BobGorman
27-03-2008, 11:43 PM
This 'used to be' my Clean Forum.
I've been a member of this forum since 2004. Also in October 2004, I took a 2 week intensive training from Penny, James, and Wendy also joined us. One of the the things that struck me was their openness, their willingness to share, not just vague concepts, but the nitty, gritty techniques of HOW to implement those concepts. It seemed then, and still does, that this openness attitude flowed down from David Grove.
From 2004 till a few months ago, ironically since David died, this forum was a delightful place to be. When I logged on, I expected to be surprised, enlightened, and fascinated, and it never let me down. Yes, some months were slower than others, but when activity arose, I was as I said, surprised, enlightened, and fascinated.
But since January 2008, mostly I've been bored!
What used to be a widely diverse discussion of the many facets of David's works and the many developments and enhancements of Penny, James, Wendy, and others, it seems, in my opinion, to have been hijacked. It's now more of a personal blog of Steve Saunders, where he expresses an opinion, and others reply, the essence of a blog.
I WANT THE ORIGINAL FORUM BACK!
I could end this post here, that would be the 'safe' thing to do.
But I will pursue 2 more topics.
Hopefully this will generate more light than heat, but if they generate more heat, I can live with that. These 2 topics seem to be the essence of the discussion over the last few months.
Topic 1. Openness vs Secrecy.
Topic 2. What is Dangerous?
Topic 1. Openness vs Secrecy.
In the thread - How much 'how-to'?
Phil wrote:
In a post in Emergent Knowledge forum, Steve says
Quote:
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.
Since David is now dead, I have no way of verifying if this was ever said, and if it was, in what specific context it was said.
I've read David's books, and received training in the fruits of David's thoughts through 2 weeks training with Penny, James, and Wendy. I've also read, analyzed, and implemented almost all the the many articles on the excellent clean language website.
Never, ever, anywhere there did I detect the slightest hint of secretiveness, of a feeling that some particular technique was 'dangerous'.
Topic 2. What is Dangerous?
My personal opinion is that dangerous is something you haven't trained yourself for. Let me give a few examples of why I think this way:
1. Soaring - I love to fly gliders, planes without engines. Is this 'dangerous'?
Well, without training, it certainly would be. But after about 25 lessons, I no longer consider it dangerous at all.
2. Going to the moon - Dangerous? most people might said so. But I worked on that project, putting some of the guidance equations into the craft, enabling them to both reach the moon, and more spectacularly return safely to earth. Again, training reduced the danger. But in the final end, Courage won over Danger.
3. Bomb demolition - most people would say this is a dangerous occupation. But again, with training, few people are killed.
4. Scissors & Knives - This is more personal. One of the few things my ex-wife & I agreed on, while raising our 5 children, was that none of them would ever use a plastic scissor. We waited till they were ready to handle a sharp scissor, then taught them how to use it safely, and let them grow. Likewise on knives. I always had sharpeners available so every knife in the house was razor sharp. I consider one of the most dangerous tools to be a 'dull' knife. It can slip, slide, jump, etc. and wind up cutting you rather than the item you wanted to slice.
Surgeons use extremely sharp knives!
5. Psychotherapy -
Are clients fragile?, in need of some, boundary crossing therapist, to take over and run their lives?
Or are they resilient, occasionally needing some assistance, but basically strong?
You decide.
Bob
I've been a member of this forum since 2004. Also in October 2004, I took a 2 week intensive training from Penny, James, and Wendy also joined us. One of the the things that struck me was their openness, their willingness to share, not just vague concepts, but the nitty, gritty techniques of HOW to implement those concepts. It seemed then, and still does, that this openness attitude flowed down from David Grove.
From 2004 till a few months ago, ironically since David died, this forum was a delightful place to be. When I logged on, I expected to be surprised, enlightened, and fascinated, and it never let me down. Yes, some months were slower than others, but when activity arose, I was as I said, surprised, enlightened, and fascinated.
But since January 2008, mostly I've been bored!
What used to be a widely diverse discussion of the many facets of David's works and the many developments and enhancements of Penny, James, Wendy, and others, it seems, in my opinion, to have been hijacked. It's now more of a personal blog of Steve Saunders, where he expresses an opinion, and others reply, the essence of a blog.
I WANT THE ORIGINAL FORUM BACK!
I could end this post here, that would be the 'safe' thing to do.
But I will pursue 2 more topics.
Hopefully this will generate more light than heat, but if they generate more heat, I can live with that. These 2 topics seem to be the essence of the discussion over the last few months.
Topic 1. Openness vs Secrecy.
Topic 2. What is Dangerous?
Topic 1. Openness vs Secrecy.
In the thread - How much 'how-to'?
Phil wrote:
In a post in Emergent Knowledge forum, Steve says
Quote:
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.
Since David is now dead, I have no way of verifying if this was ever said, and if it was, in what specific context it was said.
I've read David's books, and received training in the fruits of David's thoughts through 2 weeks training with Penny, James, and Wendy. I've also read, analyzed, and implemented almost all the the many articles on the excellent clean language website.
Never, ever, anywhere there did I detect the slightest hint of secretiveness, of a feeling that some particular technique was 'dangerous'.
Topic 2. What is Dangerous?
My personal opinion is that dangerous is something you haven't trained yourself for. Let me give a few examples of why I think this way:
1. Soaring - I love to fly gliders, planes without engines. Is this 'dangerous'?
Well, without training, it certainly would be. But after about 25 lessons, I no longer consider it dangerous at all.
2. Going to the moon - Dangerous? most people might said so. But I worked on that project, putting some of the guidance equations into the craft, enabling them to both reach the moon, and more spectacularly return safely to earth. Again, training reduced the danger. But in the final end, Courage won over Danger.
3. Bomb demolition - most people would say this is a dangerous occupation. But again, with training, few people are killed.
4. Scissors & Knives - This is more personal. One of the few things my ex-wife & I agreed on, while raising our 5 children, was that none of them would ever use a plastic scissor. We waited till they were ready to handle a sharp scissor, then taught them how to use it safely, and let them grow. Likewise on knives. I always had sharpeners available so every knife in the house was razor sharp. I consider one of the most dangerous tools to be a 'dull' knife. It can slip, slide, jump, etc. and wind up cutting you rather than the item you wanted to slice.
Surgeons use extremely sharp knives!
5. Psychotherapy -
Are clients fragile?, in need of some, boundary crossing therapist, to take over and run their lives?
Or are they resilient, occasionally needing some assistance, but basically strong?
You decide.
Bob