Posting styles

[phil]

I am having difficulty relating the last few exchanges in the thread 'Is Clean homeopathic?' to the stated topic. They seem more to do with a clash of personal idiosyncratic world views. I'm happy to move these to a new forum called 'I-know-more-than-you-no-I-know-more-than-you-AND-I'm-more-right-than-you-too-so-ya-boo-sucks'.

Please treat each other respectfully or take your personal slanging matches off-forum. They keep other people from posting who do not wish to be harangued or dismissed for having an opinion.

[Steve Saunders]

yes, delete the last few posts or move somewhere else; whatever; I was musing the same myself - off topic.

Steven

[phil]

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

When you do that kind of thing, I request that you edit the original post and explain what you're doing so that others reading the thread can find their way around.

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.

IMO it is the responsibility of all those posting in a thread to at least stay in touch with the subject matter of the topic. If one person wanders off topic in a way that seems that something new and interesting per se is emerging, it can become a new thread easily enough.

Sorry for the 'disdain' - I find the continual assertion/challenge/defence cycle tedious and unenlightening because it seems to have more to do with egos and game playing than learning about Clean and for me it is now simply noise that masks the interesting stuff. From feedback I have received, I believe it keeps others away from the forum who might otherwise get involved. I did it myself for a while and now I am like the smoker who has kicked the habit - I can't stand the smell of it!

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.

Great. Personally I find everyone's replies (mine too) most interesting and informative and stimulating when they come from a 'yes, and' place rather than a 'yes, but' place.

Thanks for helping me to clarify my thinking on this.

Back on 'Clean as science' topic for me now - in the Clean forum! :):

[Corrie van Wijk]

Phil: "I find the continual assertion/challenge/defence cycle tedious and unenlightening because it seems to have more to do with egos and game playing than learning about Clean and for me it is now simply noise that masks the interesting stuff. From feedback I have received, I believe it keeps others away from the forum who might otherwise get involved."

For me, it's not about ego and game playing, I'm dead serious when it comes to interpreting David's work and I invite anyone to share their experience with me.

[Corrie van Wijk]

Phil: "'I-know-more-than-you-no-I-know-more-than-you-AND-I'm-more-right-than-you-too-so-ya-boo-sucks'."

I object to this kind of (dis)qualification. Steve and I are having a debate and guess what?: we just agreed on something. Steve and I are friends and we respect eachother. If you can't read that between the lines, that's because we do not need to express it to know that.

[phil]

I acknowledge your objection.

I moved the exchanges because they are off topic and, I believe, off-putting to other potential posters.

Whether you are friends or not does not affect my decision. What affects it is how the style of the exchanges affects (IMO) the reader's experience of cleanforum and of Clean.

[Steve Saunders]

Indeed.

What has to be true that people perceive game playing?

What has to be true that people feel fear of an adverse reaction to a post?

I've had plenty of adverse reactions from you, sir, and I'm ok with that. I had finally found on this thread a huge part of why Corrie is in my life, and am most thankful that she does behave the way she does - and I wish her to continue to be Hecate when she so chooses.

At last I broke through to realising how to cut out the metaphysical aspects and present the work to a solidly boring scientific community; but nonetheless one that tends to have more money than the more fun spirit-folk. And that is good for business.

El Serioso

[phil]

What has to be true that people perceive game playing?


Where does that question come from? I reckon it's an example of one kind game that I am referring to. Essentially it says 'I have a belief that X has to be true for people to perceive game playing. However I am not going to say what I believe that to be. Instead, you, the reader have to guess what I mean. Meanwhile I can feel powerful.'

The kind of interaction I would like to see (I own it) would be cleaner, something like: 'What kind of game-playing?'

For me it's not about being 'okay' or not okay with adverse reactions. It's easy to be okay with it emotionally, for me anyway. It's just such a low aiming point. With the assembled mind/body/spirit power available to this cleanforum, we could aim for discussion that would be far more constructive and life-enhancing than the run-of-the-mill adversarial style of things we see on Newsnight and in parliament: set it up, knock it down.
We know we are not debating finite things here. Despite the fact that we might think we're right NOW, someone else could say one word to us, our system learns and our minds can change. The fact that it often falls into 'yeah, but... no, but...' is what indicates to me that there is another game going on.

And for me it IS just like sport: I fully understand that for the players it's probably fascinating, associated as they are into their game; great, long may they enjoy it. For me, it's boring and I'd rather be doing something more interesting rather than watching them.

