Q4

[Corrie van Wijk]

Steve S.: "Q4 pulls back pronouns and adjectives to their sources, and then forward to the present. - the pristine before self. Clean Worlds is an example of this type of process."

Penny: "I believe Clean Space and Emergent Knowledge are a fundamentally different way of working from the Childwithin and Quadrants 3 & 4 approaches, and represent David's third 'quantum leap'."

How is Q4 different from CS and EK?

[Steve Saunders]

Steve S.: "Q4 pulls back pronouns and adjectives to their sources, and then forward to the present. - the pristine before self. Clean Worlds is an example of this type of process."

Penny: "I believe Clean Space and Emergent Knowledge are a fundamentally different way of working from the Childwithin and Quadrants 3 & 4 approaches, and represent David's third 'quantum leap'."

How is Q4 different from CS and EK?

Well Corrie, maybe the answer is "they are all the same and yet different ways of accessing the child beyond a cosmological boundary". The Clean Worlds process and the Emergence in Space process are really indistinguishable but come crom CS or EK origins. Q4 pulled back time directly and toughly and I think David found this too dangerous to teach safely given the potential side-effects of facilitator mistakes.

So, Q4 is emergent in having 6's built-in; and early form of meta-driver. CS is also a meta-driver when space is used emergently.

Where EK was going but I'm not sure if David completed, was an escape from purely spatial thinking into algorithmic thinking and then into pure emergence processes that no longer rely upon space forms of questioning/instructing.

So EK is a space-oriented form of emergence - the prototype. Emergence which I know was Davids last 2 years was the flowering of a new form.

Cheerio

Steven

[Corrie van Wijk]

Steve: "algorithmic thinking and then into pure emergence processes that no longer rely upon space forms of questioning/instructing."

David was still experimenting with that; initially we had time questions : "And then what happens?" or order: "What's the first, second? ... etc." and a few others (may-be you can fill them in). Later he tried others.

On a bright Sunday morning David was sitting in the garden, reading his paper, so I didn't disturb him and just sat down with the delicious cup of coffee Shaun made for me. When David had finished reading I asked him what the similarity would be among a chaotic system and a brainstructure. His answer to my question was (as I remember it): "Well, this is how I think it works: very often there is a thinking pattern. If you ask the same question over and over, you're bound to get some variation." (West Kirby, July 29, 2007)

[Steve Saunders]

A thinking pattern is a stuck movement. I believe the key is to emerge the moving thinking by creating the self-awareness of that stuckness of thinking repeating.

It's working beautifully with me and some other brave volunteers, though Josie has chosen to not engage in it - admitting she's very scared of what it might bring up!

A chaotic system is not one that repeats perfectly - the repeating story is a broken disc. The chaotic system orbits nearly but never the same repeats; there are variations. The attractors like planets and orbiting satellites never follow exactly the same paths.

It is the undoing of the structure of the attractors that is the purpose of the navigating.

Asking over and over to get a change feels like a last resort strategy. Asking of the answer and of the answer to exhaust the flow and gain the realisation and release required; now that feels like a purpose for asking. (David said he only asked a question if he knew the answer; so the questions and algorithms have purposes, and the right asking is honouring the purpose IMO.)

Anyway, anon, hope this helps Corrie

Steven

[Corrie van Wijk]

Steve: "A chaotic system is not one that repeats perfectly - the repeating story is a broken disc. The chaotic system orbits nearly but never the same repeats; there are variations. The attractors like planets and orbiting satellites never follow exactly the same paths."

A system has no choice than to be in the universe; a conscious mind has a choice.

If you are using language and methods of chaotic systems, there must be some kind of presupposition that they are similar with a brain structure or a the way a human mind thinks.

If you think of a thinking pattern as a stuck movement, and use self-awareness as a strategy to create the conditions for the moving thinking to emerge: ("It is the undoing of the structure of the attractors that is the purpose of the navigating."), how can you be aware of something that has yet to emerge from the navigating?

"Asking over and over to get a change feels like a last resort strategy."

What would be a first resort strategy?

"Asking of the answer and of the answer to exhaust the flow and gain the realisation and release required; now that feels like a purpose for asking."

I think that the purpose for asking was that David knew that a variation was likely to come up, hence breaking the pattern and getting it to move. Sounds like a clean move to me.

This is really difficult stuff for most people, Steve, try to be as clear as you can and follow a logical path of reasoning so us mortals can understand?

Corrie

[Steve Saunders]

OK, a first resort tactic is to be adjacent to the present perception.

The strategy is to intrude as little as possible when providing the environment and as clean as possible support to the self-healing of the client(s).

The tactics are to enable navigations from A (the perceived here and now) through not here and now scapes and back into here and now, until eventually there is only here and now or the client decides that is enough or both.

Yes its a clean move to "know a variation will happen" - although that belief and/or intent is still a projection - but I prefer to believe the great artist was smarter than that. Eventually the person must change if awareness is constantly reflexively placed on the same(ish) thing.

