Joining up

[Corrie van Wijk]

The article of J&P at Cleanlanguage.co.uk "Joining up the work of David Grove" says:

"The only purpose for joining up any of David Grove’s work is to serve the individual client who has entrusted themselves to your expertise."

:(The first question should be: on what criteria would you use either one of the approaches (CL, CS or EK) in the first place?

:confused:The second question then is, considering the process, what would be a cue for changing modalities?

;)The third question is: if you do, again what criterium do you use to choose between the other two?

:oThe fourth question is?

[Corrie van Wijk]

Marian Way advertises with: "how to balance working in Clean Space with working with Clean Language. [...] We will also spend some time enhancing your understanding and skills in the use of Perceptual Space within Symbolic Modelling.
[...]
Spotting patterns across your own (client) spatial network
The relationship between Clean Language and Clean Space and how and when to use one or the other
Adapting Clean Space for your own context

"I was keen to experience Clean Space and I wasn't at all disappointed as my 'clean space landscape' quickly became psycho-active ..."

It seems to me that you combine or mix up CL and CS; could you explain this?

[Corrie van Wijk]

Similarly, Maaike advertises:

"• Relatie metaforen en ruimte (relation metaphors and space)
• Clean Space proces
•[...]
Wat levert deze module je op: effectieve manier om gebruik te maken van ruimte als werkveld. Locatie en ruimte is onlosmakelijk onderdeel van de manier waarop mensen hun realiteit ervaren. 'Ik ga vooruit', 'We gaan de goede kant op', 'ergens tegenaan lopen', zijn een paar voorbeelden van hoe we het aspect ruimte gebruiken om betekenis te geven en over te brengen. En daar kun je met Clean Space heel snel mee werken. Help de ander z'n ervaring concreet te maken en letterlijk beweging te creëren vanuit verschillende gezichtspunten." (What this module produces for you: an effective way to use space as a working field. Location and space are an intrinsic part of the way people experience their reality. 'I'm moving forward', 'we are heading the right way', 'to bump into something', are a few examples of how we use the aspect space to give meaning and transfer it. And you can work with that with Clean Space very quickly. Help the other to concretise their experience and literally create movement from different points of view.)

'To use space as a working field'. 'concretise their experience, 'create movement from different points of view': it seems to me that this is modelling (in) space and not Clean Space.

[Corrie van Wijk]

Lynne, also, advertises:

Module 5 : Intégration et Articulation des trois processus CLEAN ...
Présentation des liens entre les trois processus CLEAN et comment une séance de coaching peut intégrer les trois processus.

(Module 5: Integration and Articulation of the three clean processes ... Presentation of the ties between the three clean processes and how a coaching session might integrate them.)

So please, James and Penny, Marian, Maaike and Lynne, would you share this with us?

[Steve Saunders]

Ahem,

Has the pre-emergence 4Q model been forgotten?

Q1 conversational: to elicit starting signals
Q2: Space
Q3: Metaphor (information density)
Q4: Time (cosmological)
EK: ontological (moving fully into Emergence as it developed)

and then of course ... momentum (Emerging Moving (EM))

So counting EM that would be SIX forms of working cleanly.

and then there is the humdinger that David's work was entirely based upon digital events: object-oriented moments involving pronouns. The realm of analogue conditioning is at least as big a territory as all that has gone before, the realm of momentum is as big as the realm of space-time-metaphor. and then there is the "relating" aspect ...

I am counting on at least 8 clean frameworks to be woven together in artistic masterpieces of facilitating. And the published models of metaphor, space and EK are simplified forms of the great man's work IMO.

It's time to widen horizons ...

Steven

[phil]

Hi Steven

The published models/processes of SyM, CS and EK/Po6 certainly are simplified forms of David's work - and intended to be so. IMO their purpose was and is to make available to a wider audience some of the insights, perspectives and skills that David had in spades.

Just like a metaphor, the models' strength is also their weakness. In attempting to describe 'it' , they inherently cannot be 'it' (map/territory.

If people forget this and only ever use the processes 'within the letter of the law', they could easily become like the sterile trail of techniques much talked of in NLP circles.

