Results 1 to 29 of 29

Thread: Clean Space-Time

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Forest of Dean, Gloucestershire, UK
    Posts
    387

    Default Clean Space-Time

    Another snippet of email conversation for you to read and reply to.

    On Friday, December 12, 2003, at 11:43 AM, phil wrote:

    In that we use metaphors of space to refer to time (next, after, before, run out of time, be in time, etc), we can use Clean Space to explore time cleanly.

    "Find a space that knows about now."

    We could append "... in relation to [you and] [outcome written and placed by client]"

    Then, as usual:

    "What do you know from here [about now or X] ?"

    and/or

    "What does this space know [about now or X] ?"

    with a possible

    "What does this time know [about X] ?"

    Phil: re-reading this I realise that the last question introduces the metaphor 'time' Perhaps better would be "What does now [know about...]?"


    Other time modelling questions:

    "Find a space that knows about before."

    "Find a space that knows about after."

    "Find a space that knows about next."

    "Find a space that knows about then."

    "Find a space that knows about when."

    "Find a space that knows about how long."


    For revisiting, use the format:

    "Go [back] to the space that knows about [now/then/after/before]."

    Etc.


    Finish up back in 'now' space:

    "What do you know from here now?

    Comments? Is this something we could explore with in a group sometime?

    Cheers

    Phil


    On Sun 14/12/2003 at 22:06, James replied:

    Dear Phil,

    [snip] It would be fantastic to explore this.

    Maybe we could use space to explore space:

    Find a space that knows about where ... is.
    Find a space that knows about where ... happens/is happening/happened.
    Find a space that knows about somewhere else (this is a variation of "And when X, what happens somewhere else/elsewhere?" that came up at the CLPG).
    Find somewhere else that knows about ...
    What do you know about this/that space?
    etc

    Of course we could do the same for space-time.

    Keep those ideas rolling,

    James

    *****



    On Mon 15/12/2003 at 22:35, phil wrote:


    I think this is exciting too.

    "And when is this space?"
    "Umm... now."
    "Find a space that knows about before (now)."
    "Okay that's... [moves] here."
    "What do you know from here, etc" then "What do you know here about now [indicates first space]?"

    Phil

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Forest of Dean, Gloucestershire, UK
    Posts
    387

    Default Clean Time

    Hi Phil, from over 4 years ago (ah, we were younger then!)...

    I was thinking about time again and wondered if anyone had experimented in this area yet?

    Obvious way to explore would be to use space (since we use spatial language to describe time experiences). As well as the suggestions in the previous post, I wonder about:

    'Go to the first space', 'Go to the next space'.

    6-fans could try 'Go to the 1st space, 2nd... 6th' with 'what do you/space know from here?' questions as appropriate.

    Also 'Go to 1st space before...' and '1st space after...'


    The good thing about 'next' is that it can mean
    • next event in a time sequence,
    • next position in a spatial sequence AND
    • 'next to' in a the sence of 'adjacent to'
    How about you try some of this out in a practice group and report back? Perhaps between us we can make some new learnings without intellectualising it at all.

    If you can't be bothered to think about it, here's a sample exercise to get you going:

    F: 'Go to the first space'
    C: [moves]
    F: 'What do you know from here?'
    C: [responds]

    ---> F: 'Go to the next space'
    | C: [moves]
    | F: 'What do you know from here?'
    ---< C: [responds]

    F: 'Return to the first space'
    C: [moves]
    F: 'What do you know from here now?'
    C: [responds]

    Nte: Obviously this is not as clean as 'Find a space / another space' as a time/sequence focus is presupposed in the language. Worth experimenting though.
    Last edited by phil; 10 April 2008 at 11:41 PM.

  3. #3

    Default a foyer...

    Phil,
    Thank you for such a fascinating topic.
    Since my primary practice group is always myself, I tried out:
    "Find a space that knows about now."

    Well instantly, I went to the door to my apartment, turned around and stopped. Immediately, my mind was filled with thoughts about Christopher Alexander, my favorite author! His seminal book "The Timeless Way of Building", is about the spirit of architecture: What makes a particular building or city come alive vs being dead? Somewhere in his writing he discusses the notion of a 'foyer' or entrance way. It filled my body. He describes a foyer, or porch, or entrance way as a place of transition. In a foyer, you are no longer in the street, but also you have not yet entered the house...

    Perhaps we need a foyer in Clean Space. Instead of just going to a Space where..., perhaps we need first to go to a space just before Where..., a foyer space, so we can transition smoothly into that new space, Where...

    Bob
    God gave us grapes;
    Entrepreneurs gave us wine.
    Bob Gorman
    http://www.KnCell.org
    http://blog.KnCell.org

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Holland
    Posts
    838

    Default

    Thank you Bob for mentioning this aspect, I am really intrigued by this concept of transition.

