Is Clean a philosophy?

[Steve Saunders]

0. I'm wondering about the spaces and movements between these threads. And I'm also wondering about an overview thread that is about the networking / pulling together / connecting of the threads into a whole. Where to put musings and discussions about the whole rather than the parts?

1. Maybe "Clean Philosophy" could be an overall thread?

I awoke with this thought because I'd realised a potential pattern in what David shared with me and wondered if this pattern went across other collaborators or students. When we first met I was working with a fusion of SyM and RAPSI - called "Direct Engagement Modelling"; and this work was inner-child related and very spatial. So because I was already working in the areas of dissociation (with my analogue theory) David explained his digital dissociation theory. We then held a series of systems engineering/EK workshops to explore chaos, systems, signal processing, physics and radar processing gave useful insights for David, and also he gave us insights into his working (hieroglyphics, space, spinning, inner child, EK ...).
Because I was already working in areas he felt the need to help me avoid making mistakes on other people by showing me how it worked - because of his experiences researching an exploring. Because I was already researching and interested in areas, he shared those areas. I suspect therefore that he only shared what he was really doing where he saw another person researching or keenly enough interested that they had already made their own advances or breakthroughs. He also told me very plainly that he was only interested because I was not a psychologist, but an engineer/physicist - it was the "out-of-field" knowledge that interested him. This relates to his consistent Einstein-quoting about escaping the thinking that has created the current probleming (chicken/egg too). He expressed absolute disinterest in psychological theories and no interest in any of my theories about human beings; his interest was the physics, the maths, the radar, the signal processing.

3. So to understand David's work we may consider also having threads addressing the contextual spaces around his work; architecture, brain research, chaos theory, hieroglyphics ; all the kinds of knowledge that the world around interested David.

4. So, this history and bio information will help in providing the context to put the work together - to join the dots. This relates to an earlier post about the transitions from Ericksonian to Metaphor to Space to EK. These periods of transition are for me the gold mines; the stable-state formulas contain very little information as they represent completed thought without its context. Yes I can use a process, and I can generalise across processes, but what led to the process - context and history hold the clues.

5. So threads on these spaces between: each modality of clean, the roots before clean, please?

6. and a thread on the whole networking / EK'ing of his work, please too.


thank you phil

love Steven

[Corrie van Wijk]

Steve: "Maybe "Clean Philosophy" could be an overall thread?"

No Steve, it could NOT! Clean is not about philosophy, except that clean allows you to work with any belief, philosophy or religion a client might have, as long as you treat it as a metaphor for anybody(ELSE's!) world view.

Clean ONLY applies to the facilitator, the client can do whatever he or she likes. So you can only use clean in the context of a clean move, or a clean attitude from the facilitator.

[Steve Saunders]

Thanks Corrie,

My reasons for putting my thinking in the last post was to give context for asking for threads addressing the spaces and moves between ASPECTS OF clean.

So wrong question " is clean a philosophy?" Perhaps the post could have asked whether there is a "Philosophy of Clean", or do we have to constrain our thinking to "A Science of Clean".

What I hope for from the "Clean" thread is to discuss and thereby gain understanding of the whole of David's work, not the parts.

Phil: I like the title "Clean" and will endeavour to stick to the conditions of posting David-only sourced material. So where do I post speculative discussion about its origin; do we split into a "history-only" direct quotes section and a discussion section which will contain our projections, or how do we address this? I will trust your policing sir!

Meanwhile, where do I post my speculations on the spaces between the threads? (That might lead to more concrete historical joining of dots.)

Cheers

Stevn

[Corrie van Wijk]

Steve: "Perhaps the post could have asked whether there is a "Philosophy of Clean", or do we have to constrain our thinking to "A Science of Clean"."

My view on this is that we keep our thinking of the science of clean separate from our or anybody else's philosophy on clean.

As for structure:

1. f has learned the principles of clean and acquired the skills to work with it
2. f has a clean attitude towards the client
3. f creates a clean context for the client
4. f chooses clean moves, that can be any form of communication
5. clean moves can be directed to A, B, C or D.
(Clean moves means that as a facilitator you make a conscious decision, after you thought it over carefully -- it may a strategic or a tactic decision -- but you have a CLEAN goal in mind: to enable the client to explore his or her brain, map it or enable it to make unconsious connections, from which a solution to WWYLTHH emerges.)

[forumadmin]

Discuss the relationship between the other concepts in this forum in the new 'Betweens' forum.

Suggest new structure or forums in Support and Feedback.

Phil

[Steve Saunders]

I suggested that, to understand David's work, you look between the "dots" - the phases between metaphor and space, the early days of emergence, and before metaphor.

No reply and continued fixation on space appears to be the "modus operandi": fixations on the dots, and keeping the dots nicely separated.

Why was David exploring what he was? The answer is to find ever-more effective, harmless and reliable ways of recovering the "not here and now" to the here and now, and returning intruded metaphor back whence it came.
Why? Because that is what we discussed - David's real purpose in this work.
Why? Because we shared that vision and purpose.
Why? Because we both know something about human being: about the nature of human being and what happens when people meet, feel, say and do what they do.
Why? Because we looked, we asked, and we found.
Why? Because something was missing, and we would not be satisfied with less than knowing the truth thereof.
Why? Answer in my self-modelling thread.

Meanwhile, ponder WHY - therein lies the understanding.

Steven

[phil]

You want to examine the ? non-space ? between the 'dots', yet separating the dots also seems to be a problem and someone is fixated on space...

I'm sure this makes sense to you, I'm sorry to say I am having to guess at what you're talking about and so I have lost interest in the discussion.

Phil