Instructors: Rainsong & Wayfarer
Date: October 20, 2018 (Saturday)
Seminar: Topic: Remote Viewing Series – Part 3 -Saturday, 20 October 2018 at 6:30pm/1830hr New York Time — text format in the PSC #lecture room (Discord) — Instructor: Rainsong and Wayfarer — Search LECTURE45
Rainsong: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen.
Rainsong: Welcome to another seminar in our Remote Viewing Series here at the social club.
Rainsong: We discussed Stage 1 and Wayfarer did a demonstration session, last time. Are there any questions arising from those?
Scelana: I don’t have any
Wayfarer: Right, welcome, hello! We had a brief sidebar there to come up with a plan because I strictly follow a policy of never being ready in advance for anything!
Wayfarer: Tonight we’ll be discussing two related topics: the theory behind how controlled remote viewing “works” and why it’s been designed the way it has, and then Stage 2 of a session and some related exercises.
Wayfarer: I’ll go ahead and start us with the theory bits, and then I’ll pass it off to Rainsong who will talk about Stage 2 and some exercises. Subject to flexibility I believe.
Rainsong: As always
Wayfarer: So, why theory, and why now? The theory of remote viewing is intrinsically related to why it’s done the way it is. We’ve already discussed Stage 1, the IAB structure, the various “classes” of session, how a runsheet is designed, and so on. I also did a demonstration a few weeks ago which demonstrated the “flow” of a session and how it generally proceeds.
Wayfarer: But up until this point, you’ve been sort of expected to take it on faith that these things were being done for a reason.
Wayfarer: You may remember when I ran my session a few times where I pointed out that I follow a slightly different procedure in some places. You heard some references to different structures, possibly to some where the viewer is in a hypnotic trance and reporting verbally, etc. There is in fact nothing magical about the structure itself. Using coordinates doesn’t magically make your targeting work better. Putting your name, date, location, and inclemencies in the top right corner of a sheet doesn’t make it easier to be psychic, it just makes it easier to flip through notes.
Wayfarer: So, why do it like that? Why not just write things down how we want?
Wayfarer: Why follow a structure at all, versus a general clairvoyant / mediumistic / psychic trance, or an OBE, or whatever?
Wayfarer: There are, in effect, two reasons — one practical, one theoretical — and the structure we use is meant to address them both.
Wayfarer: Practically speaking, this is a commercial product that was developed to meet the expectations of Important Men In Suits who weren’t likely to be too pleased if SRI had brought them Sylvia Brown and some star charts to find critical intelligence information.
Wayfarer: So the structure is developed to be something that can be replicated again and again where the information obtained is standardized and verifiable and where the statistics are bulletproof. STARGATE cost tens of millions of dollars over the years. It’s possible to get that kind of money without a real, tangible deliverable, but unless you’re courting venture capitalists or crowdfunding a spaceship game, it’s not likely.
Wayfarer: So the practical reason is that the product had to be something very concrete that delivered consistent results, consistently.
Wayfarer: But there are lots of ways to standardize information like that. Why SRI arrived at this particular format is also related to the theoretical bits. And since we’re not teaching this class for huge amounts of money to a business client that needs to worry about the consistency, it would be silly to spend all night talking about statistical analysis of data. I’m also not trained as an RV session analyst, so I wouldn’t be the right person to discuss that aspect, anyhow.
Rainsong: (We’ll be getting into some of the stats and session analysis later in the course)
Wayfarer: Any questions before we proceed down the rabbit hole that is Ingo Swann and the Matrix?
Flux: Nope. Not from me.
Scelana: I have none either
Wayfarer: Great. There are other people here probably but they ain’t made themselves known either.
Wayfarer: So, it’s the mid 1970s and SRI has had some success with outbounder RV. But there’s a huge elephant in the room, the kind of elephant that harasses parapsychologists at all times now and forever, and that is the elephant of “How and Why?”
