PDA

View Full Version : Clean Space is not about modelling space


Corrie van Wijk
05-06-2008, 11:52 AM
Penny Tompkins and James Lawley say in their article "Clean Space: Modeling Human Perception through Emergence" (2003):
"Whenever we see something, we see it somewhere; whenever we hear a sound, it's coming from somewhere; and whenever we touch something, we feel it somewhere.
Likewise, whenever we create an image in our mind, we see it somewhere; whenever we hear a sound internally, we hear it coming from somewhere; and whenever we feel a feeling inside, we feel it somewhere.
Neuroscientists tell us there are no actual images, sounds or feelings in the brain, but subjectively it seems like there are. In other words, our representations are metaphors that exist in a mindspace &emdash; a stage in the theatre of our mind where the play of consciousness is enacted. […]
In Clean Space, each position is located by the client and its attributes are defined by the client. The whole process emerges out of the client's innate ability to, as Gilles Fauconnier and Mark Turner put it, "conceptually blend" their perception of metaphorical space with their perception of physical space.[…]

I think James and Penny try to understand here something new in terms of something they are familiar with, which is symbolic modelling.

(J&P): "Clean Space […] requires a […] kind of facilitation […] that supports the client to […] to construct a model of the organization of their mindbody perceptions. The aim of the process is for the client to model a network of relationships between the spaces, rather than to just develop the information contained within the spaces.[…]

We'll leave the last word to one of our clients: "I couldn't see how standing on another piece of carpet could make any difference, and yet when I did, I instantly had access to new knowledge, and that opened up a completely new perspective."

My guess however is that clean space is not about space: modelling space or modelling network(s) of spaces is a different proces than clean space:

(J&P) "David Grove says, ‘your aim is for the client to establish a network of relationships between the spaces.’ "

Watching him do this many times, my interpretation is that not the spatial layout is important, but they way it is organised.

(J&P):"Clean Space relies on the client's natural ability to utilize emergence. Change happens organically as a result of the client's system becoming more aware of its own organization. As Milton Erickson said, "Therapy results from an inner resynthesis of the patient's behavior achieved by the patient himself" (quoted by Ernest Rossi)."

‘Achieved by the patient himself’ doesn’t necessarily mean that it is a conscious process. Different spaces trigger different perceptions and emotions because of different sensory combinations. By moving around intuitively the client is likely to find spaces that he or she is attracted to and avoid spaces he or she is afraid of. By establishing a B beforehand the brain gets an assignment from A and starts looking for information that has something to do with that, through association. The network between the ‘spaces’ (that the clients ‘feels’ to have relevant information to the problem or goal) represents the pattern of connections between them. If a clients moves from space U to space V, but never from space U to space W, you know there is no relevant connection between U and W. Similarly space W may be connected to space X but not to Z, etc.

So this limits the amount of possible connections.

(J&P)"[…] Once this configuration is established, the client's natural ability to detect patterns and make meaning, coupled with their desire to change, results in the system learning from itself."

I think that "the client's natural ability to detect patterns and make meaning" results from the emergence process, the system learning from itself and not from detecting patterns and making meaning: "Ah-ha!" is only the conscious realisation of what just, amazingly, happened and how different it feels.

Corrie van Wijk
08-06-2008, 09:48 AM
We had a similar conversation in the very first article on this forum in this section:

Corrie: "So, in my opinion, it is already the (regained memory of a) sensory observation, which adds information to the system and gets it to communicate with it. ...The fact that they 'come up' with a (verbal or metaphorical) description or (symbolic) explanation proves that the experience is prior to making meaning of it. Now self-healing or self-organising already may occur at a sensory level, even before -- or even without! -- you are aware of it (isn't dreaming a way for the mind to get things organised and stored properly?) and constructing a meaning out of it."

Like you said:

James: "they become aware that they are having responses to the spaces/symbols and 'tacit' knowledge begins to emerge they know not where from."

So it is the responses that matter, not the spaces themselves.

Now, the question is: does it matter if knowledge emerges (Emergent Knowledge) or is the process of emergence enough? (Emergence)

phil
09-06-2008, 11:41 AM
My guess however is that clean space is not about space: modelling space or modelling network(s) of spaces is a different proces than clean space:


What is your definition of Clean Space?

