Remote Viewing Community
http://www.rvcommunity.net/

3 questions
http://www.rvcommunity.net/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=365
Page 1 of 1

Author:  Elizabeth [ Sun Apr 10, 2005 6:11 pm ]
Post subject:  3 questions

Great show last night - stayed up all night to hear it.

1) I'm dedicated to toeing the line & would like to know exactly what that 'looks like' to you, how many hours per day of work, if there's a cap on how many hours per day, how often or seldom you'd prefer to see a given 'line-toe-er' post work here for critique, and anything else I should know.

2) This is a recent S.T. - is it too crowded? Sometimes they are even more crowded than this and the display of data begins to suffer for it. Is it ever done to use a larger piece of paper, or to spread it over two pages that can be laid side by side? Am I doing S.T.s correctly?

Image

3) Also, this may be really too out-there as a question, but it appeared to me that forum user Robcamp, an artist may have used other pens besides his fine-point pen for an S.T. (though I could be mistaken about this.) I'm not a professional artist but I have a lifelong background in visual art, classically trained in figure drawing/painting. I have considered what it might be like to be free to use pencil as a layer under my pen and/or something slightly thicker as well as my fine pen, for the sake of 2-d modeling in certain sketches (rarely). I've never done it before, but under certain circumstances it's an appealing idea. Is this verboten? If not, are there any guidelines besides using this very conservatively?

Thank you

Author:  Ed Dames [ Sun Apr 10, 2005 9:03 pm ]
Post subject: 

Basics first: AOL's do not belong in the S.T. Yes, the template may be drawn on multiple pages (e.g., 20A, 20B, etc.).

Author:  Elizabeth [ Mon Apr 11, 2005 3:54 am ]
Post subject: 

Okay, will do. Thanks!

Author:  Elizabeth [ Tue Apr 26, 2005 6:41 pm ]
Post subject: 

Ed,
Here's a 3-page S.T. from a recent session. (Please note the absence of AOLs on the S.T.) Is this S.T. done correctly?

Now I'm worried that I used words (albeit words directly from corresponding S4s) to indicate where the aspect labels belong (to what they refer), rather than adding yet more arrows (which could then be confused with all these directional arrows within the data.) I can easily omit this in the future. I only wanted to differentiate between the two simultaneously occuring / overlapping fields.

Do you have any suggestions/critique?
Thank you

P.S. This is the kind of session I think might justify use of a pencil layer (for the many directional lines); I think the S.T. would look better. What do you think?

Image

Image

Image

[I formerly posted all the sketches here as well, but I thought it might be posting too much so I removed them & left only the S.T.]

Author:  Dreamer [ Wed Apr 27, 2005 5:53 am ]
Post subject: 

Hey Elizabeth,

great STs. I'm just curious to how accurate those sessions were? You have a lot of detail there. When I have a lot of detail in my sessions, it's usually a bunch of AOL.

Just curious,

Dreamer

Author:  Elizabeth [ Wed Apr 27, 2005 7:02 am ]
Post subject: 

Dear Dreamer,

Thanks! These kinds of amounts of details are normal for me (& I've been RVing since 1998) - this is how looks when I open up the envelope and it's on target. It winds up being the same for other viewers too, when they run a target a number of times, probing for more & more data. Some viewers might receive data as I have here, in one long probe over a few days, and other viewers receive data in a different style - achieving the same thing (same amount of data) but by probing a few times (i.e. maybe with a couple of different cues) over the same few days.

For an explanation of this, see this thread:
viewtopic.php?t=150

As to this particular target, it was part of a series of topical searches, and hours of research have explained a lot of the data content to me, confirmed what's depicted here, telling me things I did not know before and yet are in the data. So yes, I've got positive feedback. That's about as far as I want to delve into it here (it's posted for S.T. structure critique rather than discussion of content.) Suffice it to say I learned a lot from doing it, so, mission accomplished (this leg of it, anyway).

I like that expression, 'progress is the goal, not perfection.' I find it gets one closer to perfect results better and faster than perfectionism does. I really hope more people post their work here even if it has mistakes (that's where we learn the most!) Ed's critiques are really precious learning opportunities, such an opportunity is to be found nowhere else. (Plus, it's sort of like that same attitude that works so well during RV, of not feeling invested in outcome other than practice/progress. Very liberating.)