Wayfarer: How does this work? Why does this work? What the hell. We shouldn’t be able to get information about remote sites without sensory input.
Wayfarer: And, without having an understanding of how things work or why, it would be difficult to refine the protocol into what it is that we have today.
Wayfarer: So Ingo Swann, an artist from New York and an associate of Hal Puthoff and Russell Targ, the two principle RV researchers at SRI, has this idea. It’s not a new idea, really, he’s just doodadded it up in modern technolingo. But again, we’re trying to maintain some respectability, yeah?
Wayfarer: So Swann proposes an hypothetical “informational Matrix” which contains all knowable information about all knowable things, organized by gestalt, or the general impression it leaves on conscious beings.
Rainsong: (And Swann was very well read on the topic of psychic stuff and parapsychology)
Wayfarer: Basically, the idea here is that if it can be known, it is known within this Matrix of information. Further, this matrix of information is accessible and sortable by a major gestalt or theme. It’s a sort of marriage between two much older concepts: Platonic Idealism, and the Akashic Records.
Wayfarer: Sorry, Platonic Idealism there, not Kantian stuff.
Wayfarer: So, real quick, because we’re not here for a philosophy lecture (though Swann super was), the Platonic Ideal is the concept of a thing that all physical things are “accidents” of. In Platonic and Socratic philosophy, that is “excellent” which most closely resembles its ideal. If the ideal of a knife is “sharp” then that knife is excellent which is sharpest.
Wayfarer: So all trees are accidents, manifestations of the ideal of tree-ness. Okay, great. What’s this got to do with remote viewing?
Wayfarer: Well, all trees are accidents of this ideal thing, which ideal is also the major gestalt. All trees are mostly tree-like. They share the characteristics of trees which make them trees. And any deviations, differences, distinctions, or so on are specific pieces of information which sets it apart from the major gestalt, which makes it unique.
Wayfarer: All of this information can be accessed in this “informational matrix,” and the specifics about our target are found by first finding trees, then getting the “signal line” of that. Once we’ve gotten all the information about trees generally, we can start narrowing down on our tree in specific. And so we progress through stages of information “download.”
Wayfarer: Of course, this matrix is related to the Akashic Records, which are a profoundly newagey term that was made first popular in Theosophy and which later showed up in I AM and these various Ascended Master teachings and later in some UFO cults and so on.
Wayfarer: Basically, you can’t tell Important Men In Suits you want to channel angel records from heaven or whatever. So, informational matrix.
Wayfarer: But many of you are familiar with the Akashic Records and various approaches to getting information from it. So why wouldn’t we do an astral projection or an OBE to the records and flip through some filing cabinets to get the information?
Wayfarer: Two reasons: first, it’s not going to be consistent. Because that’s not a consistent approach. Inconsistent approaches, inconsistent results.
Wayfarer: Second: Because we need something consistent, we need something else. Swann hypothesized, however, that this information was basically available to everyone, all the time.
Wayfarer: Every time we see a tree, we see in effect every tree, but we only experience the one because the signal from the others are overpowered by physical senses.
Wayfarer: And this, at its core, is the aim of remote viewing. Targ writes in The Reality of ESP that we can conceive of this like radio signals trying to cut through noise. We don’t know how to increase the power of the signal, but we do know how to reduce the volume of the noise so that signal information can “cut through” that threshold.
Wayfarer: In effect, the idea is that everyone is always being psychic all the time, but you’ve got a bunch of real life sensory bullshit bombarding you at all times. You can’t put all the sensory shit out of the way, so the signal threshold is never reached and you don’t get any psychic information.
Wayfarer: The structure is thus designed to be followed very rigidly. The viewer is doing a few things, but they are all related to reducing noise and maximizing signal.
Wayfarer: First, the viewer gets into that relaxed, non-volitional state. This is the trance and clearing the mind and the mindfulness stuff and everyone does it a little bit differently and that’s okay. The main goal is getting rid of as much “noise” as we can on our own.