Used intelligently and flexibly, they are excellent processes in their own right (with full attribution to DG of course); a lot of people gain benefit from them. They can also be used as a stepping stone to deeper understanding.

I cannot speak for others and I can speak as a trainer of CL/SyM and CS that I (and Marian whom I train with) spend most of our time encouraging trainees to engage their 'clean, modelling mind', where they can be less obsessed with asking the 'right' question or following a standard process and be more focused on encouraging the client's self-modelling.

I should perhaps emphasise that by 'modelling' in this context, I mean establishing, developing and continually dismantling and reconfiguring a network of information (rather than trying to get to a finished model) with a view to encouraging the conditions whereby whatever is going to emerge can emerge.

The other processes you describe (some of which you have already been working on I think?), when and if they come to a more developed state, will likely fall prey to the the same inherent problem: as soon as they describe what they are, they are not that. A very Taoist issue!

I think it IS time to widen horizons - it always is :)

[Steve Saunders]

agreeing Phil.

if the models are the dots then the spaces in-between, and around also need populating during the learning phase.

Borrowing from my engineering life, a neural network is easily over-trained by sampling a small, repetitive population, and then has difficulty dealing with classes that do not fit the models; same for human neural nets.

This brings the question about how to cleanly vary from the models; in other words models around the models ;-) - and presumably models around them ...

and so to models of learning that naturally impart the facilitating of self-modelling in others.

to do this, and reflecting on my learning experience of clean a few years ago (and are we entering a "clean pedagogy" thread?), my sense is that the starting model (SyM ) is quite complex, and perhaps some emergence could be taught as a module 0, beforehand, addressing clean principles?

Facilitating "self-modelling" might involve a different process: "show the persons the directions", "have them explore each to gain some experience", "have them choose how they wish to self-model (choice of ways or their own way)", and "facilitate as requested by them (from a choice of ways or their own way".

We've been playing with this idea for a few retreats now, and it is working in encouraging more DIY emergence.

Regarding the processes developed, I do have about 25 emergence processes which are well tested, matured, ready for widespread release, and which are each independent in the way that Sym and CS are. I've drawn a line under this as "Holigral 1", covering digital (space time metaphor ontology) and analogue (momentum). "Holigral 2" is looking into new territory.

cheers

Steven

[Corrie van Wijk]

Hi Steve,

You say:

"I am counting on at least 8 clean frameworks to be woven together in artistic masterpieces of facilitating."

and

"I do have about 25 emergence processes"

How do they relate to my initial questions above:


:(The "The first question should be: on what criteria would you use either one of the approaches (CL, CS or EK) in the first place?

:confused:The second question then is, considering the process, what would be a cue for changing modalities?

;)The third question is: if you do, again what criterium do you use to choose between the other two?

:oThe fourth question is?

"?

[Corrie van Wijk]

Hi Phil,

You write:

"I (and Marian whom I train with) spend most of our time encouraging trainees to engage their 'clean, modelling mind', where they can be less obsessed with asking the 'right' question or following a standard process and be more focused on encouraging the client's self-modelling."

How does this relate to:

Marian: "how to balance working in Clean Space with working with Clean Language. [...] We will also spend some time enhancing your understanding and skills in the use of Perceptual Space within Symbolic Modelling.
[...]
Spotting patterns across your own (client) spatial network
The relationship between Clean Language and Clean Space and how and when to use one or the other
Adapting Clean Space for your own context"?

How does a 'clean, modelling mind' help to choose the 'right' question that 'encourages the client's self-modelling'?

And how does this 'clean mind' choose the right process?

[Steve Saunders]

Corrie: The "The first question should be: on what criteria would you use either one of the approaches (CL, CS or EK) in the first place?
Reply:
1. I give the clients a full set of 1-page descriptions of processes, demonstrations of several, and THEY CHOOSE.

Corrie: The second question then is, considering the process, what would be a cue for changing modalities?
Reply:
1. lack of faith
2. the signalling belongs to another mode (i.e. is momentum or analogue, not digital)

Corrie: The third question is: if you do, again what criterium do you use to choose between the other two?
Reply:
By CL do you mean SyM? I would begin to use metaphor if the client has already turned to metaphor, and likewise, if the client is referring spatially then go space, and my default is emergence. Anyway, "all roads lead to Rome" and it is about relative efficiency, bang for buck.

