firedocs archives

Public Viewer Email Group
Archive 045
.


This is an archive file of the public Viewer [VWR] email list. This list is sponsored by the private Viewer Forum, hosted by Paradigm Systems and Design, and owned and operated by PJ Gaenir. It is dedicated to discussion of the practical aspects, theories and experience of formal psychic methodologies such as Controlled Remote Viewing, and independent efforts by the public interested in working under the formal RV protocol (the set of rules which define "remote viewing" as the term was coined in a science lab). You can find details, rules, and a form for joining the email group here. The list is moderated during operation and archiving. I remove last names and detail locations of contributors (within the archives) for privacy, and signatures for space conservation. I have added notes marking the posts from former U.S. intelligence remote viewers. Archiving of posts is done manually and may not include all posts.

This is the forty-fifth archive.


October 1997
BEGIN ARCHIVE 45

>Tell me what you think of the targets on the Psi Hands on BBS. Are there >enough? Are they good beginner targets? Paul, Sheila, and I have been >posting tonnes of targets over the last few months.

Actually, I haven't done any yet. But I am really looking forward to them. I just looked at a couple to see the kind of stuff you are putting up.

It would appear that the target list I chose, was to say the least, somewhat unsuitable. Pity really, because it started off OK. But this is another catch 22. How is one to know they are unsuitable, without doing them. You can't look at each one, and then say, OK, there are no esoteric ones anywhere in there, so I'll do them. It defeats the object. I have done Nos 1-7, which have gradually become more flakey. There are 40 on the page. Some or all of the rest of them may be perfectly acceptable. I don't know that. Possibly, someone could have a look and say, which will generate feedback, and let us know.

Why doesn't someone such as your good self, or PJ, make seperate target lists for beginners, more advanced, experts etc. However, I realise this in itself would create a dilemma. As there are other folks practicing doing targets, if we talk openly here, about our experiences of such targets (as I have been doing), are we not potentially frontloading others. Anyone got an answer to this?

Mind you, having seen the way Lyn has shot my "Martian" effort full of holes (or AOLs) I'm not sure I'll ever do one again! Weep. < weak littls G >

Re *Drugpas*, PJs hubby has a page on it !!! What a wonderful pair they are.

http://www.sciencehorizon.com/ae/lib/ufo/dropasfile.html

MaryD


>>But this is another catch 22. How is one to know they are unsuitable, without doing them. You can't look at each one, and then say, OK, there are no esoteric ones anywhere in there, so I'll do them.

You're right of course.

How do you know somebody will do your taxes correctly before they've done it and you have to pay them? How do you know someone you hire to clean your house, design your advertising, etc. is going to do a good job of it -- before you hire them?

By reputation. By their history, by their presentation, by the examples you see from their past and present. In short, name-recognition and the quality (or lack) that gets associated with that.

CRV as a method was utilized by a number of people in the US Gov't program's psychic intelligence unit, and as such had a fairly firm foundation and reputation (as far as psychic stuff goes anyway). There are only two people teaching it publicly (a few more are just going public now, students of those two), and they are both extremely experienced in using CRV and instructing others in it. Because there's such a small source, they've been able to keep it pretty level. Some handle on it was lost when Lyn Buchanan began teaching in groups, since his travel meant he didn't have time to really be an anchor for students outside training. But, as the students continue into the intermediate and advanced levels, I think they will even out.

The one tell-tale trait about CRV is that it is, has been, and hopefully will continue to be incredibly pragmatic. Based on the solid footing of factual feedback, and with a mentor-mindset that requires anybody expecting to be good at it take it very seriously. It's not just a hobby; like martial arts, if you're going to be good at it, it's integrated into your whole life -- it's a "way."

Since the declassification of the government program near the end of 1995, and particularly with media attention a lot of people (especially those who wanted personally to be IN the media) have been very excited about the idea of psi abilities -- and actually being taken seriously while using them. The fact that the science lab studied RV and military and other intelligence used RV gives the term more credibility than anything else in the "psychic" arena. So you might say, "name quality" was pretty high with "remote viewing," and as a side effect, with the CRV methods that had often been used with the RV protocol.

