Notes from emergence gathering in Calais

[Corrie van Wijk]

Moved back to the EK section in the thread 'Emergence'.

[Corrie van Wijk]

[Notes from the emergence gathering, page 1]

Note: if we are to establis a model of Emergent Knowledge it is congruent to do that through an emergence process, which we did. Similarly, I’ll put down the notes as good as I can, this helps me to retrieve the memories of what we discussed. I will give an explanation of what the notes are about, as far as I can remember it. Then, at the end, I – and perhaps others – will summarize "What do I know now?""

Sangatte, le douze Avril 2008

My opening question to Steve, just after breakfast was:" If we want to explain emergence to dummies, what would we say?"

Client
Does the car have seat belts?
Is it comfortable?
Does it have a smooth ride?

Self-engage
Clean questions.

30 y NLP – structure for reality based upon where people locate things and changing location; access what was at that location
basis revolution
shifting locations
deeper structure
holds the locations in place
permanence of change
client’s systems
personal collection
set of pronouns
Russian doll
primary system
self-before

I me you

internal
pronounset
ancestry
Why does you have to come in
"basis revolution; shifting locations
deeper structure: holds the locations in place"

Steve was arguing here that NLP found a structure for reality based on where people locate things. The downside of that is that this deeper structure holds the locations in place. Emergence, unlike NLP, brings about a permanent change, the client doesn’t risk to go back to the former (ill) state.

[Corrie van Wijk]

[page 2]

(I was explaining how subsystems within a system interact (intrapsychic interaction).)

[Corrie van Wijk]

[page 3]

(I was explaining that some people think of clean as another technique to use, like one of the branches of the psychotherapeutic tree. I think it is not: clean is at the basis, it requires a whole different attitude from the facilitator who, unlike the therapist, doesn't try to put any structure on the client, or influence him or her with his or her own views and opinions.

As a result of that, the techniques used are quite different and form a tree of their own (or any other suitable metaphor for that).)

[phil]

Hi Corrie - they say a picture's worth a thousand words - could you sketch this for us and upload it? Or send it to me and I'll upload it for you

Phil

[Corrie van Wijk]

I could, but I'm having fun with this.

P.S. Wouldn't it be interesting for anyone else to make a drawing based on my description and compare it to the original one?

Re:

Corrie

Had a brief read through the notes on the site! Wow - an emergent style of
description! Rather cryptic but does allow one to create their own drawings
to suit... I'll need a little more time to decipher it. I wish you guys had
had a video camera!

[Corrie van Wijk]

[page 4]

object oriented language

(Steve was arguing that our language is very object-oriented, which makes it difficult to think in terms of processes.)

[webmaven]

Corrie,

This is all very cryptic to me. Or maybe a better word is poetic. I can't make sense of it. Can you fill in some of the blanks? Give me a metaphor or two to go on?

I don't think that a drawing would make much sense, even if I could conceive of one, without a few more notes of explanation.

However, I would love to hear more about what transpired. And how were the fruits de mer?

webmaven

[Corrie van Wijk]

Don't worry, it will get better: first I'd like to put down the notes and explain what they were about, as far as I can remember. We had a weekend of very intensive talking.

Do not hesitate to ask about a posting, so the explanation follows it.

[webmaven]

[Notes from the emergence gathering, page 1]

Sangatte, le douze Avril 2008

Client
· Does the car have seat belts?
· Is it comfortable?
· Does it have a smooth ride?

Self engage
Clean questions.

30 y NLP – structure for reality based upon where people locate things and changing location; access what was at that location

basis revolution; shifting locations
[arrow down]
deeper structure [arrow to the right] holds the locations in place
[arrow down]
permanence of change
client’s systems
personal collection
set of pronouns
Russian doll
primary system
self-before

I me -- you [circle around them]; pronounset; Why does you have to come in

internal ancestry


[Corrie]

[(to be continued)]

Thanks for your notes, Corrie. You're right; how can you explain something unless I indicate what I didn't understand? Let's take it one post at a time, so I can digest this more easily.

1. "basis revolution; shifting locations
[arrow down]
deeper structure [arrow to the right] holds the locations in place
[arrow down]"

What do the arrows signify? Some kind of development of material? Or something else?

2. How are the following items related, and what do they mean?

client’s systems (Q: Are these the client's systems as they exist prior to the session or systems that emerge as a result of the work?)

personal collection (Q: What is this?)

set of pronouns (Q: Are these the I, Me, You pronouns of the client? Or something else? Also, is this the "pronounset" referred to later in the list?)

Russian doll (Q: Is this a metaphor for how the systems are related? Or for the inner children? Or something else altogether?)

primary system (Q: What's this? The overall organization of the whole of the client's system, or the "sweet spot," or something else?)

self-before (Q: Client's self before starting this work? Or child-within/child-without?)