Wayfarer: But there’s a problem: if you get rid of too much sensory stuff, you can’t write or report information. I can drop into very deep trances and get a full psychic experience, just direct access to signal, right? But if I can’t actually report that information while I have signal line contact, it’s… well it’s not useful at all, is it?
Wayfarer: So we can’t just push someone down deep enough and hold their head underwater and expect them to psychic successfully.
Wayfarer: How to get rid of the sensory inputs that block signal data, then?
Wayfarer: By having a convoluted and complicated enough structure that the viewer’s mind is predominately preoccupied with following the protocol and so doesn’t have time to fuck up your signal.
Wayfarer: … how many fuckwords do I get without this crossing out of PG-13? lmao. Children, censor appropriately, thanks.
Wayfarer: Anyhow, let’s say I’ve done my light trance and meditation and I’ve gotten rid of all the detritus of the day. Great! I’m about ready to be assigned the target. Target is assigned, and I start looking for that major gestalt. I might start thinking about “my major gestalt” … but that’s just going to lead to analytical overlay, is it not?
Rainsong: (No problem at all with that usage)
Wayfarer: We want to avoid that. The last thing we want is me guessing a target. But lo, I can’t do that anyhow. I’m doing CRV – target assigned, write on the left side of the paper, Ideogram. A and B impressions. Stage II, general descriptive data. Left hand side, proceeding chronologically. Noun. AOL. Break. … and now I don’t have time to be “getting in my own way.”
Wayfarer: Basically, I’m keeping my sensory mind distracted by following a procedure, and so allowing the signal line data to proceed uninterrupted, without being drowned out by other thoughts.
Wayfarer: It’s with this in mind that we proceed to Stage 2, understanding that when we repeat mantras like “the viewer is successful when the viewer is following structure,” there are effectively two meanings. One way, it means that the viewer’s performance is assessed by adherence to the structure of the session. You can get a total miss, but it’s still a good session if you followed the structure. This is important for a whole lot of reasons I’m doing research on presently, but which would be a bit much for this particular class.
Wayfarer: The other way, however, it means what it says on the can: if you follow the structure, you’re far more likely to be successful, because your focus on following the structure is going to keep you from thinking about various sensory information coming in from the room around you.
Wayfarer: And as we go into Stage 2, knowing that can help avoid the discouragement that can come from misses, and helps communicate the proper mental behaviors of the viewer in session. It’s not about “going fishing for information,” but rather about reporting the passively received signal information.
Wayfarer: Incidentally, this is also why the coordinates work at all: the informational Matrix contains all information about a specific target, organized by gestalt. When we assign a coordinate to a target, this creates a symbolic association between coordinate and target. That information is necessarily contained in the matrix. So we find our “target” by following the coordinate and in essence unpacking all of the information about that coordinate, sorted by gestalt.
Wayfarer: aaaaany questions about that wall of text?
Flux: I have a few.
Flux: Are blind or deaf people better at CRV?
Flux: I realize that the theory is that the major gestalt exists externally, but is there any individual or cultural differences that show up in practice?
Flux: Have you personally tried using any form of filter or signal booster to affect your CRV work? Like a construct/spell/mojo bag.
Wayfarer: Alright, nice. Regarding blind or deaf people, I don’t have any information on that. STARGATE and related was designed for .mil work, so the research was focused on able-bodied participants. If research has been done on that, I’m not familiar with it.
Rainsong: I haven’t seen any evidence that they are better at it. I have seen some incidents in which a specific blind or deaf person was recruited for a specific kind of parapsychology study because they happened to show certain talents (colour-feeling being the most common that I’ve seen), but not RV specifically
Wayfarer: The hypothesis is that the major gestalt exists externally sort of, as an “essence” that the “accident” represents. For what it’s worth, I personally don’t subscribe to that theory. However, there’s nothing about it that prevents other cultural models from working with remote viewing. The Buddhist conception of emptiness holds that all phenomena are arising events within a domain of all things, and so all information that can be known about things is known in some way by this all-encompassing mesh of consciousness.