    Bob: "go to a space just before Where"

    If we are moving we change places, and in the meantime it is later. Time is irreversible, space is symmetric.

    Inviting a client to go to a space just before [...] can only be clean if the client already mentioned a space that he or she wants to go to, or wants him or her to go to. So it would be appropriate if he or she shows or expresses hesitation to go to a particular space, like waiting or dwelling. But then you may interrupt a decision making process of which space to choose.

    Phil: "The good thing about 'next' is that it can mean
    next event in a time sequence,
    next position in a spatial sequence AND
    'next to' in a the sense of 'adjacent to' "

    Using next, or six, presupposes that there are more than one and that they have a certain sequence, hence order, which puts a structure on it that may not be the client's.

    Bob: "Instead of just going to a Space where..., perhaps we need first to go to a space just before Where..., a foyer space, so we can transition smoothly into that new space, Where..."

    I once asked a client who was talking about his space and somebody else's, and needed to keep both separated, how big his space was and how far it would go. Then I asked him what the boundary knew about him. David said it was a good clean question.

    Similarly, what would be a clean question for a transition? Would it just be another (time-)space, or would it be a boundary, it is four-, three- or two-dimensional? Would it be clean to presuppose the client perceives a transition?
    Last edited by phil; 07 April 2008 at 09:07 AM. Reason: changed quoted reference from James to Phil

  5. #5

    Default Transitions...

    Corrie:
    Thank you Bob for mentioning this aspect, I am really intrigued by this concept of transition.

    Bob:
    Thank you, Corrie, for asking about it, it encouraged me to reflect on it more than I had before.

    Perhaps most relevant, for me, is the article by Penny & James:
    http://www.cleanlanguage.co.uk/artic....html/print/56

    It's very cutting edge in that it encourages us to explore an area just outside many of our current paradigms. This is personally enjoyable since I took up permanence residence 'outside the box'. I belong to many forums, mail-lists, etc. of other systems of 'psycho'therapies, and this reference is one that I most often post to them. It is profoundly thought-provoking.

    Corrie:
    Inviting a client to go to a space just before [...] can only be clean if the client already mentioned a space that he or she wants to go to, or wants him or her to go to. So it would be appropriate if he or she shows or expresses hesitation to go to a particular space, like waiting or dwelling. But then you may interrupt a decision making process of which space to choose.

    Bob:
    Yes, it is we, T's not they, C's who encourage them, C's, to go to a space where...
    So we should be gentle...

    Instead of just going to a Space where..., perhaps we need first to go to a space just before Where..., a foyer space, so we can transition smoothly into that new space, Where...

    Corrie:
    Similarly, what would be a clean question for a transition? Would it just be another (time-)space, or would it be a boundary, it is four-, three- or two-dimensional? Would it be clean to presuppose the client perceives a transition?

    Bob:
    To figure this out, I'm very experientially oriented, I went back to the session I described earlier, and using my PsychSimulator tried to put in a more gentle transition. Here's how it went:

    T: "Find a space that knows about now."
    C: Ok, it's by the entrance door to my apt.
    T: Is there anything else about the space by the entrance door to your apt.?
    C: Yes, it's a bit scary. I want to get new insights, but I sense the ones at the entrance door may be more than I'm ready for.
    T: And when the insights at the entrance door may be scary, what kind of scary is that scary?
    C: Perhaps better, long term for me, but they'll push me out of my current, rather dysfunctional, comfort zone.
    T: Take as much time as you need to prepare for that leap!


    That was IMHO more caring, and I personally hold caring as a higher value than being clean.

    It also triggered me to some perhaps philosophical musings, or what metaphor could I use to explain it to the ordinary person?

    Perhaps one of the most significant 'foyers' or entrance ways, or transitions is foreplay. To dive right into intercourse without foreplay is gross. We need a time, which varies by individuals, and activities, which vary, between having dinner and having sex. Indeed sometimes more foreplay = better sex, up to a point or threshold, where diminishing returns takes effect!

    Just my musings!

    Bob
    God gave us grapes;
    Entrepreneurs gave us wine.
    Bob Gorman
    http://www.KnCell.org
    http://blog.KnCell.org

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Holland
    Posts
    838

    Default

    Thank you Bob, for the link to James and Penny, it is always great to read them: "We may not intend for two ideas or symbols to be adjacent in our perceptual space but the fact that they are influences the judgements we make, the emotions we have and the decisions we take."