[Steve Saunders]

The question is one I use recursively with clients to source a belief. It's part of what I call clean facilitation even if David did not use it.

"What had to be true in order that [pronoun] became like that?

...a few times

This in my experience always leads to another person having intruded their reality onto the client in order for the client to have become the way that they are in a given context. Continuing that line with the perpetrator and so on is a path to the cosmological and release. It's one of my alternatives for the Q4.

Whereas scaling is like open-heart surgery this is more like keyhole. It's great stuff and key to modelling to ask this kind of question. IMO.

So I perceive a request for more modelling and less judgement.

I believe your interpretation is 100% your projection.

My belief about the comment on game-playing - is that someone observes behaviours perceives "game playing" according to, say, TA definitions, "hook, con, sinker" stuff, something then happens (like when I lose the will to continue) and tedious is attached. My guesses; 1) any good at sport at school or was that for other pupils? 2) "I'm not getting what I want" so either I tantrum or get bored or both.

I feel when I'm being targeted as prey by another person from the forum; and I've felt it from you, too. Maybe in what is happened there is a message for the observer, and the healing signal is called "tedious".

That would be my hypothetical modelling; and I'd hazard a guess at 14 for the pronoun.

[phil]

Where does the question come from before 'it's one I use' ?

It reminds me of an NLP question with its presuppositions about beliefs.

Still, it would have been a cleanish question if it had used my words and metaphors and not yours ('fear', 'adverse reaction'). Those words came from you soI guess your questions speak to your own interpretations.

You have a go at answering these for yourself later with your 'hypothetical modelling' - a great comedy euphemism for 'guesswork'. I didn't even have to get involved. Now THAT's the perfect process - never mind removing the facilitator.. remove the client - much simpler!

I believe your interpretation is 100% your projection.


Seriously though, Don Serioso, yes, I believe all interpretations are projection, since they are the output of the interpreter's system*. Other examples in this post: you feeling you are prey and your new process 'HM' above (shall I start a Hypothetical Modelling forum? Between Steve, Corrie and me I reckon it would get quite a bit of business. :))

I notice that you didn't seek permission before projecting publically your hypothetical interpretation of my personal world. Is there a relationship between doing that in this context and what you do with your clients as part of your clean process?

*What information the interpretation emerges from is a different matter.

[Steve Saunders]

Phil:
Where does that question come from? I reckon it's an example of one kind game that I am referring to. Essentially it says 'I have a belief that X has to be true for people to perceive game playing. However I am not going to say what I believe that to be. Instead, you, the reader have to guess what I mean. Meanwhile I can feel powerful.'

So, I answered by putting out my belief you said I was not saying. I did not know the belief until it emerged. I then processed it out in my self-modelling thread. And I thank you for being the trigger for resolving it.

In response to your asking; you asked so I responded. What difference is there between your projection quoted above, which is quite insulting, and no different at a hypothetical level?

The difference is that you initiated an "attack" on this thread and at Corrie and myself. That means our behaviour triggered an issue for you.

The abreaction I project is coming from you is an even surer signal of something I would process out if I were you. But that's my way; to resolve my issues immediately; I do not expect or require anyone else to address their issues.

So where could "that" have come from?

(Cleaner than clean questions do not use client words any more, to quote David.)

The come from question is normally only used in stage 5 of 7 in emergence - its too soon to keep asking it of others on this forum. So I guess its you who need to be asked the "from" question - but that would be hypothetical modelling ;-)

The Don!

[phil]

The abreaction you project coming from me... I'm trying to draw that one and the lines don't join up!

Well, I'm hopping off this particular merry-go-round before we go round again for no useful purpose. Anyway I've just received my copy of Series 4 of The Wire, the best TV serial I have EVER seen. Bye bye.

[super_yacht@hotmail.com]

Guys,
STOP, you have made your point and you are just being dragged in to pointless dialogue.
People visiting the site will make their own assumptions of the discourse that’s happening on the site. There is lots of information (some useful some pointless) coming up, however ego’s flying around is also tarnishing it.

I for one am sad to see the way this forum has gone

John

[phil]

I take your point, John, and I had already stopped.

At a personal level, Steve and I trigger each other's patterns - that's something I think we both could usefully acknowledge and manage better in public.