Not surprisingly, a lot of people interested in psychic ability were very enthusiastic, and, either not knowing or not understanding (or not caring) much about remote viewing as it really was, they decided to call whatever they did RV. And/or, they decided to "improve" on it by completely remolding it to their personal interests. In the process, most of the most worth elements of CRV were pretty much obliterated, and replaced with something else. That something else may be ok, or even good, or even great. But, it's not CRV, and even when methods are sometimes similar, the conceptual understandings that drive them and make them useful are often very different.

The point of that paragraph is that CRV is a specific thing, there are other RV methods which are other things, and whatever credibility that RV methods may have gained as a result of application in gov't intelligence, belongs to CRV alone. The others may be just as good or better, but they'll need to prove themselves on their own merits, rather than using the government history of intell-CRV and lab-RV as "borrowed credibility."

I don't mean it that way, but I am accidentally verging way into "methods politics" here, so I'll stop going that way now and get back to the point.

When you want to know where to go to get targets, training, or anything else, ask yourself, "What method or group best resonates with how I myself am interested in approaching this subject?" For some people, that is one of the many derivatives (or further offshoots of those) of CRV. All of these that I know of are somewhere between "very interested" and "very obsessed" with aliens, entities, et al. Tasking choice is more than a casual selection; it represents an entire conceptual way of approaching this subject. If you know RV, you can learn a lot about a person and their understanding of RV just by what they task others with.

It should be clear that if a web site or individual is from or sponsoring or advertising a group known for this kind of conceptual approach to psychic work, they are probably going to have some of those kinds of targets. I have a growing collection myself of those kinds of targets to eventually put in my private RV forum, but they'll be in a section of the library that clearly states there isn't any -- or is very sketchy -- feedback. (The other 2-300 targets in the current forum are quite practical.)

>>Why doesn't someone such as your good self, or PJ, make seperate target lists for beginners, more advanced, experts etc. However, I realise this in itself would create a dilemma. As there are other folks practicing doing targets, if we talk openly here, about our experiences of such targets (as I have been doing), are we not potentially frontloading others. Anyone got an answer to this?

There are various web sites, including Inner Vision ( [formerly innervision, site now closed - archivists note] ) and Firedocs ( http://www.firedocs.com/remoteviewing/ ) that have RV targets on them, all real-world targets with photo feedback (and many you can get lots more info from an encyclopedia with).

If enough people on the list would be interested, I'd be willing to post a target every week at a certain time and place, that list members could do a session on and talk about their experience and results. I suppose since I moderate the list, I could defray any comments to the list about it until a given day later in the week, and then post the target feedback and comments all at once, or even in an archive file. It's extra work for me of course, but I think it might be interesting. And, it would give everybody a chance to submit results blind to other people's results. Of course, my guess is that nobody will have the courage to submit results to the public on a target they haven't already seen the feedback for. ;-)

>>Mind you, having seen the way Lyn has shot my "Martian" effort full of holes (or AOLs) I'm not sure I'll ever do one again! Weep. <weak littlsG>

Hey! Wow, you know, it is really easy to feel vulnerable when you begin this stuff -- even after you've done it a long time. Sensitivity is very high, especially in this kind of work. I can see how Lyn's post might have made you feel a little .. tenderized. But after a few days, go reread Lyn's email to you. I think you'll see that he did _not_ shoot at your effort at all. He _supported_ it. Rather, he shot the idea of using that as a training target full of holes (and flaming arrows), and for good reason. That does NOT reflect on you. The fact that he took the time to respond to you at all, let alone more than once and at length, means he was impressed with your efforts and your intelligent questions, and wanted to give you some nudging in the right direction. Lyn's a straightforward guy, and if he didn't like you or think what you were doing was worth it, he wouldn't spend time on you. (Trust me on this. I've known him for a couple years now and he's always been that way.)

PJ


My wife and I have been trying to get out of Maryland for years. Nothing has worked. Last month, before the San Francisco class, we were talking about the problem my son was having finding affordable housing in the DC area for himself and new bride. I made the off-handed comment that we should just drive off and leave our house to them. They would have a house, and we would be out of Maryland. We have two months off before the next class, and that would give us time to resettle. The more we thought about it, the more it just sounded like the right thing to do.