    In your example you (the client) choose a space: "it's by the entrance door". The next clean space question would have been : "What do you know from there?" or "What does that space know?" Instead you switch to clean language: "Is there anything else about the space by the entrance door to your apt.?" Since you ask this question yourself, by definition it is a clean one. However, if you would ask this a client, you enter a different process: I think clean space is about downloading information from different spaces which trigger different memories. By inviting a client to find a space, you encourage the unconscious to increase the chance to remember relevant information. By moving on to the next space, etc. all this relevant information enters the working memory at the same time, becomes adjacent, and starts interacting, from which a dissociation might get resolved or a creative idea emerges.

    Your metaphor is about an interaction between two persons, clean space is about an interaction between the client and his perception. The unconscious is not likely to jump into (too) scary spaces, especially within the context of "What would you like to have happen?"
    Last edited by Corrie van Wijk; 10 April 2008 at 11:28 AM.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Holland
    Posts
    838

    Default Transition space

    Dear Bob,

    This weekend I was back in Calais and remembered a previous contribution from me a few years ago:

    Corrie: " I stood on the shore near Calais watching the ships go by: they didn't make a choice either and just stayed in between the white cliffs on both sides, whereas the ferries sailed to and from them."

    Being on a ferry is like a transition space to me: I always go to the back of the ship and watch the white trail of water: as the ship distances itself from the shore I let go of it, leaving behind whatever was there. Then I walk to the front and watch the other shore come nearer and I think of what lies ahead.

  8. #8

    Default EK and Time / Space

    While reading through this 2 thoughts struck me. Is it clean if we are introducing words that move time around, the client’s system may not be focused on that, we introduce it and the session is facilitator lead not information lead?
    One of the processes in emergence is hieroglyphic, understanding that we all have very different experiences with words. This is why in Emergence we say ‘that’ rather than reflecting the client’s words, we can never reflect the same, and any change (even sutble) we make will bring the client out of flow into a questioning state, as in ‘what did they mean by that?’
    So to introduce (not from the client) any words is not honouring the client. This was David’s reason for moving away from Clean Language towards EK and later into cards.
    A point I’m continually aware of, and accepting of the consequences, but I don’t not do this.

    Because my next thought was ‘what about genealogical time?’

    Here we are introducing a concept, that of generations, probably past may be future.
    So the process goes;
    & where could your mother be? 1st question
    & where could her mother be? 2nd question
    & where could her mother be? 3rd question
    & where could her mother be? 4th question
    & where could her mother be? 5th question
    & where could her mother be? 6th question
    (notice I use the term 'her mother' not grandmother or great grandmother as this would give the wrong relationship to each generation)
    The client would mark out in space where each parent was
    Then the same process with the paternal line.

    Now asking emergence questions of each space can introduce time (genealogical) into the process. The client would define this ‘time’, and there may be opportunity here to bring in the questions around time.
    One I might be interested in would be ‘& what happened just after that?’, or ‘& what happened just before that?’. This is I believe the work that Catlin was doing with the police force when interviewing witnesses. Rather than try and interpret what the witness saw, they ask time questions around an incident.

    I wonder how Dr Who does time and space (he is a time traveller on TV in the UK) LOL ?


    Corrie: I once asked a client who was talking about his space and somebody else's, and needed to keep both separated, how big his space was and how far it would go. Then I asked him what the boundary knew about him. David said it was a good clean question.
    I like this question the boundary would probably hold loads of information and well worth exploring because the client defined so well (importantly), also was there a space between the 2 spaces (his and somebody else's)

    Corrie:
    Similarly, what would be a clean question for a transition? Would it just be another (time-)space, or would it be a boundary, it is four-, three- or two-dimensional? Would it be clean to presuppose the client perceives a transition?
    One transition is the boundary you run into in scaling (another thread). What does transition mean? To another world, another mindset or just another issue?

    Regards

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Holland
    Posts
    838

    Default

    John: "What does transition mean? To another world, another mindset or just another issue?"

    I know David would have treated 'transition' as just another space. As soon as he would notice a client hesitate and pause in a certain space, we would treat it as a space and just ask "What do you know from there?" or "What does that space know?" What meaning or content the client would give to that particular space, was just information and David would ask the client if there would be another space that he or she would like to go to or if there would be another space that would him or her like to go to.

    You should not ask further questions of a space for then you confuse two different processes: just move on to the next one.

  10. #10

    Default transitioning space

    Hi Corrie,
    Yes, as you said: 'Would it be clean to presuppose the client perceives a transition?. More than likely not, so i would also treat it as just another space. The hesitation or pause often occurs adjacent to the new space (as they are arriving at it) or just as they go to move from the old one. It’s (often) the hesitation that holds the key.

    [You should not ask further questions of a space for then you confuse two different processes: just move on to the next one.]

    I disagree, if I’m modelling (CL) then exploring each space (more than one ‘and what do you know from that space there?’) or asking what that space knows about the previous spaces may give vital information for the client. Keeping in mind this is information led (not necessarily verbal).