Hmmmn, the less one does the better. So, any choices are "fixes" to jump the client awareness - getting geometry right is pushing the system to fix the geometry to get the download. So, I switched to purely scaling and sticking to scaling picture, words, pronoun, movement, depending on the form. The emergent way, if there was/is one, is to choose an algorithm and then stick to it. I took this to its logical conclusion: load B and then scale around or inside, period. Variations work nicely but they are MY complications.

And yes, the human mind has great resemblance to chaotic systems and also great differences! IMO.


Steven

[Corrie van Wijk]

Steve: "Eventually the person must change if awareness is constantly reflexively placed on the same(ish) thing."

Thank you Steve, it is becoming clear to me.

I agree with you that there are lots of other ways to change A's perception, but still it is interesting to develop this one as a last resort. What would be a good algorithm for this kind of 'same(ish) thing' (or sam-ing thing?). Which clean question would apply best?

I know this is challenging, especially because it does seem to appeal to you very much, please try anyway?

Cordialement votre, (whereabouts are you?)

Corrie

[Steve Saunders]

So if a person is strongly fixated on something - "like a dog with a bone" - "terrier-like determination", "stalking" personality type, fixated on an object - on a target, on a "B".

What has to be true that a person has become that way? There are certain potential deductions and hypotheses:

1. Black-hole strength attractor - when an object meets the criteria that fits the black hole the pursuer is engaged until satisfaction. In normal life, this is target after target, hopefully with the targets escaping with their lives, but in extreme cases the target has to die!

2. The pursuer might well have more of their life force located at B than in their body, and so the object becomes their centre of gravity once attached.

3. A series of powerfully traumatic events (like serial abuses, results of sadism) overlap similar enough geometries that the information density becomes so large at a location that it then dominates.

4. It's going to take a VERY long time, because the sense-able information is at the boundary or around the edges, and requires gentle, occasional sampling. The F is in danger always because fear and avoidance will mean any lack of cleanliness can be fatal.

The geometry is such that B requires fixing such that A can move to B, but the repulsion field probably moves even quite strong psycho-active spaces. So spatial moves might be ineffective. The task is to "unmeasure" and gradually download the information at the boundary such that eventually the black hole empties and the space can deconstruct. Is there enough time, though?

So, travel in the opposite direction and hope to pop inside-out from the black hole. But then the client may already feel trapped in a black hole, and so again, think again.

How to work WITH the fixation? Well, use fixation on fixation. What kind of question works for this? Wrong question. What kind of algorithm?

Idea 1:
a) Loading has to happen first.
b) Space around A maybe (A' - local)
c) Space between A and B
d) May need a live B - the A may try to bring in F, and then find a way to change bodies - yuck n dirty

Idea 2:
Do not Load B. Load A. How and why? no idea, just an intuition: fix B on A?

Idea 3:
Exhaust the fixation: find a way to the boundary of the source and camp there, gradually unloading the information. Avoid engagement, eye contact.

Idea 4:
Divert, distract, explore the patterns of avoiding; the opposite of fixating.

Idea 5: explore fixation and avoidance as a whole pattern - this would be "B and not B" or B and complement of B / opposite of B.

Idea 6: attractor and repulsor scape. Sense of desire / sense of need / senses of the pushes and pulls. Ok, finally a potential algorithm for such a pattern.

So the questions relate to the "feelings inside the body" in relation to the object B. To avoid the "F" word, we use "sense":

Load the starting statement and anything else at B, and probably anything else at A, around, between and elsewhere.

And what do you sense now? / And what are you sensing now?

Maybe the sensing will direct awareness from the present awareness to the adjacent signals, creating a flow of emergence.

I propose we try it experientially for feedback before hypothesising further. This approach feels right though - using adjacent sensing - relates to David's opening "do you have a sense of ...?" questions.

avago!

Steven

[Corrie van Wijk]

Steve: "Idea 2:
Do not Load B. Load A."

Similar to the metaphor approach, this one feels right for me:

Clean questions could be: What kind of, anything else and perhaps where does it come from? (find the alien, pull back to the pristine).

But you're right, we should try this.

A clean space approach could be to explore space of A, so A becomes aware of being somewhere. Space of A can then answer questions about A.

An EK approach could be driving time, and then what happens, or what is there now, but if it is really stuck, this doesn't work either I'm afraid.

I think you should somehow acknowledge that it is stuck: camp there.

(This reminds me of this girl that was sitting on a sidewalk in a shopping street. She was crying, so I sat beside her. I offered her half of my sausage roll, but she wasn't hungry. She complained that she had been sitting there for half an hour and nobody had paid any attention to her. I asked her what her problem was (uncleanly of course) and I understood that she broke up with her parents. Since she was rather young, I inquired if somebody else took care of her, which was the case. So I looked at my watch (it was about 5 p.m. Sunday) and said that the next morning at nine she needed to make a plan of how to deal with her parents and ask some adult she trusted for advice. Then I asked her if she needed to do some more crying and hugged her. She then started to talk about her plans for the future, how she wanted to take care of children, so we did find a WWYLTHH.

