How much 'how-to'?

[phil]

In a post in Emergent Knowledge forum, Steve says Scaling, by the way, is what he [David] asked me not to teach, so it will stay off the forum in terms of process and content.

As Steve points out later there is, however, already a thread on the forum about Scaling, now in the Emergent Knowledge forum. It was written as an attempt to understand the concept and includes some illustrations.

The question is: iIf David thought scaling should not be taught, should it be discussed at all in an open forum? Should it be discussed but in a closed forum, open only to those who have some minimum degree of training in Clean processes or those who have formal training in psychotherapy, for example? Should it be discussed openly but contain health warnings? Should it be discussed openly but all reference to content and process avoided? Or should it be not referred to at all?

These are not trivial issues, IMO, nor are they restricted to scaling. There are ethical and legal issues to consider. Is it true to say that many of the technologies involved in David's work have the capacity to be dangerous if ill-used? Considering that cleanforum.com is open to anyone to read, should we then be self-censoring, leaving out 'how-to' information for ALL the Clean-related processes?

I'd be grateful for your thoughts on this.

Phil Swallow forumadmin

[Steve Saunders]

Well, I think much of what is posted on his work is becoming beyond what goes on an open forum; but you could make it login-only to trained CL folk; or restrict technical discussions to such a group.

I believe its better to keep scaling off the forum. Because if someone tries this and errs we might get sued as individuals, as moderator, as a group.

I also believe Q4 is close to the grain.

and the 6's can be dangerous - I believe john only now uses 3's with coaches.

Remember the point of David's work is inner child recovery, and each form is more powerful than the previous, emergence requires a health warning!

SyM is nice and safe and fine to discuss and so is the formalised clean space process taught alongside it.

The discussion about David's whole work: make it closed.

IMO Steven

[Corrie van Wijk]

This would be a political decision of who is allowed to be in a certain profession.

As long as that is not the case and anyone can do what they like, it's up to the client to protect him- or herself against anyone who doesn't know what they are doing.

And frankly, I am more afraid of some people discussing this together in private, than to have it out in the open, so everyone can see what is going on and comment on it.

And who is to be the judge of who to get in, I already have doubts about those who claim to be reliable.

[phil]

Most facilitators and clients know when they are getting 'out of their depth' and can protect themselves and each other. Clients can and do say 'whoa! I'm not ready to go there yet', facilitators can decide to refer their client to someone else or to stop working with them.

However some may not be able to make the necessary distinctions. Vulnerable clients may be so involved in their stuff that they are not aware of process or if they are aware, may feel unable to say 'stop'. Facilitators can get drawn into the client's world and not know how to get out, can be over-confident or ignore subtle signals, etc.

Every household kitchen has a drawer with sharp knives in. Used one way they are wonderful tools, used another way they are dangerous. Obviously it's not the knives but the way they are used that makes the difference.

In everyday life, we don't put a lock on such a drawer, even though occasionally kitchen knives are used for murder and so on. We instruct people who don't know about the risks associated with knives that they should not use them until they have been trained. Still, if we have reason to expect that some visitors may not be safe with knives, we'd probably hide them away.

[webmaven]

I agree with what's been said about the ethics of including too much "how to" information on this forum. It would be neglectful indeed to leave sharp knives lying around, in the guise of a "how to" for scaling or any other of the more intricate processes of David's later work. (Notice I never asked for any "how to" information; I just want to understand the concepts!)

That said, I think it would be difficult, if not impossible, for someone to figure out how to do this work on their own from reading the postings here. I find it difficult at times just figuring out what people are communicating, and it would be next to impossible (in my opinion) to imagine how these concepts are actually used "in practice" based on what's currently available on this site, for good or ill.

My purpose in participating in this forum is to have a place to understand David, to comprehend as completely as possible his ideas, to mourn with those who mourn him, and to see how--or if--David's latest work might be of use to me in my personal journey.

That's all.

webmaven

[super_yacht@hotmail.com]

I’ve discussed this in other places (forums and meetings) with people who are familiar with David’s Clean Language work. David in his last few courses also gave out a warning not to use iteration until you were familiar with the techniques that he had just demonstrated to the group.
Emergent Knowledge (IMO) is not just about asking questions multiple times; this would be facilitator led and its what some people are doing. I’m wondering if you have an awareness of Clean Language techniques and start to ask the question multiple times whether, now and then you will have an effect with the client. To my knowledge there are people doing this and having results, limited but results still the same.
In the training more than half the course is about things other than the actual questions. In fact for there to be questions it follows there will be processes (facilitator led) and there are few processes in my work. A challenging proposition when our education ‘right brain thinking’ is all about learning the process.

Scaling is another step beyond EK, while 6’s are a therapy in there own right I think scaling is more powerful, but will be ineffective in the hands of inexperienced people. I’m not sure that David ever demonstrated scaling, except on a course i.e. not to the public.