    Asking one question keeps the client moving along at a swift pace, this can be good and/or bad. It’s the process we use to start a coaching session. Before we start the meat of the coaching and it allows a different ‘Point of View’ to emerge for the client.
    I enjoyed the article as well, thanks Bob.

    cheers

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Holland
    Posts
    838

    Default

    John: "Asking one question keeps the client moving along at a swift pace, this can be good and/or bad. It’s the process we use to start a coaching session. Before we start the meat of the coaching and it allows a different ‘Point of View’ to emerge for the client."

    "It allows a different 'Point of View' to emerge for the client."

    I think the combination of different spaces (we decided to call it 'Points of view', as this would be more comprehensible for an average client) creates the condition for emergence to have happen. As the working memory can only hold so much (six?) information, developing a particular space (how do you know which one?) would overload the brain capacity. It's not about going inside, it's about an overview of relevant systems, which are symbolized in 'spaces'.

  12. #12

    Default Space - CL or Ek

    I understand the concept of holding 7+-2 things is the maximum we can handle. However EK and to a certain extent CL is not about remembering what’s happened before. If the client has moved through a session they will not remember the statement they started with, that’s why we were getting them to write down there opening statement.

    In Clean Language CL Penny and James recap at the end of a session, going back over points that have come up. Tremendous memory work, because to keep it clean they must reflect the client words and sentiments verbatim, I’ve seen very few that can do this. Also CL uses the question ‘is there a relationship between [x] and [y]’ and you still need to do all this cleanly.

    Emergent Knowledge is not about collecting a whole pile of information and assessing or recapping at the end. You are moving through a journey, new learning’s emerge and so we move forward, away from the starting point. In asking the question ‘& what does that space know about that space there (a previous space), you are not recapping but emerging information in that moment. One method I use is to get the client to emerge information from the space they are in (&WDYKFT space there) and then get them to label it (& what could you call that space, and write that on a post-it). They are not holding information, but can reassess it later when they see the post-it they used (no one every says what does that say, when they may have moved many feet away). However they are no longer in the same space the symbolism may be the same it may have moved on!

    When I’m racing them around to 6 spaces in coaching for sure I don’t want them to go inside, that is one of the ideas of moving a person on. If they stay in one space and are asked &WDYKFTST, six times they may likely go inside. So there is some facilitator led stuff here; do I want them move along gaining ‘an overview of relevant systems, which are symbolized in 'spaces'.’ Or do I want them to go deeper and inside.

    Isn’t great being flexible lol

    Cheers

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Holland
    Posts
    838

    Default

    John: "However EK and to a certain extent CL is not about remembering what’s happened before.[...] You are moving through a journey, new learnings emerge and so we move forward, away from the starting point."

    I do not agree with you on this John: I think it is the gathering of all relevant information (in relation to WWYLLTHH?) and putting it together unconsciously by just triggering it that allows for emergent processes to occur.

    [...]
    John: "In asking the question ‘& what does that space know about that space there (a previous space), you are not recapping but emerging information in that moment."

    What would be your cue to ask a space about a previous space?

    John: "One method I use is to get the client to emerge information from the space they are in (&WDYKFT space there) and then get them to label it (& what could you call that space, and write that on a post-it). They are not holding information, but can reassess it later when they see the post-it they used"

    I never saw David do this, but I noticed on the Dutch workshop that it is taught that way by Wendy and others. I don't think it is a good idea to label spaces, the meaning of the process is to get things floating: once something has a name and an address, it exists and is hard to change.
    [...]

    John: "So there is some facilitator led stuff here; do I want them move along gaining ‘an overview of relevant systems, which are symbolized in 'spaces'.’ Or do I want them to go deeper and inside."

    You are quite right about this, and that is why you have a choice of either doing CL or EK or do Clean Space. Again, these are different processes, don't mix them up.

  14. #14

    Default Labeling shouldn't be the focus

    We will agree to disagree. If it were the collection of information then at/near the end of a session you would refer back to the starting statement. As in ‘how has this affected your outcome’? This brings us to one of the biggest differences between James and Steve, while James starts with an outcome in mind Steve doesn’t. I follow this thinking, (excluding coaching here which is obviously outcome orientated) the best start is the first comments the client utters NOT the response to your first question.

    I think it also brings up a point in working with Steve and to a lesser extent David. The amount of development was continuous and extensive. There is a huge amount of work that Steve does now, which I don’t (because he has moved on), this has always been the case. It was always a challenge for me working with Steve in that I didn’t know where we were because the goal posts had been moved.
    Labelling the spaces (is an example of work that we did over 18 months ago) with whatever the client came up with as being appropriate at the time of development. So it is a technique I would use (now rarely) if it seemed appropriate. An example would be when the information coming up was extensive and there were lots of spaces. As in genealogical work where there is 6 maternal lines, 6 paternal and possibly more.