Tomorrow, Linda and I will leave, with our only definite plans being to turn right at the end of the driveway and see where the Great American Road, the Good Lord, and whatever credits we have in the karma bank will take us. Since we're on the East coast, it does seem kind of prudent to aim ourselves in a somewhat westward direction. I have set up an "electronic office" with Lael and will stay in touch with students and with the VWR list through an AOL (ugh) account (America On Line, that is).

We know that this is a crazy thing to do, but we're doing it, nonetheless. So if you see us driving by, wave and smile. Until then, wish us luck and remember us in your prayers.

Lyn

[Archive Note: Lyn Buchanan, former U.S. Intell RV]

------
Moderator's Note: As long as you don't drop out of teaching, Lyn. I know the last couple years of media blitzes, competitor politics, working your butt off and then traveling constantly for training, has really burned you out on a lot of this. You could use a real break. But we need you... if you don't show up again, I'll get your students together to do sessions until we find you. (A great way to force your students to practice a little, or to require that someone be skilled --- "If you can FIND class, you can come to it." haha!) -- PJ


Hi Lyn,

> Tomorrow, Linda and I will leave, with our only definite plans being to > turn right at the end of the driveway and see where the Great American > Road, the Good Lord, and whatever credits we have in the karma bank will > take us. Since we're on the East coast, it does seem kind of prudent to > aim ourselves in a somewhat westward direction.

All Riiiight!!!! Now see if you can get PJ and family to do the same thing (only eastward).

> We know that this is a crazy thing to do, but we're doing it, nonetheless. > So if you see us driving by, wave and smile. Until then, wish us luck and > remember us in your prayers.

IMO, it's not crazy to wish to survive.

-- Dean -- from Des Moines (KB0ZDF)


> Sorry to say, I don't get what the fuss is about. An otherwise typical > fighter pilot (though none of them actually THINK they're typical) flying > an obsolescent, low-tech aircraft wanders (probably intentionally) off > flight path, and ends up crashed on a mountain when his fuel runs out a > long ways away from where he's supposed to be.

Umm, if you were talking about a small private plane, I'd agree. Happens all the time. But once we switch to commercial or gov't aircraft -- especially with live bombs -- the situation changes somewhat.

> The Air Force's final conclusion of suicide makes the most sense of any > that have been proposed.

The SOP for aircraft breaking formation, according to several (alleged or self-proclaimed) USAF pilots, is: 1) with no live ammo; to have another plane in the formation follow or 2) with live ammo -- shoot the plane down. No armed aircraft goes up alone except during wartime and is never supposed to be alone. If the offending plane cannot be followed for some reason, it is to be intercepted and shot down.

Since none of the above happened, and a plane with armament seems to have been allowed to wander off on it's own, NO explanation makes sense. There supposedly were many, many violations of procedure.

IOW, as with the 'crash dummies,' the AF is again covering it's *ss with no other authority objecting.

-- Dean -- from Des Moines (KB0ZDF)

-----
Moderator's Note: This one I'll let slide, but any more on this topic needs to be sent private email, not to the list -- it ain't RV. :-) -- PJ


>The SOP for aircraft breaking formation, according to several >(alleged or self-proclaimed) USAF pilots, is: 1) with no live ammo; to >have another plane in the formation follow or 2) with live ammo -- shoot >the plane down. No armed aircraft goes up alone except during wartime >and is never supposed to be alone. If the offending plane cannot be >followed for some reason, it is to be intercepted and shot down.

I can't speak to these statements about policy (to get the bottom line on that, I have e-mailed an old and trusted friend of mine--an AF lieutenant colonel, experienced A-10 and F-15E pilot and instructor pilot, as well as a trained AF crash investigator; I'll let you know what he says), but there are a few reality issues involved. First, remember it was a formation of A-10s (only two, if I rightly recall, but at most 4) we're talking about. A-10s are not equipped to shoot down other aircraft, and the AF doesn't maintain a stateside combat air patrol to shoot down wayward fighter jocks. Second, reports in the Washington Post indicated that the missing A-10 "disappeared" from the formation--in a manner that suggested the pilot was purposely trying to evade pursuit. [This, by the way, provides another scenario for the jettisoned bombs--an unloaded A-10 will outrun a loaded one.] A-10s are also not equipped for sophisticated pursuit or intercept operations. His buddy(ies) would really not have been able to do much about his leaving the formation.

