Alex, do you think Direct Learning would work with books that aren't necessarily how-to knowledge? I'm thinking specifically of books about computer programing, fiction writing, and drawing.

They're not step-by-step books but they lay out principles that you would follow and the knowledge necessary to acquire the skill.

I'm not sure if I would want use Direct Learning with these subjects and skills or if it would be better to just Photoread and then activate as the need arises.

Thanks for all your help and for all the help you've provided here in the past.

Artist books if you can explore discussion of techniques employed (mentioned in the book) How to of art technqiue. Then yes I believe that you can notice improvement with those books. (Set your intention what information you want from the books)

Computer programming. In the sense that you're going to "know" ever peice of code - no. However for underestanding the codes better - yes and being able to find the right piece of code from the books a lot faster - yes. To build your skills further (assuming that you have a level of proficieny) - yes. This I think would be one of the hardest ones to recognise just how much benefit you actually received from photoreading . You can't split yourself and test where you would be without photoreading and how much further you did get with photoreading. However I do believe that you can develope a more resonate flow with the information and greatly reduce the learning curve.

Fiction writing... There are books that give you instruction on improving your writing so there is one set of "how to books" you can explore. Discussion of other writers techniques also has it's place for direct learning technique.

If you particularly like one or two authors styles then photoread a stack of their books with the intention of understanding and applying their style to your own writing.

The key there is to set your intention what do you expect from the books and do can you see a way of those books fitting your intentions by say regular means? With art books you can explore books that discuss the artists style with regular reading and apply it. Same with computer books, the provide codes and suggest general applications, and when writing if you particularly like a particular authors style you are encouraged to study their works.

To me the difference between the regular learning path and the direct learning path, in my view, is that your inner mind makes the decision of the how to approach and build your skills more effectively (it has a better sense of your habits, skills you already use and prefer to use etc, something that we personally find hard to believe but there is strong evidence that this is the case), so the follow on is the next logical step in the process. Whereas with regular learning we attempt a particular aspect without realising that there is information or a skill we need to develop inbetween since our conscious mind is apt to overlook what it doesn't know it needs to know and we create a learning stuggle until we inherit that skill (usually nonconsciously) or suddenly with a ah-ha experience and then everyting finally clicks into place.

If that's what you're looking for when Direct Learning you're probably undermining the process. Its a bit like digging up the seeds again to see if they sprouted. Like with gardens you need to water them with positive expectation, acting as if the seed has/is grown/ing and know that the little sprouts will surface in their own good time. Hasn't it happened it looks like the plant will never grow and you look at it the next day and it's literally reaching for the sky?

Alex

Wow! Thanks. I already have some proficiency in all three areas as I've been reading and collecting many books of these three types for years. It sounds like DL is what I need to help boost my skills.

Am I right in thinking that it doesn't hurt to activate, a book after DL, if I'm looking for specific information later on and feel the need to do so?

There are times when activation is necessary like when you get the urge to check some code or look at the book. It's the inner miind helping to make the information conscious so it never hurts to follow that and activate. If you're ignoring that curiosity I'd say that is more of a roadblocks to the success of Direct Learning since the conscious mind does seem to need to make certain connections before we move on.

How proficient we become I suspect remains based on a "need to know" basis. If it isn't that important to us or we only use the skill occasionally then the results will be difficult to see. Like if you photoread a book on developing your skills as an artist and spend the weekend painting... feeling in the flow and your work has developed into a nice style and is not quite there yet, but it's only a hobby and you set it aside for some months then it wouldn't surprise me if you fall somewhat short on your experience of that weekend when you try again. I say somewhat short because I believe that once you had an experience that experience you cannot fall back to the full state of the unlearned. You will always know something from the experience even if you cannot quite reproduce it at this time.

If you continue to use the skill regularly every other day or so I think you'll look back a few months later and notice that at some point your work took a real turn (or someone else notices for you and that seems to happen more often than not). I think the reason we don't always see the DL in progress is because we're not comparing ourselves with the book, "am I doin't this right? Haven't quite mastered that yet." Thought's along those lines don't exist because we a sort of flowing into it and learning again like we did as small children. Our ignorance at that time only knew if others can do it I can too so I just keep imiating it till I get it. There were errors along the way but we didn't stop to say why can't I do it? I followed all the instructions. Our instructions were our own 'testing' so we learnt to walk rather quickly when we found our muscle. I see the same sort of process with DL our minds probably test out the theory and because we don't consciously know the theory we just flow with testing out little modifications until it seems to work for us.

Sorry I seem to be rambling... in a writing mode I guess.

Alex

No apologies are necessary, thank you so much for that detailed response. It all makes perfect sense now.