    As for David using it I’m not sure, but I have never trained or witnessed Wendy and only rarely James, Penny and Catlin.
    Labelling would be counter productive to floating I agree, so labelling is a holding pattern for a short time and never the focus of a session. A genealogical session may however require this? Otherwise I may get the client to label a few spaces in one part of a session then move on quickly forgetting about the labels as we journey on the information absorbed and (consciously) forgotten. Another session to use labels would be ‘Life Scapes’, where events in your life are mapped out in 2 or 3 dimensions. Some have covered rooms.

    ‘Don’t mix then up!. Corrie I have, with Steve done over 2000 hours’ interaction with clients as well as my own work and practise, plus numerous courses and work with David. I mix and match when necessary what ever works for the client, that’s being flexible. But your right I think some people think emergence is just asking questions 6 times!!!, this is going to confuse and devalue all the techniques and they are not the same. One of the things we developed with David was ‘zero sum’, being aware that the client is ‘grounded’ at the end of a session, something sadly lacking in most trainings. I am well aware of the consequences of this work, which should never, ever be under estimated.

    Still being flexible

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Holland
    Posts
    838

    Default

    John: "If it were the collection of information then at/near the end of a session you would refer back to the starting statement."

    It is not so much about collecting information, but triggering it. At the end of a session David would always ask if the client would like to change (something about) the statement B, which often happened, also spontaneously. That was his feedback if he had done a good job.

    John: "the best start is the first comments the client utters NOT the response to your first question."

    I'm hesitating about this approach: the reason why David put in WWYLTHH? is to get the mind at work towards something. If the first comments would be similar to that, I think it's o.k., because it is probably more authentic than thinking about a statement first. But if it is a problem-oriented statement you risk getting lost in the swamp, perhaps reinforcing negative thinking patterns.

    John: "Labelling would be counter productive to floating I agree.[...] I mix and match when necessary what ever works for the client, that’s being flexible."

    You may think that it is flexible on your part, and if you really (!) know what you are doing, that's o.k., David also sometimes switchted if he thought it appropriate.

    But for the client this may be very confusing: I think different parts of the brain are involved and it is about different processes, so I wouldn't recommend it to anyone. You better finish the session in a proper way and may-be switch to CL and EK in the next one.

  16. #16

    Default WWYLTHH is it clean???

    the end of a session David would always ask if the client would like to change (something about) the statement B’
    We will have to disagree again, infrequently David may have asked about the original ‘B’. Often it is so far removed that the client has no energy, or comprehension of the original ‘B’ (this shows me that I’ve been effective in the session). Steve and myself realised in our work that if he client didn’t record their initial ‘B’ they would struggle to repeat it back to you even when it was the reason they came to see you in the first place. However I only worked with David for a little over a year you have more experience.

    WWYLTHH? My first comment on this is that statement is NOT clean. The asker has an intention (not clean), David moved away from it. I use it (rarely) and accept the consequences. Once again I’m excluding coaching here, its useful in coaching, which has an intention. Having used it extensively, I think your right ‘you risk getting lost in the swamp’, but with the right training and experience this should not be a problem. This is why it’s seldom the starting statement that you end up working on. The clients system will deal with what’s ready to be dealt with, often they will not know what that is, and you certainly don’t (hence the power of keeping clean). By asking the question WWYLTHH? You are distracting the conscious and possible the system, so it will take longer (if at all) to get to the ‘real problem’. Try it! Invite the client in saying nothing (verbally or physically) and when they utter a greeting, use that as the first statement, see where that goes.

    I’m very careful mixing and matching, I seldom do this in one session. I agree not recommending it to everyone, but whom, how many have had training. David once told a colleague if you want to learn Emergence you need to do Steve’s course. I saw some great skills when David and Catlin were co-facilitated, using different techniques.

    This is an interesting chat, but I wonder how many others are reading and not participating? Now Steve is busy else where it’s got very quite here L. Maybe some of the people from Calais could give some feedback here?

    Looking for more contributors………………

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Gloucestershire, UK
    Posts
    76
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default new threads?

    Hi John and Corrie and Bob

    Your conversation here (and elsewhere) has developed some IMO interesting separate threads which would make good reading as seperate threads.

    For example in this thread, I am thinking at least of:
    • transitions
    • is 'what would you like to have happen?' a clean question and
    • genealogical time.
    To be clear, I am all for emergence of new topics in threads. Once new topics have emerged, IMO it is preferable to give them space/time of their own by creating new threads on the subject and then to carry on those separate discussions in those new locations. I find these 'multiple topic' replies harder to read because I have to keep scrolling back to find out what question or statement is being referred to.