Corrie: The fourth question is?
Reply:
Thanks to Tania, I have a table that positions processes against levels of development, and while emergence can apply anywhere, there are times when deconstructing is best, times when developing is best, and times when a coaching or a learning is needed. SyM is best for developing, CS for coaching and EK for deconstructing. Voila, its more complex than that, but essentially this is it.

Steven

[phil]

How does a 'clean, modelling mind' help to choose the 'right' question that 'encourages the client's self-modelling'?
Well, I didn't say that and I think you mix up 2 meanings of 'right' in your question above; the short answer to your question is 'by letting a question emerge from their holding a clean and modelling approach'.

Explaining: 'Right' and Wrong' are concepts related to the achieving or not of some desired outcome. If a behaviour gets you what you want, it's 'right', if not it's 'wrong'. It gets interesting when different desired outcomes conflict and even more so whenother people's desired outcomes get involved.


...they can be less obsessed with asking the 'right' question...
What I mean by 'right' here is that we find that a few early trainees get hung up when practising on trying to find a single 'right question' which will get a 'right answer' which will magically unlock the client's issue, healing them, freeing them, whatever - a romantic concept they bring with them from somewhere (perhaps education, other training processes they may have experienced (endured? :) ) ?

Meanwhile the 'right' kind of question in the context of working cleanly would be, not surprisingly, a clean question. There are plenty of questions any clean facilitator (including you I guess?) would consider 'wrong' to ask in the context of working cleanly (e.g. not-clean questions) so that presupposes a kind of question that is 'right' too (in the context of a facilitator desired outcome of working cleanly).

Working as much as possible from a clean principle and a modelling mindset IMO most encourages the client's self-modelling. I think that's right (well, I would, wouldn't I? And I could be wrong). :)


And how does this 'clean mind' choose the right process?

'clean, modelling mind' is a metaphor for a set of ideal behaviours in a facilitator that we think encourages the client's self-modelling, learning, whatever. We don't expect anyone to achieve them all all the time - we certainly don't manage that.

As far as choosing the right process goes, a bit like Steven, we take our cues from the client: if they seem to be accessing spatially, we'll work that way, if metaphors abound, we'll leap aboard! It's the right process if our desired outcome of the client 'doing their work' is supported. How do we know? Only by a change in their behaviour over time, I guess. And I am reminded of what David said, quoted in this (http://www.cleanlanguage.co.uk/articles/articles/38/1/The-Philosophy-And-Principles-Of-Clean-Language/Page1.html) article:


"Clean questions have a holographic virtual shape to them and have an 'oomph factor' which distinguishes them from other questions. If you don't have oomph, you don't got it. The oomph factor enhances psychoactivity and the oomph can be ascertained in a number of ways:
i. Because it's felt. The client feels it's the right question.
ii. It doesn't require cognition or repeating of the question.
iii. The client can always answer the question.
iv. The questions are closely coupled to the client's last statement or the logical consequence of the construct that has been invoked."



Phil

[Corrie van Wijk]

"Corrie: The second question then is, considering the process, what would be a cue for changing modalities?"
Steven: "Reply:
1. lack of faith
2. the signalling belongs to another mode (i.e. is momentum or analogue, not digital)"

This gives two criteria:
1. trust the system
2. go with the signalling of the client.

"Corrie: The third question is: if you do, again what criterium do you use to choose between the other two?"
Steven: "Reply:
By CL do you mean SyM? I would begin to use metaphor if the client has already turned to metaphor, and likewise, if the client is referring spatially then go space, and my default is emergence."

This would be criterion nr. 2

"Corrie: The fourth question is?"
Steven: "Reply:
Thanks to Tania, I have a table that positions processes against levels of development, and while emergence can apply anywhere, there are times when deconstructing is best, times when developing is best, and times when a coaching or a learning is needed. SyM is best for developing, CS for coaching and EK for deconstructing."

This gives two another criteria:
3. the facilitator assesses the 'level of development' of the client
4. different modalities have different effects on the process.