3. Internal ancestry (this sounds fascinating--do tell more!)

Thank you very much for being willing to explain these things to a neophyte.

webmaven

[Steve Saunders]

So, the Emerging Gathering was precisely that - a stage one process of "loading B" with information.

Russian Dolls - the metaphor explains the nesting of sets of selves cosmologically. It is not perfect, but simple explains that the outermost is the first self, that deconstructs and lives outside of the world of its creation - the next self, and so on.

Pronouns are one of the labels for identifying aspects of self not "here and now", so are verbs, so are adjectives and adverbs and nouns.

Internal ancestry - is the ordering of selves in the russian doll metaphor. The present self has it's mother the previous self and father the external world at the point of its creation - essentially this is hermaphroditic but the interaction of the external world normally is a big factor in the cause. However, complex internal environments (serious "MPD") might create new selves all of their own internal interaction.

Self -before = previous self, not the self at the start of a session. Most occidentals would not recognise being a different self anyway - fear of psychosis (ironic or what?)

Steven

[Corrie van Wijk]

[page 5]

‘vegetables’
‘meal’

(I was using a metaphor here to explain emergence: just like you would put several ingredients together to make a meal and you can do so in many ways with many different outcomes, the brain puts together pieces of information, and can do so in many different ways.)

[Corrie van Wijk]

[page1]

Webmaven: "basis revolution; shifting locations
[arrow down]
deeper structure [arrow to the right] holds the locations in place
[arrow down]"

What do the arrows signify? Some kind of development of material? Or something else?"

I draw two kinds of arrows: single ones and double ones. A single one means a relationship between two nouns, like ‘that’; a double arrow means a relationship between two items, like in ‘which’ that can refer back to a whole statement.

In this case an arrow goes down from ‘basis revolution’ to ‘deeper structure’, the latter being followed by a single arrow pointing to ‘holds the location in place’

Steve was arguing here that NLP found a structure for reality based on where people locate things. The downside of that is that this deeper structure holds the locations in place.

There is a double arrow going down from ‘structure’ to ‘permanence of change’: Steve’s argument here is that emergence, unlike NLP, brings about a permanent change, the client doesn’t risk to go back to the former (ill) state.

W: "How are the following items related, and what do they mean?

client’s systems (Q: Are these the client's systems as they exist prior to the session or systems that emerge as a result of the work?)

personal collection (Q: What is this?)"

These refer to an individual approach, made by the taylor itself, like clean does.

W: "set of pronouns (Q: Are these the I, Me, You pronouns of the client? Or something else? Also, is this the "pronounset" referred to later in the list?)"

A pronounscape consits of any reference a client makes to (parts of) him- or herself: I, me, myself, etc. and where he or she locates them in- or outside the body.

W: "Russian doll (Q: Is this a metaphor for how the systems are related? Or for the inner children? Or something else altogether?)"

If a client used the metaphor of a Russian doll, it’s up to him to give that meaning. You’ll find Steve’s version in his answer.

W: "primary system (Q: What's this? The overall organization of the whole of the client's system, or the "sweet spot," or something else?)"

I don’t know what Steve meant by this.

W: "self-before (Q: Client's self before starting this work? Or child-within/child-without?)"

A term for a perception of the client.

W: "3. Internal ancestry (this sounds fascinating--do tell more!)"

The metaphor of a client of his or her perception.

[Corrie van Wijk]

[page 6]

emergence

driven – move

exallerate/excellerate [I meant: accellerate; no doubt David would have driven this kind of sllip of the pen!]

intrapsychic

insight

outsight

systems


inter }

‘I’

‘emerge—‘.

P.S. I think describing drawings like [I deleted] gives more information than just looking at them, because now I can point out little details that you perhaps wouldn't have noticed. That's exactly David's style of looking at someone's drawing, he would always notice a thing that was peculiar and go for it.

[Corrie van Wijk]

[page 7]

There is a big circle, occupying the page (so it is a bit oval), but just within the edge. (I know better than to draw a circle that goes outside the page, David would make you stick another page next to it and have you finish the circle; this one is close, so Steve noticed it.) Just outside this circle, in the right upper corner, is written: ‘univers 13.7’, and crossing the line ‘courage’ and ‘principle’. At the bottom of the page it says: ‘emerg’ (I was telling about scaling, this circle represents the atmosphere). Within this circle, about an inch smaller, there is another circle. This represents the earth’s surface. There is a single arrow going from the earth’s surface to ‘universe 13.7’. Within this circle there are smaller circles with one in the middle with ‘A’ in it and another on top with ‘B' and 'X' in it. Around A there are three other circles with crosses, one of which also mentions ‘you’. These three circles are connected with a line, oddly shaped. Outside of that, on the inside at the edge of the earth’s surface, in the right lower corner, there is a little circle with ‘me’ in it.

