DGibbs
08-02-2008, 06:07 AM
Dear David:
When I first heard your voice, at the end of a Clean Coaching seminar call in September of 2006, it was so musical with your New Zealand accent. At the end of the call, not long later, I heard, “Thank You, Donna.” For me there was so much acknowledgement in that “Thank You”. You made sure you said, “Thank You.” I returned with “Thank You, David.” It was all I could think of to say, but in that “Thank You” was a thank you for all of the healing that had taken place in the previous two years, as your processes had been delivered to me through Steve Briggs, your long-time friend and collaborator.
During the Emergent Knowledge (EMK) tele-class, with you and Carol Wilson, I heard you laugh and giggle before and during the call with those you knew. I thought what a wonderful melody of deep and meaningful friendships.
I had heard through others that you had a phenomenal memory and took notes in symbols. So, for six EMK sessions, I drew symbols as answers to your questions and then explained them as I spun around the room and moved from space to space. ‘5’ (inner child age 5) invented a language to speak to you, and you understood.
You asked us to draw a pronoun chart and my ‘me’ was ‘5’ years old. When asked to share my pronoun chart, I giggled, and said it was the shape of a gingerbread man, like a cookie cutter, filled in with four layers of solid bright colors. The ‘I’, ‘Me’, and ‘You’ were represented. I asked you why is someone else’s ‘I’ and ‘me’ reversed in age from mine, and you said there is no right or wrong answer. All one need do is marvel at human beings and how each person uniquely deals with complexity in their life. And you understood.
You talked about ‘T’ scenes (defining moments) based on a metaphor I shared, and how our worlds change in those moments. You asked me what I had before ‘5’ (cosmology before ‘5’). I couldn’t answer right away, so you gave me a coloring assignment to record all the elements I knew about. Later I said, I had ‘blue sky and cumulous clouds’, and you understood.
You also told me I could draw my fear on a piece of paper and continue to draw it onto other pieces of paper until it ran out, so that I could see what was beyond fear. I drew it for three pieces of flip chart paper and then moved the paper to the far corner of the room, so that I could carry on in the immediate space with the EMK sessions.
By the end of the EMK sessions, I had the beginnings of integration (communication) with ‘5’ in a pinafore dress, bobbie socks and paten leather shoes with the rest of me. ‘5’ loved you. ‘5’ had never felt so validated.
We met for the first time in person in Columbia, MO, USA in April 2007 at Rob and Brenda’s office. I heard you loved plays, and space and network, so my work became 3-D, and filled the entire room. At one point I felt I was on a stage, doing a one-person play, for a one-person audience. We had started the session with the need to connect two parts of the room with a string. I didn’t want to because it would mess up the room. You put your face close to mine, so I could see your eyes. You said, “The string is already there (in your mind), life is messy, life’s like that, so you may as well go ahead and put the string up (or something like that).” I thought, “Who can argue with that?” so I put the string up. The string became a clothesline. I said the string reminded me of the clothesline in the backyard where I grew up. My Dad had a favorite saying, so in full ‘5’ theatrical mode, I ‘became my dad’, tossed my hair as ‘5’ would do, and said, “I can sleep anywhere!” Pause. “I can sleep anywhere!” Pause (bated breath – you could hear a pin drop). “I can sleep on a clothesline!” With another toss of my hair, ‘5’ then said, with an authoritative voice, “No you can’t! That would be uncomfortable!” You laughed and laughed. Oh, I (‘5’) thought, he thinks I’m funny. ‘5’ loved you for your laughter. The clothesline became the timeline of my life (the session was related to my issue with time). With my Dad no longer on the clothesline, I could collect all the skills and attributes from the past that I needed now to function in life. I brought these across the clothesline into the current.
During that session, I became a butterfly, with the implements of 2-3-4 (ages): sand pale, shovel, rake, hoe, and gardening fork, and my dreams and visions for my life. I kept doing turns through the 4-directions of the room, based on your question “And what does that direction know?” I kept gathering information for the ending question, “And what do you know, now?” At the end of the session you had me do 6 turns in front of the butterfly looking at the butterfly, and then a second set of 6 turns with my back to the butterfly. At the end of this set, I was literally pushed away from the butterfly out of the room and into the next room (‘the wider world’), by all the new information my body had gathered for the days ahead. And you understood.