Flux: Thanks. Was curious based on the theory that our senses distract. While it might not be the case, I was wondering if less variety of signals would translate into less noise or something.
Wayfarer: In practice, I accept the theoretical model insofar as viewing is a passive, not an active activity, and that there does seem to be such a Matrix, though like the Akashic Records I don’t think this is so much an actual “thing” as a consciousness construct, an idea rather than a “thing.”
Flux: I was more wondering about individual and cultural differences of terms. Like dragon for instance.
Wayfarer: Ah, I see. For example how Westerners use the term “dragon” to refer to something with wings usually whereas Asian dragons are long and snakelike and without wings?
Flux: Yes yes.
Flux: Just two different things and translations are bad?
Wayfarer: The word “dragon” or concept “dragon” here actually seems to represent two different concepts, yeah? And we can reflect this because we sometimes say “Eastern Dragon” or “Western Dragon.” The major gestalt might be either of those things. The organization of the matrix is the weakest part of the hypothesis in my opinion, because it suggests a prior organization.
Wayfarer: But what it’s meant to reflect is simply that the experience of the viewer tends to be first an initial “major gestalt,” followed by an “unpacking” of other information.
Flux: I think that’s fair. Like seeing a person from a distance, it’s a person… details fuzzy.
Rainsong: Very much like that
Wayfarer: For example, information tends to proceed from broad and vague to narrow and specific as the session progresses from stages, but in all cases it is being described adjectivally and not using nouns. So it’s not immediately obvious.
Wayfarer: So it might go, for example, “motor vehicle -> hatchback sedan -> 2012 Subaru Impreza -> black 2012 Subara Impreza -> black 2012 Subara Impreza in Maryland -> … and the VIN is… and there’s a scratch on the left door … etc.
Wayfarer: But in all those cases it’s never just coming through as “motor vehicle” because that’s the fast track to AOL, so instead it’s “manmade, smooth, moving, hot, black, …”
Wayfarer: “Metallic feeling” and on and on.
Flux: This might have been covered, but given that psychic stuff is messy, what do you do with info that cuts line? Do we default it to AOL?
Wayfarer: The information basically proceeds in stages, though. So the Stage 1 and IAB part is trying to establish the major gestalt. Stage 2 is “unpacking” that information a bit to determine a little more detail. Stage 3 unpacks that, and reorganizes that information. Stage 4 picks out individual aspects from Stage 3 and unpacks those. Stage 5 integrates all of the various information that is being unpacked into a cohesive whole, and so on.
Flux: Haven’t had the chance to review the stage 1 stuff and put it into practice yet.
Wayfarer: What do you mean?
Wayfarer: Oh, that comes ahead of where it should be?
Wayfarer: In theory that shouldn’t happen in CRV, and if you get information that seems like it belongs in stage 4 during stage 2, it should be considered AOL.
Wayfarer: If Swann is right then it simply shouldn’t happen because it’s not how these things work. Even if he’s wrong, it does seem like that, and so for the purposes of CRV you can term it AOL. You could also use, for example, a “Too Much” break in that scenario – where too much comes all at once and you can’t sort it out.
Rainsong: But it gets recorded, regardless, at the time it shows up
Rainsong: And if it shows up more than once, it’s recorded each time.
Wayfarer: You never discard information. Nothing is ever right if it’s not on the paper. One of the hard, fast rules of CRV for ever is that “oh, I did see that…” doesn’t count. Once the session is over, it’s a miss.
Flux: Okay. So it gets recorded and can be analyzed if people want.
Wayfarer: A great learning example is a session I ran a few months ago where I did a whole big session where I was really struggling to get the information organized and verbalized correctly (not using paper), and eventually I got really confused and called the session.