I will not comment on this right now; any other criteria?

[Corrie van Wijk]

Phil: "There are plenty of questions any clean facilitator [...] would consider 'wrong' to ask in the context of working cleanly [...] so that presupposes a kind of question that is 'right' too (in the context of a facilitator desired outcome of working cleanly)."

Would that also apply to choosing the kind of process that works cleanly?

Phil: "As far as choosing the right process goes, a bit like Steven, we take our cues from the client: if they seem to be accessing spatially, we'll work that way, if metaphors abound, we'll leap aboard!"

This would be criterion nr. 2.

Phil: "It's the right process if our desired outcome of the client 'doing their work' is supported. How do we know? Only by a change in their behaviour over time, I guess."

Criterion nr. 4

And I am reminded of what David said, quoted in this (http://www.cleanlanguage.co.uk/articles/articles/38/1/The-Philosophy-And-Principles-Of-Clean-Language/Page1.html) article:

David: "Clean questions have a holographic virtual shape to them and have an 'oomph factor' which distinguishes them from other questions. If you don't have oomph, you don't got it. The oomph factor enhances psychoactivity and the oomph can be ascertained in a number of ways:"

(supposing what counts for a clean question will also count for a clean process):

"i. Because it's felt. The client feels it's the right question."
Criterion nr. 5: feedback from the client that it feels right.

"ii. It doesn't require cognition or repeating of the question."
Criterion nr. 6: intuitive processing
Criterion nr. 7: easy to process.

"iii. The client can always answer the question."
Criterion nr. 7
"iv. The questions are closely coupled to the client's last statement or the logical consequence of the construct that has been invoked."
Criterion nr. 2.

Any other suggestions?

[Steve Saunders]

Hi Corrie,

regarding that I did not mean that the fac assesses the client's "level of development", that would be insulting. Rather I meant that the signal comes from an epoch, or a stage of development, and that according to its nature in the cycle of how things develop the fac role and process can shift in response to work with where the signal is coming from - bit cleaner ... IF and only IF there is a general model of development that applies. There are general models for procurement and system development in engineering that reflect fairly well human patterns, and these have stages - better word than levels - and depending on the stage one does different things.

these criteria will be different according to whether a client has been conditioned to clean or adapted to clean or learned clean first - what feels natural and easy to answer depends on whether the client has taken your placebo first.

Steven

[Corrie van Wijk]

Thank you Steve, this is interesting. Let me have a closer look:

Steve: "the signal comes from an epoch, or a stage of development, and that according to its nature in the cycle of how things develop the fac role and process can shift in response to work with where the signal is coming from - bit cleaner ... IF and only IF there is a general model of development that applies. There are general models for procurement and system development in engineering that reflect fairly well human patterns, and these have stages - better word than levels - and depending on the stage one does different things."

My initial questions distinguish between the start of the process: "on what criteria would you use either one of the approaches in the first place?" (stage 0?)

and a change during the process (stage I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII (!), etc.?): "considering the process, what would be a cue/criterion for changing modalities and what to choose between the others?"?

Which of the criteria emerged so far would apply to either stage 0 or a subsequent stage?

E.g.:

Stage 0:
1. trust the system
2. go with the signalling of the client
4. different modalities have different effects on the process
6. intuitive processing
7. easy to process.

Stage I/II/III/IV/VI/VII, etc.:
1. trust the system
2. go with the signalling of the client
3. the facilitator notices a signal (cue?) from a shift in a 'stage of development' of a 'general model that applies (criterion?) to' 'the cycle of how things develop' (?)
4. different modalities have different effects on the process
5. feedback from the client that it feels right
6. intuitive processing
7. easy to process.

Would there be any other cues/criteria that apply?

Could you distinguish several stages and label them qualitatively?

[Corrie van Wijk]

David (quoted by James in the article linked above):

"Clean Language is information-centered.

[...] information-centered respects that information is sourced in a number of different places: semantically, somatically, spatially, and also temporally in biographical, ancestral and cultural time."

Would that imply that any choice of a criterion or cue for a clean move should serve information be downloaded as authentic (from long-term memory) as possible?

If somehow the wiring of your brain is troubling you, you need to go about it as scientifically as possible to select the relevant facts.

My initial questions in this thread are meant to be the provisional guidelines for a search and so far we have indeed come up with some criteria.

My next step was to try to give them a structure.

The only structure that emerged so far from Phil's and Steve's contributions was a stage-model (inspired by Tania); so I hypothesized several stages in information-processing: I assume that within Steve's worldview there would be seven.

Since some of you are teaching this; what are your models?

[Steve Saunders]

David Referred to Metaphor as "information-centric", and to space as "knowledge-centric" comparing to counselling "client-centric" ... he used the term "in service to ... the information, the knowledge" With EK this became "in service to the algorithm". I like to think he would have changed this latter term, with time, to "in service to the insight".

Why? because the wider world went from "information processing" to "knowledge management" and the emerging social form is now "insight management", reflecting the current of the society requiring the clean facilitation.

The CADMID cycle, which is publicly available, is:

Requirements (which come before the CADMID) then: Concept - Assessment - Development - Manufacture - In-Service - Disposal ... and into a new set of requirements.


A client comes with requirements, a problem and probably solutions tried. You could equate concept with problem, assessment with solutions and development with outcome, and the associate maturing changing into manufacture, leaving the client to check it out in life thereafter, and dispose of the results when they no longer serve.

Depending upon where a person is in a lifecycle there is a choice of clean process, because different ones have different strengths in this lifecyle metaphor. Space is more of a fine-tuning process. SyM has a sweat-spot in development and EK is king of deconstructing problems. Emergence covers the whole cycle; it IS the cycle.

Steven

[Corrie van Wijk]

Steve: "David Referred to Metaphor as "information-centric", and to space as "knowledge-centric" comparing to counselling "client-centric" ... he used the term "in service to ... the information, the knowledge" With EK this became "in service to the algorithm"." [...] the wider world went from "information processing" to "knowledge management" and the emerging social form is now "insight management", [...]"

Wouldn't 'insight' be the result of information gathering, gaining conscious knowledge and putting together how the world works?

Steve: "Depending upon where a person is in a lifecycle there is a choice of clean process"

What is your concept of a 'lifecycle?'
How would this concept be relevant for choosing a clean process?
Which 'where's' in a lifecylce do you distinguish?

Steve: "because different ones have different strengths in this lifecyle metaphor:
Space is more of a fine-tuning process.
SyM has a sweat-spot in development
EK is king of deconstructing problems.
Emergence covers the whole cycle; it IS the cycle."

What makes each process stronger than any other and why?

[Steve Saunders]

Ok Corrie, IMO "insight" is perhaps a cumulative consequence for step-by-step people, for those more in flow, "insight" is instantaneous IMO. An insight might see it all in one go, the whole thing. This is what the new form of questions is addressing.

a life cycle: summer autumn winter spring summer aut.... OR days of the week, it is a cycle not a hierarchy, something that repeats, it is an object-oriented term for a flow experience.
IMO it relates to choosing a process, not because one is stronger than others, but that where each one has a sweet spot.

IMO Emergence and EK both are primarily de-constructive - great for demolition. The reconnecting to the prior self destroys structures no longer serving, leaving a tabula rasa to grow up. They have lacked good growing up processes until recently. SyM on the other hand ignores the problem and solutions focussing on outcome and then shifting symbols into the new landscape. it does not touch the underlying deep structure, it fits into developing and polishing phases. CS is very much about revelating knowings, and this is a practical everyday businesslike tool, so it fits in-service.

Stronger in what way? If you're asking about deep structure then Emergence is the business. If you mean something easy to learn and use in business coaching, space is about as easy as it gets. As you know, I'm always doing something new, and now its constructivist emergence, you'll have to come to Glasto to find out about it.

cheers
Steven

[Corrie van Wijk]

Hi Steve,

The concept of a lifecycle ("something that repeats") as a metaphor for any clean process appeals to me: once the problem is solved, the symptom relieved, the need fulfilled or the goal reached, it will have disappeared. ("The reconnecting to the prior self destroys structures no longer serving.") Which clean process works best might be different for every client, so not only we have clean questions and clean processes, a clean model would imply every client having its own.

You say "insight is instantaneous": I think both is true; sometimes a conscious step-by-step process takes a while, sometimes it connects rightaway. I think both go through the same phases. Time is probably not a relevant factor here.

"a life cycle relates to choosing a process, not because one is stronger than others, but that where each one has a sweet spot.": so the term stronger doesn't apply, rather something like 'effective' would be relevant:
- "CS: revelating knowings." This is congruent with state dependent memories triggered in each space the client intuitively chooses to be relevant.
- "deep structure: Emergence is the business." Emergence is a term we use for any insight or change of paradigm as a result of any clean process: like you say, it is the cycle.
- "easy to learn and use in business coaching": space is about as easy as it gets." I wouldn't distinguish between a business environment and a private learning: just the social pressure is different.

To summarize all this:

Emergence would be the goal of any clean process, so a model should optimize emergence to have happen.

To reach that goal, some kind of processing takes place in the client. The client perceives an anomaly, something out of the ordinary (David once said: "If it comes up three times, I know it is important."), shows a symptom or makes a statement. (S)he also knows he might need some help, so that's where the facilitator comes in. Josie takes up the phone and immediately starts to listen.

That would be your starting point as a facilitator and you already got some information which may help you decide what clean process would be most appropriate to begin with.


Philip (see Books and Articles) mentions some cues for deciding what to do next within the EK process:
- "What criteria should I use in deciding what line to take with Marie? One thing that helps is my sense of the location of what Grove use to characterize as 'Whose voice [A’s, B’s, or C’s] is shouting the loudest?'" (criterion nr. 2)
- "considering the location of the highest density of information, which allows for the fact that the least heard may have the most unsaid." (2)
- "There is something about Lorraine’s position, standing stock-still and gazing into the distance, that prompts David to invite her now to: 'Turn slowly in either direction until you know something else.'" (2)


So how can we 'gradually create groupings of similarity and structures to recognise differences' (quote Steve)?


E.g.
Stage 0:
4. different modalities have different effects on the process.


Stage I
1. trust the system (David said: make a quick decision and stick with it.).

E.g. (Philip)
- "The iterative power of the sequence will be compromised by mixing moving and stationary questions in the same round." (1)
- "the client is obliged to face in a number of different directions. It would be unusual if at least one of these were not one they had been avoiding." (1)

Subsequent stages:
2. go with the signalling of the client
5. feedback from the client that it feels right.
6. intuitive processing
7. easy to process


E.g.,

- David: "So how are you doing?" (5)
- (Philip) :"without the least prompting from anything but the system" (6)

Wobble:
3. the facilitator notices a signal (cue?) from a shift in a 'stage of development' of a 'general model that applies (criterion?) to' 'the cycle of how things develop' (?): whose wobble is this?


E.g. (Philip): "A question on loan from Clean Language." (3)

Trust the system, complete the session and next time return to Stage 0.


Other than that, there may be an axiom within each process, e.g. to not question A to begin with. So the following grounds are invalid:
(Philip)
- "If the client seems to be cognitively or verbally oriented, I might begin linguistically and question A on the spot."
- "Questioning the client directly in the space of A is generally indicated when they are able to express themself readily, or are unable to move easily, or have rather more to say than they can conveniently put on paper." [by the way, how would that relate to "the least heard may have the most unsaid."?]

- "create an internal network of information in the space of A".


Going with the signalling of the client for reasons other than those inherent in the process itself is not indicated either:
(Philip)
- "Inviting a client to find a new space would be indicated if they had shown an instinctive preference for moving rather than staying put, or if there was a distinct paucity of information emerging from the stationary place."
- "She seems to have reached a place of reflection, so I ask: "And what do you know now?"
- "'Find a space that knows about that.'. I suggest this because Silvie is restless."

[Corrie van Wijk]

So how would all this relate to 'Concept - Assessment - Development - Manufacture - In-Service - Disposal'?

