Is Clean a science?

[Corrie van Wijk]

David liked to be referred to as a mechanic (I gave him a t-shirt with that and his name on it.)

[Corrie van Wijk]

Phil: "I think the clean language in Grovian Metaphor Therapy could be loosely defined as homeopathic in that a) no attempt is made to apply a conventional cure (like poisoning a tumour or cutting out a diseased organ or getting rid of an unwanted symptom) and b) the principle of working within the problem domain is similar."

Thank you Phil, for this contribution, which you moved to the CL section.

As for a):

It is possible to make a picture of the brain when (part of it) is dissociated and one after the dissociation has been resolved: it clearly shows that the connection has been restored and communication can take place between parts that had been separated before. When I talked to David in Hamburg I said that resolving this kind of psychological problem is like brain surgery: you have to get to the exact right spot (right there and right then) to heal it. Talking to some of David's patients confirmed this belief, also that the solution must lie within that system, it must be something that A at T-1 can do. In that respect associating by means of language or symbols, or directly through a space that has a similar sensory combination as the memory, reaches that part of the brain that contains a (painful) memory, so may-be you could consider that a mechanical move (with of course chemical consequences).

Regarding b):

I'm not sure if David intended to work within the problem domain, at least not to start with. He found it useful to get the client out of his or her 'tunnel vision', e.g. by asking "What's outside?" He also invited you to find another space (away from the problem space of A).
The use of metaphor also sometimes can help to get you 'out' of the problem: in my case (see the selfmodelling section) I managed to project this triple bind on the moon, which made it far away and thus less emotional. Also talking about it in terms of a metaphor can make it easier to deal with (also for social reasons, if the client is too shy or afraid to talk about it directly). But his early approaches in clean language might have been linear, while space and emergence are about a systems approach.

[Corrie van Wijk]

Steve: "Mind comes into existence after a "measurement" has been made. A measurement happens due to either a lack of understanding or an interruption to the smooth flow of awareness. Mind then goes to work seeking the right understanding of the event or the recovery of the interrupted life force flow. After right understanding is achieved and reconnection to separated aspects of self, the mind stops and the experience of "no mind" returns. [However, if too many successive measurements happen then the typical occidental mind remains active until the right environment enables mind to complete its job]."

The evolutionary advantage of having a conscious mind is that you can remember experiences from the past, imagine them in the future and make a plan. Being able to communicate about it with others makes it possible to act together.

[Corrie van Wijk]

Re: EK, some answers questioned, page 1

Steve: "Why do people dissociate?
Dissociation serves to: preserve that which cannot tolerate an experience, measure the experience for later understanding. It's an aspect of projected awareness, which is an ongoing continuous activity, but separated by measurement/interrupt.

How do they dissociate?
If the awareness is interrupted then the smooth flow of out-to-object-back-to-me is broken and that which was at object and the space in between is left as a structure. The person gets cold (shock) and eventually warms up. When the dissociation is undone they heat up with the extra returned energy - evidenced with hundreds of people.

Where do they go when they do dissociate?
The go into the object(s) of focus of awareness - perpetrator's eyes, wallpaper pattern, a sponge, literally whatever.

How does one recover dissociated aspects of self?
By navigating space/time or movement to the recorded real-world event, noticing the points of focus and interrogating them, then by navigating back to the here and now. (Hey, this is like timeline - yes, but somewhat cleaner!)"

I think David's skill and art to do this, is his most important contribution to psychotherapy. Unlike other approaches he managed to not-trigger the experience directly, which would have reinforced it, but to smoothly and gently avoid it even more than the brain would itself, so by well-balancing and dosing 'call' it back from whence it got lost and to make A at T-1 the owner again, who is now able to deal with it.

[Corrie van Wijk]

Steve: ""It's having the right model for how people become the way they become that informs the work. Then its much easier - it can still take "forever" though! The only certainty is that the real client is not the "here and now" aspect."

Webmaven: "I'm quite intrigued by your statement that the real client is not the "here and now" aspect. How so? And is that ever not the case?"

So what would be the right model?

[Steve Saunders]

Corrie, you tell me what you buy or not, so choose from the many models one that works. You have expressed many times you do not like my model, so find one that is "scientific", but I guarantee a physical-real-brain-only model will always fail. I have a model that works, whether you like it or not is your problem although I may get the fallout. Caveat Emptor:

"Ask and ye shall receive; knock and the door will be opened" Mathew 7.7 (approx wording).

