pjrv : Messages : 933-933 of 4038
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pjrv/messages/933?)
22:34:55
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-PJRV_group---------
#933
From: "PJ Gaenir"
Date: Sun Oct 27, 2002 12:16 pm
Subject: Thoughts on Symbolic Data dennanm
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
This is copied from a PEM I sent a few days ago. I thought someone
here might have similar thoughts or experiences along this line so
maybe I should post it.
---------------------
Last night, after listening to a theta cd for awhile, I went through
my sessions. And you know, it was very interesting, but I was
suddenly able to understand the 'symbolic' data in them. I must
have been in the right state of mind, as suddenly a whole lot of
stuff -- and my RV 'process' -- became more clear to me.
In some cases I didn't even know data was symbolic until last night,
I knew only that it wasn't wrong but was -- well - "unhelpful", lol.
But last night, it was like the various meaning(s) within a phrase
or something would 'unfold itself' in me as I looked at it, and I
would understand how it related to the target, and what it told me.
I realized that many of my sessions that have seemed like totally
lousy sessions, had I bothered focusing in the proper state of mind
on the data I actually got, could have been very good sessions.
I realized that most of my worst sessions didn't lack target contact,
they just lacked good translating.
It's not only that not being in the right state of mind doesn't GET
so much data. It also doesn't *process* data as well, as intuitively.
I have thought till last night that most all symbolic and abstract
data is useless because while it is clear on feedback what you meant,
who could possibly unravel it prior to then? I mean seriously most
of it is bizarre or as I say, "singularly unhelpful until after
feedback".
But I realized last night I have never made much attempt within the
session, or even after it prior to feedback, to "intuitively
consider" the data (sort of RVing the data after RVing the target)
and what it might mean to me. (When I have, it has been an
analytical process much more harm than help.)
As a sort of process-level-AOL I guess, I've just written down what I
got and moved on, without stopping to "delve into" what a piece of
data that isn't real specific or unique means, as there's this
monster "don't-analyze-just-move-forward" thing CRV has that I didn't
even realize I still had shades of until last night.
I've also noticed a tendency to get a lot of info that simply "exists
as a subtle known" instead of coming through as data,
particularly 'contextual', and hence doesn't get written down, but I
understand it on feedback and wonder why it wasn't written down in
the session. Again though some of that goes back to not 'exploring'
a given datapoint inside oneself, instead of just writing
something "gotten" (like specifically) down and moving on.
This would especially be useful to do when data flow seems to stop
for a bit, since unraveling existing data could strengthen target
contact. But as I was taught 'never to go back in a session' (there
is no line previous to the one you are on) that would be
impossible. But now I think sitting there for 10 minutes 'waiting
for more data', getting pissed off, inventing data, ending the
session, etc. instead of going back to what I've got and working to
intuitively explore it, is just inane. I used to write interim
summaries to put me back in contact, I suddenly remember... god that
was years ago.
I've found that emphasis on S2 descriptives gleaned from 'waiting for
data' or wildly guessing based on ideograms is probably my biggest
source of wrong data in sessions - small generic things that either
contradict my good data or throw me into thinking along lines that
don't match the target (either way, it harms target contact).
Whereas, if I "pursue" data by 'being willing to take symbology as
data' -- being determined to KNOW -- anything, no matter what, it's
usually accurate (though whether I can translate it is another story).
I realized last night that I have held a sort of 'suppression factor'
on data that is "openly" symbolic, I mean the real obvious
allegory/symbol stuff, getting it only once in awhile usually when I
am briefly most open. Even my Q&A makes it clear that my mind has
been in this mode of thinking "hard facts" is what I am looking
for. But I see here and there than when I allow data through like
it wants to come through, and if I intuitively and intelligently
consider that data which may be symbolic or abstract, that I could
end up with those hard facts.
Often the symbolism is either so subtle or comes with that 'subtle
knowns' stuff, that not until I really focus on it does the rest of
the info come out, as if it were 'wrapped inside' something.
Here's a few examples I wrote on a 'notes' page in my lab book, of
lines in sessions that I 'understood' suddenly last night:
"...blurred. 3 ghost images went out, then came together again as
one..." [sort of like crossing then uncrossing your eyes]
= multiple things that are mostly the same; they have an individual
uniqueness, but they are also of a family-singularity. (target:
skyscrapers in a city overview gestalt target)
"...solid in state yet changing in situation..."
= a fairly long-term environment (subtle overlay 'solid
state'=manmade) with activity within it over time. (target:
skyscrapers in a city overview gestalt target)
"...there are trees in a straight line..."
= I'd asked 'what other info might be relevant' and this one should
have told me, the target environ has been constructed by man
(target: skyscrapers in a city overview gestalt target)
"...some native, a young boy, whose face was painted to match a
background [didn't write: the wall of a building] so he blended in
until he moved, then I saw him..."
