Practicing opposites?

[super_yacht@hotmail.com]

The last practice group in Bath has prompted me to try different angle on the exercises. I’d like to give some feedback here:
We were looking at (cleanly) encouraging the client to look at the opposites of their statements and how we could instigate this.

As in:

What do you know about that?
What don’t you know about that?
What else do you know about that?

What is the opposite of that?
What is the complementary of that?
What is the contrary of that?
What is the inverse of that?
What is the reverse of that?

What is different to that?
What is the flip side to that?
What could be on the other side of that? (When using boxes)
What could be inside that?

Just some ideas to play with, are there any more out there.

Regards
John Farrell

[phil]

Two things come to mind:

First, using quadrants to explore the is/is not aspects of a client's information.

http://www.cleanforum.com/images/know-here-quadrant.png

Second, a serial process like this:

A: What do you know from here?
B: I need something
A: And when you need something, what don't you know from here?
B: I don't know what I need
A: And when you don't know what you need, what do you know from here now?
B: I know I need to find something
A: And when you need to find something, what don't you know from here?
B: Where to find it
A: And when you don't know where to find it, what do you know from here now?
B: I know I need to look somewhere else
A: Find another space... what do you know from this space here? etc

[super_yacht@hotmail.com]

I perfer and use your method Phil introducing other words such as opposite, complementary etc doesn't feel right to me. It was an interesting exercise.
Is introducing different words (opposite, complementary ) less clean than saying "and what do you not know?".
The questions "and what don't you know?". "and what don't you not know?". can (usually) introduce confusion in the client. This can be more enlightening than the usual question.

Recent dialogue;

F: "& what does that (B) know?
C: "B knows almost everything"
F: "& what else does (B) know?"
I could have asked...
F: "& when "B knows almost everything", what does (B) not know?"


Being aware 'if there is something there' then obviously 'there is something thats not there'. This can have the hidden information.

Cheers
John

[phil]

Adding the context to weird questions is IMO the piece that makes a difference.

Take the beginning of the example dialogue I had with myself:

A: What do you know from here?
B: I need something

For A's next question, I asked myself these options and my different responses follow:


A: 'And what don't you know from here?'

B: Umm... oh, I don't know - everything... nothing... whatever.
[thinks: stoopid question out of the blue - just trying to be clever - dismiss it]

A: 'And when you need something, what don't you know from here?'

B: [thinks: what don't I know about what I need? Ah, good point...]
I don't know what I need.*

A: 'And when you know you need something, what don't you know from here?'

B: [thinks: I want to focus on my need, he wants me to focus on my knowing, I don't care about that so I'm going to stay with 'need']
What I know is I need something but I don't know what.
A: 'And when you know from here that you need something, what don't you know from here?'

B: [thinks: there must be something special about 'from here' but the question is too long and complicated]
What do I.. sorry, I don't understand the question.
* Note that the client (not the facilitator) made the direct association between 'need' and 'don't know' - the facilitator made brought in the context with 'need something' and 'from here' and let the client decide where to go. I would call this directing cleanishly or perhaps suggestive modelling: 'look in this area and notice what you notice'.

There are many more options possible and what I draw from the ones above is:

A good question contains enough context to make it acceptable to the client within the logic of the system
Asking questions without context risks confusing the client. If the facilitator considers that useful, then they have an outcome in mind for the client.
Questions can be too short or too long (for the client to process them) - and too long is worse!
Knowing and Dontknowing are both experiences had by 'I'. Dontknowing is a different experience to Knowing - it isn't a negation of Knowing. NOT-experiences don't exist, except as concepts.
Knowing and Dontknowing are companions - they often travel together. That's why it's reasonable (and sometimes challenging) to ask 'and when you know x, what don't you know?'
Knowing is an experience that we (mostly) like.
Dontknowing is an experience that we (mostly) don't like.
We have a sensory Dontknowing experience when we want Knowing and can't have it. We give it the confusing label of Dontknowing because of that relationship. It could have a different name, like Potential.
The purpose and use of working with Knowing and Dontknowing are to explore the client's full range of sensory experience, rather than just championing the Great Lord of Knowing!

[super_yacht@hotmail.com]

Hi Phil,
I would challenge that your entry is a good example of being facilitator lead as opposed to my example which as more client/information led.
We are focusing on the opposite questions here, however in a session I seldom use this line of questioning unless the client makes a strong focus on the positive i.e.
F: "& what does that (B) know?
C: "B knows almost everything"
(the ‘almost’ indicating there is something that is other than almost)


There are many more options possible and what I draw from the ones above is:
* A good question contains enough context to make it acceptable to the client within the logic of the system.
If the client is in flow then an open question: ‘& what else do you know?’ allows the client to go where every they may.
Input context and you are in danger of becoming facilitator led. Who decides where to focus?
Too simply ask ‘what don’t you know is probably not congruent with the clients system.
To remain ‘acceptable to the client within the logic of the system’ is quintessential to Emergent Knowledge.