In very brief form:

What makes a human being?

A self plus emotions, body and mind are somehow joined within an environment of other human beings and life forms both organic and inorganic, fields and thought forms. A human feels, thinks, experiences, senses, acts and projects.

A human being is both God and part of the whole of self plus not-self. The consequential ethics of projection and self-other God form the basis of all major religions. Science is the baby of the enquiring mind which is the baby of lost understanding which is the baby of creation and destruction which is the child of the fractal structure that serves as the basis for all life and the universe known so far.

Russian Dolls: the outermost is your first self; the innermost your present self. When you are at one you are the same size as your body. But almost no-one is.

It is so very simple that maybe no-one wants to see it. You are God; you create and you destroy. Fragmentation is the result of creation, at-one-ment is the result of destruction. Creation is a series of measurements and destruction is the navigation that undoes the measurements. A human (Heisenberg) manifested that the only measurements are location and momentum; before then, there were more. Now there are not. Your measurements are coded in locations (space-time) or movements (momentum).

You make many aspects of your self to create a self that survives (or seeks to survive) given the environment; being who others need you to be until you can start doing this to others as well - this starts very early! The separated aspects of self are separated by 6 steps of time and space - 3 around each centre of gravity making 6 in between. Each new self makes more. Other people's projections into you become so part of you that you no longer differentiate them; words, colours, people, gravity. You stop seeing the whole metaphysical universe because others need you to.

The model of 6 degrees of separation was the trigger for David to make his work simpler and re-start the inner child after nearly 20 years of waiting for an easier way than metaphor. Emergence makes all the previous forms obsolete. The releases, inging and truth work make spatial emergence obsolete also. Such is life.

Your body is a created vehicle for expressing love for others, in what appears strange ways.
You radiate out your universe and see its reflections back from the other aspects of yourself (the sun and moon metaphor).

The world is back to front - including personal responsibility. A child expresses perfectly its parents unexpressed stuff and then gets filled with chemicals and abused for showing the parents their projections. This is how horrible the world is; the children are innocent, the abusing adults are themselves re-perpetrating their abuses on others and on the children, not knowing why - although the souls do.

And yet the beautiful side is that the love-service is willingly given by the abused child. The world is perfect and no-one needs healing unless they ask for it.

It's all fully written up in the notes I offered you, Corrie.

I'm not with-holding anything except that which I was asked to withhold. In perfect service!

I'm perfect as I am, so are you, so is everyone else. We each serve how the others require whether we know it or not. It's normally better to not know; the only thing worse than not knowing is knowing.

Now, I do not expect you to like this model, and it matters not to me whether you do; you asked, you get.

Scientifically, one can measures the spaces between pronoun sweet-spots; empirically the model's predictions work. That is all that matters; a better model than before. So far I've

This post will probably get filtered for being too far out. But then maybe it won't.

Steven

[Corrie van Wijk]

Steve: "Corrie, you tell me what you buy or not, so choose from the many models one that works."

I'm not interested in many models, and it is irrelevant which one I would buy, if any.

I'm interested in a model that works, and that everybody can work with. A model that works is based on a presupposition or theory of how the brain works and how people think.

Steve: "I have a model that works.

Scientifically, one can measure the spaces between pronoun sweet-spots; empirically the model's predictions work."

What are pronoun sweet-spots, where are they, how do you measure the spaces between. Which predictions of the model work?

Other than that, it's your philosophy.

[phil]

This thread was moved across from the Clean Concepts/Clean forum by the administrator for the following reasons:

The original thread was called 'Is Clean a science?' The content starts on that subject and then in subsequent posts seems to wander off - Corrie also later deletes 2 posts making it hard to follow the thread. In the end Steve writes a long monologue about his own model and beliefs in a 'like it or lump it' style and Corrie rises to challenge him.

By the end of the thread, the connection to the original topic of science seems tenuous at best and Clean is but a distant memory. Furthermore the style of the interaction at the end is far from Clean and, while staying clean is not specifically required in the forums, perhaps we could all start practising some of what is being preached by asking a few clean questions.

I moved the thread from the Clean forum to Emergent Knowledge Developments, a place where sequences of assertion/challenge/defence seems to have other examples for company.

