Wwylthh?

[Corrie van Wijk]

What Would You Like To Have Happen?

Brian Johnson and Fotini Pallikari-Viras suggest in their article "Biological utilization of quantum locality" (Foundations of Physics 21 , 1991, pp. 197-207) that to concentrate on a goal might change the distribution of quantum probabilities, and that this concentration is more effective if a learning process takes place.

Perhaps, as others have speculated, the consciousness interacts with quantumprocesses within the brain, thus forcing to gather information about, or create coherence, meaning and order in, what would otherwise just be random noise in the brain and the outside world.

Does the client need to formulate a need or a want in order to get the process running?

[Steve Saunders]

Not in my experience.

I used to just wait and the client would make an initial communication ... I wondered if this was because I set the intention that the client would do so.

Then I tried deciding beforehand. And the clients just waited until I made my opening question/instruction.

My conclusion: the client and facilitator are entangled however clean one might pretend to be, so choose something beneficent or the default of waiting for the client to start first.

I do not like the WWYL2HH because it is future-conditional taking the person away from present symptom, I feel it does not respect what is, and being true to the spirit of working WITH the symptoms, I prefer the initial symptom to declare itself.

Steven

[Corrie van Wijk]

I'm with you on that: I think you should honour the symptom first. Josie wrote a piece on communication with your client before the first session: probably the very first contact will give you a clue of what it is they need from you.

But my question is a brain one: does the conscious need a goal 'in order to' get started?

[Steve Saunders]

Corrie: "But my question is a brain one: does the conscious need a goal 'in order to' get started?"

And that "but my question is a brain one" could have come from from where or from when or from what or from whom?

To answer rather than ask you questions about your question I have to be unclean and imagine what would have to be true for me to be asking that question and see the world from the perspective of the asker of the question: a "my", a sense of "a brain one", a sense of "the conscious" and sequencing relating to "in order to" and "get started". Knowing some history, and the "car mechanic" metaphor I imagine that in that world there is a "starter motor", a "solenoid" and "ignition system". And in that system the goal would be to arrive at a destination (to go from A to B), thus the "car" would be started in order to get somewhere (the goal, or B).

IMO: The need for a starting goal, depends upon a person's concept of "conscious" - many words are used interchangeable here - "the self", "the conscious mind", "the mind", "the metaphysical part of the human being". for the conscious mind YES in my world view. I believe this mind only comes into existence in order to understand something, and the destination equates to making both the understanding and touching the inner child measurement that required the understanding to be made, thus completing the navigation and returning the life force to the body, and the mind ceasing to be in relation to this starting goal.

Thank you Corrie, very instructive for me ;-)

love Steven

[Corrie van Wijk]

Steve: "the inner child measurement that required the understanding to be made"

Was the measurement a conscious (=neocortex) process in the first place?

Imagine you were a wounded animal that can't make sense of what happened, what would you do?

[Steve Saunders]

No I think not conscious in the first place, thus the work cannot be done with the conscious, mostly the measurements are interrupts (shocks) or a time of emotional porosity - which is a highly altered state.

A wounded animal (I wont go into why you are asking me or why you presume it does not understand) ... in my world view they know, they can still be shocked, and they can be detraumatised - David talked of the press for the cattle which inspired his chair for the whirlygig. Again by working with the symptoms rather than interrupting them.

I'm reminded of how a friend approaches young children - he does not, he sits on the floor in the room well away from them and they come to him out of curiosity. The principle is to do nothing, or as little as possible.

[Corrie van Wijk]

Steve:"the measurements are interrupts (shocks) or a time of emotional porosity - which is a highly altered state."

So the shocks are the motorvators?

[Steve Saunders]

well i'm no mechanic but if a car's motorvators relate to a person's motivators then yes.

and also in a car the shocks absorb impacts cushioning the passenger, just as the structures do separating self from measurement ...

hmmmn!

[Corrie van Wijk]

Corrie: "Perhaps, as others have speculated, the consciousness interacts with quantumprocesses within the brain, thus forcing to gather information about, or create coherence, meaning and order in, what would otherwise just be random noise in the brain and the outside world.

Does the client need to formulate a need or a want in order to get the process running?"

What makes a human different from an animal in dealing with distress?

[Steve Saunders]

Corrie: "Does the client need to formulate a need or a want in order to get the process running? What makes a human different from an animal in dealing with distress?"

IMO No the client's system communicates what it needs to - the need is already formed in the unconscious.

As to the latter question: IMO very little: an animal can fragment as one sees with abused dogs. The difference: words as well as feelings and body. BUT: the human is normally far more fragmented and fragile and less able to cope, and so it's probably a greater suffering.