I next met you in Kansas City, in May 2007 at Steve Briggs’ office. I was ‘5’ again. This time I was going in circles, my constant pattern. I drew for most of the session with bright colored pens on flip-chart paper. You came in, looked at the drawing, and said, “And what was the problem, before that problem?” And I would continue drawing. At one point, I explained how I had transformed in a drawing. You went to the drawing, looked at it, evaluated it, and said, “Yes, I can see that you transformed there.” You just accepted it (and me), and went on with and “What was the problem, before that problem?” Close to the end of the session, I started to ask why I always went back to ‘5’. You asked me, "What did you have, before '5'?" I said that I had a kindergarten style learning environment (interactive, color, movement) vs. textbook style (after ‘5’). You indicated the goal and action plan was to help me be able to function using the positives of the ‘5’ learning style, but updating it so that I could function effectively today at my current age, in my current world. You suggested I study on the floor and get my body position into something similar to a 5-year old learning experience. (I do most of my process and learning work now with large drawing paper, and big brightly colored felt pens). It was as if you had reached back into my ‘5’ world and pulled me forward into current just by acknowledging me as I was. After this session I was able to learn business materials in a way that had alluded me before. You understood, and I loved you for it.
The next time I met you was in St. Louis in September of 2007, at Donna Kitchen’s office. You asked if there was anything I would like to work on. I said, “Not Really.” So we took a 6-day emergent meander through my life from 6 iterations before birth to current. The processes helped me separate myself from my family and my life history, something I had never really done before. Every night it was my job to take down all the drawings of my work, and the next morning it was my job to put all of the drawings / papers back up. As my body was interacting with the work, I was sorting and sifting through issues and resolving issues. At one point, I drew my life and the major events of my life in map form and also in graph form. All things were drawn to scale. It was the first time that I was able to collect and look at all of my life in the same scale.
At one point in the session I was stuck, and I said I was stuck because I wouldn’t put my story up on the paper walls I had built. You got the story out of me by sounds and drawing. When I used the word ‘boom’, you asked, “And, what does Boom know?” I drew what the sound represented. “And, what does Boom –1 know?” I drew. “And, what does Boom –2 know?” I drew again what the sound knew. After going through a number of sounds and iterations and drawings, you said, “Ok put the story up, and the story does not go up there (i.e. on the wall)!” I took the story out of the paper room I had built, and put it outside the room. The papers became all the events I had experienced that helped create a situation where I did not live life inside the walls. Later you asked me, “Did I know how you got me to put the story up?” I said, “No, tell me.” You said, “I took you literally. You (Donna) said you wouldn’t put the story up on the wall, so I (David) got the story out of you, and then said you couldn’t put it up on the wall. It had to go somewhere else." That created ‘movement’, as you called it, and it became one of the keys of the session. That being, the dialog between the story, and the untold story, and how they interacted with each other over the years.
At one point I drew a road, a 2-way road with a dotted line in the middle. At the end of the road was my PC (technology). Based on questions from me, you talked about how it was a 2-way road, not a dirt path in the woods. This meant I could go back and forth to my family and other interests as desired. You told me a Sufi story, about the difference in experience between coming back to a room once you have left, being in the room again, and then going out through the door, and how that is different from going out the door for the first time, never having left before. Regarding the PC (technology), it was an active part of my life and the world we live in, so it was OK to keep it. At the end of the 6-days of work you asked, “And, so what is the shape of your life?” I explained that it looked like a swath to me (I’m from wheat country). You broke out into a great big beaming smile. 6 days of hard work, summarized in one word – swath, and the word had only appeared at that very moment based on the shape that the papers of the morning had taken. We talked about cutting a swath with a scythe and how that related to keeping my shoulders steady and my arms focused and coordinated with my hands on the handle of the scythe. This focus would keep my shoulders from shrugging, which had been an earlier movement we had discussed. Cutting with a scythe required full concentration and complete engagement of my body in order to cut the swath, focusing on the next item (cut), the next item (task), and the next. This approach to life would be the style for me to adopt to become effective in life. When I had earlier had trouble talking, you sensed that, and said, “The details (content) of your life don't matter, it is the shape of your life that is important”. I, in that moment, felt completely accepted, with the details being just that - details.
You read to me, the meaning of the words swath, and scythe, and translated that into the way of being I needed to pursue to be effective. The meaning was so clear. You had previously explained so simply and clearly the difference between a 2-way road, and a dirt path, and what that meant re going back and forth between the different areas of my life, and it made so much sense. You very simply explained my world to me in simple, but elegant language, that I could understand.