    How about creating those new threads now and continuing the topic-specific discussions there to help other people notice and follow and perhaps contribute to particular threads?

    Phil

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Holland
    Posts
    838

    Default

    John: "WWYLTHH? My first comment on this is that statement is NOT clean. The asker has an intention (not clean)"

    Steve said that this question asks about the future.

    David's intention with this question was to get the mind at work: the mind has come into existence to solve problems.

    John: "The clients system will deal with what’s ready to be dealt with, often they will not know what that is, and you certainly don’t (hence the power of keeping clean). By asking the question WWYLTHH? you are distracting the conscious and possibly the system, so it will take longer (if at all) to get to the ‘real problem’."

    The answer to the question WWYLTHH? will be something that the client is ready to deal with, and if they don't know what that is, what are they doing in your office anyway?

    What they come up with is as close to the 'real problem' as they can get at A, or are willing to tell you at that point in time.

    John: "David once told a colleague if you want to learn Emergence you need to do Steve’s course. I saw some great skills when David and Catlin were co-facilitated, using different techniques."

    I heard a different story; what techniques?
    Last edited by Corrie van Wijk; 17 April 2008 at 09:11 PM.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Holland
    Posts
    838

    Default

    Hi Phil,

    I had put in my metaphor of a transition space to discuss it further: John brings other aspects in, so if you think they're worth a separate thread, that's o.k.

    Also, I try to stick with what David did, because I know he did that for a reason. If others try different approaches, which they cannot explain to me, I'm not interested.

    Corrie
    Last edited by Corrie van Wijk; 20 April 2008 at 05:22 AM.

  20. #20

    Default ‘Thanks for all the fishes’

    Hi Phil,
    For example in this thread, I am thinking at least of:
    • transitions
    • genealogical time.
    This thread was about clean time and space, from my perspective they are still to the point. I come from over 2 years of practising and analysing Emergence with David and Steve. I will introduce what I’ve done with David and Steve. David said that Steve accelerated Emergence work considerably; there is a huge pool of work that only Steve was/is delivering. Time-Space and genealogy is something that a lot of people have experienced – on Steve’s courses.

    Corrie: ‘I try to stick with what David did, because I know he did that for a reason’, can I infer here you are saying that Steve isn’t. You said Steve gave you his manual; show me David’s, Steve has produced volumes of this work, I think his written work explains more than anyone else, at the moment.

    If this is a totally David focused forum then I will abide by that and so like Steve I will stop contributing.

    ‘Thanks for all the fishes’

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Holland
    Posts
    838

    Angry

    John: "David said that Steve accelerated Emergence work considerably; there is a huge pool of work that only Steve was/is delivering."

    David had good reasons to separate from Steve, he thought it over very well, and talked about it with Steve several times.

    John: "Corrie: ‘I try to stick with what David did, because I know he did that for a reason’, can I infer here you are saying that Steve isn’t"

    No you can't: I said: "If others try different approaches, which they cannot explain to me, I'm not interested." Mind you that I put a lot of questions on this forum, some of which were never answered.

    John: "You said Steve gave you his manual; show me David’s, Steve has produced volumes of this work, I think his written work explains more than anyone else, at the moment".

    The manual I was referring to is a summary of Peter Senge's work, it was two years ago and Steve didn't even remember it. He showed me his files at the laptop, but I didn't yet read (all of) them.

    David put in some written work as well, one of which you produced yourself. You know very well he couldn't write as a result of his illness, so that is not a fair comparison. Also, if we were to measure people's qualities by the amount of written work, that would be weird. I have piles of notes from David's workshops, there are many recordings.

    John: "If this is a totally David focused forum then I will abide by that and so like Steve I will stop contributing."

    I never said that: I just want you to put in an argument.
    I also called the emergence gathering to speak to eachother in person.

    Steve didn't stop contributing because of the forum 'being totally David focused' as you presuppose, but because his contributions were burnt down by somebody who called them ''boring".
    Last edited by Corrie van Wijk; 20 April 2008 at 05:28 AM.

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Gloucestershire, UK
    Posts
    76
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Relax, John, in my admin role I am just proposing that when salient new topics emerge in a thread, it may be useful to continue to develop those in a new thread. Useful in the sense that other people coming to this public forum can easily find topics that interest them. My hope is that it will make it easier for visitors and those new to these concepts to make sense of what is being discussed.

    cleanforum isn't meant to be a David-only forum, the home page states as it has since the start:
    "discussion, conversation, dialogue, talk, chat, banter, debate,
    brainstorming, questions, musing, rumination, reflection, thought, learning
    and other creative communications related to working with Metaphor, Clean Language, Clean Space and Symbolic Modelling". I need to add Emergent Knowledge to that list too.