* Asking questions without context risks confusing the client. If the facilitator considers that useful, then they have an outcome in mind for the client.
If the questions are facilitator led then they will be incongruent with clients system and usually confuse them. This is possible one of the issues arising within EK, - outcome. The way that I conduct a session is to hold no intention or outcome for the client or session. (another thread need on this one)

* Questions can be too short or too long (for the client to process them) - and too long is worse!
The beauty of Emergence in not repeating the client’s words!! (short questions) In one recent practise they observed, in comparing Clean Language and Emergent Knowledge that the EK questions were faster and gave the client less time to process through their think? Maybe one of the attendees could discuss this!

* Knowing and Dontknowing are both experiences had by 'I'. Dontknowing is a different experience to Knowing - it isn't a negation of Knowing. NOT-experiences don't exist, except as concepts.
Your example;
A: What do you know from here?
B: I need something
The pronoun here ‘I’ needs something, it maybe a different pronoun that doesn’t need something.
The questions I would ask maybe…
A: and what else do you know from that space there? (Best)
A: and when ‘I need something’ what doesn’t I need? (OK)

* Knowing and Dontknowing are companions - they often travel together. That's why it's reasonable (and sometimes challenging) to ask 'and when you know x, what don't you know?'
Yes, see my example above.


* Knowing is an experience that we (mostly) like.
Dontknowing is an experience that we (mostly) don't like.
It’s in the shadows that the true often hides. As a horse rider I know that shadows are scary (don’t like) places.


* We have a sensory Dontknowing experience when we want Knowing and can't have it. We give it the confusing label of Dontknowing because of that relationship. It could have a different name, like Potential.
I think this comes out (unconsciously) in the client as they answer the ‘what do you know” questions. Catlin in a recent email said “Its hard to get really good at it without a good deal of personal awareness” With this self awareness comes an awareness of the client having a ‘Dontknowing experience’, which can be potentially the resolution doorway.


* The purpose and use of working with Knowing and Dontknowing are to explore the client's full range of sensory experience, rather than just championing the Great Lord of Knowing!
Absolutely, the ‘Dontknowing’ is another tool in the box. Being client/information led we would only use it when it is congruent with the clients system.

Cheers
John
PS. this writing and processing helps me to understand my thoughts and i hope they are taken in this sense, for all to enjoy.

[phil]

Hi Phil,
I would challenge that your entry is a good example of being facilitator lead as opposed to my example which as more client/information led.
We are focusing on the opposite questions here, however in a session I seldom use this line of questioning unless the client makes a strong focus on the positive i.e.
F: "& what does that (B) know?
C: "B knows almost everything"
(the ‘almost’ indicating there is something that is other than almost)

Phil: Not sure I follow you here, sorry, what is the challenge and which entry is facilitator led? Do you mean stating the context before the next question? If so, certainly the facilitator is directing attention - that's why I labelled it 'suggestive modelling'. In this case too, I was modelling myself so I was definitely facilitator-led!

There are many more options possible and what I draw from the ones above is:
* A good question contains enough context to make it acceptable to the client within the logic of the system.
If the client is in flow then an open question: ‘& what else do you know?’ allows the client to go where every they may.

Yes

Input context and you are in danger of becoming facilitator led. Who decides where to focus?

In Symbolic Modelling the facilitator decides which question to ask and where to direct it - and does so in the context of the client's stated desired outcome and perhaps some of the information that has come out earlier in the session.

In Emergent Knowledge,
Too simply ask ‘what don’t you know is probably not congruent with the clients system.

To remain ‘acceptable to the client within the logic of the system’ is quintessential to Emergent Knowledge.
Hmm. Maybe. Except when the logic of the clients system doesn't involve sixness! Perhaps quintessential should be called 'sextussential'! Oh, okay, cheap joke, I admit it. David does after all joke that 'it's six because I say it is' and I know he will work shorter or longer than six in fact.

Still, re logic of the system: it could be argued that the desire by the client to avoid the Dontknowing and stick with the Knowing is a reflection of the logic of their system and therefore to interrogate Dontknowing experiences is incongruent.

* Asking questions without context risks confusing the client. If the facilitator considers that useful, then they have an outcome in mind for the client.
If the questions are facilitator led then they will be incongruent with clients system and usually confuse them. This is possible one of the issues arising within EK, - outcome. The way that I conduct a session is to hold no intention or outcome for the client or session. (another thread need on this one)

Great if you can do it all the time. I agree needs another thread - over in EK forum maybe?


* Questions can be too short or too long (for the client to process them) - and too long is worse!
The beauty of Emergence in not repeating the client’s words!! (short questions) In one recent practise they observed, in comparing Clean Language and Emergent Knowledge that the EK questions were faster and gave the client less time to process through their think? Maybe one of the attendees could discuss this!

I agree that short questions and not repeating the client's words has beauty. I have also seen clients gain beautiful learning for and from themselves on hearing their words repeated to them (though not when it's all their words every time). I also don't care whether we as facilitators find beauty in it or not, what matters is what the clients get out of it.

