The role of the facilitator

[Corrie van Wijk]

In the Emergent Knowledge section, in the thread "What kind of F?" we already discussed some aspects of the role of the facilitator. I think the presence of a facilitator, and which one in particular, and which specific behaviour from him or her, applies to all forms of clean, hence this thread in the Clean section.

Steve: "Beyond this, David was right at the end of his journey with the cards to separate the asker of questions out - to eliminate "F" in ABCDeF. Completely removing F is part of completely removing projections from other people - so that the client's mind can actually get to work on all the stuff it has to understand.

I do not actually like the "giving card" idea personally - I perceive it to be flawed, but an attempt for the F to escape projecting the word "you", but instead the card-giving is projected. But the F can only truly escape if the client enters a non-objective space - in other words enters their own flow or momentum, and thus the F is no longer "present" as far as the client is concerned. David knew this and talked about "Ericksons "my voice will go with you"" and David's "no voice going with you"."

I cannot imagine what it would be like not to have David's voice going with me; even now he is dead it's easier to imagine just the sound of his voice, without remembering what he is saying or asking.

I think it all depends on the scape and the process. Some would require more presence than others, and also the quality of that presence is important.

Perhaps it would be clean, in the set-up, not only to ask the client where they want you to be, but also what kind of clean move(s) they need from you. David sometimes, when he was at loss, had the client choose the next question ["What question would you like to be asked?"]. Or perhaps you can have them indicate the pace of your questioning, like a child on a swing that shouts to go faster or slower?

Other than that, in between session there is enough time to think and process.

[phil]

the client enters a non-objective space - in other words enters their own flow or momentum


This is what Penny and James call 'self-modelling' and is the purpose of Symbolic Modelling.

Recently happened for me with a client who, after normal conversational exchanges to start with, eventually seemed only peripherally aware of me. He was 'in' his metaphor landscape, describing his symbols around him and it was changing as he watched and experienced. I had withdrawn almost entirely, occasionally gently guiding his attention back to his landscape when, apparently slightly embarassed, he remembered me and turned to look at me.

Disappearing the F (facilitator) is something the client does, rather than what the F does (or does not do). Or rather it happens through enhanced client attention to their own stuff - the F disappears into a 'blind spot'.

It can happen while using any coaching/therapeutic model, though my belief is that staying ACAP (As Clean As Possible!) makes it easier. I think the Psychodynamic school (psychoanalysis, Freud et al) call it 'free-association'. Once, during a training, I was demo subject for a short session of psychodynamic therapy and it reminded me of this mildly-entranced self-modelling 'state'.

I suppose another question is 'what is the benefit of such a 'state'?'

Phil

[super_yacht@hotmail.com]

I agree that ‘F’ will always be present unless as David said ‘no voice will go with you’.

I think there are varying degrees of influence that ‘F’ can have starting from a facilitator led session (maybe NLP) through client led to information led. I agree to a certain extent it’s the client that eliminates ‘F’ and its ‘F’ that will break the flow and enter into the space. The client goes into a flow in which they are oblivious to ‘F’, not even hearing the questions; this is often a result of a session. If ‘F’s intervention breaks the flow will this change, that intervention could be the wrong question (or the right one), a movement, wrong timing, basically anything that brings that client out of their flow.

The benefit of this state: isn’t this true information leading, the client is emerging the information and exploring it, not having to translate it (consciously) into words for ‘F’. If ‘F’ is in flow with the client the questions will be the right ones. In flow the client, when asked the wrong question will answer another question (not asked), or one of David’s more esoteric questions ‘and…’

Possibly one (unclean) effect is the timing or pressé of ‘F’s questions, which maintain the client’s momentum. On another thread I mentioned that this is why I don’t believe you can self-process effectively, pressé is an important part of the over all affect.

[Corrie van Wijk]

Corrie: "Or perhaps you can have them indicate the pace of your questioning, like a child on a swing that shouts to go faster or slower?"

I once went shopping with David for revolving chairs (when you were working on the hang-up's!) and when I sat in one, David started to move me around. So I guided him with my finger, indicating to spin clockwise or anticlockwise, how slow and how fast.

When the goal is to keep the client in flow, why not make it interactive?

[Corrie van Wijk]

Bob: "personally hold caring as a higher value than being clean."

How do you know the client needs you to be caring?

What is the realtionship between caring and clean?

And when [you hold caring as a higher value] what happens to [clean]?

I wonder who taught you this Bob: have you ever heard David?

[phil]

care: The verb is O.E. carian, cearian "to feel concern or interest," from P.Gmc. *karojanan.

cure: c.1300, from L. cura "care, concern, trouble," from PIE base *kois- "be concerned."

therapy 1846, "medical treatment of disease," from Mod.L. therapia, from Gk. therapeia "curing, healing," from therapeuein "to cure, treat." Therapist formed 1886; earlier therapeutist (1816), especially of psychotherapy practitioners from c.1930s.

* * * * * * * * *

For me the highest level of caring IS being clean.

Clean is caring enough about other people not to inflict my cures on them - rather, to facilitate their self-modelling so they can take care of themselves.

Clean is caring enough to restrain any desire I might have to change someone - holding back my knee-jerk 'ah-I-know-what-this-person-needs' judgments.

Clean is caring enough such that when the going gets tough, I don't 'get going' - instead taking time to support the learning of the system.

I can't manage that kind of high-level 'clean caring' all the time - the 'Righting Reflex' (Prochaska and Norcross) is there in me, as in most of us IMO. It is what I aspire to and work towards.

Phil