Further, independent reports from non-AF affiliated citizens stated that the A-10 buzzed and circled a number of airfields, as if unsure about landing, then flew away like the pilot had changed his mind. Finally, something I didn't bring up before: the pilot had reason to be distraught, since a previous homosexual affair he'd been involved in was about to be/in the process of being made public. As someone else pointed out in a private post to me, the pilot was the son of a general and was about to be responsible for a great deal of embarrassment to his family and peers. Suicide seems like a very likely explanation to me--it just took him 800 miles to make up his mind to do it.

>Since none of the above happened, and a plane with armament seems to >have been allowed to wander off on it's own, NO explanation makes sense. There >supposedly were many, many violations of procedure.

Both inadvertent and purposeful violations in procedure--even serious ones--happen all the time in the military, just like they do in civilian life. If the "violators" get caught, they suffer the consequences. Or, as in this case, the violations result in their own consequences.

I've gotten so wound up about this issue because, while I agree we must always be vigilant to ferret out conspiracies whether they be governmental or otherwise, by trying to claim a conspiracy where there is no reason to suspect one, we weaken the case if we later find one somewhere else that we ought to warn people about (the old "cry wolf" syndrome).

Okay, PJ, we'll turn this discussion private and release the e-mail group back to discussing RV. Anyone else who wants to continue this thread is welcome to e-mail me directly.

Paul

[Archive Note: Paul Smith, former U.S. Intell RV]

------
Moderator's Note: This is it on the A10. REALLY this time. ;-) -- PJ


>Thank you Lyn for your advice. (snip) >Having read the rest of your response re my perceptions, apart from >initially wanting to weep, I appreciate such constructive criticsm.

I really didn't want to hurt your feelings. I have always felt the need to "have the right to be told what's wrong". I let that need spill over to others at times, and am ususally too straightforward with it. Didn't mean to hurt you.

>....I have a couple of Qs, if I may.
> air = AOL .... >How _do_ I describe it?

Actually, I really thought twice before labeling that an AOL. I would have probably listed it, too. I wound up calling it AOL only because it was a noun used in an early stage. Generally, you can figure that anything you have an ideogram for, your subconscious can get across to you. Therefore, anything you have an ideogram for need not be called an AOL. (Can this get too much like a Russian grammar lesson, or what?) Basically, there just isn't a more basic word for "air" than "air". I don't have a copy handy of your original text, but I think that it was "cool air" or something like that. Basically, I would say to do nothing with "air" except to write it down and label it as AOL. Then realize that in saying "cool", you have described it.

>I was wandering around = You either contact with the site, or AOL.... >How do I know which?

Ah!!! The basic question of all CRVers. How do you know the difference between real signal line and AOL. I don't think you will like the answer. In practice, it gets pretty involved, but here it is, anyway: You don't. It isn't your job to. You report perceptions as you get them and don't edit anything out.

Now, your first impulse may be to say, "But wait! Doesn't that go against the grain of the previous question?" No, it doesn't. You get a perception and you write the perception down. It is >>where<< you write it down and how you label it that keeps you "in structure". You never edit anything out. Write down everything! Then, once it is written down in the correct place, you go on to the next perception.

But now, all we have done is to reword your question: how do you know where to write it down? Do you write it as a perception, gained through site contact, or do you write it down as AOL?

You may not like this answer, either, but the standard procedure is to write it down as AOL. If it is real, it will come back in a later stage in such context that you will be able to be more sure of it. There is a rule in CRV which says, "Just because a perception is AOL doesn't mean it's wrong." That's right, some AOLs are correct information. Why then are they AOL's? Because they are gained not from the signal line, but from logical deduction, fears, yearnings, imagination, etc.