You explained in St. Louis that you loved the six numbers (‘My Six Friends’), space, network, and the inner child, and that when people were in the room with you they could just go to these places and feel safe, as you loved these spaces and places and were already there with them. This was certainly true for me. I interacted with you in ways that I have never interacted with anyone, and it was about what you loved: theatre, numbers, 3-D spaces, spinning, symbols, and the meaning of words. I was, with you, someone I have never been with anyone.
In a group session, you asked me about my experience with metaphor. I said that I had found your work on the web, and that it was easy on my spirit, and that I so needed that. You said something in Maori language in response. The words were long and beautiful. And I thought, the language is beautiful just like the metaphor process, and so natural world based, at least for me.
You asked me, based on a two-handed hand movement where I pointed to myself, 'And, what is true for you?' One of the things I said was that I was a Canadian (I have been living in the U.S. for 20+ years). You just smiled, with that knowing smile and a light in your eyes, and I thought you know what I mean. I thought you must be thinking, "I am a New Zealander, I am a Maori".
My last moment with you turned into a therapeutic moment, as I triggered into an early memory. You didn’t move, or let go of the process. You knew I had been a runner in life, and you didn’t let me run. I ultimately moved ‘toward’, which later reminded me of a Milton Erickson cow and barn story. My life-time of running stopped in that moment. Therapy to the end.
You gave yourself to therapy, to therapeutic intervention, creating inventive ways to dialog with clients, and ultimately gave your life for your work and clients. Your therapeutic interventions have been the only processes that have worked for me. I am truly grateful to have known you and to have been a receiver of your way of doing therapy. I plan along with many others of your friends and colleagues and clients around the globe to carry on your message.
David, shortly after your death, you helped me resolve the English side of my ancestry. I was able, for the first time, to look at my genealogy charts, and found in the records, missing pieces to my story, that I have been looking for all my life. It was because I loved you, an Englishman, that I could look at my English ancestry.
Your Maori and English ancestry both equally helped me resolve the major issues of my life.
Thank you, David.
I love you and miss you, and always will.
Donna
When I first heard your voice, at the end of a Clean Coaching seminar call in September of 2006, it was so musical with your New Zealand accent. At the end of the call, not long later, I heard, “Thank You, Donna.” For me there was so much acknowledgement in that “Thank You”. You made sure you said, “Thank You.” I returned with “Thank You, David.” It was all I could think of to say, but in that “Thank You” was a thank you for all of the healing that had taken place in the previous two years, as your processes had been delivered to me through Steve Briggs, your long-time friend and collaborator.
During the Emergent Knowledge (EMK) tele-class, with you and Carol Wilson, I heard you laugh and giggle before and during the call with those you knew. I thought what a wonderful melody of deep and meaningful friendships.
I had heard through others that you had a phenomenal memory and took notes in symbols. So, for six EMK sessions, I drew symbols as answers to your questions and then explained them as I spun around the room and moved from space to space. ‘5’ (inner child age 5) invented a language to speak to you, and you understood.
You asked us to draw a pronoun chart and my ‘me’ was ‘5’ years old. When asked to share my pronoun chart, I giggled, and said it was the shape of a gingerbread man, like a cookie cutter, filled in with four layers of solid bright colors. The ‘I’, ‘Me’, and ‘You’ were represented. I asked you why is someone else’s ‘I’ and ‘me’ reversed in age from mine, and you said there is no right or wrong answer. All one need do is marvel at human beings and how each person uniquely deals with complexity in their life. And you understood.
You talked about ‘T’ scenes (defining moments) based on a metaphor I shared, and how our worlds change in those moments. You asked me what I had before ‘5’ (cosmology before ‘5’). I couldn’t answer right away, so you gave me a coloring assignment to record all the elements I knew about. Later I said, I had ‘blue sky and cumulous clouds’, and you understood.
You also told me I could draw my fear on a piece of paper and continue to draw it onto other pieces of paper until it ran out, so that I could see what was beyond fear. I drew it for three pieces of flip chart paper and then moved the paper to the far corner of the room, so that I could carry on in the immediate space with the EMK sessions.
