EK from 2006 conference interpreted today

[super_yacht@hotmail.com]

The previous thread has so much information it could be a book in its self. Steve has offered much, I would like to start looking at parts.


The EK process that he (David) presented at that time, December 2006 I think, was as follows:

Write down some words on a piece of paper
find a space for you
find a space for piece of paper
is this the right space for A?
Is this the right space for B?
Is the distance right (C)?
What do you know from here now? (A)
What do (the words) know? (B)
What kind of space is C? Get a metaphor (C)
what does (M) know? (C)
what do you know now? (A - listen to response and wait for the end bit)
is there another space?

I’m assuming the ABCD model here.

This process has shown me some interesting insights. My understanding/ experience and training with using EK over the last few years and 1000’s of hours 1-2-1, would be different for almost every question that is listed above. It has helped some of my comprehension of why the disparity in what we all call EK.
Maybe it will help explain my interpretation of clean Emergent Knowledge Questions (EKQ)


Question 1; ‘write’ an instruction is not clean (NC)

“And how could you represent that?” (my interpretation of the question)
Question 2; ‘find a space for you’; This is an instruction, and assumes they know why/how/or where that space is‘- not clean’ (NC). It also suggests that they are not in the right space (NC).

“& Where do you need to be? & can you go there?”Question 3; ‘find a space for piece of paper’ (see above, question 2). The client is usually asked how could you represent that, as facilitator you can say

& how could you represent that, could you write it, draw, move or something else?
Then ask

& is that in the right space?
Question 4; ‘is this the right place for A?’ Assuming ‘A’ is the client and your asking is ‘B’ in the right place, the question isn’t honouring or witnessing ‘A’ (almost being rude).

“& is that in the right place?”
This is addressing ‘B’ directly, rather than getting ‘A’ to second position ‘B’

Question 5; ‘Is this the right space for B?’Would indicate (to me) the facilitator is indicating (pointing to) B. I sense it’s the word ‘for’, my question (below) is open allowing the client to explore everything in the p-space not just B.

“& is that in the right place?”
Question 6; ‘Is the distance right (C)?’I’m assuming here the ‘distance’ is between A and B? Firstly ‘distance’ is your (facilitator) word (NC). In iterating the question (&ITIITRP) the movement of ‘B’, and sometimes ‘A’ to the right space is made. In this action the p-space is evolving and the space between now holds significance.If it’s a facilitator emerged space (distance) then it holds information for the client about F. F because the facilitator has become part of the p-space and is no longer f becoming part of the session.The space ‘C’ is that space around ‘A’ and ‘B’ and does not have a location except if client identified and then it would become another ‘B1’ and you can have lots of ‘B’s

Question 7; ‘What do you know from here now?’ (A) EK is inner child work and you could be talking to any fragmented part of the client from any part of their existence (notice I don’t say life here), it may be the here and now it maybe the two year old or it may be ancestral, the facilitator has no idea. EKQ’s allow whatever needs to, emerge, it may be a metaphor (use Clean Language) it may be information, it could have time or space qualities. Using the word ‘now’ takes most of this away bring the client out of flow into the here / now. (very NC)

“& What do you know now?”
Question 8; ‘What do (the words) know?’ (B). Ever single word we use has a history and this question is a whole process unto its self. – Hieroglyphics. This is a very effect process if the client has a vision statement or the like. You can analysis each word the space between the words or scaling (either out or in, before or after). Useful question but wrong place.

Question 9; ‘what kind of space is C? Get a metaphor (C)’‘What kind of’ is a classic Clean Language question and not one I have every seen or used in EK. The facilitator is assuming that the client is going to evolve a metaphor (NC). If the information from the client is metaphorical, then I’d go with ‘Clean Language / perhaps Symbolic modelling’.

Question 10; ‘what does (M) know? (C) see above. To ask the question ‘what does [X] know assumes that some work has been done to emerge knowledge about [X].Question 11; what do you know now? Yes
Question 12; is there another space? Yes

I’m not trying to contradict the question from 2006, at that time in EK’s evolution they were correct. May be this gives an idea of how I see EK has moved on. More importantly how the understanding of Clean is moving. Clean on a gross level is in the language we use, on a deeper level is on the gestures or movements we put into a session. Early on we worked on our intention and social influence (the unspoken) we may have on a client, and would not practise if we were not in the right state or frame of mind with a particular client. Clean for me, is working at conscious and subconscious level on myself so that I have no negativie sensitivity to the client or their content. This is what makes it nigh on impossible to practise as David said several times.