[Corrie van Wijk]

Phil: ' The content starts on that subject and then in subsequent posts seems to wander off - Corrie also later deletes 2 posts making it hard to follow the thread."

I deleted two posts, because I edited them into the first one.

And just because somebody else wanders off in a thread I started, shouldn't mean that you dump all of it in a place you mention with some kind of disdain, while the other thread in that section doesn't deserve that.

And as for the style, I'm willing to communicate in a clean way, but I also give a clear opinion when I feel like. Steve and I are friends and we respect eachother, although we might disagree on certain topics.

[Steve Saunders]

Corrie: please keep being Corrie; finally I understand why you're in my life; I won't presume to understand why I'm in yours though! Thanks for being perfectly Corrie!

Corrie: "I'm interested in a model that works, and that everybody can work with. A model that works is based on a presupposition or theory of how the brain works and how people think."

Well then we have two contradictory requirements. Whatever shall we do. You require a model that everybody can work with and one that is based upon how the brain works.

Well, I'm one of those everybody's and a model based upon the brain only does not work for me. And my model not being based upon the brain does not work for you.

So now what kind of model can work?

Maybe there is no model possible. Maybe a different kind of model is needed?

I can only speak for myself; I wanted a model from which I could make everyone else's model right. So my model has to be able to predict how a model that is brain-centric works. It has to make both Darwinians and Creationists right. It has to make right empirical scientists, homeopathy, placebo, christians, muslims, buddhists, atheists, in short it has to include the possibility of the world views of all people, all animals, all plants, all spirits and all material substances.

From such a fundamental theory I can then build a theory suited to a certain world view.

So let us start a model assuming that all is from how the human brain works, and let us temporarily ignore how the human brain came into being - or assume Darwin is a good assumption.

So the human brain receives signals from sensors, processes the information, stores some in memories (although nowhere in the brain has yet been found where memories are stored). In response to certain stimuli trained nets of neurons respond: "hello", "hello". So a person is trained by the chemical reactive experience of life; high chemical stresses make for bigger impacts in the neurology and so a personality is shaped.

The chaotic attractors of such a system are the centres of the neural nets that respond most acutely to external stimuli. They are also "the pronoun sweet spots". Because the brain is built on fuzzy-neural net principles some degree of separation between centres of attraction are required, Darwin and nature combine to efficiently use the least space and empirically 6 steps between centres is enough - nature's trial and error with survival has made this choice.

The pronoun sweet spot is at the pause point after 6 navigating questions. Starting from an initial communication, 6 answers later the pronoun in use is a different one from the starting awareness of "present age here and now", although the client might not be aware of that due to cosmological boundaries. The languaging may or may not indicate pronouns.

To measure the spaces between you could use David's EK space navigation questions:

seed with: shape/size/extent
then: edge/boundary
space beyond, how far, edge or boundary *6
beyond the 6th is the world of another pronoun - the sweet spot thereof.

By transferring between the pronoun worlds back and forward like in the clean worlds process, basically the worlds mix the neurology changes and the person can never go back. Its s glorified and improved Swish pattern (Bandler) - but it works and its in a better place than the surface behaviour model of the original swish. ;-))

By measuring though be careful - this second measuring undoes the structure and its not there any more. In Physics measurement destroys that which is measured. Look up a simple Feynman or Heisenberg experiment on the web.

Now let us move onto consciousness and emotions. They are proposed to be the emergent electromagnetic fields due to brain activity and body chemistry. As fields they radiate and can be detected by similar objects to the radiating parts; thus empaths pick up other peoples emotions and thoughts through highly sensitive sensing structures in the body and brain.

The self is merely the result of brain activity; when the heart stops the brain stops the field disappears and the person is dead.

So in this model we can blame the body, diet, chemicals, environment, etc as the cause and stop looking further. I mean, why ask "why did the chemicals over-produce?" "why did the body go out of balance?" The brain is shaped by chemical response to experience , this then sends signals to the body, bad diets happen as a result, poor environments are made and people become sick.

I think this basic model can work for a material-only scientific world view.

love Steven
PS; keep on being Corrie!