Does this work? All Space* is the medium "in" which the network of information constructs itself. The network is made up of Individual Spaces (places/nodes/reference points) and Relationships (perceived links/movement). Clean Space process brings the network nto being and from that emerges... what emerges.

does it matter if knowledge emerges (Emergent Knowledge) or is the process of emergence enough? (Emergence)

What emerges from 'the process of emergence', if not knowledge? [cont'd in Emergence forum]




*All Space is my name for boundless undifferentiated space. Individual Space is my name for the space a person 'finds' (creates) when asked to do so in the CS process.

Corrie van Wijk
10-06-2008, 09:19 AM
My defenition of Clean Space is that it is a process through which, by triggering sensory combinations (which in turn may project on other brain areas), body/brain memories get reactivated. Because the process uses moving from one space to another rather simultaneously, these memories get connected and may form new combinations.

Phil: "All space is the medium ‘in’ which the network of information constructs itself."

A network doesn’t need our thinking in terms of space nor modelling space to construct itself. Although our brain is topographically organised, that is a less relevant quality here. There is always ‘space’ between different areas. Through a ‘me-chemical’ process it needs less than a split second to be crossed. What matters here is the combinations that are made and what results from that.

Phil: "Clean Space process brings the network into being and from that emerges .. what emerges."

The simultaneous (clean timing!) triggering of different memories is likely to construct new combinations. However the realisation (= become into being) that, e.g., 1 + 1 = 2 is a different one than 1 + 1 = a pair. In the latter case 1 and 1 are coupled and have something in common. If the brain never realised that before and makes the connection that 1 + 1 are in some respect similar, it is an emergent property. If that property becomes conscious, it is knowledge.

Phil: "What emerges from the ‘process of emergence’ if not knowledge."

The brain may make connections that we never become aware of but do cause change.

Corrie van Wijk
13-06-2008, 08:21 AM
From the Sangatte notes, page 9:

"This is about boundaries: I wonder if anyone understands and recognises the importance of this concept: what location is for SM, are boundaries for CS.)"

Corrie van Wijk
15-06-2008, 01:51 PM
When I talked to David about Clean Space in Carol’s backyard a few years ago, I asked him if you could replace ‘space’ for ‘system’. He thought for a moment and then said, visibly amused, ‘absolutely!’. We smiled.

So below some quotes from J&P’s article on psychoactivity, except that I exchanged (between [ ]) all spatial words for systemic ones.

"The act of moving from one [sensory combination] to another defines the [system] within which the client works, while what [information] they [dowload] [through] each [sensory combination] defines the content of the session. As the network of [parts] and perspectives is created the [network of pieces of information] becomes psychoactive in an emergent and systemic manner. […]when the client [experiences] particular [sensory combinations] their body will often unconsciously orientate to the surrounding [associations] (including the configuration of other [parts of the system] they have established.

At certain places David will invite the client to turn slowly through 360 degrees reporting what they notice at each arc of the turn. He may ask them to continue turning in that direction so they complete several revolutions; or he may ask them to reverse the direction of turning. I have seen this have a profound effect on some clients. David is utilising changes in the body's orientation to its surrounding [associations] to effect change in the client's interior [configuration]. I believe this works because they are not just moving through physical space but turning through a previously self-generated psychoactive [associational system].

[…]

David Grove coined the term 'psychoactive [system]' because it seems as if our perceptions are causing us to react and that we have little choice in the matter – which is true to some extent. When our perception of a [system] and the [systemic] relations contained therein have an independence from us, we are effectively living in the [configuration] of the [system] moment by moment.

[…]

A [system] becomes psychoactive when the [systemic] relations of the [thoughts] and imaginative [concepts] in it invoke an extra significance over and above their everyday meaning; in short, when [a certain quality] matters. And [that quality] is always in relation to a perceiver. For example the [less attached] we are from something that scares us, generally the more relaxed we feel about it. Here the [systemic] relation is simply [the degree of attachment] from our [emotion]. Similarly, the slower a scary something [affects us] the less fearful we are likely to be. Here the [systemic] relation is change of [emotion] over time.

[…]

when something changes in that [network of pieces of information] (often spontaneously), more of their mind-body is involved. This usually produces a more embodied and systemic change than just 'talking about' changing. The experience is not necessarily accompanied by a large display of emotion or catharsis – affect does not equal effect – but the client knows something has changed, even if they are unable to articulate it at the time."