(I was telling about my scaling sessions with David: the first time I ended neatly at the beginning of the universe, accurately 13.7 billion years ago, to find myself within an egg-scale, as large as a room. (That’s what you get from all these chicken-and-egg stories.) The second time, a few years later, I knew where this was going, so I decided to take a child’s point of view, and pictured ancestral courage and principles just at the edge of the atmosphere. The third time, after I sent David a few e-mails with cosmological theories, we ended, beyond the Calabi-Yau space, up in a mulitverse, each with different starting conditions. "Any metaphor will do", I said and David looked surprised, so I explained we’ll never know and can only imagine.)

P.S. From a previous posting: "What I am referring to is systems, as the client perceives them. E.g. a room, outside that a hallway, outside that a house, a garden, a village, the fields, the country, the planet, the universe, other universes (you don't have to go to six or stop at six, it all depends on the client's perception). A few weeks ago I visited the new planetarium at the Amsterdam Zoo: the camera takes you from Planet Earth to the solar system, flies over Mars and Venus, goes on into the Milky Way and beyond (based on real images).

What typically happens is that at some point something emerges from the mind that would be strange in that context, or a pronoun (I, me, your name) is used. Then David will ask how old you are and what you are wearing and go from there. You know you've reached the right scale when it is fitting that age, e.g. referring to the size of a cupboard a three year old would look up, because it's bigger than (s)he. Or people sit down on the floor, like a young child would.

As soon as the adult recognizes that situation and can integrate it, a system shift occurs and the dissociated part connects to the whole, which gives a huge physical reaction. That's how you know you've done your job, David would say.

Corrie

P.S. I wrote a transcript of such a process in the thread Keeping track of the desired outcome."

[Corrie van Wijk]

[page 8]

There are three circles here, within eachother. The most inner circle has a cross within, the others have a cross at the edge, the one closest to the inner circle at the right down, the most outer circle at the left on top, so the inner circle is in between them.

(This is about the solar system as a metaphor, planets orbiting the sun, and an eclipse.)

[Corrie van Wijk]

[page 9]


(This is about boundaries: I wonder if anyone understands and recognises the importance of this concept: what location is for SM, are boundaries for CS.)

[Corrie van Wijk]

[page 10]

(We were discussing here that instead of following the client’s logic, you can also make some sort of overview and check every possibility:
-- gen/anc
-- bodyscape
-- soundscape
--
--
-- ). 6

[Corrie van Wijk]

[page 11]

‘A’
‘B’.
‘maintenance’.

(This refers to the previous page, and uses the metaphor ‘maintenance’ to explain that sometimes the client doesn’t know exactly what his or her problem is or cannot locate it. Like you would check, e.g. a car, on different functions, you could have the client investigate different aspects of his or her experience, and see what comes up. This is not very clean, because it imposes a structure on them, but sometimes it is a way to start. Also, David might choose a younger problem to deal with because he knew that sentisized the current one. The earlier one may be easier to access if it would be less traumatic.)

[Corrie van Wijk]

[page 12]

This is a map of France, including the Dutch and Belgian coastline. Since I’ve edited many French maps, it’s pretty accurate. There is a square with a cross in it at Sangatte, a few scratches representing the Normandy hills, a little circle for Paris, and a little cross just south of Switzerland.

Nobody else would ever draw a map like this (Steve saw a face in it.), since it is about my experience: I selected the items that are emotionally relevant to me (hospitality). As I was explaining, a therapist might point out to me that there is an autoroute going down to Normandy, but as my map is an old one, it’s not on it, so how would I manage to go to Normandy by autoroute, unless I would follow the signposts or obey a Tom Tom? (Last autumn I drove with David to Paris and when we approached the airport the Tom Tom lady told us to take the exit, whereas the signposts indicated us to stay on the péripherique. David hesitated, so I told him to ignore her and trust me.)
If I would travel just folllowing signposts, I would never learn anything; all the times I got lost gave me so much information of where not to go, what to look for etc. Of course I could buy an update of my map and have a reality check (e.g. my 1988 map says "Tunnel ferroviaire en construction", the 2008 one indicates 0.35 min. for the Eurotunnel), but the nice thing about towns and villages is that they usually don’t move (I only know of one example of a village that decided to move across the river, because they got drowned all the time), so other than a new road, not much changes.

[Corrie van Wijk]

[page 13]

There is a square shape in the middle of the page, with lines in it. Around it an oddly shaped, somewhat rectangular line. This represents a flipchart with a statement B on it. Around it a few lines, that seem to form a circle, but way out of the page (I ignored Steve telling me to put some more paper around it.) At the bottum of the page the word ‘scaling’.