Cheers
John Farrell

[Steve Saunders]

Thanks John, a great update to the space-oriented start of emergence.

As David came to Emergence From Space, it I think is natural that he started using Space Linguistics in the early time - his thinking was spatial. I have been doing the same with "moving cleanly" - calling it "clean motion". And I'm having to learn to change the forms for moving. So did we and David with EK.

As the developments progressed, so did the ever-increasing reduction of F involvement.

For people other than John: The alternative opening that we (David, John, I) developed goes by the metaphor "loading B" so that "the tail wags the dog" - creating an attraction between B and A where B (the tail) wags the dog (A) when done well. The way it goes is as follows:


1. no opening question; the client makes a statement or movement
2. "so represent that / those words"
3. and does anything go [on there / with that ]?
keep repeating step 3 until there is no more to be added.

B is now "loaded" and has the complete attention of the A - unless F is doing other things to engage A!

The second huge step of EK development, once the move from space to "A-B" engagement was "serving the algorithm"; an algorithm is a computer sequence, in this case the following of a question to its conclusion so the client system - in approx David's words "knows the next question and can relax into emerging the knowledge".

The third concept was "adjacency", an old one from his IC work (inner child). I cannot overstate how important this concept is; its the core concept of all the work of clean facilitation, so I'll probably address it in its own thread.

Cheers, and thanks again John

Steven

[Steve Saunders]

Josie posted a record of the same question being asked in sequence in December:

1559 recursions of "and what kind of you were you before that?" over a period of 3.5 hours.

After exactly 1000 questions the client started asking them himself.

The client thought it lasted about 20 minutes. The question was used after 4 days of "loading B", so they were primed, and the whole system reconfigured. Very happy client, still very happy now.

There were many red-herring stopping points, but by keeping going the client eventually "spiralled-in" to the origin revisiting points/memories/ (remind me to explain chaos and chaotic orbits sometime, its relevant) until there was nothing left for him to visit - he knew when it was time to stop; he had reached a point of equilibrium and calm.

It broke every one of her rules she thought she had - she says!

Steven pp Josie

[super_yacht@hotmail.com]

no opening question; the client makes a statement or movement
"so represent that / those words"
and does anything go [on there / with that ]?
keep repeating step 3 until there is no more to be added.

A good example of ‘no opening question’ occurred at the practise last Thursday. I was self elected client and started with the statement "oh! You want me to be the client".
Just thinking about it there is so much in that simple line (for me) which neither facilitator prompted. To ask ‘& how could you represent that’ (or as question 2 above), would have filled a page, especially when meta driven (question 3 above).
When a client gets into flow doing this you can ask once in the morning and checking in every few hours they could spend the day or days just form that one question in the morning. Great for the facilitator (coffee break) and it was how David could facilitate 3 or 4 clients simultaneously.
But its not just about asking the questions…………….

Cheers
John

[Corrie van Wijk]

Steve: "Josie posted a record of the same question being asked in sequence in December:

1559 recursions of "and what kind of you were you before that?" over a period of 3.5 hours.

[...] It broke every one of her rules she thought she had - she says!

Steven pp Josie"

Dear Josie,

I trust your personality, your experience and your skill to work with a client. But after having read this I really wondered: "[And when you think you had rules]", what kind of rules are that?

Corrie

[super_yacht@hotmail.com]

My understanding of the question “and what kind of you were you before that?” is that it can be very powerful (i.e. use carefully). When the client is in flow this can be a very identity led question.
Knowing Josie, her experience and skills, I’m only sorry I couldn’t watch the evolution of this session.
One of the challenges we had was teaching EK without giving out direction or processes. Following a process isn’t information led, it is the way we feel comfortable because it’s the way society and education has moulded us. So I would suggest having/following rules would be the same.
Id like to ask permission to ask: “and when you thought you had rules what kind of you were you before that?….”

Regards
John