Wayfarer: Within seconds of my saying I was ending the session, I said very clearly “oh, it’s the International Space Station.”
Wayfarer: I was 100% correct, that’s absolutely what the target was.
Wayfarer: If I hadn’t called the session, it would’ve been fucking amazing.
Wayfarer: But it wasn’t down when we said “End.” Technically not a hit.
Wayfarer: Still obviously A Psychic Thing Happened, but the goal of CRV isn’t to make psychic things happen. It’s to deliver actionable intelligence within the session.
Flux: So successful psychic thing but failed session.
Wayfarer: Exactly. Psychic thing very obviously happened, but doesn’t get to count. Well, not a failed session, I had followed structure.
Wayfarer: Just not a hit.
Flux: Processing time is a good reason for breaks then.
Wayfarer: Yeah, you should take breaks and not be afraid to take breaks. There are ways to take breaks and then bring your focus back and breaks themselves are used as feedback to the signal line as to what information you want or don’t want and when.
Wayfarer: As for your last question: I have had success with amplifiers for a lot of kinds of data, but I can’t tell you if it’s worked for CRV. There’s some speculation out there that natural telepaths/clairvoyants/psychics/whatever are better for CRV because we already have a low threshold for psychic information to kick through, so the session lowers that even further.
Wayfarer: On the other hand, it also introduces another kind of “noise.”
Flux: The session or the amplifiers?
Wayfarer: Within the CRV system, you’re always trying to reduce noise, that’s what the structure is built for.
Wayfarer: Targ says you can’t amplify the signal. But Targ isn’t dealing with magic or constructs or radionics or psychotronics, so he may not have said that if he had dealt with those things.
Wayfarer: The amplifiers. I.e. I have amplified telepathic data, clairvoyant data, and so on outside a CRV session with good success, but CRV in particular isn’t designed around that philosophy. You’re kind of asking a question that is a bit much for the time we have tonight but which is somewhat relevant to some research I’m doing regarding psychic skill pedagogy. I don’t think that psychic skill is a “fixed” property, or, rather, I think that with proper training and practice a person who is less naturally skilled can match or surpass someone more naturally skilled. Amplification is certainly possible, but I’d also be dubious about it. In any case, it may work for RV, but at the same time it may become a crutch for sloppy session structure.
Flux: Understood. Just wondered what your experience was. I’ve had mixed experiences with attempts personally outside CRV.
Rainsong: (re time: I’d rather push topics into later weeks than rush through something that is appropriate at a certain time, so if you feel this would be a good time to go into it, please feel free to do so.)
Flux: You should do a lecture on your research.
Flux: Maybe after you publish?
Wayfarer: That topic in particular and my pedagogy stuff generally is something I might teach in January after I finish my degree/research and as I start moving towards organizing a book or paper, yeah.
Wayfarer: So probably better to stay on Stage 2.
Flux: That would be fun.
Rainsong: A Works in Progress type session, like the profs at work do, when getting ready to present at conference or to publish
Rainsong: bows to Wayfarer Thanks for covering the theory section there
Rainsong: It’s always good “co-tutoring” with you in these
Rainsong: So, Stage 2
Flux: (I might be running away soonish for dinner. Will obviously be back to read.)
Rainsong: In most forms of the runsheets, Stage 2 is started with “S2” at the lefthand side of the page
Rainsong: (No worries, Flux)
Rainsong: To use Flux’s example of the “person in the distance”… Stage 1 might be compared to the first site of something vaguely person-like that registers as “person”
Rainsong: Stage 2 begins the descriptors
Rainsong: And these are basic sensory descriptors. Adjectives of colour, taste, sound, touch, and the like.
