02-19-2019, 04:32 AM
So I've been quiet on 3.3.1, as there wasn't much to report and as I've spent most of February buried under 12-hour days of make-work at work.
As Shannon appears to have recently relaxed his need for SASRB strictness in DMSI users' reporting, I've since decided to stop ignoring my pre-official-SASRB instincts on the subject.
Strictly adhering to the usage instructions on 3.3 and 3.3.1 has apparently made my past pacing markers even more glaringly obvious to me than ever before, mostly due to their notable infrequency in 3.3 or total absence in 3.3.1 before [changing my listening patterns] now. Whether RT meant to do so or not, I think that he may have underscored the value (for me) that following (only one of) these past signposts had in contrast to having ignored them completely during the first couple months of 3.3 and 3.3.1.
Even more interestingly, I'm finally starting to formalize (for myself) in concrete terms what those "instincts" really were. I think that I've identified more of what these signposts are, what they indicate, why they apply to me as they do, and how, through them, I might better regulate how I personally process the subliminal data (any data, regardless of goal), not in denial of or in fear of the goal nor in indifference to how I personally process data. I suspect that there may be even subtler signs that I've missed because I was never expecting any additional signs to be found, to mean anything useful or distinctive if they were, or to fit structurally into a larger context. Not that I wasn't vaguely following one of these signs before, but, with a greater understanding and awareness of them, there's a chance that I can apply a level of precision that I couldn't previously see and that I can hopefully sharpen with further practice.
These are action-based signposts too, not emotional ones (nor title-specific morphine drips, aura sensing, etc), so they're either plainly observable or not. They don't rely on how well or poorly I merely think I'm reacting to certain sub instructions as much as where I am in processing, storing, and acting on any sub instructions. I'd seen them on previous subs, reliably and sequentially, but I think that I'd greatly misunderstood their meaning, often having viewed some aspect of them as an inconvenience or irritant rather than as a status update.
Some of my earlier misinterpretations were a lot like having heard a kitchen timer, dinner gong, doorbell, or ringing phone and brushed it off as noise pollution or, in annoyed ignorance, yelled for someone to stop the noise from ever happening again. Or like failing to turn down the heat when a pot's clearly about to boil over and then insisting that boiling is too messy a thing to do ever again. Or like taking a pain reliever without ever considering the cause that the symptom was calling attention to. Or, conversely, like answering the phone when it isn't ringing (or answering the door when there's been no knocking) and wondering why no one's there.
And the nice thing about them being action-based is that, even if I were to schedule listening relative to the indicators' appearance (rather than simply inclusively around their appearance, as is closer to what I've done in the past), it would still be easy to enforce listening schedule consistency without making it into an emotional decision or misusing it as an escape tactic.
I can withhold further reporting during my 3.3.x run (obviously, as I hadn't posted a word in over a month) if this is too much of a deviation from the instructions to be considered useful reporting, but I'm very curious to see if scheduling with these signposts in mind returns me to my past execution or better.
As Shannon appears to have recently relaxed his need for SASRB strictness in DMSI users' reporting, I've since decided to stop ignoring my pre-official-SASRB instincts on the subject.
Strictly adhering to the usage instructions on 3.3 and 3.3.1 has apparently made my past pacing markers even more glaringly obvious to me than ever before, mostly due to their notable infrequency in 3.3 or total absence in 3.3.1 before [changing my listening patterns] now. Whether RT meant to do so or not, I think that he may have underscored the value (for me) that following (only one of) these past signposts had in contrast to having ignored them completely during the first couple months of 3.3 and 3.3.1.
Even more interestingly, I'm finally starting to formalize (for myself) in concrete terms what those "instincts" really were. I think that I've identified more of what these signposts are, what they indicate, why they apply to me as they do, and how, through them, I might better regulate how I personally process the subliminal data (any data, regardless of goal), not in denial of or in fear of the goal nor in indifference to how I personally process data. I suspect that there may be even subtler signs that I've missed because I was never expecting any additional signs to be found, to mean anything useful or distinctive if they were, or to fit structurally into a larger context. Not that I wasn't vaguely following one of these signs before, but, with a greater understanding and awareness of them, there's a chance that I can apply a level of precision that I couldn't previously see and that I can hopefully sharpen with further practice.
These are action-based signposts too, not emotional ones (nor title-specific morphine drips, aura sensing, etc), so they're either plainly observable or not. They don't rely on how well or poorly I merely think I'm reacting to certain sub instructions as much as where I am in processing, storing, and acting on any sub instructions. I'd seen them on previous subs, reliably and sequentially, but I think that I'd greatly misunderstood their meaning, often having viewed some aspect of them as an inconvenience or irritant rather than as a status update.
Some of my earlier misinterpretations were a lot like having heard a kitchen timer, dinner gong, doorbell, or ringing phone and brushed it off as noise pollution or, in annoyed ignorance, yelled for someone to stop the noise from ever happening again. Or like failing to turn down the heat when a pot's clearly about to boil over and then insisting that boiling is too messy a thing to do ever again. Or like taking a pain reliever without ever considering the cause that the symptom was calling attention to. Or, conversely, like answering the phone when it isn't ringing (or answering the door when there's been no knocking) and wondering why no one's there.
And the nice thing about them being action-based is that, even if I were to schedule listening relative to the indicators' appearance (rather than simply inclusively around their appearance, as is closer to what I've done in the past), it would still be easy to enforce listening schedule consistency without making it into an emotional decision or misusing it as an escape tactic.
I can withhold further reporting during my 3.3.x run (obviously, as I hadn't posted a word in over a month) if this is too much of a deviation from the instructions to be considered useful reporting, but I'm very curious to see if scheduling with these signposts in mind returns me to my past execution or better.
