It is currently Sat Nov 18, 2017 12:49 am




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 5 posts ] 
 S6 Drawing - special applications 
Author Message
RV Professional
RV Professional

Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 11:30 am
Posts: 225
Location: United Kingdom
Post S6 Drawing - special applications
Quite recently, I've been asked by a member of our community if S6 drawing can be employed to graphically render an intangible idea.

Case: The viewer is labeling [1] of his ST. Then, he is employing a high level prompt - The function of [1] SSBP.

This prompt is taking him away from the original site and thus he creates new ST - Function of [1]. Then, he jumps straight to S6 Drawing with the prompt Function of [1]. The resulting S6 is a highly complex drawing.

Normally, we are using S6 Drawing stage to obtain detailed graphical data regarding a given element corresponding to a tangible object.

My question to the red dotted peers is: what do you thing about this case? Can we employ a S6 Drawing to sketch an intangible idea (immediately after the completion of ST referring to the respective high level prompt)?

_________________
"Thou shalt never assume" , RM


Sun Jun 10, 2012 2:24 pm
Profile
RV Professional
RV Professional

Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 10:14 pm
Posts: 336
Location: Virginia
Post Re: S6 Drawing - special applications
Quote:
Can we employ a S6 Drawing to sketch an intangible idea (immediately after the completion of ST referring to the respective high level prompt)?

I would address, or question the choice of the follow-on 'function' prompt used to explore a idea first. How does the remote viewer know that [1] is a idea? If the ST is definitely a IT (idea template) I would've chosen a different follow-on prompt. If it is definitely a idea, why choose it's function, when function has to do with a person, and/or a thing, which are tangibles?

If a idea template refers to wealth, a S6 drawing could include a chest overfilled with coins, and jewels. Yet the phrase 'wealth's function' perplexes me.

S6 drawings immediately following a ST may lack some specific data that can be obtained through further explorations on various aspects of the site. It doesn't make it wrong to do a S6 drawing immediately after the ST, but I would always follow-up with appropriate additional follow-on prompts through to other S6 drawings of one, or more aspects. I sometimes do a S6 drawing after a ST, which is of the whole site, then do other S6 drawings for each individual aspect after completing the follow-on explorations.

_________________
http://www.flusurvivaleverydaystrategies.com/


Sun Jun 10, 2012 6:05 pm
Profile WWW
RV Professional
RV Professional

Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 11:30 am
Posts: 225
Location: United Kingdom
Post Re: S6 Drawing - special applications
I guess you are slightly misled:

Quote:
How does the remote viewer know that [1] is a idea? If the ST is definitely a IT (idea template) I would've chosen a different follow-on prompt. If it is definitely a idea, why choose it's function, when function has to do with a person, and/or a thing, which are tangibles?


[1] is labeled on an object presented at his original (first) ST. Then, he is applying the high level prompt The function of [1] SSBP which leads to construction of a new ST describing the function of [1]. The new ST is of course an idea template.

_________________
"Thou shalt never assume" , RM


Sun Jun 10, 2012 9:28 pm
Profile
RV Professional
RV Professional
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 14, 2006 5:24 pm
Posts: 1813
Location: Stepping Through My Shadow
Post Re: S6 Drawing - special applications
With sufficient site contact accumulated I think i can be done as you describe, but it would also saturate very quickly.

I'm not sure it was done correctly in the situation you describe, but that's another story.

_________________
Are my posts helpful? ฿ 14F3mEaFSa7ePisMAWjiH76tgP8RePt7LR


Mon Jun 11, 2012 1:27 am
Profile WWW
RV Professional
RV Professional

Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 11:30 am
Posts: 225
Location: United Kingdom
Post Re: S6 Drawing - special applications
Yes, I am thinking in the same way. With 40 min (my judgement based on the number of the explored aspects) spent on the original ST, plus 14-15 min to complete one target geometry prompt, plus another 40 min spent on the high level prompt ST, the total TOT ( time on target) is going to be about 90-95 minutes. This creates quite a solid target contact.

Re the second part, I've seen his original ST, the freehand (of the high level prompt) with the aspects of [1] and the second ST ( The functions). I would say that he was following the structure pretty good, so this is not an issue.

_________________
"Thou shalt never assume" , RM


Mon Jun 11, 2012 5:45 am
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 5 posts ] 


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.
Designed by Vjacheslav Trushkin for Free Forums/DivisionCore.
[ Time : 0.084s | 15 Queries | GZIP : On ]