What is clean?

[Corrie van Wijk]

From what I learned from David the last couple of years and experienced from working with him is that his quest was a scientific one. As he was experimenting, his goal was always to find ways to treat a patient effectively. He knew if something had changed as a result of the therapy, the patient would experience a physical change. "That's how you know you did a good job", he said.

Anyone else?

[phil]

And is there a relationship between Clean and 'David's quest was a scientific one'?

And is there anything else about 'scientific'?

And what kind of physical change?

And how does David know that 'if something had changed as a result of the therapy, the patient would experience a physical change'

And how does David know when 'the patient ... experience a physical change'?

[Steve Saunders]

[ ]

[Steve Saunders]

What is clean "a blank canvas", "a null facilitator"? "a minimally intruding F"

metaphorically there is is kids game of rolling a hoop with a stick, timing just right the hoops keeps rolling with the lightest of aligned to speed and direction strokes from the stick.

So create the conditions for momentum to gather and then stay present enough to keep the ball rolling as the client system unravels itself.

Maybe? The less F does the greater the emergence, down to a critical minimum amount of F presence needed for it to happen? Or is there? If a client can learn self-facilitation then the external F is gone, but is the inner F as neutral as the external F? And what kind of track is an on track track?

I just wanted to get the what is clean debate rolling ... ;-))

[phil]

Following Steve's metaphor for Clean, I'm starting a separate thread 'Clean is like what?' in this forum where people can post their metaphors for clean. I propose that we operate cleanly in that thread, that is, people can put their metaphors without them being commented on. In this thread we can continue to discuss conceptually.

Phil Swallow

[Corrie van Wijk]

Would you please remove or delete the above four posts, so people can reply Phil's questions?

Phil: "I'm starting a separate thread 'Clean is like what?' in this forum where people can post their metaphors for clean. I propose that we operate cleanly in that thread, that is, people can put their metaphors without them being commented on. In this thread we can continue to discuss conceptually."

I don't think it is a good idea to start a thread that cannot be commented on. If we are to agree on what clean is, we need to be able to compare them, so in the end we can come up with a representation we are all happy with.

[phil]

My thought was to collect individual's metaphors for clean in one thread and discuss clean in this thread. So if I say in that thread: 'for me clean is like [ ] because...', the only comments appropriate in that thread would be clean developing (modelling) questions. There's no point arguing with people's symbols.

For those who want a comparison or synthesis, that could happen in this thread. My own intention is not to come up with the Universal Metaphor of Clean - bit of a Questing Beast, that one - I'm more interested to see what people come up with.

Phil

[Corrie van Wijk]

Phil: "There's no point arguing with people's symbols."

My goal in this is to come up with some kind of consensus of what clean is about, like David intended it to be, because he experienced that it was more effective than traditional approaches.

Of course anyone is entitled to have his or her own metaphor about it, but what I am looking for is, if perhaps not a universal one, then one that unites what 'people come up with' because of the characteristics they have in common.

Perhaps as a rule we could say that we ask clean questions about somebody's metaphor first, and then a 'What do we know now?' may give some answers as to what we all agree on.

[phil]

Corrie: Perhaps as a rule we could say that we ask clean questions about somebody's metaphor first, and then a 'What do we know now?' may give some answers as to what we all agree on.


That's what I mean. Modelling several metaphors (as many as possible) to allow who-knows-what to emerge from the adjacency of the metaphors. The separate thread for metaphors is to keep the 'data' separate from the discussion but available to it - and to other ways of relating to it, including not concluding anything, just allowing the metaphors to be as they are.

[Corrie van Wijk]

Matthew Dodwell: "And speaking for myself, when I ask Clean Language questions in to guide a spiritual adventure, it’s as if I have a magic wand which I can use to stir up a person’s unconscious system. It acts like a prism on light, separating the colours of the rainbow so that the entire spectrum can be seen and appreciated. The wand adds nothing but attention and energy, and yet has the power to transform confusion into clarity."
(Resource Magazine, February 2008, by Judy Rees).

And when [Clean Language questions ... add nothing but attention and energy], is there anything else about [attention and energy]?

[phil]

Personally I don't find the metaphor of magic useful in relation to professional representations of Clean.

It's true that both clients and facilitators occasionally describe their experience with Clean as having something of the magical about it, as Matthew honestly does here.

My resistance to the selection of such quotes in professional communications about Clean is that IMO it runs the risk of portraying Clean processes as effortless, infallible and risk-free and that Clean practitioners have special powers. This IMO can have at least two different negative effects.

On the one hand, those who are looking for quick-fix magical therapies may mistakenly imagine this is one such process. On the other hand, those looking to expand and develop their professional development may dismiss Clean as 'just another one of those numerous processes which makes unrealistic claims' and thus miss out on a valuable resource.

IMO if there is 'magic' in Clean, the source of that emotional experience for the client IS the client, and not the facilitator* or the process. The point of Clean is that it facilitates the client to work their own 'magic' or whatever metaphor they choose to use to describe their experience, evolution and growth.

*the source of magic for the facilitator is the facilitator

[webmaven]

Phil,

In the above thread, there is mention made of a separate thread for the metaphors of clean. Am I missing that somewhere on the site? Or is it integrated within this thread?

Just wanted to be sure I put mine in the right place. ;-)

Also, I think that there is a very real power to clean, which some might mistake for "magic" because the action is "at a distance." I loved the metaphor of the prism, and maybe that's the real metaphor for clean in that quote. I agree that there are drawbacks to the magic metaphor, but I think at the same time, it's very useful sometimes to define what clean is not (as well as what it is).

Cheers,

webmaven

[phil]

Sorry all, I forgot to make the metaphor for Clean thread. It's there now, called 'For me, Clean is like...'

[Corrie van Wijk]

Webmaven: "I think that there is a very real power to clean, which some might mistake for 'magic'."

In the history of mankind, anything that isn't very well understood, but seems to have some kind of effect -- be it imaginary -- is often referred to as 'magic', usually in a positive sense. I deliberately asked my question about 'attention and energy', because that seemed something more tangible to go on.

But even attention and energy are not required: I smile when I think of the many times David asked these questions, lying on a couch, sometimes half asleep.

David said it was just a skill, and if you learn how to do it right, you have an advantage over anybody else. James and Penny served mankind by selecting the questions and write down the process in Metaphors in Mind. Philip will be the next one to come up with a book on clean.