(aka the Blind Leading the Blind)
Date: May 13, 2004 (Thursday)
<Dan> Okay before we get started, anyone have any random questions?
Grael shakes head
<Jael> none here
<Dan> Well – some simple ground rules as we get started.
<Dan> 1) please raise your hand (or better yet, type on your keyboard that you’re raising your hand) to ask a question.
<Dan> 2) If I ask you to hold a question til later, please do.
<Dan> 3) If you peer – and want/need back in – either go into PSC and ask, Knock here, or PM one of the other mods, and they’ll invite you back in.
<Dan> Well – tonight, I’m going to attempt to discuss “scanning”…
<Dan> Might be a good idea to define the term – so we’re all on the same page.
<Dan> Here’s my definition: In it’s broadest terms, I define scanning as the acquisition of information without the use of the 5 normal senses.
<Dan> It encompasses the classic Shield Scanning, RV, clairvoyance, and just about any other information gathering tool you can find.
<Dan> That’s quite a broad topic… If I tried to cover it all – we’d still be here next month.
<Dan> Since we have but an hour…
<Dan> I’ll be limiting our working definition. We’ll be discussing the most common type of scanning – looking for energy patterns or in terms most of you may have heard “Can you scan my shield”.
<Dan> What are they asking here? Generally most folks that ask this question can be grouped into two categories: 1) Those just getting started – that may or may not actually have a shield. 2) For some reason their shield isn’t acting the way they expect.
<Dan> It doesn’t really matter which.
<Dan> So, what is this “scanning” stuff?
<Dan> Well – we’ve all heard of the five senses (Sight, hearing, touch, taste and smell).
<Dan> Psionic sensing generally piggy backs on top of one (or more) of these.
<Dan> The most common being Sight, but touch is also common.
<Dan> It’s also important to note – that it doesn’t always manifest as ANY of them. This case works as well, but is typically harder to work with.
<Dan> Some of my experiences may make this clearer.
<Dan> My earliest “scanning” was in the mode of “guessing”
<Dan> I’d “guess” at things, and end up right more often than wrong… Like the time I went around guessing what folks looked like… The one detail I messed up consistantly was folks “absolute” height.
<Dan> Getting 6 or 7 folks right in a row aw “disconcerting” and I quit doing that. (common reaction I understand…)
<Dan> Apparently my “unconscious” or “File Clerk Dude” as it’s sometimes referred to around here (& I’ll be abbreviating fcd on occasion) was feeding me info – but not helping me any other way.
<Dan> As I said, it was kinda disconcerting… And, in other areas, it wasn’t very reliable because I couldn’t tell the difference between info passed me by my fcd and daydreaming…
<Dan> Then, I eventually began to get some piggy back “visual” info too.
<Dan> This helped me coorelate some stuff.
<Dan> What does this visual stuff look like to me?
<Dan> Initially it looked a LOT like the “back of my eyelids”
<Dan> Really – it looked more like what’s termed “monitor ghost” than anything else. To know what this looks like, have any of you “stared” at a flame or light bulb?
<Dan> Or have you had a “flash” picture taken of you?
<Dan> Remember that “after image”?
<Dan> That’s the “Ghost”.
<Dan> And – that’s mostly what I was seeing.
<Dan> Once I was able to start “correlating” the “ghosts” with stuff – I realized my fcd’d been “feeding” me these “dim” immages for a while, but I hadn’t recognized them.
<Dan> In my case, what I see is mostly in shades of brown & amber.
<Dan> Other folks I’ve talked to say they see it in shades of green.
<Dan> Some apparently see stuff in LOTSA colors. I’m not sure if they’re lucky or not…
<Dan> Some folks can see with their eyes open – the scanning “images” are bright/clear enough.
<Dan> I can’t.
<Dan> I’ve talked with some folks that say their “scanning” mosty comes in tactilly – the “feal” thing…
<Dan> If you can interpret it – it doesn’t really matter… The key, is finding out how your fcd (remember this is your sub-conscious) is passing you info.
Jael raises hand
<Jael> Does it seem like the “normal” sense that is preferred in everyday life is the one communicated through when scanning? In other words, if sight is relied on in normal life, the scanning is “seen”, or if hearing, sounds are communicated?
<Dan> I don’t believe so. For MOST humans, sight is their strongest (dominant) sense.
