|
It is currently Thu Apr 26, 2018 11:45 am
|
View unanswered posts | View active topics
|
Page 1 of 1
|
[ 7 posts ] |
|
How do we distinguish a 'Tangible' from an 'AOL'
Author |
Message |
ACra'kedMirror
Forum Beginner
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2005 7:36 am Posts: 9
|
 How do we distinguish a 'Tangible' from an 'AOL'
The title really says it all.
I understand the definition of 'tangible' but I dont quite grasp when a tangible is, and is not, an AOL.
Thank you
(Sorry if this is something covered before - I did do a search for 'Tangible' but didnt find an answer)
|
Thu Jan 19, 2006 4:31 am |
|
 |
David Roseta
RV Professional
Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2004 6:38 pm Posts: 468
|
For a descriptor to be listed in the T column, it must have substantiating descriptors already listed in other columns.
For example...
If your S column just has, "white," and your D column just has, "round," then it would not be correct to be writing, "clock," in the T column.
However, if your S, D, and I, columns are filled with clock-related descriptors (hard, smooth, ticking, flat, circular, round, moving, spinning, manmade, etc., etc.,), then, "clock," may be an appropriate Tangible.
When your session is finished, it is easy to ascertain whether you've correctly listed Tangibles. Simply apply the above-mentioned principles.
However, during a session, you aren't allowed to be thinking whether or not you have enough substantiating descriptors to list a particular Tangible. Therefore, you just have to know.
This, "knowing," comes through practice. You'll know whether, "clock," is a T, an AOL, or an AOL/S.
|
Thu Jan 19, 2006 4:49 am |
|
 |
Alex
|
Good question.... In addition to David’s good explanation.... I'll try.
Tangibles come from a non thinking impulse....a simple, one dimensional / one level /no moving parts impulse... Pen in the "T" column... "Bang" one word......
AOL's are always "formed" from multiple joined thoughts that hang around in your head and start to form an idea ex. (Liquid, cool, flowing, trickling = AOL water)
Alex
|
Thu Jan 19, 2006 6:40 pm |
|
 |
zorg
Advanced User
Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2008 6:22 pm Posts: 51
|
 Re: How do we distinguish a 'Tangible' from an 'AOL'
Sorry, but the last two posts seem to have contradicted each other. David seems to be saying that T's must relate to other descriptors. Alex seems to be saying that they come about spontaneously and should not result from a collection of descriptors. I know that Maj. Dames warned against interpreting something blue and wet as water, which is what David seems to be suggesting that we do.
Can you clarify a bit? Thanks
|
Wed Mar 18, 2009 11:55 pm |
|
 |
kfa
RV Professional
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2007 10:49 am Posts: 809 Location: The inner Galt's Gulch
|
 Re: How do we distinguish a 'Tangible' from an 'AOL'
zorg wrote: Sorry, but the last two posts seem to have contradicted each other. David seems to be saying that T's must relate to other descriptors. Alex seems to be saying that they come about spontaneously and should not result from a collection of descriptors. I know that Maj. Dames warned against interpreting something blue and wet as water, which is what David seems to be suggesting that we do.
Can you clarify a bit? Thanks Let me take a stab at it, just to see if I understand it correctly myself: No, they're not contradicting each other, but complementing. Tangibles must have correlation to other descriptors and emerge spontaneously. The relevant bit to distinguish it from AOL is the source of the item in question, whether the matrix has given it to you or your own mind. The correlation rule is handy when you comb through your S4's after the session is finished.
_________________ “James, you ought to discover some day that words have an exact meaning.” “The code of competence is the only system of morality that’s on a gold standard.” (Francisco d'Anconia) >>
|
Thu Mar 19, 2009 6:40 am |
|
 |
zorg
Advanced User
Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2008 6:22 pm Posts: 51
|
 Re: How do we distinguish a 'Tangible' from an 'AOL'
OK--so you're saying that high-level ideas are more likely AOL than T/I if they are not corroborated by other data, even if they are spontaneous?
I often spontaneously get high-level words in S4, for example "scandalous", "automatic", or "involved", which don't seem to relate to any other data. I put these in I or AOL, depending on how strong/clear the percept is. Is this right?
Thanks!
|
Fri Mar 20, 2009 6:37 pm |
|
 |
Ed Dames
RV Professional
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2004 1:18 am Posts: 4298 Location: Shackleton Crater (provisional)
|
 Re: How do we distinguish a 'Tangible' from an 'AOL'
Tangibles need to be justified by elemental S & D percepts. The way that you are dealings with intangibles is correct.
_________________ "Life is not measured by the number of breaths we take...but by the moments that take our breath away" (Don't be afraid that your life will end -- be afraid that it will never begin)
|
Sat Mar 21, 2009 1:53 am |
|
 |
|
|
Page 1 of 1
|
[ 7 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
|
|