My own bind is that on a more general level, I feel that sweeping statements made on a public forum need to be explored or even challenged because otherwise visitors may assume that these are the consensus view. I think that would be bad for the clean community and will close the forum rather than have that happen in my name or that of Clean.

I do not like the way the forum is going at the moment either. However, despite how it may appear, as forumadmin I deliberately exercise very little control over the way it goes, though I have the technical capacity to completely control content, ban users and so on. I currently choose to censor very little that is posted since that would seem to run counter to the ethos of the forum.

True control to shape the forum lies with almost 300-odd registered members, about 5 of whom post on a regular basis. To nick and modify a well-known saying: 'we get the forum we deserve'? At the moment it is certainly in a weird condition with a very small number of members seemingly putting massive amounts of their time and effort into posting here, for whatever reason. If members say that they want their administrator to make something happen on the forum, I will respond to the majority wish and do my best to fulfil that.

What would I like to have happen? I think if more people contributed comments and questions and threads of their own, there would be a far more balanced range of views represented. I would like to see less of the 'intellectual' discussion and more down-to-earth discussion, questions, tips, modelling, use of clean language. Or maybe the pontificating kept in a separate area to the down-to-earth practical stuff.

What would the 'silent majority' like to have happen? For the moment at least, they are voting with their keyboards and choosing not to post. Perhaps they are busy? Perhaps they don't want to get on the same merry-go-round I just got off. Perhaps they feel don't want or need a forum. I can only guess without feedback.
What would the silent majority like NOT to have happen? You are the first to indicate that, thanks John - and when I for one am sad to see the way this forum has gone, what would you like to have happen? If you would like to, John, feed that into the system and start carrying it out yourself too. Great, more feedback from others welcome, please!

Phil

[Steve Saunders]

So we now have a number of threads on emergence and on a number of aspects of clean not previously discussed or publicised, it is more active and perhaps even emergently living a bit more.

And we have judgements coming in about "how the forum is going" and about other people's posts.

I'm very happy to delete all my posts, or to have them deleted. Phil: censor them all if you so desire; or let me know; I won't delete them unless I'm asked to, but I'm offering you that choice.

Certainly I advocate deleting the scaling threads and posts.

Maybe David was right, in 30 years I'll try again.

[phil]

Steve, they are your posts. You chose to post them, it's really up to you to choose to leave them, change them or delete them.

Personally I have left them intact, including the ones I have emotions about. There's a lot of interesting information in them and learning available. I've also left intact the posts I made in emotion that I am not proud of, in the interests of honesty and the ethos of the forum, as I've said. It may be that as things cool down they will become irrelevant and can be deleted.

Looking ahead, the forum is not for me or you or David Grove or any one individual alone; it's for a community, most of whom I believe do not want to read or get involved in or even be associated with the kind of debate that has been happening recently. So my quest is to find a way to enable those members' rights to post and discuss in a more positive, 'yes and' way.

To that end, I am considering a change to the large structure of the forum, splitting it into two parts:

an area for the kind of raw, brain-busting, cutting-edge, challenging exchanges that have typified recent times. It would be invisible to unregistered readers. Here people can claim to be right and others can ask them to justify it, the old-fashioned way. Moderation would be used to prevent personal 'attacks'.
an area for more supportive, practical, exploratory discussion. The style would be facilitatory perhaps even encouraging! Challenges to ideas posted here would have to follow a broad etiquette of neutrality or encouragement, genuine curiosity to understand, perhaps involving more in the way of clean language and so on. Bullying would be utterly outlawed here - anyone posting a message that was more of the style of the other area would have to rewrite it or it would be deleted out of hand. This area would be visible to all.The criteria for the two areas would need to be agreed and written down and I would appreciate help with this. I would use the infractions system to give feedback, using the criteria a context.

Any comments?

Phil

[Steve Saunders]

It feels like a private area is necessary for certain work anyway; whether it needs the definition you give it is debatable.

I'm ok with "raw cutting-edge, brain-busting" being separate if people are offended; of course I'd rather they dealt with their "issues" rather than their issues imposing a censorship on the enjoyable learningful interaction I've had with Corrie. I learnt a lot from the interaction, and I can presume its has also been valuable for her.

There might be other issues about "what's in the hidden box" - who's allowed in, who says, etc etc.

I admit I'm a walking inner-child trigger; anyone with "stuff" will find it erupting around me: the inner child knows I can hear it, so if its basically just me then why bother with a separate area? Lets just use email between those involved and log the emails; it addresses the privacy of the deeper work and does not create an "us and them" differentiation?