    David's thinking and processes are certainly the organising principle of the forum - and the developments of others form the bulk of the content. Some of the sub-forums have specific criteria intended to make it easier to find relevant information quickly.

    My feeling is that the less the forum has to do with personalities and egos and the 'I said/you said' squabbles (one of which just broke out) and the more it has to do with the ideas, developments, processes and practices of Clean, the more other people who would like to participate may feel safe to do so. Time will tell.
    Last edited by forumadmin; 18 April 2008 at 10:05 AM.

  23. #23

    Default

    Phil,
    I haven't read or written for a while due to an unfortunate accident. I went face forward down some concrete stairs, and as a result, I was unable to read my computer screen or type on the keyboard for several days. Fortunately, it gave me some pure thinking time without the distractions of reading or attempting to write.

    One of the last thoughts rattling around in my brain was Christopher Alexander's notion of a 'foyer' or 'porch' or 'entrance way' which provides "a place of transition. In a foyer, you are no longer in the street, but also you have not yet entered the house..." For me I love the freedom aspect of it, I am free while in this transition space, to choose to enter the new space, return to the old space, or stay in the transition space until I feel the time is more 'right' or coherent for me.

    And I speculated: "Perhaps we need a foyer in Clean Space. Instead of just going to a Space where..., perhaps we need first to go to a space just before Where..., a foyer space, so we can transition smoothly into that new space, Where..."

    Several ideas have emerged.
    First:
    A memory with some unanswered questions, which seems clearer now. In the late 80's - early 90's I ran a support group for incest survivors, for about 5 years. At the time there were mostly women's only or men's only groups for supporting incest survivors. My group was one of the extremely rare, at the time, mixed groups. An interesting pattern emerged, which I couldn't explain very well at the time. New potential members would come to a meeting and sit in their cars, in the parking lot, not entering the meeting itself, sometimes for 2-3 weeks. They would then attend 1-2 meetings, and promptly disappear for 3-6 months, after which many of them became regularly attending and contributing members.

    Now, using hindsight, and looking through the lens of Alexander's 'transition space', I'd guess that leaving the 'street' where the dynamics of sexual abuse were described in sexual terms, and entering a meeting space where the focus on the dynamics of sexual abuse were about inappropriate uses of power, was a huge leap which would challenge many strongly held internal beliefs. So, appropriately in my opinion, they chose to neither retreat, nor advance, but wait until the timing was personally coherent.

    Second:
    There are 2 other areas where I'm trying to shape my thoughts and feelings into a more well-formed structure. Both have to do with movements between internal spaces. Virtually every system of thinking about people includes some notions about our basic multiplicity. Names such as personalities, sub-personalities, roles, states, frames of mind, etc. proliferate, but none of us thinks and speaks and acts with the same vocabulary, sentence structure, metaphors, etc. whether we are in a pub, or a church, or the bedroom, or a grocery store.

    One is the dynamics of MPD (Multiple Personality Dynamic), which I have been researching for many years, as I believe it to be a rich and fertile ground for understand the daily dynamics of all of us.

    The other is in the transition from a client's living room, where he/she does their mental living, into the structured space of well-defined goals, methods, resources, etc. which occurs with WWYLTHH.

    More later...

    Bob
    God gave us grapes;
    Entrepreneurs gave us wine.
    Bob Gorman
    http://www.KnCell.org
    http://blog.KnCell.org

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Holland
    Posts
    838

    Default

    Hi Bob: Sorry to hear you got wounded, how are you doing now?

    Thank you for your contribution; it is interesting to read about the behaviour of your incest clients.

    Bob: "Both have to do with movements between internal spaces."

    In communications it is called 'intrapsychic': interaction between different parts, e.g. a pronounscape. We talked about it this weekend (see page 2 of the notes on the Sangatte meeting in the Emergence thread in the EK section).

    Bob: "the transition from a client's living room, where he/she does their mental living, into the structured space of well-defined goals, methods, resources, etc. which occurs with WWYLTHH."

    And when 'well-defined goals' what happens to 'mental living'?
    Last edited by Corrie van Wijk; 19 April 2008 at 07:38 AM.

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Glastonbury, England
    Posts
    512

    Default Bingo! Bob

    Bob: "There are 2 other areas where I'm trying to shape my thoughts and feelings into a more well-formed structure. ...
    One is the dynamics of MPD (Multiple Personality Dynamic), which I have been researching for many years, as I believe it to be a rich and fertile ground for understand the daily dynamics of all of us.
    "

    Absolutely, Bob - this is perhaps THE KEY to understanding what David, Gurdjieff and others have known over the centuries. Great - go for it, and I will watch your progress with pleasure.


    love Steven

  26. #26

    Default Bingo & Cultures...

