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)

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.

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

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.

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!

Tangibles need to be justified by elemental S & D percepts. The way that you are dealings with intangibles is correct.