Very often David didn’t even look at the statement and took something else to pull back on, e.g.:

What kind of page could those sentences be on?
[paper]
What kind of [paper] were those sentences on?
[...]
How big could that [...] be, what kind of [cover]?
[...]
So, what's outside that [...]?
[...]
And what kind of you were you before you had a [...]?
[...]
And what kind of you were you before you had any [..]?
[...]
What kind of you were you when you were [...]?
[...]
What kind of time was that time?
[...]
What kind of you were you before you [...]?
[...]
What kind of you were you when you were [...]?
[...]
What was around you?
[...]
What kind of [...]?
[...]
And what kind of [..]?
[...]
And what kind of [age] could that [age] be before you [...]?
[...]
And what kind of you were you?
[...]
And what kind of you were you when you were [..] and [...] and what could you be wearing?
[...]
What kind of [somebody]?
[...]
What kind of [...]?
[...]
What does that [somebody] know?
[...]
Is there a space that knows what that [somebody] knows?
[...]
And what do you know now?
[...]

(Transcript from an EK session)

So it is not the information itself, but the emotional trigger that does the job. From that emotion David finds the owner. Because I guess any emotion is associated with sensory information at the time it happened, people usually remember them (‘I’) being in the situation, hence the questions ‘How old were you?’ and ‘What were you wearing?’

[Corrie van Wijk]

[page 14]

A single arrow starting from the middle of the page and ending at the right edge. Above it the word ‘outside’, below it a rectangular shape with six lines in it.

(This is probably about scaling out and just to please Steve I put in six lines.)

To give you an idea of what ‘a strangly scaled world’ would look like, here the example David used:

"I’ll tell you all my ideas about Looking-glass House. First, there’s the room you can see through the glass – that’s just the same as our drawing-room, only the things go the other way. I can see all of it when I get upon a chair – all but the the bit just behind the fire-place. Oh! I do so wish I could see that bit! I want so much to know whether they’ve a fire in the winter: you never can tell you know, unless our fire smokes, and then smoke comes up in that room too – but that may be only pretence, just to make it look as if they had a fire. Well then, the books are something like our books, only the words go the wrong way: I know that, because I’ve held up one of our books to the glass, and then they hold up one in the other room."

Lewis Carroll: Through the Looking-Glass (1872).

[Corrie van Wijk]

[page 15]

‘we’.

(This must be about a pronounscape; what would we call it if ‘we’ gets included as well? Would a ‘we’ be more like an ‘I’ or a ‘you’, or would it be about the interaction between the two? In this drawing it is outside the intrapsychic scape, in the next circle, so would that make it an interpsychic scape?)

[Corrie van Wijk]

[page 16]

‘B’
5.

(it refers to page 7 and we’re scaling back in (never go more inside than the here and now where you started!) and is about relevant spaces. I did this session on our very last ‘salon’ with David (on our way to the jazzconcert David tried to lie down in the back of the car, so he leaned at me and said: "This was the best ever, don’t you think?; I couldn’t agree more). The statement B was floating so I asked David to help me on that: a few minutes later I established it on the boundary of the inner circle, right next to A. So whenever I made a comment since, it was smilingly referred to as ‘message from the boundary’.)

[Corrie van Wijk]

[page 17]

V-like shape

(I figured out that this must refer to the former page with the number 5 in a little circle, also at the left bottum of the page. David preferably went for the youngest problem: "forget about anything older than 5" he said. Even if it is less traumatic that the later one (with the advantage that you can avoid the latter), if it is similar it probably sentisized the brain, making it more vulnerable, so the later had more impact or even worked as a self-fulfilling prophecy. So you may end up with a -- sometimes rather innocent -- child problem that, once it gets solved, reveals all the later, similar ones which may heal in the process or need less attention once the first one is dealt with. If he managed to pull back to T-1 and find the pristine I, somebody regained control. If the prestine I manages to solve the problem right there and right then, within the means available and the system in place, the brain gets fixed.)

[Corrie van Wijk]

[page 18]

the V-shape (see page 17)
[...]
‘What happens’

(Moving around makes a difference, because the sensory input, like the light, changes regularly. The mind may have a concept of time, I suppose the brain doesn’t, so whatever memory gets triggered, it can easily connect with former and later ones in the personal history. David was driving with "Then what happens?".)

[Corrie van Wijk]

[page 19]
‘neocortex’
‘lymbic system’
V

(Like I said above, the brain doesn’t have a concept of time, so if something goes back it time, it feels like a teleportation, like a wormhole: I suppose the limbic system makes the connection so quick that you don’t have an idea that time has passed. This probably means it is an emotional reaction; if it takes a few seconds to react it is more likely to be a function of the neocortex.

[Corrie van Wijk]

[page 20]

"self-recognition

me recognizing you

need for attention


interaction


presence
charisma
life-force

authentic therapy"

(This is about the interaction between the facilitator and the client. David was always very much alive, present, charismatic and authentic. "You don’t have to be polite" I told him once. "When have you ever seen anything of that?" he answered.)