I tried to say all that without much chit-chat but I guess it was as longwinded as my RV data can be. :shock:

Elizabeth

Author:  Ed Dames [ Wed Apr 27, 2005 8:49 am ]
Post subject: 

Site Template looks great, including labels. Don't fix a good thing.

Did you employ error trapping, as outlined in the Companion Guide?

Let's discuss Stage 5:

Look back through all of your S4 sheets (only) for two things.

1) Did you have any AOLs near the top of the page, or as the first entry?

2) Were any AOLs completely out of context or anomalous?

Author:  Elizabeth [ Thu Apr 28, 2005 6:05 pm ]
Post subject: 

Thanks!
Error trapping: I was confident with all of the data: I only looked twice at one spot, the last packet on S4[B]. I concluded that it was its own packet of data and kept it, but I'd like to know if you think this was a mistake.

S5: I have one of each of the kinds of AOL that you had me look for, both on the same page, again, S4[B]. One occurs after the second datum on the page, and the other, just over halfway down, is anomalous. They both make good candidates for use of S5.

Image

I have used S5 in the past - but not yet as taught by you. Would you like me to do an S5 sheet for one of these (two) AOLs and post it here for your critique, OR, would you like me to hold back and await your instructions for these 2 AOLs?

Author:  Elizabeth [ Thu Apr 28, 2005 6:14 pm ]
Post subject: 

P.S.

I realize the first datum on this S4 is an I, and that's not good - I remember what happened there - I went for S data first and received a palpable sensation that was pulling/tugging and it went from there: this was an aspect that had few Ss and Ds (it was an energetic).

I do not remember why 'bombarding' was declared as AOL, it might be that it seemed too high-level a datum considering the lack of Ss and Ds so far.

Author:  Ed Dames [ Tue May 03, 2005 2:24 am ]
Post subject: 

Let me see your rendition of an S5. Use "bombarding" -



S5

AOL - bombarding


Objects? Attributes? Subjects? Topics?

Author:  Elizabeth [ Tue May 03, 2005 4:01 am ]
Post subject: 

Okay, this is the way I would've done it before (straight from the CRV manual) except I wouldn't usually have put "AOL - bombarding" underneath of (the page title) "S5." I just did that because you did it above.

And I considered leaving out "emanations?" because I didn't see you use that above, but then, I figured you asked for my rendition of it, how I used to do it, so here it is... If it's done differently now, I will omit "emanations?" and put the question mark after "objects?" etc.

Image

Image

I'm not sure if the page break caused me to stop getting "subjects." I've only done S5 with a small percentage of my sessions, maybe 5% at the most, so I'm not that confident with it to be sure (I'm not even sure if it's allowed to spill onto a second page.)

Author:  Elizabeth [ Tue May 03, 2005 4:21 am ]
Post subject: 

I'm not sure I trust there aren't AOLs in the "topics" column. I see things in there that could be overlay from the research that I did on this target after doing the S.T.

Author:  Ed Dames [ Wed May 04, 2005 4:19 am ]
Post subject: 

Housekeeping points: Set the page up exactly as I did.

Most importantly, you did not perform this S5 correctly and, therefore, we cannot extract anything of value from it. It is obvious to me that there is a ton of additional ideation above and beyond that which led to the AOL. Next time, interrogate your memory and use only the ideas that were behind the AOL at the moment of conception -- nothing more or less -- rather than a creative off-line laundry list.

Author:  Elizabeth [ Wed May 04, 2005 7:32 am ]
Post subject: 

Wow, I should have pretended I never heard of S5 and asked to learn it from the ground up. hehehe (I think it's harder this way, because now I have a lot of questions.) I don't think I had hubris, I just wanted to be forthcoming that I'd tried to learn this on my own, sorry if that was a mistake.

I didn't know that's it's memory interrogation at all; I thought it was further exploration sort of like in S4, and never really understood why it's done outside of session. No wonder.

I'll pose my questions in the 'higher prompts' area of the forum.

Thanks, and I'll try to get it right next time!

Author:  Ed Dames [ Wed May 04, 2005 7:37 pm ]
Post subject: 

Neither could it effectively subject anything to "further exploration" -- because Stage 5 is executed off line, i.e., after having broken away from the 'signal line.'

Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/