So I propose that Corrie and I continue to discuss by email and others will email one of us if they wish to partake or know what is being explored. I awoke this morning recalling a link between Erickson and David, and was pondering posting under "words that wound".

If you wish a private area then ask the wider membership for criteria. Trouble is that Corrie and I do not see our interaction "as a slanging match", rather an emergent interaction of two people coming to an understanding. Damn difficult thing, perception. So someone else has to decide what that is - the person who perceives the slanging match, I guess.

Cultural rules and bounds: projections from society onto children; then when a person crosses the bound the inner child of the conforming member shouts "not allowed"; really, all these problems other people have with me and Corrie are the signals of their inner children; accepting the censorship and rules leaves the inner child again unheard but satisfies the present self's needs. Up to you guys; do you want the real GMT or not?

I'll abide by a consensus - I'd like to see it public rather than the covert "call Phil / tell teacher" stuff going on.

as ever, with love, Steven-ing!

[Corrie van Wijk]

Steve: "I admit I'm a walking inner-child trigger; anyone with "stuff" will find it erupting around me: the inner child knows I can hear it"

That is your interpretation Steve, and if you keep treating any feedback as such, you won't learn very much from us, since you'll always project it back as 'your issue'.

As for the discussion above: DO NOT DELETE OR MOVE ANYTHING FROM THE FORUM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The forum is a living system, anyone can post or stay silent whenever and wherever they want. It will self-organize, trust the system!

Don't try to impose your structure on it Phil, and don't make rules.

Already you confused me by moving around posts and deleting them, I can't find my own stuff anymore, so you mix up my space.

[Steve Saunders]

If I ask for feedback about me, then please do offer it, else please do not, Corrie. Please consider as default that I do not want it.

Please keep your comments to the technical content; not about the person (me); this is clean ethics IMO.

Thank you

Steven

[phil]

Pot: "Hey, Kettle, what's all that black stuff on your bum?" :)

[Corrie van Wijk]

Steve: "Maybe David was right, in 30 years I'll try again."

The reason why certain ideas take a long time to take root, is because they are not properly marketed. It's one thing to have a good product, another to convince your market it is. The world cannot wait 30 years for David's ideas, they have proven to be effective, and should be researched properly. There are too many clients still suffering!

Steve: If I ask for feedback about me, then please do offer it, else please do not, Corrie. Please consider as default that I do not want it.

Please keep your comments to the technical content; not about the person (me); this is clean ethics IMO.

Thank you

Steven"

If I give you feedback, you put me in a bind:
(1) You state that anybody's opinion about you is a projection: it's my interpretation,
(2) if I say it is really about you you say 'what I am saying is what I'm saying not what you are interpreting: you have a philosophical answer that it is not possible to know something about somebody else, without it being a projection,
(3) if I say you project it back you say 'I will not ask you to accept your projections are about you and I admit I'm a walking inner-child trigger',
(4) you please ask me to not give any feedback unless asked for,
(5) you ask me: "Please consider as default that I do not want it." and
(6): "The only criteria that really matters: Accepting me as I am. This is because only once a person has realised emotionally as well as intellectually that every single thing they see in other people is their own "stuff", then do they really understand projection. And as projection is the core, the key to understanding this work, no point teaching [scaling] until then!"

This is a the sextuple bind!

It would be useless to give any feedback to anybody if it was only a projection from the person giving it. The only way to come to terms to this, is for me to describe your behaviour and for you to say what your intention was. Then I can try to interpret it in terms of your intention, and we would understand eachother better.

I'll create a context for you in de Self-modelling section and give you some space.

[Corrie van Wijk]

Steve: "I perceive that your reply judges me; precisely my point. I have my world view; You have yours, whether I agree with it or not. So its my projection that you judge me; whether you do or not."

Yes I do judge you: my interpretation is that you do not seem able to separate your worldview from those of others. And that is serious, because if you cannot distinguish between a you and a me, you don''t have a clean attitude.

Steve: "And whereabouts in your body or head or outside could your sense of elitism be?"

It is outside, in you, it's what I perceive from your behaviour, and it has nothing to do with me.

Steve: "And whereabouts is your sense of 'projection'?"

My sense of projection is in you. You project a sense of projection in me, which isn't there.

Steve: "Corrie, I accept your behaviour as it is."

No you don't, you put me in a sextuple bind.