[phil]

Here's another plea for visuals. These notes would be so much more interesting for readers if they were alongside the images they try to describe. Even if the images are small, they would SHOW the spatial layout rather than describe it, alowing the reader to notice what they notice about the relationships as well as reading your own interpretation.

As I said, I am happy to insert them if you scan them and email them to me.

[Corrie van Wijk]

o.k. I will (I didn't realize they were that interesting, to me it is just a way of talking. In the afternoon session Steve is making notes as well, so I need his permission for that.)

[page 21]
‘A’
‘B’
‘C’
‘D’
‘context’

((This is obviously about the ABCD and f space. I like to think of C as context, but I’m not sure if that would apply all the time for everybody.)

[Corrie van Wijk]

[page 22]

This is a empty page: time for lunch.

(The only rule I made about this gathering was that the pages were to be numbered.

And of course, anything that happens adjacency is as much important, if not even more so.)

[Corrie van Wijk]

[page 22]

After lunch Steve made notes: confusion
puzzlement

The key [delta sign] is permanence of change
dwalibility
depth

A perceived here+now
"real-world" B
"escape"
"in target"
strangely scaled world
1 metaphor+NLP
foreign
2
3 here+now
sdf "foreign"
4
5
6 then+there

A created B
"T" fragmentation
inner chilld
r.s.w.
mind evolved to solve problems

(This is a comparison of the effectiveness of NLP, Metaphor and EK; the question is which one realizes a permanent change. A client may have a distorted worldview as a result of some dissociation, which brings about a strangely scaled world. The goal B, created by A has something to do with that, but from the point of view of the inner child that may be different.)


[page 23]

Blank canvas
nothing exists without a purpose
antiparticle
particle
brain
in the head
baby
emotions
triggered by events no
past
Minerals
plants
insects
reptiles
mammals
animals
human

Soul
self – other

Darwin – Creationists
NOW
Emotions
A -- B
progress
8/9 -- 14
Mind

entropy
-13,7 bn -- now
Time
-10,000

ancestral
genes
evolutionary advantage

(Evidently this is about evolutionary development: a human comes into the world with a
genetical heritage. During its life it hears the stories from the ancestors and
experiences all sorts of events, which shape the memory of the brain/body.)

[page 24]

‘A’
‘energy’.
‘Jung’,
‘archetype’.

(I was talking about a clean space process, in which
memories get triggered and some energy presents itself.)

Many minds
scapes
pronoun sets

(Probably this is about that there are as many scapes as there
are minds. I asked how that could relate to Jung’s archetypes.)

[page 25]
avoid
energy
arche(s)types
snake

sun
earth
moon

not
measurement

(A two-dimensional shape is the shadow of a three-dimensional shape; like-wise something similar will happen with a four-dimensional shape.)

[page 26]

me-chemical
electromagnetic fields
I
think
memorize
fact
knowledge
measurement
me – you

electromagnetism
6
I LR
R LR
Ivd
IfB
EIB
VD

(This is about Steve’s theory of six dimensions. I do not agree with him on separate
dimensions for past, present and future, since they are all on the same ax, so they are
parts of one dimension.)

S-E
do
C
exp…
Iespress
it’s aliving
almt
s,etse
My I
feel You
Measure
Judge
Evaluate
Knowledge

(We were talking here about the function of the brain: David and I decided on ‘me-chemical’ off Étrepagny on our way to Paris.
Steve thinks electromagnetic fields play a role. A judgement or an evaluation of the mind would be similar to a measurement in quantummechanic terms. How does that relate to ‘Knowledge’ and ‘I’?)[page 27]

space-time
13.7
light
electron
magnetism
void
Fineman
self-coupling

that

one off
creator
universe.

I
R

(We were talking here about the origin of the universe; the universe is supposed to incorporate all
there is.)

[page 28]

Feelings + imaginations
present

‘sounds’, ‘light’ +, ), 1, 2, ‘feel’, 3 in it.

‘present (space)’, ‘past’ ‘future

‘past’

(This is about the distinction between past, present and future and how they all come together in the human mind.)

[page 29]

emergence
integrate
me
alien
clean
distinction from others
unthinkable you

intolerable projections

(I was drawing the process of emergence here and the integration within the person. The you and me and others probably mean that the discussion developed into the relationship with others.)

[page 30]

emergent to the perceiver, it is always there, but not perceived.
emergent
me
you
inherent
Where come from?
Inside
built-in
in interaction
diversity

you
me
inherent
seed
outside
dualism
particles
time
antip
twoism.

[page 31]

you me I
entropy
intrapsychic interaction
I me myself
internal self-other
matter energy matter
matter energy
energy matter

I
v, o, b, o, c, ob’, ao +e
something NEW – [deltasign] from the original.
What emerge? E=M
C’s =.
Matter
field=feeled
real thing
e m
matter+spirit p other, matter+spirit (energy) non-matter
entropy
E=mc2
selfother

(Just as on a quantumlevel energy transforms into matter and the other way round, in
intrapsychic interaction energy and matter get exchanged, perhaps equivalently as matter
and spirit. From that ‘something NEW and different from the original' is created.)