[Corrie van Wijk]

Steve: "So my model has to be able to predict how a model that is brain-centric works. It has to make both Darwinians and Creationists right. It has to make right empirical scientists, homeopathy, placebo, christians, muslims, buddhists, atheists, in short it has to include the possibility of the world views of all people, all animals, all plants, all spirits and all material substances.

From such a fundamental theory I can then build a theory suited to a certain world view."

Thank you Steve!

The nice thing about clean is that it is process-oriented: whatever anybody's worldview, you just facilitate his or her thinking process by clean moves. Clean moves are effective because they reduce the amount of information to be processed (you don't need to get involved in your therapist's worldview or opinion), and if they are based on how the brain works, you can effeciently go to the right spot to solve the problem. So the model serves any worldview, whatever it is, the client may figure it out for him or herself and if he or she finds out that it doesn't work for them, they may find another one or abandon it altogether.

Steve: "So a person is trained by the chemical reactive experience of life; high chemical stresses make for bigger impacts in the neurology and so a personality is shaped."

Right, that's why a client needs to map his or her experience, so he or she can make sense of it.

Steve: "The chaotic attractors of such a system are the centres of the neural nets that respond most acutely to external stimuli. They are also '"the pronoun sweet spots'"."

Why are neural nets that respond most acutely to external stimuli 'pronoun sweet spots'?
What do you mean by 'pronoun sweet spots'?

Steve: "By transferring between the pronoun worlds back and forward like in the clean worlds process, basically the worlds mix the neurology changes."

What I think happens in such a process, like in clean space, is that by triggering relevant networks (spaces, systems) and visiting them repeatedly, they all heat up and start connecting, thus forming new paths?

Steve: "By measuring though be careful".

David had the habit of not asking too much if he knew something big had happened. He would just dwell or make a joke.

Steve: "Now let us move onto consciousness and emotions. They are proposed to be the emergent electromagnetic fields due to brain activity and body chemistry."

Yes, they are. But what makes humans different from "the brain shaped by chemical response to experience, this then sending signals to the body" is that the human mind has evolved to become self-conscious, thus being able to relate itself to the environment, make plans and communicate with other human doings. We create our own world, and our imagination can create many more...

[Steve Saunders]

1 Corrie: Why are neural nets that respond most acutely to external stimuli 'pronoun sweet spots'?
What do you mean by 'pronoun sweet spots'?

The centre of a cluster of neurons in a self-organising neural net is its centre of gravity. The pronoun sweet spot is the centre of a "world" separated by 6 steps from another "world". Because the spaces in-between are part-way between. The sweet spot is the space most likely to be able to answer from the pronoun, age itself, cloth itself. The steps between - 1 to 6 have David's or my interpretations - 1 is more self-referenced, 2 is more other-referenced, 3 is more contextual, 4 moves to the source of this pronoun (the next one) 5 and 6 develop the knowings of moving into the world of the next pronoun.

2 Steve: "By transferring between the pronoun worlds back and forward like in the clean worlds process, basically the worlds mix the neurology changes."
Corrie: What I think happens in such a process, like in clean space, is that by triggering relevant networks (spaces, systems) and visiting them repeatedly, they all heat up and start connecting, thus forming new paths?

Very probably; also the whole body or specific parts might also experience the heating. By visiting the inbetween repeatedly a new path is created and something(s) migrate; new neurology, heating. Well its plausible. ;-)

[Steve Saunders]

A human individual mind emerges as a metaphysical network reflecting the neuronal network of learned brain experience. The spaces between the nodes of this network- the links appear to be six in number because they hold 3 contextual layers around each node and that's about as efficient as nature needs to reinforce (Darwin and rule of 3's in speeches).

Process-wise, navigating from the start, via the nodes (pronouns) and the links (spaces or moves between) a client can journey from here to there and back again thus deconstructing the mind-field and rechanneling the neurology simultaneously.

The eyes seem to focus the access of the experience, thus the space, direction angle distance and geometry of clean.

peace reigns - maybe this is enough?

[Corrie van Wijk]

Steve: "A human individual mind emerges as a metaphysical network reflecting the neuronal network of learned brain experience."

There is no such thing as the metaphysical: energy equals matter. 1)

Have a good retreat, take care of your clients, give Josie a hug.

Love,

Corrie

1) For scientific and philosophical arguments against a ghostlike something that is neither matter nor energy see Dennett, D.C.: 'Consciousness explained', Boston, 1991.