pjrv : Messages : 1591-1599 of 4038
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pjrv/messages/1591?)

 23:11:45

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

#1591
 	From: "David Humphries" 
Date: Tue Dec 3, 2002 6:37 pm
Subject: probing of ideograms 	a_healey56

  	  	

Hello all,

I have a question concerning the probing of ideograms.  It's my
understanding that when you probe the ideogram that you should be able to
feel the degree of hardness of that aspect of the target.  I understand why
this is supposed to be, but every time I've probed an ideogram it has felt
exactly as hard as the surface under the paper -- usually a clipboard or a
table top.  In my sessions I will sometimes write "medium hard" or
soft/firm", but honestly, I'm kidding myself, because it always feels the
same.  I do get sensations of g-force, falling, warm or cold, smells,
tastes, etc. sometimes during a session, so I'm not incapable of feeling
these things.  I'm wondering if there's something I'm doing wrong concerning
the ideograms.  Perhaps it's just my state of mind?

David

Reply | Forward
	
#1595
 	From: "Eva" 
Date: Tue Dec 3, 2002 7:35 pm
Subject: Re: probing of ideograms 	k9caninek9

  	  	

That's why Lyn suggests doing ideogram drills.  It can take a long
time to develop that sense of actual feeling from the ideogram that
is suggested in CRV.  Or you can do your own thing if that works for
you.  But it's a lot harder to develop your own system out of
complete cluelessness and confusion than to adopt someone else's
system.  (this from someone who chose to adopt her own system)
-E

> I have a question concerning the probing of ideograms.

Reply | Forward
	
#1599
 	From: "PJ Gaenir" 
Date: Tue Dec 3, 2002 11:14 pm
Subject: Re: probing of ideograms / Methods 	dennanm

  	  	

Hi Dave,

> but every time I've probed an ideogram it has felt exactly as
> hard as the surface under the paper -- usually a clipboard or a
> table top.  In my sessions I will sometimes write "medium hard"
> or soft/firm", but honestly, I'm kidding myself, because it
> always feels the same.  I do get sensations of g-force, falling,
> warm or cold, smells, tastes, etc. sometimes during a session,
> so I'm not incapable of feeling these things.  I'm wondering if
> there's something I'm doing wrong concerning the ideograms.

I think everybody who has an Official Opinion about an Official Methodology will
tell you something in line with the Official Way Of Things From Their Corner on
this.  So with that in mind -- mine is too, of course. :-)

This is a component specific to a methodology -- which, because CRV influenced
so much else, has been grafted into others as well now.  Like all methodologies,
they are mostly representative of (a) what the maker/compiler assumed was right
and/or learned themselves, and (b) the way  things work for that individual, so
they are sure should work for everybody else.  And if everybody  else agrees
they are The Expert, most of them, it probably will work that way for, or they
will  make it so.

Do you know it was eons and endless talk about RV before I ventured to mention
that a big portion of my RV data was often audible (not outside my head, inside
it - but actual voices,  commentaries, sounds, etc.).  Nowadays that would sound
silly and obvious to everybody, but at  the time, it was just never mentioned. 
Why?  Because apparently that was not the common way  that those Officially
Talking About It were used to.  Just another example.

And one day I said to Joe, "I asked a part of myself, like if I was an
architect, about the target, and it said ____, and it was good data!  And it
turned out this worked for a whole bunch of 'aspects'!  And I got an actual joke
as an answer!  And black, black humor!" And he was like, yeah.... that's pretty
normal isn't it.  Well actually, NO, asking 'aspects of self' for data, getting
entire jokes verbally as an answer etc. is NOT something you hear a lot of
people talking about... but if it were part of somebody's Official Methodology
For Remote Viewing you'd hear about it and everybody would be 'expected' to 'ask
the architect aspect of self about the target and get an answer' for example.

Different stuff works for different people.  Some is official and some is not. 
Unofficial stuff may work for you; some official stuff may not.