It's quite a question that Corrie - how do people react to hitting an animal with their car? And how does the animal react?

[phil]

I guess the process is always running, if you know what I mean. We talk of starts and ends which is convenient for practical reasons. In truth, these are only the coincidence and ...abincidence?:) moments when facilitator and client come together, converse a while with each other and then part. Their individual processes are going before during and after.

I agree a want or need is not necessarily required. Often such a thing IS present and has provided the motivation that brought a client to a facilitator. Apart from random congregation, what other reason might there be for a person to be present in a client role with another playing the role of a facilitator?

[Corrie van Wijk]

Steve: "how do people react to hitting an animal with their car? And how does the animal react?"

How does the car react?

Phil: "I agree a want or need is not necessarily required. Often such a thing IS present and has provided the motivation that brought a client to a facilitator."

So a want or need is present, but not necessarily formulated?

[phil]

So a want or need is present, but not necessarily formulated?


Yes, I guess so, if by 'formulated' you mean consciously available, expressible. Alternative words to add to the 'want or need' list might be 'desire', 'motivation', 'liking' or 'preference'.

There is usually some kind of motivation operating for people. One useful vector for therapy or coaching can be to clarify what the desired outcome is, given that there probably is one floating around in the system somewhere. Symptoms are not usually presented as being a matter of mere idle curiosity...
Patient: "Doctor, doctor, I feel terribly ill!"

Doctor: "So what?"

Patient: "Oh, nothing, just thought you might be interested."

or

Patient: "Doctor, doctor, I feel terribly ill!"

Doctor: "So what?"

Patient: "So what?! So make me feel better!"

Doctor: "Well, why didn't you say so in the first place?"

Phil

[Corrie van Wijk]

Phil: "the desired outcome is, given that there probably is one floating around in the system somewhere. Symptoms are not usually presented as being a matter of mere idle curiosity... "

So expressing a motivation is communication?

[phil]

In the sense that I used 'expressing' here, expressing anything in a conversation is one side of a communication (which requires 2 sides minimum). That is, the process of co-mmunication requires a transmitter and receiver.

To continue the radio theme, an expression of a symptom could be more of a broadcast to anyone who will listen, without knowing if anyone can actually hear[1]

A motivation could be described as a symptom of the system. Interesting that the root of the word symptom comes from to happen or befall[2].

I guess the question 'And what would you like to have happen?' is paging the system for any symptoms of want, desire, preference, etc. The receiver typically replies with the uppermost, loudest symptom in the system, commonly a problem with a don't-want (which is a want + not)attached to it.

Another point about 'And what would you like to have happen?' is that it is aimed towards the future, yet because it sounds similar to this question 'And what would you like to have happened?', this is sometimes mis-heard and gets a wistful 'if only things had turned out differently...' response. I keep an ear out for that. Not saying it's a wrong answer of course, it's still an expression of relevant information.

I sometimes use 'And what would you like to happen?', which is cleaner IMO. Removing the 'have' reduces the potential implication that the response should be something that the listener can bring about themselves. There's more around this, I'll make a separate topic.

Phil

[1] Ships and aircradft carry transmit-only beacons called ELT (Emergency Locator Transmitter) or EPIRB (Emergency Position Indicating Radio Beacon). I suppose a physical symptom is an EPIPB (Emergency Position Indicating PAIN Beacon)!

[2] symptom (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=symptom) [/URL]
1541, earlier sinthoma (1398), from M.L. sinthoma "symptom of a disease," from L.L. symptoma, from Gk. symptoma (gen. symptomatos) "a happening, accident, disease," from stem of sympiptein "to befall," from syn- "together" + piptein "to fall," from PIE base *pet- "to rush, to fly" (see [URL="http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=petition"]petition (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=symptom)). Spelling altered in Eng. by influence of M.Fr. and L.L. forms. Symptomatic in general sense of "indicative (of)" is from 1751.

[Corrie van Wijk]

Phil: "I guess the question 'And what would you like to have happen?' is paging the system for any symptoms of want, desire, preference, etc. The receiver typically replies with the uppermost, loudest symptom in the system, commonly a problem with a don't-want (which is a want + not)attached to it."

Before you pose the question WWYLTHH? the client already decided to come to you, so he or she knows that there is something they do or don't want. What makes a human different from an animal. Would social animals turns to their group, expressing they are in need?

[phil]

I don't know. What do you think, Corrie?

[Corrie van Wijk]

I once saw a group of horses in a meadow. One of them was lying down, its legs upward and moving its head. The others stood in a circle around it.

[phil]

Maybe it was telling a joke...

:)