[page 32]

How does it serve the whole that some parts are aware to the whole?

Marking time

What is the purpose of being aware?

Why are some?

(I facilitated Steve here on 'me and you', with the repeated question ‘And then what happens?’ until
I said: "What about us?"

Then we took a beer.)

[page 33]

How do you do?

recognition reminded

soul sees soul
self sese self
MpathE

answer
if all sees all, then what?
entropy -- order game over
no thing left btf
What if all parts see all
Game starting

Our Soul

that’s what makes the world go round

a new matrix (universe)
a complete R+I awake – magic!

(Interaction makes the world go round!)

[page 34]

start
change can only happen over time.
new
[a drawing of a spiral representing the split between particle and antiparcle]
energy

+ -
1
different, similar, identical, two.

creator
created’
A, B and C.
me you

driving force, energy matter, A B

(We were probably talking here about quantummechanics as a metaphor for
interaction.)

[page 35]

1 Info Gathering clustered
sc..ted ass..ed sense is made or not’

K Bad
Good --event

4 legs good
2 legs bad.
4 legs good, 2 legs better
Animal Farm
George Orwell

Startreck Interaction is important
2 fae’s intra -- inter’

(This is about how information gets processed and evaluated.)

[page 36]

competent+ cares
mamal trust
FEELS
emergent trust

[delta sign] no boundary
+
taking the pry..t..
-unclean

AVID NOW
hide ti
-it hurt too much
Support System
biu
asl
,e
3 retreat + follow-up 29/7/3&5

flow, May

6/7
ILL,
A, F1
stay a…
em… pu .. (empathic
taken care of -- minimum
DotB

(This is about dealing with traumatic experiences.)

[Steve Saunders]

Hi Corrie,

I've found it hard to work out what was on the papers, I imagine no-one else has followed this thread, although Phil has asked more than once for the scanned images.

Anyway, what next? A gathering where we transcribe, a gathering of more people involved, or a parting of ways with each group doing its own thing?

From the conference there are many strands of evolving the emergence: straight coaching forms with 6's or 3's, training forms, people capturing David's ideas as far as they are able, 2-3 people doing inner child work and neither Debs nor the US contingent were present.

I am open to sharing with those who ask, but right now I wonder at the point of communal effort - it is time the spectators joined in and contributed or paid to be shown.

[super_yacht@hotmail.com]

Missing in Action: Keiko and the work her and David were doing in WBank last Oct, Steve Brigg from the Mid-West was working recently with David and loads of others from the USofA. Debs was there on Saturday evening but I didn’t see her for the rest of the conference and Corrie was absent also. All worked closely with David for a greater period of time than most.
Maybe the next conference should be over there?
I appreciate the offer to sharing and work communally, if I remember rightly this was the conversation around the table, along with lots of talk about writing books.
I also got quickly lost in Corries pages and never engaged.
So what will emerge from the conference?

Still pondering
John

[webmaven]

Hi, I wasn't able to go to the conference either (though it would have been in a spectator role anyway). I am glad to see the 2009 conference is going to be in September--airfare overseas will be much more affordable then (I hope).

I tried to follow Corrie's pages but I too was overwhelmed by the amount of information and the difficulty of deciphering it. There were some interesting bits of information, but since I'm a holistic learner, I have to see the big picture--how it all fits together--before I can fathom the parts. I wonder if there could be more annotation accompanying each posting or, as Phil requested, a picture or two (especially when a picture is being described).

I'll try to keep asking questions, in the hopes that my comprehension will develop or emerge over time. Please don't give up on me and the other silent readers. ;-)

webmaven

[Steve Saunders]

OK Webmaven, here goes an attempt at the big picture in terms I hope you understand.

1) What is the goal or end or purpose of clean/emergent facilitation?
a) Satisfied client? b) Client no longer has an "issue" relating to the starting conditions? c) the client sees the issue in proportion to its relative scale (seeing it as it is)? d) another outcome, e) reconnect the inner child to the present body? f) no outcome?. Some people claim they have no outcome for a clean facilitation - untrue IMO, so one may as well be clear about it - after all, why facilitate?

2) There is always some form of interaction client-facilitator, and the purpose of clean is to minimise harmful intrusions from the facilitator into the client, while enabling the client to attain or realise that which they come to realise or attain.

3) Traumas (i.e. present problems) are measurements made in the past - the present symptoms are the communications from that past - from the inner/outer child or intruded external entity. So the facilitator is interacting with the "not here and now" aspects of the client. Staying clean and making the client self-engage minimises the complexity of interaction and reduces transference, especially that which gets in the way of the symptoms doing their job - the next principle: the symptoms are to be helped to complete: once the job is done the symptoms then desist.

