Forums IMPORTANT: PLEASE READ Genius Code Image Streaming

Hi group,

I have a quick question. I recently picked up the Genius Code and I read through the book, listened to the first few CDs regarding Image Streaming, and looked through the _Einstein Factor_. Everything I
see says that one should describe in a lot of detail when streaming. When I read the sample streams or listen to Dr. Wenger on the CD, I get the feeling I have a different idea of detail!

When I first tried streaming, I spent a lot of time going into detail on one specific thing. For example, suppose I see a bird flying over a pasture with blue skies, couple of clouds, etc. My tendency is to zoom in on the bird to the exclusion of everything else and describe the feathers, the eyes, the wings, claws, and everything else, which could easily take the ten
minutes. Am I missing the forest by focusing on a tree?

I'm guessing that I'll be told that however I imagestream is what's best for me. I ask, however, because if I focus on one thing, there are many other images that are left by the wayside; there's not enough time in my day to describe everything I see in that level of detail! Maybe I should describe the entire scene, then focus on whatever seems the most pertinent/intriguing?

Any/all advice appreciated

Thomas

p.s. I am basically avisual right now. What I do is just start describing (I'm not sure what, but I'm assuming that one day I'll see this stream of thought) Any thoughts?

Would you describe yourself as a detail oriented person? If you find that a bother then you might want to do broader sweeps in your image stream. I like to notice some of the details myself however I like to look beyond. Why is it there, what are the elements around it. Is the bird flying in stormy conditions or calm.

Regardless of what you chose to focus on. If your image stream is giving you answers as well as enjoyment do what you enjoy best.

Alex

Thanks for your reply, Alex. No, I'm not really a detail oriented person. I just take things literaly

Thanks for your interesting description, Thomas.

I spent the past several weeks doing no imagestreaming. When I looked back at my notes, I found an interesting pattern.

Some of the metaphors in my imagestreams are so constant as to become unnoticeable (if that makes any sense). For example, if _every_ imagestream begins with an image of a body of water, the water just becomes this given. Of course, the water image itself was significant.

And your "Forest for the trees" comment was interesting. Perhaps that is an answer to your own question?

--Brian