    Steve,
    In response to my comment, "the dynamics of MPD (Multiple Personality Dynamic), ... I believe it to be a rich and fertile ground for understand the daily dynamics of all of us".

    You mentioned "Absolutely, Bob - this is perhaps THE KEY to understanding what David, Gurdjieff and others have known over the centuries. Great - go for it, and I will watch your progress with pleasure.
    ".

    One Cultural anomaly that has always perplexed me is that in Eastern philosophies, monks spend an entire lifetime trying to become unified or one, while most Western philosophies assume we are always one, which makes it far more difficult to explain our wildly multiple behaviors.

    Bob
    God gave us grapes;
    Entrepreneurs gave us wine.
    Bob Gorman
    http://www.KnCell.org
    http://blog.KnCell.org

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington, D.C.
    Posts
    53

    Default Multiple Strands

    This thread has become quite complex, interweaving the strands of clean space-time with emergence and multiple personality dynamic.

    It seems that David's work on emergence did not go as far as Steve's does, that there was a point of divergence there. Exactly where is not so clear to me. Nor is the reason for the divergence clear. Was David more cautious, less willing to push the envelope of emergence? Or was there more of a personal dynamic there that caused the rift in praxis? I understand if no-one is willing to answer, but I thought I'd ask the question all the same, just in case.

    I would really like to read more about the geneological elements of emergent work. It would be good to see some activity under the "Geneological Healing" thread, since there is nothing there yet. Anyone?

    I have appreciated reading John's insights into these processes, and Corrie's questioning helped develop the discussion. I wish we could ask David, but of course that's not possible now. We can only explore his mind through our memories of him and all that he taught us individually and collectively. I hope we can continue to remember together and that in the process we can illumine our own minds' best work.

    I'm enjoying my participation in the exploration.

    Best regards,

    webmaven

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Glastonbury, England
    Posts
    512

    Default Divergence and Caution

    Webmaven,

    Your intuitions are accurate - caution was one of David's characteristics in relation to introducing new work with clients. The caution in question relates to "over-driving" clients and "deconstructing cosmological boundaries", and in revealing the nature of the human condition.

    As Bob has said, Eastern traditions ASSUME a personal collective; the Occidental psychosis ASSUMES a one-aspect being is sanity. It's why I have no truck or use for any conventional psychological or psychopathological theories or categories - they are based upon false assumptions about the nature of the universe and humans.

    In October 06 I awoke permanently into a different state of consciousness - as a result of doing this work with others and experiencing the reflected consequences. When I explained David's work to him in the light of my enlightenment he abreacted and we diverged. Having helped several other people into this "awakened" state of being and having all the time since to develop the work from a better basis of understanding, the work has further diverged and simplified and gained breadth and robustness.

    From one perspective, its nothing new, just faster more permanent ways of awakening the sleepwalking occidentals - nothing very large numbers of Tibetans do not already know!

    I understood and completely accepted David's decision to separate from my work, and why he needed to, for both our sakes, even though it was the first time in his life that he had someone he could really discuss his work with [his words] - it is a rare thing to meet a fellow creator.

    I believe that the risks of the work are outweighed by the benefit of explanding the global human consciousness. The risks are only the fears of minds that do not yet understand the work. There are no real risks - although legal consequences are possible.

    Any communication from a human being comes from the "not here and now" aspects - just signals for the humans to process and thus self-realise.

    In one sense it is a wasted effort to seek to become "one" because the consequences would include complete loss of word, body, indeed existence in this plane. Hence Buddha said he was awake not enlightened. NLP, to use a dirty term on this forum, has a cosmological boundary that everyone is a magician, and awakening to this is the ultimate goal. Wrong, beyond this boundary lies true awakened-ness where there is not need for the projected magic to be wielded - the world of truly accepting others as they are.

    This benefit is worth the perceived risk of powerful processes. The illusion though, is that the processes do the work; osmosis does it. I've spent time with people doing no processing, and they felt better and changed - no questions, no facilitation, just pure acceptance. The divergence is a chasm, but one that can be crossed or bypassed or leaped, or metaphor metaphor ...

    Well, I stopped posting for a while, and will again now!

    Steven

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington, D.C.
    Posts
    53

    Default Thank You

    Steve,

    Thanks for your response. The situation is more clear to me now.

    I hope you don't stop posting altogether. I'm sure I'm not the only one who greatly benefits from your insights and knowledge. But I can also understand the need to take a break from this; I do so frequently myself.

    I hope all is going well for you in France.

    Best wishes,

    webmaven

    p.s. Thank you for your earlier posting about finding my own way of working rather than mimicking another's; invaluable advice! I am trying to do that.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •