Iteration

[Corrie van Wijk]

Steve: "I experimented with emerging using patterns of 8, and it was perfect for those present - they just magically happened to have structures with 8 spaces in between! What a beautiful coincidence that I the facilitator pre-chose 8's and the perfect clients arrived to vindicate 8's. John also did a seminar with 3's - same effect. I know many people may not want to hear this, but David was a master hypnotist and intruded his chosen model on the client for their "self-healing", whether metaphor, space or emergence. And the experiments that John and I made showed clearly the 6's is just another pattern of the F's belief system being reflected by the clientele, for mutual benefit. So nothing wrong with clean or 6's, just another great form of projection for healing purposes."

There is a difference between 'intruding a chosen model on the client' and following the client's brain structure and thinking patterns to resolve unwanted symptoms and underlying trauma's. Metaphor addresses a client's thinking pattern and gives them a means of expressing the underlying emotions and feelings. Space triggers memories and reveals patterns of connections. Emergence is a spontaneous phenomenon that can occur in any cybernetic system. Creating conditions for it to happen is as much as you can do. Any adding of information from outside changes the system, which makes it more difficult to retrieve the original composition. That's why David found out that hypnosis doesn't work and he stopped doing it: you need a clean approach; any structure you try to impose works contrarily.

You never answered my questions about six: I knew that there is no rationale for it and now you admit it. But whether it is five or seven or eight, it is an iteration. Iteration is the key property of any cybernetic system, so there must be something about it: like David told me last year, it's the variations that occur that gives the system enough rope to hang itself.

You should be the one to answer what it is about!

P.S. that exclamation mark is a call on you to share with us your scientific knowledge, like David wanted you to. It knows that for some reason you have more fun in the spiritual world, but please come back on earth with us mortals for a while?

[Steve Saunders]

The principle "as without so within" was used by David when he got excited about 6's - approximately 6 steps (intermediate people) are between each person on the planet, sometimes less, like zero intermediate people between us Corrie, and sometimes more (i.e. finding a person in deepest China or the Amazonian rain forest), and some people (key nodes) have massive network connections, and some have few.

So David used that principle analogously for the human mind. Not scientific, but very reasonable to assume some need to keep different concepts separated in the brain neurology / mind by having space between indices into the holographic memories (recordings).

The more scientific approach is actually to choose the most effective form of hypnosis by choosing a model people believe in and use that to effect the change. So I thought about all the patterns available to us and all the models, and analysed which ones were polluted by discrediting or conflicting beliefs (like astrology) and I was left with the power of 7 - the 7 days of the week, a process almost all the world has and uses, with a consistent archetypal meaning for each day. Therefore I chose 7's because they work for the most people as a plausible basis for the work.

Yes, iteration is the key: iteration and feeling the sweet spot for the next pronoun of the client system. Thus typically 6 is the best answer because each of the connected pronouns has about 3 contextual layers around - 2 times 3 is 6 thus six steps separating and the 7'th lands in the sweet spot (the "how old" question).

Regarding hypnosis I believe it to be a much maligned and mis-used word and concept. The state of hypnosis (eyes open or closed) is a state of pure awareness where the conscious mind is no longer present or interfering with access to information. This is the state I have while facilitating (no mind). All other states are "trance states" induced for a purpose by the person's system - they are states of mind. So to be perfectly honest and open, facilitating people while "in hypnosis" is by far the most effective approach, and there is nothing to stop it being 100% clean through the clean-question-only way we use.

David did not abandon hypnosis, he instead reframed it and kept the client eyes-open and conscious mind present. The delivery he used was hypnotically powerful, admit it!

It is all intruded models unless you use a pure emergence - a model of metaphor is intrusive by turning everything from how it is into metaphor, a model of space intrudes that everything is spatially encoded and it is not, a model of 6's intrudes the 6 degrees of freedom. The inging intrudes momemtum and moving experiencing. IMO the cleanest approach is the inging "and now what is happening?" because it has no pronouns, it is pacing the present experience, and it does not presuppose space or momentum or anything other than the client be able to notice what is happening - i.e. that the person has awareness. Of course if "nothing" is happening and continues to be then its perhaps not the best question. Thus we need variety.

Any questions, Corrie?

Steven

[phil]

Steve: And the experiments that John and I made showed clearly the 6's is just another pattern of the F's belief system being reflected by the clientele, for mutual benefit. So nothing wrong with clean or 6's, just another great form of projection for healing purposes.

Steve, you do have a knack of stating the bleedin' obvious as if it's brand new and you are the first one to notice it! :D At least we could enjoy the ironic (I hope) parallels with your previous description of your experiment with 8 and the 'beautiful coincidence' created by your octagonal projections.

What with 6 and 8, it looks like George Miller's 'Magical Number' 7+2 (much quoted in NLP) wasn't far off the money, eh! I wonder if he would have had as much interest in his paper if he had chosen the 'Magical Range from 5 to 9'.