4) The GMT (Q2) was designed to move B to the body (B being the outer child extruded in trauma), exquisitely finding the hidden fragments from the spaces where they hid. The Space (Q3) was designed to fix C and B, and to move A to connect the body to the outer/inner fragments. The Q4 was designed to return ancestral fragments back whence they came and to then recover a redemptive metaphor - this was based upon the Maori cosmology and his earliest work I reckon, and other "pulling back" patterns were designed to separate out intrusions back whence they came. The emergence was a new and easiest way of enabling A or B to move to connect the body to the "not here and now".

5) So a client system has: inner children, outer children, intruded entities from others - and each of these requires a slightly different algorithm to recover, reconnect or disentangle as appropriate. The outer child can be in the perpetrator's body and the perpetrator can be in the client's body. There is perpetrator, victim and witness trauma (each of the 3 perceptual positions). The work is to cleanly separate the aspects - disentangling the entangled energies of those involved, returning all to the appropriate sources, thus undoing all the trauma.

6) The methodology is then like any therapy - a form whereby the stage, the process and the magic is worked such that the structure is rearranged using the signals given at each stage by the client's system. The difference with clean is to create the conditions whereby the easiest flow of symptoms occurs to most easily resolve and restructure as required, thus least intrusion, small steps (adjacency) and simple processes that are easy to replicate and teach. And psychoactivity is another key element: the real and the imaginary simultaneously active, thus eyes open and the creating of anchors for the geometry and then movement relative to the geometry. And the stage, ritual and importance, reverence and sacredness!

In the early days of exploring the scaling, David would revert to fixing the geometry rather than continuing the scaling. Maintaining confidence in the algorithm we gradually eliminated such manipulations and let the scaling algorithms do their work. I believe the scaling really connected back to his earliest work, upgraded with more efficient and less draining needs on those involved.

The clean applications of David's work are all coaching and training forms which do not address the inner child cosmologies or structures, but which do manipulate the strangely-scaled world around the present world. I believe only Jennifer and I do the work with the full "not here and now" collective, but maybe I'm wrong.

OK Webmaven, questions please

Cheers
Steven

[Corrie van Wijk]

There is a difference between 'intruding a chosen model on the client' and following the client's brain structure and thinking patterns to resolve unwanted symptoms and underlying trauma's. Metaphor addresses a client's thinking pattern and gives them a means of expressing the underlying emotions and feelings. Space triggers memories and reveals patterns of connections. Emergence is a spontaneous phenomenon that can occur in any cybernetic system. Creating conditions for it to happen is as much as you can do. Any adding of information from outside changes the system, which makes it more difficult to retrieve the original composition. That's why David found out that hypnosis doesn't work and he stopped doing it: you need a clean approach; any structure you try to impose works contrarily.

You never answered my questions about six: I knew that there is no rationale for it and now you admit it. But whether it is five or seven or eight, it is an iteration. Iteration is the key property of any cybernetic system, so there must be something about it: like David told me last year, it's the variations that occur that gives the system enough rope to hang itself.

For further discussion see the thread 'Iteration'' in the Emergent Knowledge section above.
Steven: "The clean applications of David's work are all coaching and training forms which do not address the inner child cosmologies or structures, but which do manipulate the strangely-scaled world around the present world. I believe only Jennifer and I do the work with the full "not here and now" collective, but maybe I'm wrong."

I very much doubt if anyone can make that distinction: it resonates anyway. That's why David withdrew his permission to work with it.

[Steve Saunders]

Please explain what you mean about withdrawing permission?

[Corrie van Wijk]

Please explain what you mean about withdrawing permission?

Ask those involved.

[Steve Saunders]

Well if I knew who he withdrew permission from ...

He asked me to not teach scaling and pulling back and promptly taught them in front of me, so sorry but someone has to walk their talk before I'll listen to crap like that,

I know of no withdrawals of permission to scale or pull back.

So if there are any other permit issues I'm unaware of them.

Steven

[Corrie van Wijk]

From the section ''Feedback: it's your forum, the thread 'Treat all information equally':
"when I put much effort into reuniting David's and Steve's views and sharing them on this forum, I get moved into 'developments', saying that my notes on the Sangatte emergence gathering are 'just' modelling emergence, meaning 'no more than'. (It is not even possible to model emergence).

When I explain in the next posting in the thread, after it has been moved, that there is no point in contuining writing down the notes in this context, this posting gets rémoved."

I finished writing down the notes, although no more inspired, just out of obligation. You can find them above. There are 36 pages in total: 3x7 to luch, 1 for lunch and 2x7 in the afternoon.

[phil]

Thanks for the notes, Corrie. If you have the page images, the spatial arrangement may help us to understand the notes, which would be good considering all the work you have put in.

Do you have a written summary of the day that might help us futher?

