Scaling and Levels

[phil]

Prompted by the thread http://www.cleanforum.com/forums/showthread.php?p=532 I was wondering about the difference between 'scaling' and developing the context.

I think asking 'is there anything around that?' iteratively at the same systemic level is developing the context:

Fig 1

In Fig 1, the reference to B in the iterating question keeps the attention adjacent to B, contextualised BY B.

Fig 2

In Fig 2, the word 'that' relates the question each time to what has just been said. Inevitably there is a 'scaling' effect where the attention is directed to a higher systemic level (scaling is one metaphor for it - as you can see I'm a 'levels' man, meself, but hey, it's only words!).

Prepositions
I think what happens in the Fig 2 process also depends on which preposition is used. Asking 'and what's inside that?' or 'what's within that?' would scale inwards. 'What's before that?' and 'what's after that?' would scale in time (though typically before and after were spatial metaphors originally).

Trying to generalise then, perhaps a curiosity about 'what's NOT here and NOT now?' coupled with a realisation that the solution is 'NOT happening here and NOT happening now' is part of what is special about David's perception. His 'pulling-back' throught the T-minuses is one example, I reckon.

Anyone got any other ways preopositions can be used to scale or change levels?

[Corrie van Wijk]

Hi Phil,

Thanks for these drawings. I think you're right about developing the context in the first picture, however, as for figure 2, I don't think that is meant to draw attention to what is NOT here and now, as you presume.

Indeed, you can scale in time and in space, backward and forward, inside or outside.

My impression from all the times I watched David do this, is that it is meant to map the different perceptional systems. That's why he asks for size and boundaries. Also going outside gets you out of the tunnel-vision and outside the box. So it is more related to emergent knowlegde.

But that is different from going to a meta system-level, as you state it.
Only if he manages to trace an out-of-scale experience and get it back into real-life scale, a dissociation is taken away and a system shift may occur: then the conscious 'realizes' what happened way back and far away or deep inside and healing can start.

Corrie

[super_yacht@hotmail.com]

As I said in another thread I’m still discovering the intricacies of scaling. I believe that David is intending to achieve wholeness or a 1-2-1 scale in the client. As Corrie has said “a dissociation is taken away and a system shift may occur: then the conscious 'realizes' what happened way back and far away or deep inside and healing can start”.
This healing will only occur when the cosmological boundary is crossed. Each question “what could go around that” is effectively a new ‘B’ and must be fully downloaded, meta driving “is there anything else that needs to go up there”. When that ‘B’ is fully explored then we can go out again. This identifies the 6 worlds of that cosmology when the client is at a level of fully recognising these worlds and at the sixth ‘B’ the Cosmological boundary maybe reached and then crossed. If the previous 6 ‘B’s have not been explored then the boundary isn’t meet. Across the boundary the creator of that system is meet, a new universe. Healing can happen the inner child recognised and amazing things happen.



It took Steve several witnessing’s of David’s work to understand what was happening, and now he is performing this work. I am only just recognising a client at their boundary. It sounds relatively easy to write but a challenge to do and I feel you need to be ready as a facilitator to work a client through this.

Cheers
John F

[phil]

Each question “what could go around that” is effectively a new ‘B’ and must be fully downloaded

Yes, that's what I was trying to get at, John you put it much better. I've updated the diagram to reflect the full downloading.

Fig 3

I've heard about scaling in relation to the goal of 1-2-1-ness (didn't Steve call it 'at-one-ment' the other day and in my doubtless irritating way I pointed out that this looked like 'atonement' which is not what is intended I think!). Am I right that it is also being used to refer to the process of iteratively asking 'around' questions that you describe in your last reply, John?

I wasn't talking about 'meta system levels' as you describe them, Corrie. For me, a 'meta' perspective would be to go to, say, the first level out from B and to look at B. As I understand the process that Steve and John use (and maybe David or has he moved on again?), the new systemic level becomes a new B that includes the first B, a kind of B+ rather than just a vantage point to look at the original B. SO it's more a 'transcend and include' process (as Penny might say) than a meta process. Oh dear, it does get complicated with words - so much easier to walk it, I think.

I imagine the idea is that, with fulsome development at each 'around', the person has more of the whole of themselves and I can imagine that giving more of a sense of 1:1, wholeness, etc. I don't get the cosmological boundary concept though. How does one recognise a cosmological boundary? Who recognises it, the client or the facilitator? What's different between before and after it?

[Corrie van Wijk]

Hi Phil and John,

As for developing the 'around B's' up to six: I don't think that is necessary, although in some cases it may be appropriate. My metaphor for that is that of the Russian dolls.

What I am referring to is systems, as the client perceives them. E.g. a room, outside that a hallway, outside that a house, a garden, a village, the fields, the country, the planet, the universe, other universes (you don't have to go to six or stop at six, it all depends on the client's perception). A few weeks ago I visited the new planetarium at the Amsterdam Zoo: the camera takes you from Planet Earth to the solar system, flies over Mars and Venus, goes on into the Milky Way and beyond (based on real images).

What typically happens is that at some point something emerges from the mind that would be strange in that context, or a pronoun (I, me, your name) is used. Then David will ask how old you are and what you are wearing and go from there. You know you've reached the right scale when it is fitting that age, e.g. referring to the size of a cupboard a three year old would look up, because it's bigger than (s)he. Or people sit down on the floor, like a young child would.

As soon as the adult recognizes that situation and can integrate it, a system shift occurs and the dissociated part connects to the whole, which gives a huge physical reaction. That's how you know you've done your job, David would say.

Corrie

P.S. I wrote a transcript of such a process in the thread Keeping track of the desired outcome.

[super_yacht@hotmail.com]

Hi Phil, Corrie,
Phil your right Steve’s latest term is ‘a-one-ment’ or wholeness, I think David calls it 1-2-1 scale. Its like a spider phobia where the spider is seen larger than reality (in your minds eye), 1-2-1 scale is when the spider is seen at its actual size and the phobia will not have the same impact and will probably be resolved.
Absolutely Corrie “what could be around ‘B’ is repeated until there is no more, nothing to do with 6’s all though in some cases it may be appropriate.
There are a few subtle difference that we use. To ‘pronoun chase’ ( “how old could that be”, “what could that ‘x’ year old be wearing” etc) will fill out the information for that ‘B’. So in its self is not something i call scaling.

I tried to write an example and realised that it’s to complicated. Then realised its like we all get caught up in our little world, everything’s a big issue, but when you step back 'rescale' you realise your part of something bigger, and your perspective changes.

It is really complicated to see and even more so to do. “As soon as the adult recognizes that situation”. This can take days to have the client in the right place with enough information to recognize that situation.
However I agree Corrie when they “can integrate it, a system shift occurs and the dissociated part connects”. In this re-integration allsorts of results occur.
There can be huge physical reaction immediately, but I have only witnessed this once. Often there is a big reaction that last for an extended period. We like our clients to chill out / not make any big decisions for a couple of weeks after a 7-day course.
Can you imagine the results of having years of unconscious stress resolved!!!!

Cheers
John

[Steve Saunders]

The Origin of Scaling

In March 06 I returned from retreat and presented the "loading B" start as an alternative to the geometric emergent start, together with the idea of emergence being a fractal pattern in nature; a pattern of 7's (colours in rainbow, days of week). David labelled the "loading B" start "the tail wags the dog".

I then suggested, a few weeks later, that we continue to load, asking about "what else" and "the edges", and a series of workshops was born, where we explored this. David would often want to fix the process once a geometry could be found to place a client at the eye's viewpoint of the prior self, but I kept insisting we keep faith in the algorithm, and eventually the final form emerged; just keep the space held while the person adds, goes around, and finally the scales shift and the person is looking through the eyes of the prior self. David then added linguistic scaling and I added emotional scaling, to this original drawing/writing scaling.

After asking me not to teach this to others, David himself proliferated MY TECHNIQUE, and it is now published. This is as it is, and many clean facilitators are using the process, so fair enough, I'm just clearing the provenance.

Steven

[Corrie van Wijk]

Quote from my feedback (November 5, 2009) to Philip on Po6:

"Page 9
"… David would want me to acknowledge …": in hindsight it will seem odd that Steve wasn’t mentioned."

[Steve Saunders]

I'm not sure that many people know how much of 2005-6 that we spent together ... even you, Corrie, only spent a little of the time with us. there were extended magical times like the week over Christmas 05 when we literally passed every moment for a week developing and trying new things, new patterns, new questions, boolean spaces of questions, non-spatial EK, without the K, and week upon week of gyroscope designing and redesigning, but mostly we were focussed on inner child recovery and how to best do this ...

and I miss that special time together. ...

Steven

[Corrie van Wijk]

Dear Steve,

I remember David telling that he had given you permission to knock on this door with a good idea any time of day or night. It takes a creative mind to recognise one: Josie once said that racehorses need to run (and she fed the two of you!).

Love,

Corrie