Interesting to me, in the Wikipedia entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Magical_Number_Seven,_Plus_or_Minus_Two) it says: Wikipedia: Miller did not draw any firm conclusions, simply hypothesizing that the recurring sevens might represent something deep and profound or be just a pernicious, Pythagorean coincidence. One might almost put David' name instead of Miller's and replace sevens with sixes.

Steve: I know many people may not want to hear this, but David was a master hypnotist and intruded his chosen model on the client for their "self-healing", whether metaphor, space or emergence.

Who are these 'many people' who you 'know may not want to hear this'? Do you see yourself as some kind of lone voice crying in the wilderness?

I think Corrie makes a good point about iteration being the thing in the EK process. ('If I've said it once, I've said it a thousand times... iterate, iterate, iterate!').

Maybe rather than slavishly sticking to 6 or 8 or 68 or any number, it makes more sense to 'iterate UNTIL' that is, iterate until THIS person's wobble or some kind of change occurs, then download, to use the EK jargon/metaphor.

Phil

[Steve Saunders]

nothing like a bit of violent agreement then Phil ...

[phil]

Well, every now and then the way I perceive you to be talking down to us gets to me and I feel the need to point it out in case visitors start imagining that you actually DO know everything, rather than just rather a lot :). Sorry if you feel violated, no hard feelings here.

Phil

[Steve Saunders]

the interesting parameter is "until":

a "feels-right pronoun"?
or
"a wobble"
or
the client says "that's it, I'm off shopping now."
or
F decides they're fed up with the same question and does something different
or
another criterion

Perhaps this is why David moved from "in service to the information", to "in service to the space", to "in service to the knowledge" to "in service to the algorithm"?

The algorithm serves a purpose, and once chosen, it is followed. Emergence works with algorithms of questions, in a way like SyM has had a default algorithm for 3-4 years now.

The client comes to the F for the expertise of F in helping the client in some form, else why pay? F chooses a suitable algorithm and then uses it. The algorithms produce reproducible effective results so get re-used.

It's ok Phil, I'm ok if you think I think I know it all. No violated feelings - these, like the thinking are your projections triggered by my actions that appear to say that I know it all.

:-)

Steven

[phil]

It's ok Phil, I'm ok if you think I think I know it all. No violated feelings - these, like the thinking are your projections triggered by my actions that appear to say that I know it all.


Oh? I was taking the 'violated' from your projected word 'violent' as in Steve: nothing like a bit of violent agreement then Phil ... As I remember from earlier this year, if anyone opines anything about you, for you it's '100% their projection'. Whereas I get the feeling when you say anything about others, it's just 'right', right?

Talking of rather more interesting patterns, is there a common element in the 'in service to...' in David's work. I wonder where that came from? Are the nouns (information, algorithm, etc) anthropomorphised? I wonder how David represented these to himself? I wonder what it means to be 'in service to the information' - I have used the phrase myself - and as you list those, it makes me wonder about 'service'.

[Corrie van Wijk]

Steve: "The more scientific approach is actually to choose the most effective form of hypnosis by choosing a model people believe in and use that to effect the change."

That is not scientific, not even NLP, but just brainwashing.

Steve: "David did not abandon hypnosis, he instead reframed it and kept the client eyes-open and conscious mind present. The delivery he used was hypnotically powerful, admit it!"

Well, I guess you reframed your definition of hypnosis instead.

Phil: "Maybe rather than slavishly sticking to 6 or 8 or 68 or any number, it makes more sense to 'iterate UNTIL' that is, iterate until THIS person's wobble or some kind of change occurs."

David never really counted himself, he'd always had to ask others around.

Steve:"the interesting parameter is "until":

a "feels-right pronoun"?
or
"a wobble"
or
the client says "that's it, I'm off shopping now."
or
F decides they're fed up with the same question and does something different
or
another criterion [...]

The algorithm serves a purpose, and once chosen, it is followed[...]

F chooses a suitable algorithm and then uses it.[...]"

Could you explain to non-mathematicians what an algorithm is in this context?

What is your criterion for choosing an algorithm? How do you know it is the right one?

Which ones are there to choose from?

[Steve Saunders]

Phil, what I see in others is all my projection, what you see in me is yours. Surely you know this after all your time in this field of endeavour?

Corrie: an algorithm is a sequence of operations designed to transform the input into an output that is normally but not always different to the input.

From an online dictionary: "a set of rules for solving a problem in a finite number of steps, as for finding the greatest common divisor", or adding up the grocery bill.

In terms of this work, an algorithm might be "The Issue Buster" that I think I've posted before on here, or more simple a pattern of questions, say repeated 6 times.

Phil: in terms of what David meant by "in service to" and those that he was "in service to". I noticed a sociological pattern that when "information management" was in the business culture so was David in service to the information, and likewise when "knowledge management" was growing in business so David move into service to the knowledge. As I was into algorithms etc from my engineering heritage maybe he picked that up and chose that name for the service when he was moving away from space into emergence?

