Recursive not repetitive

[Corrie van Wijk]

Steve S.: "Why is emergence recursive not repetitive?
The next question applies to the last answer. Like the satir "how do you feel about that feeling" applied recursively. The layers of emotion, space, time, movement are navigated through the emergence. Why 6 not other numbers - nature is efficient."

John F: "Recursive questions sound like the same old (repeated) question again and again. But each repetition guides the recipient to new levels of understanding (from what emerges). The questions are not content-orientated, seeking to maintain the context of the emergent knowledge. Like repetitive spinning (again in 6’s) you never return to quite the same place, spinning through time/space as on a helix or like travelling along a spiral. Thus retuning to the same direction but a different space from where a new perspective emerges."

Could one of you elaborate on the difference between recursiveness and repetitiveness?

[phil]

I suppose repetitive and recursive are about the process the client goes through, as evidenced by their answers. Recursive acknowledges that the client answering the second question is not the same client who answered the first question because they have changed as a result of the first question and answer pair.

A repetitive (and not very natural) sequence would be =

"What do you know ?" [WDYK] [#1]
"It's a dog."
[WDYK] [#2]
"It's a dog."
[WDYK] [#3]
"It's a dog."
[WDYK] [#4]
"It's a dog."
[WDYK] [#5]
"It's a dog."
[WDYK] [#6]
"It's a dog."

A recursive (and far more likely) sequence would be =

"What do you know?" [WDYK] [#1]
"It's a dog."
"WDYK [#2]"
"just a dog""
"[WDYK] [#3]
"just a big, brown dog"
"[WDYK] [#4]"
"the dog has a bone"
"[WDYK] [#5]"
"nothing just a dog"
"[WDYK] [#6]"
"a brown dog with big feet and a bone".

This recursiveness is similar to the process of using the Clean Language Developing Questions to elicit the attributes of an experience before asking for a metaphor.

The recursive similarity lies in maintaining the attention in one place with the questions so that each return to the same place adds more information for the client.

'A funny feeling.'
'And where is funny feeling?'
'Here.'
'And here and is there anything else about funny feeling?'
'It's light and airy.'
'And light and airy funny feeling and what kind of light is that light?'
'Light like it lifts me up.'
'And when it lifts you up, where does it lift you?'
'Under my armpits.'
'And when under my armpits, whereabouts under?'
'Just underneath like a harness.'
'And when light lifts me up underneath armpits like a harness, then what happens?'
'I rise.'

On one of his tapes, David said something like: 'the difference between sanity and insanity is that with sanity, it's one damn thing after another whereas with insanity it's the same damn thing after another'. Anyone tell me the accurate quotation?

[Steve Saunders]

Recursively, the same question is asked of the last answer.

Repetitively, the same question is asked about the first answer.

WDYK without an "else" or without an "about that" or without a "now" is repetitive in form because it is neither eliciting a direct new point of view or referring to the last answer.

The "now" literally implies "as a result of your last answer" thus making an update happen - hypnotic induction or what?

The "else" refers back to the original answer but shifts to another point of view - less recursive and more adjacent in form.

The "about that" is ingeniously vague as to whether it refers to the last answer or the topic. The tonal emphasis might then give away the inferred reference.

Combining the forms gives more directed purpose.

Cheers

Steven

[Corrie van Wijk]

Thank you both: I'm beginning to get an intuition about it.

My experience of being asked these kind of questions is that they would always 'add' something, like Steve says: shifting in time (yes indeed there is a suggestion in 'now'', but that is a question to A to return to space and time of A after a round of six), shifting to an adjacent point of view. It confused me because, unlike 'developing Questions to elicit the attributes of an experience' it usually added other experiences, especially the order question (1sr, 2nd, etc) did. So I ended up with six different ones, two of which I couldn't even mention.

I wonder how you could ask a clean question that doesn't go outside the experience: the presupposition is that just by repeating it you get the variation. The WDYK(N) question is not meant for this.

David tried: "And what is there now?", but that moves it forward in time, just because time has passed since the previous question, so 'recursive acknowledges that the client answering the second question is not the same client who answered the first question because they have changed as a result of the first question and answer pair.' (Phil). Does the variation emerge because the client changes, or just his memory of the experience?

Corrie

[Steve Saunders]

In response to your question, Corrie ... (by the way is not the internet great - I'm in a tiny hotel in rural France and I'm still online!)

This is MY interpretation. The purpose of the navigation is to UN-MEASURE the structure (whether in stuck space or stuck movement). So the system self-adapts to do this purely through two phases: unconscious revelatory answers (from the past/structure) and conscious understandings (in the now).

I increasingly use "and?" or "and now?" or "and now'ing?" or a gesture or an "mmm" that encourages continuing flow of information/emergence.

The reason it is un-measuring comes from my physics - only 2 things are measurable - location or movement (and the associated quantity or mass of information at the space or in the movement). So, once something is measured its fixed, and the navigation moving awareness through releases the fixed-ness. I think this is why David is so hard on a F introjecting reality (partly) - because once the path is unmeasured its impossible to regain.

A space where F does not project stops the constant outside intrusion and allows the client's mind to go to work understanding and releasing the huge amount of stored processing.

So, like taking the finger out of the leaking damn, the flow increases until the Netherlands are inundated, and now the land is corrected: the sea level restored, peace reigns!

(Hope the metaphor works?!)

Steven

[Corrie van Wijk]

Well, I just returned from rural France: we really must synchronise better, so we can meet in real virtuality every now and then. I wrote all the tourist guides on France, so if you need some non-clean advice...

As for the thumb-in-the-dike story: we only tell that to American and Japanese tourists. There's no safer place in the world than Holland, we do water-management and reverse rivers if need be.

"So the system self-adapts to do this purely through two phases: unconscious revelatory answers (from the past/structure) and conscious understandings (in the now)."

I agree with this, and I think space works best to trigger the unconscious, and then A can try to make conscious sens of it.

"So, once something is measured its fixed, and the navigation moving awareness through releases the fixed-ness."

Ï often think that even by giving it a name or represent it already is 'measured', and it is funny that 'fixed' can mean both 'stuck' and 'repeared'.

Have fun in France, bring some St. E..

Corrie