Remote Viewing Community
http://rvcommunity.net/

Splitting movements from dimensions
http://rvcommunity.net/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=5154
Page 1 of 1

Author:  kfa [ Sun Jul 18, 2010 9:44 am ]
Post subject:  Splitting movements from dimensions

Been thinking of this ever since I ran into difficulties translating the S2 word list into my native German:

Can someone think of a good reason why not to make two sections out of the original dimensions list, namely one "Dimensions" for static dimensions, i.e. shapes, measurements, positions, etc., and one "Movements" for the dynamic stuff?

Just one of many examples giving reason to this idea is the word "├╝ber", which means both "over" and "above". In a complete sentence this is normally clear through context, but we don't have that context here. While it seems not a big problem to remember what was meant throughout the duration of a session, it would remove that extra task by avoiding the confusion in the first place. I've tried it a few times, and I found it indeed more comforting. I worked the two sections together, i.e. I did not hold off sensing movement while I was still at static dimensions, unlike as it's done with the other sensory classes. Although I imagine that proper separation could make sense in the spirit of the existing ordering of sensory classes in S2. I did not yet carry it over into S4 by making an extra column there, but I wanted to try that as well.

I don't believe that this constitutes the crime of messing with the established structure. It solely adds semantic clarity where language alone does not provide enough clarity. Wondering if it could improve the process in English as well. Objections, thoughts?

Author:  Ed Dames [ Sun Jul 18, 2010 10:03 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Splitting movements from dimensions

Yes, if I understand you correctly, empirically (vs. theoretically) speaking, density and motion percepts, as primal sensory impressions, are subsumed and categorized under 'dimensions' simply so as to not force/induce the construct of yet another category of S2, which would waste time and, consequently, risk the loss of site/target contact.

Remember: In S2, unlike S4, the viewer is interrogating the signal line.
(A complex subject for discussion, actually, but not nearly as complex as Stage 1 - Stage 2 interface).

Author:  kfa [ Sun Jul 18, 2010 10:51 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Splitting movements from dimensions

I understand, full separation would cost additional time, possibly too much in S2. Then I assume I've not done completely wrong by working static and dynamic dimensions together as before, just putting the words on different lines.

Maybe I can also try with arrow markers, treating them just like diacritics. Why didn't I think of that before. In principle, does it have to be proper at all - we know that good spelling helps, but if someone was simply faster using proprietory symbols or markup? Not saying I want to go overboard with this.

Ed Dames wrote:
Remember: In S2, unlike S4, the viewer is interrogating the signal line.

May I ask for a quick refresher, what is the concise term for what S4 then does, in contrast to S2?

Author:  Ed Dames [ Sun Jul 18, 2010 11:15 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Splitting movements from dimensions

A. In S2, we say that the viewer is 'interrogating the signal line' (Ingo's term) - demanding to know, in order, textures, colors, etc.; primal sensory percepts are scaffolding to a metaphoric widening of unconscious 'apeture' -- greater (Matrix vector space) site/target contact.

B. In S4, unconscious is 'off the hook' -- akin to a bird dog that you have transported to the marsh -- you've got to let it off its leash in order for it to do its job.

Author:  kfa [ Sun Jul 18, 2010 11:41 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Splitting movements from dimensions

Ah, that set me straight again. Many thanks.

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