So the final answer is that you can't tell which it is. It isn't your job to - it is the customer's job to decide what is right and what is wrong and what to act upon. In practice, if you can't tell which it is, you write it down as AOL. If it is actual signal, it will resurface more clearly later in the session, at which time you face the same decision again. (Hey, if it were easy, everybody'd be doing it.)

>> bored out of my skull= Emotional distractor >Why a distractor and not a valid emotion pertaining to the target.

I thought you said that you were bored out of your skull with the session. That is an emotional reaction to the process, which is considered a distractor. If you had said, for example, that each time you accessed the target, you were bored out of your skull >>with it<<, that would be an "emotional reaction to being in contact with the site". That is the definition of Aesthetic Impact (AI). In other words, your comment indicated that you had an emotion pertaining to the session or the work, but not an emotion pertaining to the target.

As for the word in your question "valid" - it would have been a valid emotion either way, since it is YOUR reaction and you are merely reporting it.

I just read PJ's answer to these questions, and she brought up a very important point which I would like to reiterate - in other words: If it is your emotional reaction to the session (an emotion which >>distracts<< you from doing the work), then it will wind up ruining and ultimately stopping the session. If it is an emotional reaction to your contact with the site, then it is a statement of fact, and you are merely reporting how you would react to the site, if you were physically at it. Fortunately, there is a way in which you can sometimes tell the difference between the two: basically, if the emotion sticks with you and starts distracting you from working the session, it is a distractor. If you can simply report it and keep working unimpeded, it is probably an AI.

>One final Q, (in small and tremorous voice). I seem to get a feeling of >either "being", or observing. Is one right another wrong.

Absolutely not. You are reacting to contact with the site. That is what you are supposed to be doing. Both feelings ("being" and "observing") are indicators that something is going on inside you. That ain't bad!!!

I realize that the above is pretty convoluted. I tried once to rewrite it, but got interrupted by someone coming to take Linda & me to dinner. If it was too convoluted, please feel free to chide me for it and I'll try again. This honest appraisal stuff works both ways.

Lyn

[Archive Note: Lyn Buchanan, former U.S. Intell RV]


Rob wrote: > I would like to add here that Walter Woods, the current President of the > American Society of Dowsers has a short booklet he uses for education. > It is written in such a way that everyone can understand the concepts > easily and completely and can practice with other targets. If you > contact the ASD and ask them for a copy of "A Letter to Robin". It will > help you understand the current level of knowledge about it. I think > its only $5.00. He uses in in training sessions and Dowsing schools. > Good piece.

Thanks Rob, I found the ASD site and thought it might be of use. It can be found at : http://www.newhampshire.com/dowsers.org/ for anyone interested.

PaulF


Mike CT wrote: > I tried walking around, and at very specific spots, the branch abruptly > pointed straight down. I tried relaxing my grip and tightening my grip. > When I went over the hot spots, the branch turned in my hand, no matter how > hard I held on. My friend told me that he has held on so tight that the bark > has actually peeled off the branch, under his hands. > I don't see how this can be an involuntary muscle response. To be honest, I > don't know how it works, or what is going on, but the dowsing rod seems to > move on its own.

Mike the tension is created by the way you hold the "Y" rod. If you have specific tension again the structure of the branch, it takes little force to snap it down. The involuntary muscle rsponse can be trained into a person through discovery, habitual patterning, etc.

Rob


> The 'ideomotor response' certainly may be an element in dowsing but > this instance suggests that on occasion there's more to it. I am > not a dowser, and this is not exactly a refutation.

This is a troublesome question that often comes up in dowsing tutorials, namely: if the dowser is not knowingly searching for anything in particular and gets a sudden response, what does that signify ?

This is impossible even to contemplate answering without some insight into the dowser's state of mind at that moment, because "not knowingly searching" might actually mean the dowser is unwittingly commanding the rods to "respond to anything significant", "respond to anything I am especially sensitive to" or even "respond to trace of dogs" (because the dowser has a doggy matter on the back burner of consciousness). You can dowse it, of course; and my answer is that Tom was alert to electrical fields at the time and there was some kind of static anomaly there - maybe a charged surface. This kind of stray response is one of the bugbears of dowsing but with practice it is possible to tune it out.