= there is human life in the target but it's invisible, hidden behind
manmade walls by the nature or scope of the target. (target:
skyscrapers in a city overview gestalt target)
"...move 100 yards to right and describe..." "... no data coming..."
= there is no change in the current vs. new perspective. (target:
skyscrapers in a city overview gestalt target)
[responding to 'is there animal or human life here?'] "At one time.
Temporal."
= clearly the question focus was not the focus of the target and the
target had a span of existence longer than people or animals. So,
the target was not an event, and the target likely did not 'feature'
humans and animals. If it HAD, the target itself would be
more "temporally sized to fit" humans and animals, if that makes
sense. (target: skyscrapers in a city overview gestalt target)
(The above is something worth talking more about -- the "temporal
size/shape" of a target is another almost-measurable dimension of it
and is set by our intent/focus...)
"...social and cultural cohesion..."
= the target has (or is) a circumstance which brings people together
in a state of bonding. (target: weather map showing hurricane Floyd)
"...there was this bugle playing a really fast song I'm familiar with
but don't know the name of..."
= a formal announcement to the people (target: weather map showing
hurricane Floyd)
"... a kid I think, jumping up and down like in excitement..."
= a strong sense of "anticipation" (target: weather map showing
hurricane Floyd)
"...fleeting moments in a permanent place."
= the target had info I didn't pull out:
[t was a manmade environ designed to be fairly permanent - iow, not a
crop field, not a shanty-town, not a circus, but something like city
buildings or houses or things like that.]
[target is an event or related to an event.]
[the event was brief.]
(target: storm threw big tree on house [killed girl]. feedback is a
couple men standing near the tree the next day.)
So OK, this seems like little stuff. But I look back on targets I
did - like the weather map of the hurricane for example, and I
think, "what if I HAD pulled out the symbolic info in that data?"
Well, instead of having a session which contained valid info but
also some that wasn't (a lot of flat/land comments after Ids), 2.5
pages, I could actually have said something like a summary of, given
my data:
* formal announcement to the people
* sense of anticipation
* wind, waves, chaos storm on coastal area
* people hoping/praying to be protected from storm
[last point from 'song clip' I got, 8th grade chorus, "Hold the wind,
oh my Lord, don't you let it blow."]
Just those points would have succintly summed up the target. And,
had I explored some of the symbolic stuff, the additional working on
legit data might have increased my target contact and brought more
data, too.
So waiting for / demanding "factual data" is actually not useful
unless it COMES when you ask for it -- but EXPECTING data to be
factual might be accidentally suppressing data that isn't "literal",
which is surely harmful to the process.
Now I have at times gotten general info and asked for more specifics
and gotten it. For example:
"...Broad. Flat. Plane."
me> come on! that is SO generic!
"... sister... sifter ... sistine..."
me> (sound attempt?)
Target: Swissaire crash search/rescue event (helicopter w/light)
"... floot? flood? foot? streaky in the sky. I'm reminded of northern
lights, and flames, and strobes..."
[that I didn't get "floodlight" is downright dense]
Target: Swissaire crash search/rescue event (helicopter w/light)
me> describe the function of the target *normally*.
"High factor in consciousness of those around. Very noticeable."
me> something less esoteric & more utilitarian please!
"Observation."
Target: Swissaire crash search/rescue event (helicopter w/light)
But when I asked for the above I was *getting* data, so in the flow
of it, that's fine.
But if I'm NOT in the flow, which since I'm seldom in the 'right
state of mind' is most of the time!, taking what I get and learning
to understand it -- that ITSELF is what could potentially PUT me in
the right state of mind -- in better target contact.
So the whole issue is about target contact. Er, which is what Joe's
said all along I guess.
PJ
pjrv : Messages : 965-984 of 4038
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pjrv/messages/965?)
22:38:49
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-PJRV_group---------
#965
From: aeonblueau8008...
Date: Mon Oct 28, 2002 5:01 am
Subject: Re: Thoughts on Symbolic Data terri8008
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°
> PJ wrote
> "...Broad. Flat. Plane."
> me> come on! that is SO generic!
> "... sister... sifter ... sistine..."
> me> (sound attempt?)
> Target: Swissaire crash search/rescue event (helicopter w/light)
all IMO as usual...
Well, that's what I prefer, the boring old "broad flat plane" one word
descriptive type sessions in nice little columns.
More than that (IMO) goes on to AOL's.
I'm big on AI's and EI's tho, good session indicators or gauges IMO.
Words, rhyming, image streaming, using the word "like", again leads to
possible AOL(and drive) and dread labeling/identifying which is not bad but
not good for newbies or even some oldies.
Nothing wrong with AOL, just set it aside jot it down over to the right,then
and or take it apart (now or later) and describe it, using one word
descriptive. Boring but it seems to work, as far as staying on tgt (as
opposed to veering off down left brain/mind memory lane and or analogies).
Usually you can make it 'fit' the tgt site(symbolic/AOL), may not be the site
but it will "fit".
