Clean Delivery

[phil]

Whatever the text content of a question, the way it is asked greatly affects the degree to which it can be called clean.

For example, take the arguably quite clean-seeming question:

"And what is there now?"

The question has different shades of meaning depending on where the emphasis is placed. Try saying the question aloud, gently emphasising the blue word and trying to keep the other words neutral AND :

"And what is there now?"

"And what is there now?"

"And what is there now?"

"And what is there now?"

"And what is there now?"


Typically everyone is more sophisticated than that in their use of stress and will emphasise more than one word in a sentence:

"And what is there now?"

"And what is there now?"

"And what is there now?"

"And what is there [pause] now?"


I think there is a quite different meaning for 'what is there' depending on where the emphasis is put. For me

'what is there?'

is akin to the arguably cleaner and odd-sounding 'is there anything, anywhere?' Contrast that with:

'what is there?'

or

'what is there?'

each presupposing the existence of a something, somewhere and then emphasising one or the other.

If you're wondering what my point is, frying your brain with repeating one question, it's that if you want to stay clean, the way you deliver your questions is as important an area to address as the words of the question. That applies to all the clean processes I guess.

Phil

[Corrie van Wijk]

From the 'Betweens' section, Corrie: "David asked this question in a neutral way, so the client could wait for the most relevant aspect to emerge. (clean intonation!)"

Remember this is an EK question: yes, indeed, David managed to make it sound neutral. Especially when it is repeated all the time, you notice there is no specific emphasis on any word.

'Having said that, 'there', when asked about repeatedly means that you ask about the same place. Because 'now' changes every split second, it means that the next question pushes you forward in time, even if it is both 'at present'. So the next question, usually a few minutes later, asks about what there is 'now'. 'There' hasn't changed, but 'what' might have, and 'now' definitely has changed, by definition. So perhaps David needed to stress 'there' a little less than 'now', but that is inherent to the question, thus clean.

Now compare Steve's question: 'What is happening now?' He doesn't put location in it, so the mind could wander off to different spaces, among which the 'here'. Steve also asks this question in a very neutral way.

Both questions however presuppose that there ís something there or that something ís happening, which is probably usually the case an derived from an initial statement of the client. But even if the client would say: 'nothing' or 'I don't know', it is equally treated as information and the facilitator would just go on to the next question.

By putting the mind at work like this, something will emerge eventually, probably some kind of energy connected to an emotion. So it is important indeed to practice a neutral style of delivery, although I don't think that a slight variation would be very disturbing within the context of series of identical questions. Or may-be it would.
Another aspect for practice groups to experiment with!

[Steve Saunders]

I once challenged David to ask the same question the same way 6 times. He tried and could not even twice. Try it in groups. I cannot do it, and I've yet to meet someone who can.

The experience affects the F. Emphasising particular words is an old Jedi NLP trick from the Neurological Levels I believe.

David was more concerned with varying the intervals between and the tonalities of the words - to get an arrhythmic form like African drumming, and NOT an occidental military march or dance form.

regarding "and what is there now?" the intention is for the focus of attention of the client to travel to "there" and to report the "what" that "is there now". David and I discussed and experimented a lot with the emergent delivery and its effect. The intended effect is to cause a journey of moving awareness to occur in order to download the knowledge from locations in the spatial emergent knowledge form of work.

My point? It's not about the "word" of attention, but about the moving attention being transmitted to the client so that the client moves. It is inherently transferring momentum. so think of the question as a "waveform" designed to do a sequenced job because the sequence inside governs what can happen.

I suggest that object-oriented thinking (words, spaces) is limiting the understanding of emergence, which is process-oriented in nature - in other words a momentum experience, and thus unmeasurable by "object-oriented" thinking!!!!!

Steven
[PS Josie says "they" do not know the vastness of what they do not know, and was reminded of sitting with me and David, wondering what on earth we were talking about. I think she is empathising with how impossible it is for you to understand without the doing experience of being with him or me while the work is done.]