Phil

[webmaven]

OK Webmaven, here goes an attempt at the big picture in terms I hope you understand.

OK Webmaven, questions please

Cheers
Steven

Steve,

Thanks for your efforts to give me a "big picture" perspective. Very helpful, indeed!

#4 in particular was a good overview of the interactions between each of David's developments.

Question about #5: "The work is to cleanly separate the aspects - disentangling the entangled energies of those involved, returning all to the appropriate sources, thus undoing all the trauma."

Is this actually possible? Have you been able to do this with clients (undo the trauma)? Or is there another term that would more accurately describe what happens when you "disentangle the energies of those involved" and re-scale that strangely-scaled world?

"The clean applications of David's work are all coaching and training forms which do not address the inner child cosmologies or structures, but which do manipulate the strangely-scaled world around the present world."

Am I correct in understanding that scaling is the only way to change that strangely-scaled world or somehow merge it or cause some kind of resolution/harmonizing with the present? Are there any other ways to do this? Anyone know how the "clean worlds" approach that David was working on most recently relates to scaling, if at all?

Just a shot in the dark, there.

Thanks for your responses.

webmaven

[Steve Saunders]

Webmaven:
Question about #5: "The work is to cleanly separate the aspects - disentangling the entangled energies of those involved, returning all to the appropriate sources, thus undoing all the trauma."

Is this actually possible? Have you been able to do this with clients (undo the trauma)? Or is there another term that would more accurately describe what happens when you "disentangle the energies of those involved" and re-scale that strangely-scaled world?

My answer: a) yes it is possible, b) yes I have been mostly successful for over two years now - the mostly refers to some clients not having enough time - some people's multiple-cosmologies just require a LOT more time and patient effort. c) the starting perceptual world is strangely-scaled. The pristine child world (even if before conception) is real-scaled. I believe "disentangling" is potentially the most accurate term for the work, but also de-merging, de-interleaving, separating sorting and re-associating are all relevant words.

Webmaven:
"The clean applications of David's work are all coaching and training forms which do not address the inner child cosmologies or structures, but which do manipulate the strangely-scaled world around the present world."

Am I correct in understanding that scaling is the only way to change that strangely-scaled world or somehow merge it or cause some kind of resolution/harmonizing with the present? Are there any other ways to do this? Anyone know how the "clean worlds" approach that David was working on most recently relates to scaling, if at all?

My answer: absolutely not, scaling is not the only way. The GMT was designed to do the same - it was just fiendishly complicated and tricky to learn - this clean space. David's clean space work was also designed to reconnect bodily the inner-outer children through fixing B/C and moving A - the model of this work called "clean space" is however a coaching-level form of the work, not a model of what David was really doing. There are many forms of scaling that achieve the results: drawing/writing, feelings, pronoun scaling, what I call "truth work" which operates on cause-effect chains, the cosmic joke and self-reframing all work. Also the ancient traditions of meditation, yoga, tai-chi, feng-shui and homeopathy can all achieve the result - and no doubt many more that I have not mentioned.

David had a "clean worlds" process that he ran a workshop on before he started emergence (2004). Angela Dunbar noted the process perfectly, and I have a copy of it. He also demonstrated this at Caitlin's house in 2005. We experimented with emergent forms of this in 2006, and I'm sure he was evolving it further. This process addressed the cosmological boundary of birth (as a rule). By mapping out the life in space as a time-scape, he would then oscillate the boundary of birth and then step people into "before". IMO this was a manipulated form because he knew the greater structure and it is rare for the client to think to go beyond themselves. Thus scaling became the most reliable, repeatable way of enabling the child to touch the present body.

When learning scaling David would fall back into "space" by moving A in B/C when he found a dissociated aspect. I corrected this by arguing to stay with the algorithm and keep scaling until the client was looking out of the inner/outer child's eyes and could see that world at the same scale as their present body - job done. So by keeping to the scaling algorithm the result is guaranteed given enough time. This is why I prefer it to the other ways: simpler and high percentage success in the time constraints.

Any questions or comments?

cheers

Steven

[Corrie van Wijk]

I deleted most descriptions of drawings, except the ones that are easy to imagine. The notes are not meant to made sense of, but just to give you an impression of what we talked about.

My opening question to Steve was how to develop Emergent Knowledge for dummies, and of course, if you want to make something simple, you have to know how complicated it can get.

Emergence is a physical phenomenon, so we explored the universe from the quantum mechanic Calabi-Yau space to the network of the brain, which has more neural connections than there are stars in space.

[phil]

Okay, thanks for that. Did you get anywhere with the EK for Dummies idea?

Phil

[Corrie van Wijk]

Yes, I'm starting to get the picture; there isn't much difference between David and Steve's approach, which isn't surprising to me, since they both talked a lot about the same phenomenon.

Let me sit on this egg for a while.