I have never found much use for symbolic, but that's just me, but I find it
too symbolic, and not really RV, and what i'm going for is accurate spot on
descriptive and opposed to my personal impressions, or mind filterings. I'm
not at all interested in my personal viewpoint on and of the site, I'm just
interested in the site/target raw data.
Much else, too much gibberish, and frankly I consider/declare I am out of
session.
Sometimes too much(or not enough) comes in especially at the beginning, can
seem to overwhelm and confuse, take a break and let it settle in or back off
from signal.
Describe just the immediate environment or environmentals, just skim the
surface, then go from there (some-thing then, object, focus, issue should
attract you).
In ERV session I back off and re-group, I shift off signal or site and
resume. I refocus totally on cloud or color breathing for a minute or two,
then shift back to signal, seems to clean up the noise or add some stability,
maybe substance is a better descriptive.
Some tgts don't come in in anyway but (I do this a lot)doorknobbed, or
frustrating all over the place blurred impressions, (I have the impression
of, bla blah blahh), nothing solid to sink your teeth into, those types
require another tasking, some direction to point or put you in, for myself
anyway.
(one of the problems with newbies working tgt/photo pools, no guidance nor
assistance, learning the long hard way IMO)
But then one gets into tasking and retasking and monitors (as opposed to
self- task- monitor- cueing- etc.). I've actually only seen one (public) pull
that off, do it yourself..
a real pro, the whole nine yards and very concise, and that one was CRV
trained by Liam. Well, there's two, just saw another one on Skip Atwater's
site, his new RV program, but that fella has quite a lot (impressive)under
his belt also.
RV is hard that used to be a number one rule.
IMO find a way that works with you compliments you, works in your favor,
don't fight or berate yourself, don't push too hard for what your just not
ready for, it all comes in time even when theirs no time.. or whatever.
Falling back on tried and true sometimes helps, and is less frustrating than
trying to re invent the process and in the process forget or loose the
process altogether.
Every viewer has her/his own quirks and strong points, every practiced viewer
knows what's what and usually where is where, or where it belongs if indeed
it does.
(IMO symbolic interference and AOL disappear with time and practice, after
about a year as your trust and confidence grows and if your staying with one
school or method.. "knowns" start to become more common place or replace the
AOL))
I may be too disciplined to literal. I think I have pushed myself too far in
that direction and it has become ingrained and habitual
Sometimes I think I am and miss bits and pieces of a tgt, which is why I
decided to cut myself some slack and start drawing or creating abstract
images, a picture to go with practice (fooling around) sessions.
Then again the more I fool around the worse my sessions get.
Then again some weird sessions I worked (paid) all I would get were
impressions, vague. All I could do was my best to draw them out, nothing
really solid or firm, weird pictures. The folks kept wanting more sessions,
said they needed to interpret them, so I kept getting more coords.
I never got feedback. I did my polite best and kept prompting, in the end I
gave up, they were just not going to supply feedback which was their right,
and I don't have a frickin clue as to what I did or for whom, but I assume I w
as on tgt, still I'm very very curious tho.
I practice ERV, and I have a (Monroe Inst.) Thursday night meditation group
that I belong to, the two (practices) are totally different for me, which
means even tho ERV is altered state RV, I can't hemi sync nor "meditate" on a
target.
But.. then again on Atwater's site I noticed that and f15 tape was used prior
to the ERV sessions, f15 (focus15) might work, a very clean no time no place
level of consciousness. Not shure if I have and 15 tape around, but that
might be an interesting experiment.
(actually when I was taught ERV, I was told to drop and considerations or
beliefs, set them aside, don't bring them into session with you, so I did,
didn't have many anyway, never encountered or had any guides or guidance and
am not particularly religious)
PJ, I've never thought to check to see what my left knee or any part of the
bod thought about the tgt site, could be a CRV thing.
In ERV any attention to my body in session jerks me out of session, in ERV
session I for themost part am not aware of me at all.
When/if I do seemingly seem to get body sensations it's usually cuz i'm in
someone else's.
In the beginning about the first year I had very annoying itchies, full body-
then mostly face, like a spider web overlay, then it went down to my nose and
upper lip, the itching. Yeah when my nose itched it usually indicated I was
on site. Then I learned to drop deeper into altered state, to bypass the/any
body sensations or objections.
I don't get them at all anymore.
That first year I used to get a yellow ochre tinged level also quite a lot,
that's ceased also.
So there's my ramble, my opinions based on experience and what I have
observed, my contributions for what there worth, RV is just hard.
all the best ~~Terri
Reply | Forward
#984
From: Bill Pendragon
Date: Tue Oct 29, 2002 4:53 pm
Subject: Re: Thoughts on Symbolic Data docsavagebill
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°
Hi Terri,
When you talk of asking the monitor. Are you talking
about a monitor in the room with you?
Best Regards,
bill
|