<Jael> Okay. Thanks MadGalaxie raises hand
<Dan> The only people I know where sight is not their strongest, or at least most trusted, sense are those that are either blind or almost blind.
<MadGalaxie> I’m not sure I completely understand the after image thing. What exactly is it that you’re seeing? The persons sheild, right?
<Dan> The “after image” is what things “look like” to me when I’m scanning.
<MadGalaxie> What I mean, is what is the sheild, what does it look like, and how do you find it?
<Dan> Could be the person’s shield.
<Dan> Hold that MadGalaxie – I’ll be touching that soon.
<Dan> If I don’t clear things up – beat me with the question ok? Aphanas raises hand…
<Aphanas> How did you learn to distinuish between FCD information, and daydreaming? Did you find that daydreams were typically _not_ in the color schemes and “ghosting” imagery that your scanning information came in?
<Dan> No –
<Dan> I found that my fcd had been passing me info that way for a while, but I hadn’t been recognizing it as such. (Retrospect is 20/20 or so they say. )
<Dan> Initially, I got a lot of confirmation checks…
<Dan> Though – once I’d “found” the “feeling” of when I was scanning – It’s been fairly reliable.
<Dan> That help Aphanas?
<Aphanas> Hmmm… OK. So after a while you were able to get the “feel” for scan data?
<Aphanas> OK, that makes sense. Thanks.
<Dan> I was able to recognize when I was “scannign” and when I was dreaming anyway… I’ll talk about data in a bit.
<Dan> So, this gives you the “good news” that figuring out how you “receive” info from your fcd is easy to identify up front (NOT)!
<Dan> If you haven’t already “settled” on an approach that works for you, I’d suggest trying various approaches, and see which seems to give you info that’s accurate.
<Dan> Even if you’ve settled – and “know” how your FCD is passing you info… – occasionallhy, trying to see if you’re getting sensations using your other senses (non-dominant ones) can be a good idea…
<Dan> Seems FCDs occasionally “slip” you extra info on these “side” bands…
<Dan> I’m not sure if the FCD decides that it’s more appropriate or too much info for the normal approach, or maybe he’s just feeling “goofey” for a change..
<Dan> Just be aware it happens.
<Dan> I know one person that said he/she got info one way when doing active scanning of other folks stuff, but another way when checking their own stuff.
<Dan> Go figure. StormSeeker gets that..
<Dan> In any event, I’ll generally use “visual” terminology in describing acquiring info from her on out. If you’re oriented in another direction, then substitute as appropriate.
<Dan> (For example… If I say “look at” you should substitute “tast” or “reach out and touch” or whatever.)
<Dan> Questions? RainTurtle raises hand
<RainTurtle> Just a wee comment: for those who do get radically different data when scanning oneself, as opposed to scanning others, consider getting some “second opinions” to see if your self-scans reflect reality….too often they don’t
<Grael> Too much AOL?
<Dan> And on the same topic – if you’re sparring or such – don’t believe what you “think” you did to your target…
<Dan> Other questions/comments?
<Dan> Ok, Related but slightly different topic: targeting your scan.
<Dan> It’s generally considered useful to be able to scan something specific… Scanning at random – much less so.
<Dan> You’ve probably heard such terms as “signature” or “sigs” and such.
<Dan> My understanding of this term, is sorta like a persons “psionic” fingerprint.
<Dan> If you can recognize these things, you can use them to provide “localizing” info for targeting your scan.
<Dan> How you may ask…
<Dan> I don’t know – I don’t do it that way…
<Dan> But, I can tell you how folks have described it to me…
<Dan> Folks identify a target – say “Rain” over there…
<Dan> And then, get a “feeling” for who/what that person is…
<Dan> Some approaches that people have used to help in this include: Open a PM window; Stare at the Nick, in the nick list; use an e-mail from the person; use a picture of the person; use a personal belonging of the person; use a mental ‘construct’ – address card someone else gave you, etc…
<Dan> There are probably others as well.
<Dan> In any event, you get some “essence” and use those tools to tell your fcd who/what you want to scan.
<Dan> Clear – at least as clear as mud?
<Grael> Hmm *raises hand*
<Grael> Would a total concept of the person count? IE when you think “Rain” The feeling/thought/concept mixture that springs into mind, can you use that for your targeting ‘essense’?
<Grael> =) thanks
<Dan> It _IS_ possible to target on the “name” of a person mentioned in chat.