I think he wanted to distinguish his work from "client-centred" and "doing to" and named well the way of working. The element that one is "being in service to" is the customer in a business frame, so I wonder if my work is in service to the inner child, or to "the one god".
Well, I'm up for an interesting chat about the service aspect!

Steven

[phil]

Aw, forget about it, I don't think you'll ever get it.... Just try not to patronise us - and don't call me Shirley! :)

I'll start a new thread for musing about what 'in service to' might mean.

Phil

[Corrie van Wijk]

I suggest the two of you have a 6X beer together while you still live so close.

In the meantime, concentrate on my questions please!


Corrie: "What is your criterion for choosing an algorithm? How do you know it is the right one?

Which ones are there to choose from?"

[Steve Saunders]

Corrie: "What is your criterion for choosing an algorithm? How do you know it is the right one? Which ones are there to choose from?"

Well I'm sure I posted on this before. A good algorithm has to match the deep structures within a person or be flexible to different structures. One algorithm is SyM, where you have a set of questions and after each question you choose the best of the 10 as you the F sees fit. Overall, about 3-4 years ago an overarching SyM algorithm was published: the Problem, Solution, Outcome choice, followed by phases of developing landscapes, evolving them etc.

To choose an algorithm? Dare I say one emerges or feels right. I might start with one expectation and find another emerge. Before a retreat I have ideas on what might be the overall algorithm, and then it changes once the group has physically come together.


Which ones to choose from:

GMT, SyM, Space, EK, Emergence, Inging, NLP processes ...

Because of my reframe (Corrie) of hypnosis I choose algorithms that are likely to match the structures of a person. And so looked for something universal and yet not polluted by
conflicting beliefs: therefore I chose the 7-day week to explain the 6-emergence and the day of rest, and the archetypes of the day really do explain well the form of the emergence at each step. So I hypothesise that most people have structures with 6's between nodes of information/knowledge, and with most people with most issues this works. and yet sometimes there are 5 or 7 or other numbers of steps inbetween.

How do I know the difference? I "feel the pronoun". As I have a model that when clear the feelings in me are the projections of the other (and vice versa), I use this to have cues from feelings as to when to ask about a pronoun instead of continuing to iterate.

The trouble with all human experiments is that one can never know if one has taken the right or wrong algorithm choice: once it has been measured or unmeasured there is no going back.

The cleanest algorithm to pace people without imposing a structure that I've found is the "inging", so I use that. Then I use "loading B" to the extreme with "represent the story of your life and the world around", and I just keep asking "and does anything else go on there / with that / near/next to that / around that?" - in other words, loading+scaling.

In 1-hour sessions, algorithms like the Issue Buster work well - 6 sets of 6 plus pause-points.

The system will communicate the starting algorithm: words can be written down because the client needs to hear/see them not you; body movings suggest inging, nonverbals suggest drawing or inging or metaphor, feelings suggest locating sensations in/around the body, the starting statement or communication is the clue.

For example, a person says "I don't want to be here, I'm not ready." Two pronouns relating to an event in the past. You can either interpret this as "here and now" (erroneously) or you can infer a past context in which this is the truth. My sense was that this was the intruded words/thoughts/feelings of a parent into a baby nearing birth, and so it proved. Was my intuition really correct or did I put that into the client because I was thinking it, or did the client system place that at me so I could do the work required? Either way, the client left content!

more anon maybe!

[Corrie van Wijk]

Thank you Steve, this is really helpful.

Steve: "...have cues from feelings as to when to ask about a pronoun instead of continuing to iterate."

I think you should stick to the iteration once you started it. It is a different process from SyM or CS.

[Steve Saunders]

Corrie: "I think you should stick to the iteration once you started it. It is a different process from SyM or CS."

Mostly, yes stick to iteration (like that time Josie asked 1559 times the same question) but not always.

Why not always?
1. Because I project/sense a structure of pronouns. Each pronoun re-seeds an iteration around or inside, and working with these joins the dots to bring these pronouns into the here and now, aligning with the body. And this aligns with David's inner child cosmology.
2. Because not every client is happy with paying for being asked the same question over and over - after all they want some expertise/value for money, and perceive more value in less in our crazy world, so they prefer more dirt in terms of complex processes etc - its all part of the stage show! It is why David spent so long in the set-up and scenary.
3. Because not every facilitator can keep to the iteration for long enough - an hour, a day, a week.

Steven

[Corrie van Wijk]

Steve: "yes stick to iteration [...] but not always.

Why not always?
1. Because I project/sense a structure of pronouns. Each pronoun re-seeds an iteration around or inside, and working with these joins the dots to bring these pronouns into the here and now, aligning with the body."

The iteration gives space for emergence to have happen. A pronoun is like a shy cat: notice it, but don't look at it; it will come to you when it is ready to trust you. Don't go for it rightaway, you'll chase it.

[Steve Saunders]

Yes Corrie, it is true, thus waiting for the sweet spot, so its not the first pronoun mention, but when it is definitively the one speaking/communication - often at the "7" (after 6 iterations), but not always.

Seems we agree?