Steve Saunders
29-02-2008, 02:43 PM
This is an emergent 6 sets of 6 questions surveying the spaces in between some threads. It's just a start ...
So what kind of space is the space (SWKOSITS) between EK and CS?
Finding the concept of 6 degrees of separation
Looking for something outside of CS that might pertain to a new way of achieving the purpose of CS
Realising some limitation or constraint in CS (or maybe just a desire to try something different (boredom?))
Completing a finished form of working with CS that feels exhausted of innovating
Teaching others the clean space forms
Applying the CS forms
Learning and exploring the CS forms
1SWDIKN?
The above is going back in time from between EK and CS towards CS.
So WKOSITS after finding EK?
Exploring a wide range of input out-of-field knowledge sources
Experimenting with navigating across worlds to move between the pronouns separated by the 6 degrees of separation (spatial, radial, angular, gestural, scaling forms)
Moving from spatial navigation into meta-driving (a move into “algorithms)
Moving to new forms of pacing emergence other than clean questions
Moving from space to emergent question forms
Moving into story and metonomic forms, escaping the F
Moving into moving forms (Steve)
2SWDIKN?
Emergence and EK are different philosophies inherently; the EK goes back to David’s information-centric world view from GMT and CS. That was “in service to the metaphor”, then “in service to the information”. EK became in-service to the algorithm, meaning that in the full expression, the K had to go; Emergence is the correct name for the full flowering of the work, whereas EK inherently keeps the legacy of information-centric thinking.
SWKOSITS between E and Moving Emerging?
Several conversations about measurement, Heisenberg and location/momentum with David, that were going nowhere at the time regarding momentum; they were only my interests,
Emerging stuck movements using space/EK question forms (David and Steven Christmas 05).
A long time of being left on the shelf
Renewed interest in Autumn 07; exploring Roget’s Thesaurus and different forms of understanding Grammar, Roget had 6 different categories, and I noticed the absence of “pre-verbs” as I searched prepositions for movement precursors.
Exploring simple E question forms from a location-measuring form, and initially adding an “ing” to a verb.
Further explorations, experiments and discussions with other people that helped with gaining inspiration. Gradually a new form of emerging moving emerges with a complete absence of spatial (location) thinking in the questioning. Teaching others this new form, and working with feedback.
3SWDIKN?
By inspecting how I moved through the space between E and EM, I can infer some of what happened between phases of David’s evolution of “Clean”.
SWKOSITS between CS and GMT?
Purely speculative and inferencing on my part, based upon some of David’s words on this to me about his inner child work and why he left it for so long.
Approximately worded as its a long time ago now, quote: “the inner child work was just too tough to teach ... the facilitator makes a lot of judgements and has to understand a lot more of the client’s reality ...”. From a few conversations, the work was hard on the F, it required great flexibility on the part of the F, and consistently, “just too hard”.
So David was looking for another way to achieve the result of migrating “B” to touch “A” or vice versa; the present way of working, while effective, suffered from difficult transfer of skills and from complex, interactive finding and moving aspects of self that required fast thinking imagining and innovating on the part of F (my version of David’s words to me).
David already knew geometry was important and he was an architect; he knew where the outer child might hide and he had used a lot of drawing/scaling kinds of work. so if he was going to move away from metaphor then he needed another way to move B and A. So, assuming that GMT primarily moved B, it was time to fix B and move A.
So the landscape was fixed by locating the focus of attention (which he already knew from his answer to “where do people go when they dissociate?”), and then fixing that and the A space, thus using psycho-active space to reconnect A and B.
Then the consequences of using space have to be addressed. The eyes need to be open to inform F as to directing questions, the delivery style has to change to reflect the needs, the question forms need to change to non-metaphoric, and the client definitely must not be entranced in the old way so the verbalisation must change.
4SWDIKN?
A pattern is emerging: perceived difficulty or limitation; a searching for other ways, adapting all aspects of F including the environment to suit the form of facilitation now being used; space, words, tones, movements, forms of questions or instructions, evolving FROM the prior form TO the new form, finally re-creating the new form in its own terms (making it self-referential and self-consistent in philosophy, protocols and form).
My analogy is when the programming language C was created. It was first written and compiled in Fortran. Once compiled it was then re-written in its own language C. Thus it became self-referential and self-consistent. Therefore, each of the aspects of Clean are individually self-consistent and have different philosophy, science, process, form, space and delivery. I’m getting curiouser and curiouser about the “in common” aspects - purpose and philosophy.
SWKOSITS between GMT and Ericksonian Hypnotherapy?