"Probing" ideograms works really great for some people.  I imagine some people
formally 'taught' that way it works for mostly because because they are told it
does and they  believe it. ;-) Other people, it doesn't work well for.  But,
there are probably other means of  getting data you can find that will work for
you, some of which might not work for most others.

Ingo's CRV is strong on the assumption that right off, a viewer is going to pick
up some texture/surface density, and as a primary first-level data, overall
concept (gestalt). Pru's method changes that somewhat, I assume based more on
what works for her, and instead of aiming for gestalt up front, her method
expects  "topography" (outer shape) information, which is a dramatically
different kind of information really, shape instead of concept.

CRV expects that every moment brings you closer to target contact, and so you
ignore what came before and move on even if the data is contradictory, you never
base info you are writing or  sketching on anything other than what you feel
right then (unless it's analytical, like Stage 5  tools, which are designed for
that) and because one is really "flitting all over" the target to begin with
it's not at all unusual for data to seem totally contradictory between stages or
within a stage -- that usually resolves by S4.

Pru's method walks through the first-early assumption of topography, and then  a
phase that in CRV would be called Stage 2 (Phase 2 in Buchanan's; "point C: in
the Scan, Survey section" in Pru's), and when all that  is over, then you are to
sketch what you described way back prior to the C: descriptives -- although it
does mention reviewing data, it says, quote "Regardless of the method you choose
to gather the visual data, it is imperative that what you declare in part B: is
what you draw in part D:"  Between B and D are an entire stage in CRV, though,
and you would draw whatever you might feel inclined to -- right THEN, even if it
were totally different (and it might well be, and your descriptives might not
match your gestalt, either). You would not go 'back' a whole stage and draw what
you declared as point B: for your Stage 1 ideogram. This is conceptually a
complete reversal of several concepts that CRV rests on, particularly the ones
about not going  back in a session, but others too.

I'm not saying either is better or right, I'm simply using this to example that
different people come up with different methods partly because what they find
"works" in their RV experience is different. Most people ARE different.

There may be some things that 'generally' work for 'most' people but that
doesn't mean they gotta work for you.

Ideogram probing requires a conceptually abstract displacement of target
impression into the activity.  In other words, you are dissociating from the
physical activity just to the degree that  you are allowing (even enforcing)
non-physical data to seem like part of the activity itself (a bit like
fantasizing, and letting your mind give your body an impression, even though
objectively it isn't there, except in this case of course you are not
deliberately inventing it, but letting data 'come through the pen').

Some  other psychic methods, you wouldn't do an ideogram and probing, you would
conceptualize  projecting out of body and 'flying over' the target (whether
large/small, indoor/outdoor) and  describing it; or, you would imagine reaching
out with a hammer and lightly rapping on it - does it sink? - does it echo? -
does it get slightly stuck? - etc.  It's just a matter of what the person with
the particular method found works for  them and expects to work for others.  Try
closing your eyes, putting your fingers out and imagining 'feeling' one of the
primary surfaces in the target.  You're looking for the same thing 
essentially... just not necessarily forcing it to be tied to the pen on paper.

People will get data in slightly different sequence, they will get slightly
different kinds of data often within that, and it just takes a lot of practice
to see what is working for you and what isn't.  If you're using someone else's
method (which many in this field are), just do what you can.  If the  detail of
the method doesn't work for you, be creative.  Come up with a few other ways
that you  might acquire that same kind of data in that place, and try those
instead.

Just like some people learn visually, more audio-based, more kinesthetically, in
RV people are going to respond differently to data and to the process itself. 
Every human is different.

You're not doing anything 'wrong'  except that it's not happening for you.  Now
that may be some psychology thing (left brain =  "There is only paper here,
everything else would be delusion") but the end result is just that it isn't
working.  You can either explore why and keep working on it, as practice can
often entrain you to do it more like someone's structure, or start working on 
creating your own unique ways of getting data you need.

Regards,
PJ