Rainsong: And they are recorded as simply a series of unrelated adjectives down the page
Rainsong: If something has a clear idea at this point, or a noun, or a guess of what the target might be… It’s AOL
Rainsong: Declare “AOL break” – aloud
Rainsong: Write “AOL bk at the righthand side of the page, across from wherever the last adjective was, and Jot a quick description of the idea or the noun or whatever
Rainsong: Put the pen down for several seconds before resuming
Rainsong: Many people “query” the ideogram by poking it with the pen tip to get going again
Rainsong: A couple small but important notes here:
Rainsong: Do not close your eyes and “think” of what the target is or what the next adjective should be.
Rainsong: Even though that’s common procedure for many Psychic Things, in CRV it’s considered a bad idea because it signals the conscious part of the mind to start guessing at stuff and imagining
Rainsong: Keep your eyes open
Rainsong: In the same way, keep your pen on the paper, rather than hovering during any pauses… Same reason
Rainsong: You’ll often find that the impressions come in bursts of approximately three seconds: jot jot jot pause jot jot jot pause… That’s normal.
Rainsong: And – and this one tends to trip up noobs and intermediate viewers – If an adjective comes more than once, write it down more than once.
Rainsong: If it shows up sixteen times in one run, write it down sixteen times.
Rainsong: Quite often, what’s happening here is that “that impression” is coming from different parts of the target, and you just don’t have enough detail – or the precise enough vocabulary — to separate each incident
Rainsong: For example, in a relatively recent practice session I did, “red” showed up repeatedly.
Rainsong: There was brick red, and cinnabar, and red ochre, and crinsom and so on… But it was just coming to me as “red”
Rainsong: They were different reds, though, in different objects: iron-rich dirt, red-speckled rocks, red threads in brightly coloured clothing, and so on
Rainsong: Any questions or commentary at this point?
Flux: Nope. The repeating thing is helpful.
Scelana: I have no questions so far
Flux: I recall thinking to myself when doing sessions in the past that I’d already put that word down.
Rainsong: And if you do any other sessions, it’ll probably happen again. Just write it down again and keep going 😀
Azarea: what do you do if no adjectives come to mind, if thinking about target in a querying way is discouraged?
Wayfarer: If you’re getting things other than adjectives, document and take breaks as appropriate. If you’re getting nothing at all, return to S1 or prep as necessary. Some people tap the coordinates or repeat the coordinates mentally to re-prompt the signal line without querying.
Azarea: like for scrying and such there are tricks to beckon images, like opening a door or diving, are those to be avoided completely then, and just take bk and note?
Azarea: repeating, ok
Rainsong: For CRV, yes.
Azarea: makes sense, thank you
Rainsong: For some other kinds of RV, the usual scrying tricks are used.
Rainsong: But we’re not getting into those at this point (If people are interested later in the series, after we’ve gone through the CRV stages, we can certainly entertain the other forms)
Rainsong: Any other questions or commentary at this point? Or are we ready to get into some exercises?
Flux: Ready for exercises. I’d like to hear about the other forms later.
Flux: (Lentils need more time.)
Wayfarer: Just to clarify:
Wayfarer: The basic idea in CRV is that the viewer should be actively engaging with the structure of the session, but only passively engaging with the signal line. Active engagement with the signal line or “fishing” for information or so on only causes problems in CRV because it automatically engages the analytical part of your brain, which we’re actually trying to sideline in CRV.
Wayfarer: To make a really horribly nerdy reference, it’s the difference between a “Spot” and “Search” check in D&D.
Wayfarer: You want to be making a Spot check, not a Search check.
Rainsong: And because you need to be able to record what you Spotted, if’s important to be able to describe stuff
Rainsong: We’re using adjectives here, so you need some adjectives.
Rainsong: Sure, you can -and will- cheat and use adjectival forms of nouns, such as “rock-like” or “velvety” or “brick red”
Rainsong: But the more adjectives you know in active recall, the more adjectives available to you to use without searching around for “that word that’s just on the tip of my tongue”
Rainsong: So, many instructors (including two of mine) strongly suggest simply memorising lists of adjectives for the sensory impressions. And for Stage 3 stuff, when we get there, too
Rainsong: Of course, it’s only useful to memorise adjectives that are either in your “passive recognition” memory or that you learn the meaning of at the time you choose your list, yea?