Concept: initial statement/signal from the client (WWYLTHH?)
Assessment: investigating the concept by gathering (from memory) associated information and selecting relevant (CS)
Development: 'gradually create groupings of similarity and structures to recognise differences' (Steve) (SyM, EK)
Manufacture: Action Plan (coaching)
In-Service: integrated into present self (notice: instant physical change)
Disposal: unconscious, works automatically (harmony).

[Steve Saunders]

Hi Corrie,

The problem now, IMO, is that the whole subject of "choosing a process" has become too complicated. Digging deeper just gets into the decision-scapes of the facilitator. There are times when the direction may feel wrong to the client, there are times when the client projects onto the process or the question rather than realising the signal is the present emotion.

The horrible truth is that Heisenberg rules - the observer affects the experiment. One may as well choose the process before meeting the client and still be just as clean. Every clean process has dirty connotations. For example your post quotes David using:

"Turn slowly in either direction until you know something else."

This is a hypnotic command, straight from the book of Milton Erickson. It implies that the client WILL know something different as a result of turning in either direction. If the client had an isotropic ontology in the landscape then it would have been a violation to ask the question.

Using the word "emergence" as the result, Corrie, is different to using it for the process. And I do not agree that all "clean" processes are either very clean or emergent. For example, SyM is like the NLP well-formed outcome process adapted to take in metaphor as the medium for the journey from present state to desired state; a good model, clearly based upon problem-solution-outcome, the necessity and possibility modal operators and metaphor. Symbols emerge yes, and landscapes can evolve, but this is fundamentally different to an emergent process, where there is no "goal" chosen or stated.

In emergence the problem-symptom-issue is worked with, and it does the work. There is none of the effort of turning things to metaphor, there is none of the cybernetic pulling towards the outcome using the modal operators.

The dictionary definition of emergence is that of something coming from underneath to break the surface, of water for example, a submarine emerges. It will emerge "in its own time" and "under its own steam". Short of bailing out the sea, one waits for the submarine itself to choose to emerge, which it will do when it feels safe; no 'destroyers or spotter planes' lurking, or in home waters, close to port.

The emergent facilitator therefore, is working with 'what has emerged', hoping that more may therefore choose to emerge. Whether repeating patterns of questions or other approaches work best will depend upon both the client and the facilitator. There is not really an inherently greater power in iteration over question-to-question shifts. Although there are less point-by-point changes due to the facilitator, the changes are therefore all the more significant 'to get wrong'.

There is a great perceptual power in recursion: the questions going "about/around", and I feel this is more powerful than other approaches, but only when the system of the client is ready to re-scale. Where the focus is, is the place of action, and the boundary has all the information.

Missing so far from the considerations are one's own competence at using the different modalities, and biases towards particular directions (space, time, metaphor, momentum, cultural, relating).

We could discuss "insight" forever, in words, and get nowhere in mutual understanding, to do this we need to discuss and bring forth what 'mind' or 'the imaginary' is like for different people.

cheers Corrie,

Steven

[Corrie van Wijk]

Hi Steve,

Thank you for your quick reply:

" 'Turn slowly in either direction until you know something else.' This is a hypnotic command, straight from the book of Milton Erickson. It implies that the client WILL know something different as a result of turning in either direction."

You are quite right about this, and I just quoted Philip. I never heard David use it like this, usually he just asked to 'turn into the same/a different direction' and then, 'keep turning': so you should leave out the 'until you know something else' and see what happens.

"Using the word "emergence" as the result, Corrie, is different to using it for the process.": how could we distinguish them better? E.g.: 'emergent' (process) and 'emerged' (result)?

"And I do not agree that all "clean" processes are either very clean or emergent.": indeed, I agree this is a bit too simple. What I tried to say is that any clean process aims to produce emergent learning?

'Missing so far from the considerations are one's own competence at using the different modalities, and biases towards particular directions (space, time, metaphor, momentum, cultural, relating).": I'm sorry I didn't include yours, I just tried to fit the best known into the model.

Thank you for the fine-tuning!

Love,

Corrie

[Steve Saunders]

David's words (until you know something different) sound more like him explaining it to another person, rather than his words in-session.