By the end of the EMK sessions, I had the beginnings of integration (communication) with ‘5’ in a pinafore dress, bobbie socks and paten leather shoes with the rest of me. ‘5’ loved you. ‘5’ had never felt so validated.
We met for the first time in person in Columbia, MO, USA in April 2007 at Rob and Brenda’s office. I heard you loved plays, and space and network, so my work became 3-D, and filled the entire room. At one point I felt I was on a stage, doing a one-person play, for a one-person audience. We had started the session with the need to connect two parts of the room with a string. I didn’t want to because it would mess up the room. You put your face close to mine, so I could see your eyes. You said, “The string is already there (in your mind), life is messy, life’s like that, so you may as well go ahead and put the string up (or something like that).” I thought, “Who can argue with that?” so I put the string up. The string became a clothesline. I said the string reminded me of the clothesline in the backyard where I grew up. My Dad had a favorite saying, so in full ‘5’ theatrical mode, I ‘became my dad’, tossed my hair as ‘5’ would do, and said, “I can sleep anywhere!” Pause. “I can sleep anywhere!” Pause (bated breath – you could hear a pin drop). “I can sleep on a clothesline!” With another toss of my hair, ‘5’ then said, with an authoritative voice, “No you can’t! That would be uncomfortable!” You laughed and laughed. Oh, I (‘5’) thought, he thinks I’m funny. ‘5’ loved you for your laughter. The clothesline became the timeline of my life (the session was related to my issue with time). With my Dad no longer on the clothesline, I could collect all the skills and attributes from the past that I needed now to function in life. I brought these across the clothesline into the current.
During that session, I became a butterfly, with the implements of 2-3-4 (ages): sand pale, shovel, rake, hoe, and gardening fork, and my dreams and visions for my life. I kept doing turns through the 4-directions of the room, based on your question “And what does that direction know?” I kept gathering information for the ending question, “And what do you know, now?” At the end of the session you had me do 6 turns in front of the butterfly looking at the butterfly, and then a second set of 6 turns with my back to the butterfly. At the end of this set, I was literally pushed away from the butterfly out of the room and into the next room (‘the wider world’), by all the new information my body had gathered for the days ahead. And you understood.
I next met you in Kansas City, in May 2007 at Steve Briggs’ office. I was ‘5’ again. This time I was going in circles, my constant pattern. I drew for most of the session with bright colored pens on flip-chart paper. You came in, looked at the drawing, and said, “And what was the problem, before that problem?” And I would continue drawing. At one point, I explained how I had transformed in a drawing. You went to the drawing, looked at it, evaluated it, and said, “Yes, I can see that you transformed there.” You just accepted it (and me), and went on with and “What was the problem, before that problem?” Close to the end of the session, I started to ask why I always went back to ‘5’. You asked me, "What did you have, before '5'?" I said that I had a kindergarten style learning environment (interactive, color, movement) vs. textbook style (after ‘5’). You indicated the goal and action plan was to help me be able to function using the positives of the ‘5’ learning style, but updating it so that I could function effectively today at my current age, in my current world. You suggested I study on the floor and get my body position into something similar to a 5-year old learning experience. (I do most of my process and learning work now with large drawing paper, and big brightly colored felt pens). It was as if you had reached back into my ‘5’ world and pulled me forward into current just by acknowledging me as I was. After this session I was able to learn business materials in a way that had alluded me before. You understood, and I loved you for it.
The next time I met you was in St. Louis in September of 2007, at Donna Kitchen’s office. You asked if there was anything I would like to work on. I said, “Not Really.” So we took a 6-day emergent meander through my life from 6 iterations before birth to current. The processes helped me separate myself from my family and my life history, something I had never really done before. Every night it was my job to take down all the drawings of my work, and the next morning it was my job to put all of the drawings / papers back up. As my body was interacting with the work, I was sorting and sifting through issues and resolving issues. At one point, I drew my life and the major events of my life in map form and also in graph form. All things were drawn to scale. It was the first time that I was able to collect and look at all of my life in the same scale.