So how can the forum generate more interest in CL and EK without becoming to technical and meaningless to the public. Forming private groups etc is going to be limited if you look on the site now there is only a handful of contributors and mullers (people mulling over the forum but not contributing) are hard to number.
I’m happy the way it is.

PS as Steve said I work with 3’s rather than 6’s with coaching because it doesn’t become therapy although it has been commented that feels very therapeutic!!!

Cheers

[webmaven]

Thanks ever so much for your comments, John. Yours is the first "overview" I've seen for how these techniques relate to each other--it's difficult to get a sense for the whole when each process/technique/method is discussed in a separate thread.

As you mention, and David seems to have felt the same way, specific details about these methods are best kept to training courses where they can be taught in context and best understood. However, is there a way to describe or define the concepts here for the reading public, to perhaps pique their interest in attending a training seminar? I wonder.

Also, it is very useful to have advertisements of upcoming trainings and seminars on this site, so there is a possibility of people getting more details by enrolling in a course if they so desire.

webmaven

[Corrie van Wijk]

John: "Scaling is another step beyond EK, while 6’s are a therapy in there own right I think scaling is more powerful, but will be ineffective in the hands of inexperienced people."

I wonder if scaling and EK are in some kind of hierarchic relationship, when you use the word 'beyond' you seem to suggest that.

I object to this subject being talked about, without stating what it is. You all mystify the subject (which will only make people more curious) and make it seem that you would be the only ones to trust it with. There are officially qualified people to work in the field of psychotherapy, they studied psychology or psychiatry and were properly trained, they know their own weaknesses and how to deal with them and as such, they are entrusted to treat clients and patients.

So either you make it public, so we can all have an opinion about it, or you go to an health inspector to have it assessed.

And of course, anyone using clean methods should have a proper training first. So far I am not very confident. I've seen people use them without any proper understanding of the theories or presuppositions that lay beneath, if any.

[Steve Saunders]

Scaling emerged from interaction between David and me, as a result of me probing him about the spaces around. Of course, I was the guinea-pig together with one or two others - maybe you, Corrie, I cannot remember who was there, now. But, it harked right back to his inner child work at his retreat centre in the mid-West.

David and I agreed not to teach others the scaling or even pulling back, and he promptly broke those rules in front of me, and then taught others "because its too useful". I have criteria for whom I teach this. And I'm not going to an inspector who, frankly, will know nowhere near enough about the subject. But I'm very happy for such folk to attend, and indeed after some psychiatrists and psychotherapists have been to my 7-day retreats I have, from them, universal support for the work and the process.

But I am not going to discuss the facilitating aspects on this forum; if someone is ready they will come and learn - there is no room for ego in the F'ing of this work. And it cannot be understood by observation - it has to be experienced.

I still say the full scaling thread should be removed.

[Corrie van Wijk]

Steve: "I have criteria for whom I teach this."

I fully agree that you should not teach anyone anything unless they have previous knowledge and experience to understand it properly, and also you shouldn't teach anyone anything if you suspect abuse. And indeed, part of the learning is experiencing; it is the best way to understand it and to learn that after clean there is nothing else.

I have seen David doing this before the two of you met, but I''m sure he got further insight from working with you (I was there). I suggest you discuss this with David's family, since there are author's rigths involved and then someone could check you.

[super_yacht@hotmail.com]

I mention scaling, having witnessed it, but don’t use it because I don't have anywhere near the experience, and so don’t get the results, even with the time I’ve spent with Steve. I don’t know anyone else that has experience to be SUCCESSFUL using scaling, I’ve observed for over a year but only recently got to grips with even witnessing (sensing) the results.

I fully support all Steve is saying and agree it probably should be removed form the forum. You are not going to get it by doing a course; it takes much, much more. Finding an inspector is a futile exercise, there isn’t any.

Talking to the family? Steve input is unquestionable here and I feel they were in partnership. Yes David was doing it before but his leaning and understanding would be a shadow of what it is today without Steve. IMO without Steve there is no scaling……

I don’t think there is some kind of hierarchic relationship between scaling and EK. They are interdependent techniques, scaling being extra at the right appropriate time.
‘I object to this subject being talked about, without stating what it is. You all mystify the subject’, probably right. Because it needs to be experienced I have reached an awareness level when I’m observing where I can see/sense it. So again I agree with Steve it should be removed form the forum.

[Corrie van Wijk]

I do not know what Steve has been up to lately, so I cannot compare his approach and David's. Of course they were in partnership on this, so Steve is only partly owner.

But my main concern is that Steve is using it, and you both are mystifying it, without anyone being able to assess what it is he is doing. Of course you need to know about clean to understand anything about it, but there are lots of people David worked with recently that probably know as well, like Mathew. So stop this show of we-are-the-only-one(s) and it-is-dangerous-stuff. I doubt it is such a big deal.

[Steve Saunders]

Calais, Corrie - invite the others!

Not saying the only one(s) - just saying what we think. Others who can use scaling will no doubt be using it as and when they so require.

love Steven

PS Edit: and it is dangerous - VERY - to the point of me re-considering its use at all.