Think twice

[Corrie van Wijk]

Steve: "This was when the thinking was all "spatial" not emergent as in the later forms."

See my thread: 'Clean space is not about modelling space' in the Clean Space section.

I think any clean process can produce emergent knowledge: clean language comprises complex information into metaphor, thus chunking it and enabling the working memory to process it; clean space downloads (reverse association) information triggered in different spaces and by moving from one space to another connecting them in the present; the iteration of questions causes the brain to think twice (thrice, etc.), thus inviting it to verify the information (compare it to other stored information, see the quote from Phil below).

So I don't see how 'emergent thinking' is different from information as a result of any other clean process.

And an insight need not necessarily be emergent knowledge:

Phil (in the section Emerging Moving, the thread 'Experiencing the here and now'): "Sensory inputs are data, it's processing that creates information and comparison of that information with stored information creates news. These are categories I heard David use once."

So what is the difference, if any, between news and emergent knowledge?

[Steve Saunders]

Corrie, I was not saying that emergence only happens with emergence - there are man many ways of enabling this and not just within the world of clean language.

But, there are are metaphors of space-time and metaphors of momentum and metaphors that escape dependence upon these individually.

Spatial Emergent Thinking is when the F is using spatial metaphors to facilitate through the questions: size/shape, whereabouts, from there, in that direction, about that, inside that ...

Emergent Knowledge Thinking concentrates on abstract "knowing" not upon space (except in the early days of developing it - see my thread on "betweens"). Thus "know about", anything else,

Emergence can even escape "thinking" and the metaphors of "knnowing", "space-time" and "momentum".

Maybe the greatest flow of emergence happens when there is no thinking, no space code, no time code, just emerging?

Regarding your question: "news" implies difference or something new from the starting conditions - this is not always true - or not always the case that a person perceives something new after a pattern of questions. There is not necessarily any difference between the two terms "news" and "emergent knowledge". There can be news from an instant intuition - is this emergent or inspiring?

And also as my post in the thread whence this case says, David was still in service to the space in the early days of EK. Being in service to the algorithm emerged during one of our workshops - David's revelation, I recall, following a discussion on the nature of the service.

[phil]

Emergence can even escape "thinking" and the metaphors of "knnowing", "space-time" and "momentum".

... except that emergence is a metaphor itself, and a spatial one at that. I wonder what the... event... process... 'doing'... experience... is which the metaphor 'emergence' is representing?

I think of metaphors as mere 'handles' on experience, and quite clumsily fashioned ones at that, even at their most elegant, when compared to the original experience they represent. I suppose they are the best means we have available to us when we attempt to communicate our experiences among us.

Literature meanwhile is a highly enjoyable sideshow where poets and writers make pleasing play with these metaphors and the words that are their handles. Occasional bursts of genius allow the reader to imagine they have glimpsed, heard, felt the original experience being represented.

A facilitator is like a reader in this sense.


Maybe the greatest flow of emergence happens when there is no thinking, no space code, no time code, just emerging?


I wonder whether the greatest [what 'flow of emergence' represents] happens when there's no talking or representing, externally and internally? This does presuppose that one can actually stop one's own internal talking and representing, which is a big ask IMO. People say they can do 'no mind', it's a hard thing to prove or disprove (especially since to try to do either is a 'yes mind' kind of endeavour!)

Phil

[Corrie van Wijk]

Steve: "there are are metaphors of space-time and metaphors of momentum and metaphors that escape dependence upon these individually.

Spatial Emergent Thinking is when the F is using spatial metaphors to facilitate through the questions: size/shape, whereabouts, from there, in that direction, about that, inside that ...

Emergent Knowledge Thinking concentrates on abstract "knowing" not upon space (except in the early days of developing it - see my thread on "betweens"). Thus "know about", anything else,"

As I said earlier (see the section Clean Space, the thread 'Clean Space is not about modelling space') both the clean space as the emergent knowledge processes are not about modelling. Spatial metaphors pop up in Symbolic Modelling all the time, because it is hard to express any experience without a spatial element, since that is the dimension we live in.

Abstract knowing isn't any different from that: all our mental concepts are likely to be described in spatial terms as well: 'know about' is a spatial question ('What is around that?'), as is 'Anything else?' (What is beside that?').

As Phil states: "emergence is a metaphor itself, and a spatial one at that [...]

Emergence is independent from space or time or our representing it: it happens in the here-and-now.

Phil: "I wonder whether the greatest [what 'flow of emergence' represents] happens when there's no talking or representing, externally and internally?"

No, I think that instead emergence happens as a resúlt of representing, thinking, talking: a new connection is made, one that 'rises above' the present homeostasis and moves the system into a more comprehensive one that is better able to deal with the situation.

[Steve Saunders]

Corrie, our "wires are crossed".

The point is whether F intrudes spatial metaphors before the client introduces them, whether momentum or emerging knowing metaphors are intruded before the client does. The algorithm has to reflect the metaphor at this level, and then whatever emerges is the emergence.

You and Phil are both right, just different perspectives: you from your system structure and phil from his and me from mine.

Steven

[Corrie van Wijk]

Steve: "The point is whether F intrudes spatial metaphors before the client introduces them, whether momentum or emerging knowing metaphors are intruded before the client does. The algorithm has to reflect the metaphor at this level,"

I wonder if you should follow the client's perspective on this, which would be clean, but still I think whatever it is they come up with, you'd somehow be modelling it, if only because you go along with their structure.

What I am trying to figure out here is the difference between symbolic modelling, whether it would be metaphor (including a mere spatial one) or anything similar, and clean space and emergence, which are three different things to me.

From the very start of this forum, my dialogue with James, I have been trying to make clear that clean space is different from symbolic modelling in that it is a different brain process (using the space to retrieve memories), as is facilitating emergence (invite the brain to think twice).

Finding the right algorithm to create conditions for emergence to have happen is quite a challenge, because clean questions tend to move forward or backward in time (e.g. 'And then what happens?') or in space. Even 'What is happening now?' (Steve) or 'What is there now?', when repeated, moves you forward in time, so by the time you get to the second question you are talking about a different experience.

If you need to change a stuck pattern you'd have to talk about the same experience over and over. The brain makes it up every time, so just talking about it again and again probably will have some reinforcing effect and you'll remember it better (so be careful with trauma), but also it is likely to connect with other information in or outside the brain, which changes the story.

I did this exercise with David on our way to Paris: I told him how I was walking up the hill and thought of the best way to go down again, because I hadn't started out to go on a long walk and wasn't wearing the right shoes to do so, nor would they be suitable to walk into a wet forest. Then I was surprised I had reached the top of the hill so quickly and easily; normally I would have been rather exhausted by the time I got there. Then I found this dead cat, that obviously had been hit by a car and I covered its wounded face with some grass. Then I walked on to find out it would take me a long time to get back into town following this road, which I did anyway and managed quite well.

So David asked me to tell the story again, which I started to, but then we arrived at a paragliding office and he jumped out of the car to talk to the people. So I thought it wise to take out the keys, close the car with Matthew's TomTom in it and go after him to help translate. So unfortunately I can't tell you how the exercise worked, because after La Chapelle we got caught up in a discussion of who to trust to get to the airport: me and my Michelin map, the Tom Tom or the road signs, which I won, being an experienced map reader.

Anyway, what would be the right question that makes the client tell about the same experience over and over, so it can evolve by itself?

[Steve Saunders]

David already showed you in your example, and I've showed you on other threads:

"tell me [the story] again." 6 times: I've used this successfully on several occasions.
Goes with "represent the story of ..." and again and again ...

Steven