[Corrie van Wijk]

Steve: "The strategy is to intrude as little as possible when providing the environment and as clean as possible support to the self-healing of the client(s)."

I'm still struggling with this, so give me some dwelling-time and camp!

I like Idea 6 as well: "attractor and repulsor scape. Sense of desire / sense of need / senses of the pushes and pulls. Ok, finally a potential algorithm for such a pattern.

So the questions relate to the "feelings inside the body" in relation to the object B. To avoid the "F" word, we use "sense":

Load the starting statement and anything else at B, and probably anything else at A, around, between and elsewhere."

Perhaps loading A would be enough? A body-scape?

"And what do you sense now? / And what are you sensing now?

Maybe the sensing will direct awareness from the present awareness to the adjacent signals, creating a flow of emergence."

The advantage of sensing would be that whatever stuck the feeling is, the person is still able to sense new stimuli. However, my axioma is that you need to solve the problem right there and right then, so you probably need to pull back first, with the risk of avoidance.

To avoid the avoidance: pushes and pulls; wouldn't that be a nice dance? Whereabouts is the balance? If you can lay that out in space, you end up with a space-in-between-push-and-pull; the unconscious will guide the feet to the boundary between going-to and going-from. "And when you pace up and down like that, whereabouts is the 'still'?"

Phil" 'And [what's] happening between [gesture towards direction from] and [gesture towards direction to]?

'And anything else about moving between [gesture towards direction from] and [gesture towards direction to]?

'And where are you?'

'And where is [pronoun]?'"
(Phil: can you think of other questions?)

Weaving a safe and supportive context around the still might help: "Is there a space that knows about ...?" , "Is there a space that wants you to go to...?", dwelling time: "I want you to take all the time you need.".

If by sensing you then can broaden the original experience, it may connect to the world outside and jump to a solution in D.

[Steve Saunders]

I do not believe in a quick-fix to a (most of) life-long psychosis of fixation.

Modelling the bind of the bind is the SyM way, and analogously, emerging awareness of the pattern and its space, time relate.

David would take years on this, and I've taken years still without final success with a client.

As (mis)trust is the single biggest repulsor clean is everything. Its not up to the F to have a need to F a client at any pace other than the client's pace. When I have it's backfired.

Any F intervention is dirty; even clean questions. Total acceptance of the client and their present behaviour is required; and yet such clients easily damage other people.

A tactic and a strategy of working WITH at every moment feels right. What kind of WITH is indicated by the client.

I feel like guiding a client to awareness of awareness; so this is my need. Cut this and ask "what is the client doing?" The client appears normal until a fixation trigger creates the conditions and behaviour. I'm also concerned that to reveal a detailed tactic would enable a defence system to create yet another way to protect the self from change. Remember the present way has saved their skin very likely on more than one occasion - why change it?

Corrie; Why do you want to know how to do this? I suggest that further exploration goes off forum.

Steven

[Corrie van Wijk]

The reason why I want to know this, is because it is important. I know David was still experimenting on this, and you are right that it is the trickiest thing to do. Any strategy or tactic, other than to create self-awareness would be unclean.

Steve: "Its not up to the F to have a need to F a client at any pace other than the client's pace. When I have it's backfired."

I fully agree, yet I think as a facilitator you can create conditions to make it easier.

Steve: "I'm also concerned that to reveal a detailed tactic would enable a defence system to create yet another way to protect the self from change. Remember the present way has saved their skin very likely on more than one occasion - why change it?"

A detailed tactic that triggers the client to protect him or herself from change, would be unclean: "Total acceptance of the client and their present behaviour is required."

One thing I know: the client has found you and asks you for help: that's your job.

I don't think it is necessary to put up with all of their behaviour, as long as you let them know you'll accept them anyway.

You did a very good job by writing down all these ideas, let's find an occasion to develop them.

Love,

Corrie

[Steve Saunders]

Yes, once the client has found me its my job - as long as the relationship stays F-client and on a business basis?

An occasion to develop them; requires the client and the time and the group and the place.

We found our perfect location in France, in the Perigord region. We hope to sell up here and move over there for the Summer; after a couple of months setting-to-rights we'll be able to have up to 30 people at a time staying in comfort, and people staying long-term, animals, plants, countryside, isolation yet community, local town, transport - perfecto!

Anyone will then be welcome to come and stay as long as they like and do whatever ... Kind of what we do here but properly set up and ready in spades - and also level land for camping, Corrie!

So, the summer beckons; this Spring we've one week per month retreating and researching; targeting a final Glasto/UK retreat in June. Then we're off and leaving this police state behind forever. Phew!

Fixated clients - I'm sure the event will reveal itself.