At one point in the session I was stuck, and I said I was stuck because I wouldn’t put my story up on the paper walls I had built. You got the story out of me by sounds and drawing. When I used the word ‘boom’, you asked, “And, what does Boom know?” I drew what the sound represented. “And, what does Boom –1 know?” I drew. “And, what does Boom –2 know?” I drew again what the sound knew. After going through a number of sounds and iterations and drawings, you said, “Ok put the story up, and the story does not go up there (i.e. on the wall)!” I took the story out of the paper room I had built, and put it outside the room. The papers became all the events I had experienced that helped create a situation where I did not live life inside the walls. Later you asked me, “Did I know how you got me to put the story up?” I said, “No, tell me.” You said, “I took you literally. You (Donna) said you wouldn’t put the story up on the wall, so I (David) got the story out of you, and then said you couldn’t put it up on the wall. It had to go somewhere else." That created ‘movement’, as you called it, and it became one of the keys of the session. That being, the dialog between the story, and the untold story, and how they interacted with each other over the years.
At one point I drew a road, a 2-way road with a dotted line in the middle. At the end of the road was my PC (technology). Based on questions from me, you talked about how it was a 2-way road, not a dirt path in the woods. This meant I could go back and forth to my family and other interests as desired. You told me a Sufi story, about the difference in experience between coming back to a room once you have left, being in the room again, and then going out through the door, and how that is different from going out the door for the first time, never having left before. Regarding the PC (technology), it was an active part of my life and the world we live in, so it was OK to keep it. At the end of the 6-days of work you asked, “And, so what is the shape of your life?” I explained that it looked like a swath to me (I’m from wheat country). You broke out into a great big beaming smile. 6 days of hard work, summarized in one word – swath, and the word had only appeared at that very moment based on the shape that the papers of the morning had taken. We talked about cutting a swath with a scythe and how that related to keeping my shoulders steady and my arms focused and coordinated with my hands on the handle of the scythe. This focus would keep my shoulders from shrugging, which had been an earlier movement we had discussed. Cutting with a scythe required full concentration and complete engagement of my body in order to cut the swath, focusing on the next item (cut), the next item (task), and the next. This approach to life would be the style for me to adopt to become effective in life. When I had earlier had trouble talking, you sensed that, and said, “The details (content) of your life don't matter, it is the shape of your life that is important”. I, in that moment, felt completely accepted, with the details being just that - details.
You read to me, the meaning of the words swath, and scythe, and translated that into the way of being I needed to pursue to be effective. The meaning was so clear. You had previously explained so simply and clearly the difference between a 2-way road, and a dirt path, and what that meant re going back and forth between the different areas of my life, and it made so much sense. You very simply explained my world to me in simple, but elegant language, that I could understand.
You explained in St. Louis that you loved the six numbers (‘My Six Friends’), space, network, and the inner child, and that when people were in the room with you they could just go to these places and feel safe, as you loved these spaces and places and were already there with them. This was certainly true for me. I interacted with you in ways that I have never interacted with anyone, and it was about what you loved: theatre, numbers, 3-D spaces, spinning, symbols, and the meaning of words. I was, with you, someone I have never been with anyone.
In a group session, you asked me about my experience with metaphor. I said that I had found your work on the web, and that it was easy on my spirit, and that I so needed that. You said something in Maori language in response. The words were long and beautiful. And I thought, the language is beautiful just like the metaphor process, and so natural world based, at least for me.
You asked me, based on a two-handed hand movement where I pointed to myself, 'And, what is true for you?' One of the things I said was that I was a Canadian (I have been living in the U.S. for 20+ years). You just smiled, with that knowing smile and a light in your eyes, and I thought you know what I mean. I thought you must be thinking, "I am a New Zealander, I am a Maori".
My last moment with you turned into a therapeutic moment, as I triggered into an early memory. You didn’t move, or let go of the process. You knew I had been a runner in life, and you didn’t let me run. I ultimately moved ‘toward’, which later reminded me of a Milton Erickson cow and barn story. My life-time of running stopped in that moment. Therapy to the end.
You gave yourself to therapy, to therapeutic intervention, creating inventive ways to dialog with clients, and ultimately gave your life for your work and clients. Your therapeutic interventions have been the only processes that have worked for me. I am truly grateful to have known you and to have been a receiver of your way of doing therapy. I plan along with many others of your friends and colleagues and clients around the globe to carry on your message.
David, shortly after your death, you helped me resolve the English side of my ancestry. I was able, for the first time, to look at my genealogy charts, and found in the records, missing pieces to my story, that I have been looking for all my life. It was because I loved you, an Englishman, that I could look at my English ancestry.
Your Maori and English ancestry both equally helped me resolve the major issues of my life.
Thank you, David.
I love you and miss you, and always will.
Donna