Dan W


>I agree that the ideomotor response is appropriate and I am a dowser...

Interesting field this dowsing. We got into researching it prior to looking at remote viewing. It appears to me that dowsing and autonomous nervous responses such as "gut feeling" are digital versions of remote viewing. i.e. - yes/no responses equivalent to a binary 1 or 0. Whereas CRV and ERV etc are analogue information decoding methods which utilise a continuously variable signal...rather than a simple on/off one. The problem we found with the pendulum is that it can take 10-30 seconds to develop a "swing". During which the operators mind can wander and change intent. INTENT is the absolute keyword here. The only time I used a willow fork device...it swung up and connected with my eye. (I felt at the time it should be classified as a dangerous weapon along with cruise missiles.) Then at the Monroe Institute they introduced us to L-Rods. And these really captured my attention. The violent way in which they react at times has left me concluding that there is more to muscle response in their operation. There is something very funny going on here, but I haven't got a clue what other forces could be involved. However I do not believe it is PK. Then after a lot of inspirational research we developed our autonomous "muscle twitch" deviceless mechanism which we simply called a "mental pendulum". (We haven't yet thought of a better name). Instead of the usual limited yes/no/maybe responses we also get simultaneous yes-no, yes..but...., no...but..., etc. In fact we have 7 different responses so far. As the muscle response in this method is very rapid the operator is able to maintain intent as there is no time for the mind to wander. And some of the responses can be extremely violent. I was lying in bed one night recently with my arms on top of the blankets and asking a series of questions which required a simple yes/no response in the form of a thumb muscle twitch. The response to one question caused not only my thumb muscle to jerk...but had my hand and entire arm fly over my head and connect with the wall behind me. Very strange stuff indeed. Anyway, in the final analysis I use this in conjunction with remote viewing practice to increase accuracy. It appears to work...for me....anyway.

Jim


PJ asked whether Walt Woods seminal booklet "A Letter to Robin" might be available on the Web. It used to be, because I downloaded it... Probably still is, try the American Society of Dowsers website

http://newhampshire.com/dowsers.org

If not still available, order it from Society's bookstore 1-800-711-9497, it's only about $3.00. However, Walt does NOT advance an "explanation" or even speculate about how "it" happens.

Paul D


Hi All;

PJ, Do not pay the ransom, I escaped. I got back from the UK yesterday and found 120 posts waiting for me. Great. I leave for Germany tomorrow. I will try and catch up this weekend.

Great reading the posts. Mary, keep those questions coming

best wishes all

May the Force be with you,

Liam

[Archive Note: Liam, former U.S. Intell RV]


Mary wrote: >I have noted that when I attempt a phase 1 ideogram, I get instead a >symbolic image vaguely related to a target. eg. A statue of Buddha, for the >Drupas, a red cross flag, for Di's accident. Should those be probed? >And if I am suddenly up to my neck in it, should I and if so, how do I, >stem the flow, and go back to earlier phases.

Hi Mary;

IMHO the best way to stem the flow is to pick only stage one targets. That is targets with a simple gestalt. i.e. mountain, land, water, land/water interface. If you can not find any I will pick some for you, give you the coordinates, and then provide feedback.

Best of luck, and keep those questions coming. I love your enthusiasm (see I can't even spell it, but I like it. It also keeps the PJ Fairy/Leppa-whatever busy).

May the Force be with you,

Liam

[Archive Note: Liam, former U.S. Intell RV]


Mary, I meant to respond to your post and forgot. If you're drawing statues and crosses, you are not drawing ideograms. An ideogram is a spontaneous motion on paper. (The theory is that it is the body's response to the psi data impacting upon the nervous system.)

[Newbie tip: an ideogram is a mark you make on paper, like a spontaneous scribble, that you intend to represent the basic gestalt of the target. You learn to do these automatically without conscious direction of the movement of the pen, and then you 'recognize' what your subconscious is telling you. This is done right off in a CRV session, and working with the ideogram is what is referred to as "Stage 1."]

You're talking about sketches, no matter how simple. Anything you think about or let yourself gently feel out or whatever is a sketch, even if it's just a line that makes no sense (most stage 3 sketches are just 'fragments' of line in the target). If it looks like anything obvious, not only are you sketching instead of doing an ideogram, but there's likely some analysis in there as well (albeit it may be accurate analysis).