* Knowing and Dontknowing are both experiences had by 'I'. Dontknowing is a different experience to Knowing - it isn't a negation of Knowing. NOT-experiences don't exist, except as concepts.
Your example;
A: What do you know from here?
B: I need something
The pronoun here ‘I’ needs something, it maybe a different pronoun that doesn’t need something.
The questions I would ask maybe…
A: and what else do you know from that space there? (Best)
A: and when ‘I need something’ what doesn’t I need? (OK)

I was referring to my example - perhaps I should have said 'Knowing and Dontknowing are both experiences had by a perceiver'. My point was that both are experiences, the latter is not a negation of the former.

* Knowing and Dontknowing are companions - they often travel together. That's why it's reasonable (and sometimes challenging) to ask 'and when you know x, what don't you know?'
Yes, see my example above.


* Knowing is an experience that we (mostly) like.
Dontknowing is an experience that we (mostly) don't like.
It’s in the shadows that the true often hides. As a horse rider I know that shadows are scary (don’t like) places.

Hmm... What about the smaller prey animals? They love the shadows - there lies(!) safety. I suppose their shadow-equivalent is open space.

You've helped me to realise that, I now think knowing and liking are not necessarily related, even inversely. That's why I said 'mostly'. A friend of mine is about to make a bone marrow donation to her sister who has leukemia. She has a little information about the donation process, enough to reassure her that she doesn't want the details. She is committed to doing it and doesn't want to brood on what's coming, preferring to deal with it then. She likes dontknowing in this case.

Whether or not our perceiver likes knowing something is not necessarily related to whether it would be useful to the wider system to have that knowing. That's a tricky one - the clean model doesn't allow for any challenge to client reponses as far as I am aware. Byron Katie's 'Is that true?' question is challenging - and if asked congruently, stimulating too.

And in a very clean process, what happens if the client wants to avoid their 'truth'? If the facilitator is entirely client-led, might not their lead pattern prevent a change that other parts of the system want to bring about? I suppose the answer is 'yes and that's the model of their system as it is'. More discussion needed on that one too!


* We have a sensory Dontknowing experience when we want Knowing and can't have it. We give it the confusing label of Dontknowing because of that relationship. It could have a different name, like Potential.
I think this comes out (unconsciously) in the client as they answer the ‘what do you know” questions. Catlin in a recent email said “Its hard to get really good at it without a good deal of personal awareness” With this self awareness comes an awareness of the client having a ‘Dontknowing experience’, which can be potentially the resolution doorway.

I thought you didn't work towards 'resolution'? :)

* The purpose and use of working with Knowing and Dontknowing are to explore the client's full range of sensory experience, rather than just championing the Great Lord of Knowing!
Absolutely, the ‘Dontknowing’ is another tool in the box. Being client/information led we would only use it when it is congruent with the clients system.

Cheers
John
PS. this writing and processing helps me to understand my thoughts and i hope they are taken in this sense, for all to enjoy.
Certainly taken that way by me, and it does the same for me, so thanks. We should maybe move this thread to another forum as it is moving away from West Country PG.

Phil

PS Please, some others join in - even short post very welcome - we won't bite, honest!

[Corrie van Wijk]

Dear Phil and John,

Below a piece I wrote recently on knowing and not-knowing:

"Emergent knowledge
We do not know if before the beginning there was knowledge at all, but since we think we have knowledge now, we think that there would be knowledge to come, at least at some point after the beginning. Before the beginning we do not know if it, if anything, was similar or different from what we think we know now. We can only imagine what was, if anything. If so, if different, it can not be described unless in terms of the known.

If we say 'I don't know', at least we know that we don't know something, if anything. Not knowing what you don’t know makes it impossible to even be aware of what is beyond your present knowledge, or even to imagine that there would be anything.

Nor can we imagine what is impossible to know because we have no means of sensing it. All we can hope for is to improve our techniques of sensing information, our ability to select what’s relevant and rely on our brain to put it all together in a coherent way, which will allow us to gain insight in how it all works: that is, if it would be different from what we think it is. For what if we think what it is, is no more than our senses make of it?

If it is what it is because we think it is that way, reality would be no different from what we think it is. If some of us think the same way about what it is, it might seem that reality is not much different from what we think it is, because we all came to the same conclusion. We might think that a reality exists independent of what we think of what it is, and the best way to know about it is to have some sort of consensus about what it might be. But what if reality exists only in our thinking? What if we exist only in our thinking? What if our thinking only exists in our thinking, would our thinking exist at all? And if everything we perceive exists somehow or another independent of our thinking, how much is our thinking capable to change things, or do they only change in our perception? And if not through our thinking as such, is our interaction between our perception of what we think things are and what they really are, of any influence on changing what things really are?

A scientific theory is our best guess at some point in time of what we perceive. We do not know if our perception has any relationship with something different from us. Any representation of the world outside, if any, is produced by the (conscious) brain in cognitive terms of spaces, shapes, geometrical forms, symbols (language, mathematics, images), etc."

I think it is useful to think about this in terms of spaces: there's a space that knows (a perceptual system), (perhaps) another space that doesn't know (in general, or about a specific subject) and, a space-in-between, which marks the boundary between the (two)former.

There may be more to it than just opposites: spaces that do know, but don't want to know, spaces that are too afraid to know, spaces that are too sad to know, spaces that are curious to know, spaces that are frustrated about not-knowing, etc.

Corrie