When using 'spinning' (or 'turning' as I call it), with the Ark Angle (gyroscope), I have noticed that the client's eyes stay on the starting direction and then jump to another direction as it comes into alignment. This is one cue we use to stop turning and ask about the direction the eyes are now looking at.

I was not asking you, Corrie, to include the wider range of clean process.

I wonder, today I have finally made a distinction between 'emergence' and 'nlp' that feels more tangible. In NLP and SyM the outcome is found and worked towards. In Emergence we do not want to know the outcome in advance, it happens. And so, in another thread I suggested:

the client starts in present state, presumably undesirable to at least one aspect of the client, and things happen or emerge until they reach a state of "happy enough with this". The outcome is therefore the finishing condition the client has chosen. We do not intrude the idea of a result, because results are also in the laps of the gods.

Steven

[Corrie van Wijk]

Hi Steve,

You've been quite busy yesterday on this forum; I'm trying to catch up with you.

"David's words (until you know something different) sound more like him explaining it to another person, rather than his words in-session.": I'll give you the context of this. Lorraine had said "Does this go back to ...?", so David just couldn't resist asking "And what kind of back does this go back to?" A little later she askes herself "What did I do wrong?", accompanied by a "standing stock-still and gazing into the distance". Anyone who has watched attentively David at work and sufficient times so, will know that he was too much of a skilled therapist not to recognize what is happening to his 'patient' here and to deal with it effectively: by giving the imperative (which is allowed in Clean Space) to "Turn slowly in either direction until you know something else" he moves her out of T. Philip misses this and interprets it as an invitation, which it is not in this case.

"When using 'spinning' (or 'turning' as I call it), with the Ark Angle (gyroscope), I have noticed that the client's eyes stay on the starting direction and then jump to another direction as it comes into alignment. This is one cue we use to stop turning and ask about the direction the eyes are now looking at.": looking into another direction is the equivalent of having found another space or posture.

"In NLP and SyM the outcome is found and worked towards. In Emergence we do not want to know the outcome in advance, it happens. [...] the client starts in present state, presumably undesirable to at least one aspect of the client, and things happen or emerge until they reach a state of "happy enough with this". The outcome is therefore the finishing condition the client has chosen. We do not intrude the idea of a result, because results are also in the laps of the gods."

This would imply that you can't start any emergence process with "WWYLTHH?"; "in present state, presumably undesirable to at least one aspect of the client" is just as much a desired outcome as any other.

In EK we accept the fact that the initial statement is likely to change; it's just a working definition to start with. A state of "happy enough with this" is not an emergent knowledge. You need a physical reaction and a "Yes!".

[Steve Saunders]

Corrie: This would imply that you can't start any emergence process with "WWYLTHH?"; "in present state, presumably undesirable to at least one aspect of the client" is just as much a desired outcome as any other.

Indeed, we never did. It belongs to the old-think, before emergence grew beyond its early petals. There is one case where I do use it. On retreats, once a person really is majorly 'here and now' and considering the future, then I use it to scenario plan possible futures, coupling it with "and then what would happen? and what would not happen?" 6 times to address up-side and down-side planning. This was followed by "do I realy want this?" y/n, then "I choose ..." and other ecology checks. It works in this instance because the past is no longer affecting the present - the tail is no longer wagging the dog!

Corrie: In EK we accept the fact that the initial statement is likely to change; it's just a working definition to start with. A state of "happy enough with this" is not an emergent knowledge. You need a physical reaction and a "Yes!".

I believe it is an emergent knowledge. I do not need a 're-heating' effect every time I emerge something. This only happens when I'm re-integrating something that was frozen in the past or which is 'not here'. I also do not need a "yes"; this is also for the big early days of emerging. After time the yes's become more and more subtle.

Steven

[Corrie van Wijk]

"An undesirable aspect" is likely to come from the organism; whereas a statement may reflect a conscious act.

This is what I meant when I asked you about it earlier this year: bottum-up (from the senses) or top-down (cognitive).

There may be different pronouns involved an/or different ages.


P.S. Neurologically you can show that there is no interaction between the dissociated part of the brain and the rest, until the dissociation is reconnected by therapy; that’s why you get a physical reaction, which may indeed be subtle and therefore not even become conscious, hence just a 'good enough'.