Even more purely speculative and even less inferential from David’s own words. Erickson’s work was the state of the art; NLP was a fairly poor model of that; and David made very short work of briefly looking at NLP. David was already using a homeopathic worldview and seemed to know about the projection and solutions to where people go when they dissociate. So he wanted to recover the child and hypnotic voice patterns and instructions were the prevailing approach. He did not want to intrude reality because of the consequences (hence his rejection of NLP so fast). So, he started to explore how to reduce the pain of the experience by diverting into metaphor. He did briefly explain this to me while we were travelling in a transit van near Glasgow! He illustrated by asking me to ask questions of him “in metaphor space” while he gave answers metaphorically (rocks, weights, etc)
So, from somewhere came a need to reduce the pain of re-experiencing - witnessing clients pain feels a likely source. And this sponsored the “kind of” metaphor move - to go at right angles to the story.
And then would have come developing and evolving the metaphor to enable it to move. This is documented really well in one of his newsletters with the bird-wing flapping curtains.
Working backwards, the insights of time, cosmology and separation of aspects of self must have already been in place. So therefore, its not about navigating to Erickson but seeing Erickson as a stepping stone from the knowing of the structure to the creation of GMT.
So therefore, the Q4 cosmological and ancestral is likely already present before the GMT - and this makes sense because its labelled furthest from Q1 (Q2 Child within - GMT, Q3 Space), and the question form is not metaphoric but time-travelling “where did you/that come from?” - a generalised timeline approach that uses the T-1 to T-6 frames to get to the T-7 outer child. His knowledge of the power of 6 goes right back to the beginning: T-1 back to just after the defining moment, T-2 before (biological), T-3 ancestral, T-4 cultural, T-5 land, T-6 cosmological.
So I’m reckoning that this model has very deep roots in Maori tradition: cosmology, the land, the people, the family, the personal history, the defining moment, the history since and the present.
5 SWDIKN?
I have a plausible theory of the developing route and some influences. I’m aware of gaping gaps and holes but I also feel that the basic flow is about right:
a) Tradition and learning from theories and practices of the time (q1), previous biological life.
b) Asking the fundamental question about dissociation.
c) Pulling back cosmology (q4)
d) GMT (q2)
e) Space (q3)
f) EK
g) Finally eliminating F
So, what are the gaps to the wounded child and words that hurt aspects?
1. Refinements, observations from people and clients.
2. Filling in the widened context as learning about clients happened.
3. Expansions, consolidations, thought experiments.
4. Facets of GMT and Q4.
5. Gaps of perception.
6. No gaps.
6 SWDIKN?
I feel like I’ve made a first sweep of the gaps, and that there are more comprehensive sweeps to happen. It’s only my perspective, and 5 or more other people’s perspectives on the gaps will start to generate a deeper picture and new networking connections.
Steven
So what kind of space is the space (SWKOSITS) between EK and CS?
Finding the concept of 6 degrees of separation
Looking for something outside of CS that might pertain to a new way of achieving the purpose of CS
Realising some limitation or constraint in CS (or maybe just a desire to try something different (boredom?))
Completing a finished form of working with CS that feels exhausted of innovating
Teaching others the clean space forms
Applying the CS forms
Learning and exploring the CS forms
1SWDIKN?
The above is going back in time from between EK and CS towards CS.
So WKOSITS after finding EK?
Exploring a wide range of input out-of-field knowledge sources
Experimenting with navigating across worlds to move between the pronouns separated by the 6 degrees of separation (spatial, radial, angular, gestural, scaling forms)
Moving from spatial navigation into meta-driving (a move into “algorithms)
Moving to new forms of pacing emergence other than clean questions
Moving from space to emergent question forms
Moving into story and metonomic forms, escaping the F
Moving into moving forms (Steve)
2SWDIKN?
Emergence and EK are different philosophies inherently; the EK goes back to David’s information-centric world view from GMT and CS. That was “in service to the metaphor”, then “in service to the information”. EK became in-service to the algorithm, meaning that in the full expression, the K had to go; Emergence is the correct name for the full flowering of the work, whereas EK inherently keeps the legacy of information-centric thinking.
SWKOSITS between E and Moving Emerging?
Several conversations about measurement, Heisenberg and location/momentum with David, that were going nowhere at the time regarding momentum; they were only my interests,
Emerging stuck movements using space/EK question forms (David and Steven Christmas 05).
A long time of being left on the shelf
Renewed interest in Autumn 07; exploring Roget’s Thesaurus and different forms of understanding Grammar, Roget had 6 different categories, and I noticed the absence of “pre-verbs” as I searched prepositions for movement precursors.
Exploring simple E question forms from a location-measuring form, and initially adding an “ing” to a verb.
Further explorations, experiments and discussions with other people that helped with gaining inspiration. Gradually a new form of emerging moving emerges with a complete absence of spatial (location) thinking in the questioning. Teaching others this new form, and working with feedback.
3SWDIKN?
By inspecting how I moved through the space between E and EM, I can infer some of what happened between phases of David’s evolution of “Clean”.
SWKOSITS between CS and GMT?