<Dan> It _IS_ possible to target without even knowing who you’re targeting… Say person A talks to Person B. B picks target, and A says to C; Scan the target B has chosen.
<Dan> Any other questions on targeting?
<Grael> None here
<Kitsune> not here.
<StormSeeker> none here either
<Jael> none here
<Dan> Ok – you have picked your target – how do you get information from the target.
<Dan> Info is useful…
<Dan> And, the short answer is you don’t really get “information” from the target, you get “data” that needs to be interpreted to become information… But I’m being picky here.
<Dan> So – how do you get “data” in a scan?
<Dan> Many approaches.
<Dan> One common approach is for the sensor to “send out” a “tendral” of energy (a link) to the target, and then use this as the “conduit” for reading data.
<Dan> Another common approach is to “look at” or “reach out to” the target – sort of visualizing them as in the same room, and take a look see.
<Dan> Another, is to visualize you in the location of the target, and look… And, you can “make a construct” (energy thingy) that you send out as a disconnected probe – that looks, and comes back to report.
<Dan> If you’re going to “go to the target”, the most common approach is to fix the targeting info in your mind and “fly” there.
<Dan> It is _NOT_ unusual for this to take a little time… Some is taken up in getting your “conscious” there – some in focussing.
<Dan> If you’ve been around for a while, you’ve probably noticed that some folks seem to need a while to get useful data – while others seem to be reporting almost immediately.
<Dan> That’s all NORMAL!
<Dan> (well, as normal as anything in this discussion is anyway.)
<Dan> “Flying” to the target is _NOT_ the only way to get there! For most folks though – specially when first learning – it’s the simplest, and certainly the most straightforward.
<Raven> *shakes head*
MadGalaxie raises hand
<Grael> *reaises hand*
<MadGalaxie> instead of “flying” there, can you do it by physically being with and or coming in conact with your target?
<Dan> Yes MadGalaxie.
<MadGalaxie> was that coming later? thank you
<Dan> If you don’t need to “scan” something on the other side of the ocean, walking is perfectly fine.
<MadGalaxie> I see..
<Grael> You don’t actually have to ‘leave’ your body to scan
<Dan> No – I was generally discussing this from the IRC point of view – where most of us are in different cities – or continents even.
<Dan> Correct Graelb
<MadGalaxie> ah.. I get it
<Dan> So, now, you’re an expert at locating and getting your senses “locked on” your target… What do you do with it?
<Dan> ’cause just getting there doesn’t help – if you don’t get some data…
<Dan> Or not most of the time…
<Dan> Well – generally, you’ll get a variety of impressions – when describing try to use “Adjectives” (your good friends)…
<Dan> If you find yourself using nouns to describe what you’re seeing – you’re probably imposing some interpretations on the data.
<Dan> With experience, your interpretations can get VERY GOOD!
<Dan> But, when starting – you’re probably better off avoiding interpreting.
<Dan> BTW – this conscious mind interpreting – is generally referred to as AOL – or analytical Overlay.
<Dan> Nothing wrong with it!
<Dan> As long as you recognize it for what it is.
<Dan> Perhaps some suggestions on how to help the interpretations might be in order…
<Dan> Say, you scan a friend – and see a core of “stuff”, and then several layers on top of it…
<Dan> Most folks call that “core” the person’s “field” and the layers “shields”.
<Dan> Does that help? Well – for the real newbie that asks “how’s my shield”? If you look, and see only the core – you can probalby honeslty say “what shield.”
<Dan> As to figuring out what the various “layers” do – well, practice is the only real teacher I know of.
<Dan> A good suggestion is to grab your crayons & a notebook – and “color” what you see. Then ask & note what it means…
<Dan> After a while, you’ll begin to get correlations.
<Dan> Some folks – when scanning shields notice the “edges” of either the field or shields, and count those as a layer.
<Dan> I believe – with practice – this will work out.
<Dan> Also – it is possible that there is a “thin” shield layer that you’re seeing in this circumstance.
<Dan> I should make (or re-make) one last point on scanning for shields… MANY people have a LOT harder time scanning themselves than others! (Myself included).
<Dan> It was pointed out to me that the fact you only “see” one layer of shield – doesn’t mean there is only one…
<Dan> If the “scanner” is more skilled than the target – it’s likely that the scanner will see all of the layers.
<Dan> Does anyone have any questions before we re-open the door?
<Grael> no sir