For example, one of my ideograms for something manmade looks rather like the number 7. But without the sliding in on the vertical line. Just a "corner." Somewhere, in some direction, in the ideogram, there will be "an angle," and that usually means I'm looking at something manmade. The id may be nothing but that angle. Land may be just a flat line. Mountain is just an upside down V. It's pretty simple. Those are mine -- they don't have to be yours.

When you begin, it's nice to limit your ids to basic gestalts such as land, mountain, water, manmade, etc., and develop your store of personal ideograms gradually. And, tell your subconscious you want one at a time. (Targets that have only ONE gestalt are close to impossible to find, depending on how narrowly you define your Id list.) I refused this good advice, since I immediately got complex ids, and have paid the price since, and am literally going to have to go back and completely re-train myself to stick to the basics on it (I find CRV monitors are not happy to hear me waxing into metaphysical concepts as data in the middle of Stage 1...).

-- PJ


Mary, you wrote you were drawing statues and crosses and calling these ideograms...EH EH!! Wrong answer..try again Mary. Ideograms are spontaneous in nature lasting less than a second or two...a very quick single line which may be straight, curved, slanting down, up, curly que'ish...whatever..but nobody could look at them and make a determination of what they mean. They are not drawings anymore than dialing the number of a friend constitutes the conversation which follows...it is only the way you gain initial impressions (access) to the target. If you are spending more than two or three seconds (SECONDS!!!) on your ideogram, its not an ideogram...back away and start over...Go back over your class notes or review whatever book you read on the subject and work on your Phase 1s...without proper Phase 1s you ain't going nowhere Mary...trust me on this one.... Regards...Gene...

PS... You will notice I said exactly the same thing that Madam Palyne said but like all good Irishmen, I took longer and mine is funnier ..HA HA...

[Archive Note: Gene Kincaid, former U.S. Intell RV]

--------
Moderator's Note: (Yes, but I'm cuter, so there.) Ideograms that last more than 3/4 of one second are probably analytical. Spontaneity has a short life span and a full second, let alone two, is a long time... though I dunno Gene, maybe working in ERV some things are in slower groggy motion... ;-) -- PJ


I hate to disagree with two of the more knowledgeable viewers on the list, especially when I tend to practice what they are both preaching concerning the speed in which an idiogram is done, but I must say that while performing an ideogram quickly is the preferable method, it does not mean that a viewer who draws their idiograms slowly is wrong. Speed is preferred as it offers less chance for analysis. However, some viewers are able to do their ideograms more slowly while keeping analysis out. I have had several students who, despite my urgings to speed up their ideograms, have continued to draw them slowly. While this is painful for me to watch :-) they are consistently accurate. This leads me to the belief that it is more important to let the subconscious present information in a manner in which it is most comfortable, rather than imposing an arbitrary time limit. I know that many out there will disagree---heck, I disagreed. It is against everything that I was taught and generally try to teach. However, when in doubt, I always fall back to the first rule that I was taught---the viewer is in charge, and if the viewer is more comfortable with taking longer with his/her ideograms and it doesn't affect their accuracy, then I have to go along with that.

Brent

-----
Moderator's Note: I have never seen a slow ideogram, so have never had to think much about that aspect of things. Interesting idea. -- PJ


I've never seen "anything" drawn which did not require thinking! I would be careful about any generalizing when it comes to ideograms. They are simply meant to get someone closer to the reception of information and further away from the conclusions that one might be making about information. I've seen some pretty extravagant ideograms, and some rather short, small, quick, and frail ideograms. The whole idea is understanding what becomes repetetive and understood over time--at least as pertinent to accuracy about major gestalts. :) Joe

[Archive Note: Joseph McMoneagle, former U.S. Intell RV]


END ARCHIVE 45
October 1997

A form for subscribing / unsubscribing from the Viewer Email Group can be found HERE.


VWR Email Archives Menu
Firedocs Entrance
Top of Page

All contents copyright © 1995-2002 by PJ Gaenir. All rights reserved.