Purely speculative and inferencing on my part, based upon some of David’s words on this to me about his inner child work and why he left it for so long.
Approximately worded as its a long time ago now, quote: “the inner child work was just too tough to teach ... the facilitator makes a lot of judgements and has to understand a lot more of the client’s reality ...”. From a few conversations, the work was hard on the F, it required great flexibility on the part of the F, and consistently, “just too hard”.
So David was looking for another way to achieve the result of migrating “B” to touch “A” or vice versa; the present way of working, while effective, suffered from difficult transfer of skills and from complex, interactive finding and moving aspects of self that required fast thinking imagining and innovating on the part of F (my version of David’s words to me).
David already knew geometry was important and he was an architect; he knew where the outer child might hide and he had used a lot of drawing/scaling kinds of work. so if he was going to move away from metaphor then he needed another way to move B and A. So, assuming that GMT primarily moved B, it was time to fix B and move A.
So the landscape was fixed by locating the focus of attention (which he already knew from his answer to “where do people go when they dissociate?”), and then fixing that and the A space, thus using psycho-active space to reconnect A and B.
Then the consequences of using space have to be addressed. The eyes need to be open to inform F as to directing questions, the delivery style has to change to reflect the needs, the question forms need to change to non-metaphoric, and the client definitely must not be entranced in the old way so the verbalisation must change.
4SWDIKN?
A pattern is emerging: perceived difficulty or limitation; a searching for other ways, adapting all aspects of F including the environment to suit the form of facilitation now being used; space, words, tones, movements, forms of questions or instructions, evolving FROM the prior form TO the new form, finally re-creating the new form in its own terms (making it self-referential and self-consistent in philosophy, protocols and form).
My analogy is when the programming language C was created. It was first written and compiled in Fortran. Once compiled it was then re-written in its own language C. Thus it became self-referential and self-consistent. Therefore, each of the aspects of Clean are individually self-consistent and have different philosophy, science, process, form, space and delivery. I’m getting curiouser and curiouser about the “in common” aspects - purpose and philosophy.
SWKOSITS between GMT and Ericksonian Hypnotherapy?
Even more purely speculative and even less inferential from David’s own words. Erickson’s work was the state of the art; NLP was a fairly poor model of that; and David made very short work of briefly looking at NLP. David was already using a homeopathic worldview and seemed to know about the projection and solutions to where people go when they dissociate. So he wanted to recover the child and hypnotic voice patterns and instructions were the prevailing approach. He did not want to intrude reality because of the consequences (hence his rejection of NLP so fast). So, he started to explore how to reduce the pain of the experience by diverting into metaphor. He did briefly explain this to me while we were travelling in a transit van near Glasgow! He illustrated by asking me to ask questions of him “in metaphor space” while he gave answers metaphorically (rocks, weights, etc)
So, from somewhere came a need to reduce the pain of re-experiencing - witnessing clients pain feels a likely source. And this sponsored the “kind of” metaphor move - to go at right angles to the story.
And then would have come developing and evolving the metaphor to enable it to move. This is documented really well in one of his newsletters with the bird-wing flapping curtains.
Working backwards, the insights of time, cosmology and separation of aspects of self must have already been in place. So therefore, its not about navigating to Erickson but seeing Erickson as a stepping stone from the knowing of the structure to the creation of GMT.
So therefore, the Q4 cosmological and ancestral is likely already present before the GMT - and this makes sense because its labelled furthest from Q1 (Q2 Child within - GMT, Q3 Space), and the question form is not metaphoric but time-travelling “where did you/that come from?” - a generalised timeline approach that uses the T-1 to T-6 frames to get to the T-7 outer child. His knowledge of the power of 6 goes right back to the beginning: T-1 back to just after the defining moment, T-2 before (biological), T-3 ancestral, T-4 cultural, T-5 land, T-6 cosmological.
So I’m reckoning that this model has very deep roots in Maori tradition: cosmology, the land, the people, the family, the personal history, the defining moment, the history since and the present.
5 SWDIKN?
I have a plausible theory of the developing route and some influences. I’m aware of gaping gaps and holes but I also feel that the basic flow is about right:
a) Tradition and learning from theories and practices of the time (q1), previous biological life.
b) Asking the fundamental question about dissociation.
c) Pulling back cosmology (q4)
d) GMT (q2)
e) Space (q3)
f) EK
g) Finally eliminating F
So, what are the gaps to the wounded child and words that hurt aspects?
1. Refinements, observations from people and clients.
2. Filling in the widened context as learning about clients happened.
3. Expansions, consolidations, thought experiments.
4. Facets of GMT and Q4.
5. Gaps of perception.
6. No gaps.
6 SWDIKN?
I feel like I’ve made a first sweep of the gaps, and that there are more comprehensive sweeps to happen. It’s only my perspective, and 5 or more other people’s perspectives on the gaps will start to generate a deeper picture and new networking connections.
Steven