Rainsong: That’s exercise 1, here. Boring, but important.
Rainsong: Exercise 2: Choose a common object within your field of view -such as a wall – and describe it with as many applicable adjectives as possible
Rainsong: If you can’t describe something right there in front of you, how can you describe something five thousand miles away and six hundred years in the past?
Wayfarer: Having a good vocabulary is just as important if not more than a good sketching ability. McMoneagle acknowledges that some kind of artistic ability is useful, but the ability to write descriptively is part of that.
Rainsong: Exactly so.
Rainsong: It’s still a good idea to go through to book “Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain” if for no other reason that you will pay more attention to details as you learn to sketch that way, aside from being able to draw stuff
Rainsong: Exercise 3 takes two or more people. It can be done in person or in chat. Choose a category -such as ‘colours’- and take turns coming up with an adjective in that category. (I’m stealing this straight from Buchanan’s book, by the way) So, you’ll probably start out with basic things like red and yellow, but you’ll run out of those pretty fast, and start getting into chartreuse and puce… and eventually resorting to “cornflower blue” and “slate grey” and so on.
Rainsong: If someone says a colour – or whatever – that you don’t recognise, they let you know what it means.
Rainsong: This game brings words out of “recognition” and into “active recall” so you can use ’em in your RV sessions.
Rainsong: It also improves your writing, as a bonus.
Rainsong: More exercises in a moment. First, though: questions and comments so far?
Flux: Not right now.
Scelana: Not at the moment
Flux: (Off to eat.)
Rainsong: Exercise 4 also requires two or more people.
Rainsong: Person A chooses a picture, or a picture is chosen at random. Person A describes the picture without using any nouns.
Rainsong: Person B (and Person C and so on) attempt to draw what person A is describing.
Rainsong: This is useful for Person A, in terms of practice in description… and for everyone else, in terms of interpretation and analysis… and for learning from the mistakes of omission that Person A will make.
Rainsong: Take it for granted that there will be mistakes and omissions, and it’s a learning experience for all, and there’s less embarrassment for everybody
Rainsong: Exercise 5 is a simple variant of this. Starting with a picture again. Everyone makes a description, again with no nouns. Then compare notes – literally – and see what each person “saw” and what each “missed”
Rainsong: Exercise 6 is known as “Kim’s Game” and “Game of the Stones”… It’s an old exercise for scouts and spies. No big surprise there, seeing as CRV is an espionage thing, yea?
Rainsong: One person assembles several items. He/She shows the items to the other players, then covers the items. The other players then describe what was there. The amount of time the players are shown the items decreases over time, with experience, and usually the number of items increases. Trickier to implement online, but perhaps a simulation game can be devised (I’m in a gave dev course… perhaps I’ll figure something out).
Rainsong: Questions? Comments?
Scelana: I don’t think I have any atm
Rainsong: Stage 3 is much like Stage 2.
Rainsong: When you start getting dimensional stuff like “tall” and “narrow” and “wide” and “sloping” and the like… That’s Stage 3. It’s labeled as “S3” at the lefthand side of the runsheet in most formats.
Rainsong: And the same rules apply as for Stage 2. You’ll just be using adjectives that describe “how something is in space” instead of “red” and “soft” and “pungent”
Rainsong: Same sets of exercises are useful, too, expanding the vocabulary into size and shape
Rainsong: Questions? Commentary?
Scelana: I have none so far
Rainsong: If there are no further comments or questions, we’ll call it a night, then. Flux might have some to add after dinner is finished. And folks might add questions during the week, after reading the log.
Rainsong: Thanks for participating, everyone. 😀
Rainsong: And, as always, thanks to Wayfarer for co-teaching 😀
Scelana: Thxies for the lecture Rainsong and Wayfarer!
Wayfarer: Cheers. 😀