Viewing someone else's tech

[Beast]

I have a friend who is undergoing an "awakening" at one hell of a pace. These days him and myself experiment with tech together. Is it normal for different people to view the same tech spell (created by one person) in different ways? Ie. colours and shapes and intensity.

[Spartan]

Well, 'looking/viewing' is a subjective experience, so yes it is a normal thing, but the intensity of how 'different' both your views are depends on the person, their symbology, experience looking at tech(and other things) in the past, it depends on a whole lot. But it's not just with looking at tech, it's like that with most things, a lot of views can be the same(since most people you have connections with are from the same society/cultur/etc) so multiple things can just as well look(about) the same.

[LordArt]

Yeah, playing with tech does certainly cause a stream roller effect in understanding and abilities. It's good you have someone to bounce ideas off of. That is of VERY great value, let me tell you.

As far as viewing the same spell differently, it depends on what level you are seeing things differently. If you are refering to something as base symbolic as colors and shapes, etc. then yes, because that's personal symbology coming into play. What you understand and "clicks" for you for certain colors or shapes, will be different than what the other person understands for the same concepts, so their shapes/colors will be different for what they "see" of it. But you both should understand the same overall what your looking at with each piece.

However, I WILL say, especially with tech (an the more complex it gets), that certain pieces will either be skipped or be marked "unknown" because the individual who views doesn't have a clue what they are looking at (internally or not). The more versed someone is, the less likely that is to happen. This is where methods of communication of this sort of thing come into play (ie. a means of teaching the other what you understand about said type of tech).

My suggestion to you is to keep kicking at your symbology/senses to keep things as litterial as possible. Force it. If you don't, your going to have a harder time talking with others about it(let alone yourself understanding it as things get more complex), because people understand literrials a lot better than shapes/colors. Mostly, because they won't understand your definitions of those shapes and colors.

For me, it's easier to view tech by system, and then if need be break it down from there. See what "materials" are within each system (ie. energy types, or more accurately, energy pattern/mixtures/densities). Almost like astral circuitry (which is actually how many non-omnis see tech when they first come across it).

At this point, certain things I just reconize, and have a "feel" for what something is and how it works, and even the style it came from. But all that comes with time and experience, and so it will with you.

Also keep in mind that people naturally improve a tech spell (which is why we tell our new students that we will appropriate tech that comes out in their renditions of spells if it's useful). Meaning, just because you aren't conciously working on a spell, doesn't mean your inner isn't. In MANY cases, what will happen is even when you go to cast that same spell again, you will notice NEW pieces of tech in it or improvements(different materials, subs systems that didn't use to be there increasing effectiency or even giving it new abilities, etc.). So if a spell is given to someone else, the majority of the time (and this happens ALL the time with my students) is that their inners will swap out pieces that they understand better internally, and when they go to cast it, will have alterations, sometimes dramatic ones. We usually get them to not do the alterations to make sure they can do the "base model" and then let them go from there. Sometimes we will critique the modifications and offer others (which ends up in it's own tangents to the teaching session but it's not a bad thing, and everyone benifits from such a thing).

I hope that answered your question in my normal long winded kinda of way.