our
brains."

That's true, but I don't think it's the same thing.  I don't believe the
subconscious processes information anything like the conscious does.  If it's
true that all information is available to the subconscious (and that may not
be true? ), then I would hope that it DOES process information because I could
then get it in an accurate, complete package.  But, the SC may not in fact be
"processing" as we think of the term.  Sleeping on a problem, or letting it
alone and coming back to it later, may just be giving the SC a chance, an
opportunity to provide you with a better answer than you could come up with
consciously because the SC is more aware of all the possibilities (some say
it is aware of everything? ).  But it may not have to "process" to get it.  It
may just "be there" for SC to retrieve and then hand over to the conscious.
I don't know.  This isn't really what I believe, necessarily.  I'm just
throwing out some other options or different ways of looking at it.

I pretty much do what you do.  If I'm unsure, I label it aol.  That's the
safest way to go.
Best Regards,
Don

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

	
#1675

Date: Sun Dec 8, ?00? 3:?? pm
Subject: Those pesky aols.. 	k9caninek9



> Don wrote:
> I pretty much do what you do.  If I'm unsure,
> I label it aol. That's the safest way to go.

Yeah, well the whole subject gets confusing doesn't it?  I am way
behind on email but I not trying feebly to catch up.  My feelings on
the matter are that the subconcious is a big place with many levels.
I think the part very close to the conscious mind probably functions
in a way more similar to the conscious mind and the parts
more 'buried' probably less so.  So I don't think any one single idea
applies to the whole subconscious mind.  I think subconscious aols
probably get packaged in an area more close to the conscious mind and
that's why they seem to share many of the same characteristics as
those that are created in a more conscious way.  That's my current
theory anyway.
-E

	
#1693
 	From: Bill Pendragon 
Date: Wed Dec 11, ?00? 4:01 pm
Subject: Re: Subliminal/psi putting 	docsavagebill



Hi PJ,

This is not as off topic as it seems. I've made a big
improvement in my putting by requesting my mind to
show the "line" the ball should follow to the cup as a
superimposed dark green stripe on the green. Putting
used to be the worst part of my game..now its the
best. I lean on my putter getting my head as close to
the ground as possible , blurr my vision and pretend
to be examining the angles of the putt..but actually
I'm just waiting until the "line" forms in my mind
superimposed on the green   as a darker green stripe
going right to the whole. It even makes wiggles where
the green slopes. Then one just has to hit the ball
right down that line. It works for putt putt golf also
if you don't golf regular courses but want to try.Just
make sure you hit the ball right down the "line". Now
is this subliminal or psi? I don't know and don't care
as I'm convinced they derive from the same "assemblage
point" where your mind creates visuals and sensories
that you ask it to from what it knows subliminally or
psychically or both. It also might work in Other hand
eye sports like , basketball, bowling etc. The proof
is in the putting..G

Best Regards,

Bill