Applying Emerging Moving

[Steve Saunders]

First Applying: de-nominalising the Freudian Defence Mechanisms

Below are the classical definitions from the work of Sigmund and Anna Freud, taken from Wikipedia and then "inged". The effect for me and a test person is to bypass processing and gain an instant understanding of what is really being done. This shows that the typical psychoanalytical approach of labelling and nominalising behaving into behaviours fixes clients into patterns, whereas representing this way frees the behaving to be more likely accepted or released. Comments about the phrasing are welcomed.

Compensating: someone taking up one behaviour because they cannot accomplish another behaviour.
Denying: unconsciously resolving emotional conflict and reducing anxiety by refusing to perceive the more unpleasant aspects of external reality.
Denying fact: typically lying in order to avoid facts that they think may be potentially painful to themselves or others.
Denying responsibility: usually attempting to avoid potential harm or pain by shifting attention away from themselves.
Denying impact: a person avoiding thinking about or understanding the harms their behaviour have caused to themselves or others. By doing this, that person is able to avoid feeling a sense of guilt and it can prevent that person from developing remorse or empathy for others.
Denying awareness: people avoiding pain and harm by stating they were in a different state of awareness (e.g. alcohol / drug intoxication) - or psychological state.
Denying cycle: a person is avoiding looking at their decisions leading up to an event or is not considering their pattern of decision making and how harmful behaviour is repeated.
Denying denying: thinking, acting and behaving to bolster confidence that nothing needs to be changed in ones personal behaviour.
Displacing: unconsciously, the mind redirects emotion from a ‘dangerous’ object to a ‘safe’ object. For example, some people punch cushions when angry at friends.
Intellectualising: Concentrating on the intellectual components of the situations as to distance oneself from the anxiety provoking emotions associated with these situations.
Projecting: Attributing to others, one’s own unacceptable or unwanted thoughts and/or emotions. Projection reduces anxiety in the way that it allows the expression of the impulse or desire without letting the ego recognise it.
Rationalising: constructing a logical justification for a decision that was originally arrived at through a different mental process.
Reaction forming: converting unconscious wishes or impulses that are perceived to be dangerous into their opposites.
Regressing: reverting to an earlier stage of development in the face of unacceptable impulses.
Repressing: The process of pulling thoughts into the unconscious and preventing painful or dangerous thoughts from entering consciousness.
Sublimating: refocusing psychic energy away from negative outlets to more positive outlets. Drives which cannot find an outlet are re-channelled.
Undoing: tyring to 'undo' a negative or threatening thought by their actions.
Suppressing: consciously pushing thoughts into the preconscious.
Dissociating: separating or postponing a feeling that normally would accompany a situation or thought.
Humour (Joking): refocusing attention on the somewhat comical side of the situation to relieve negative tension; similar to comic relief.
Idealising: presenting the object of attention as "all good", masking true negative feelings towards the other (person).
Identifying: unconsciously modelling of one's self upon another person's behaviour.
Introjecting: ifdentifying with some idea or object so deeply that it becomes a part of that person.
Inversion: refocusing of aggression or emotions evoked from an external force onto one's self.
Somatising: manifesting emotional anxiety through physical symptoms.
Splitting: seeing external objects or people as either "all good" or "all bad."
Substituting: replacing one feeling or emotion with another.

Steven

[Steve Saunders]

Brave volunteer today; they triggered their response to a trauma and I asked the "inging" question:

"and when [last answer]-ing what is happening as [last answer]-ing?"

The questions took the person deeper into the experience, through, out the other side and back into the here and now.

The volunteer, used to working with PTSD-affected folk and a sufferer themselves, then volunteered for scaling to address the trigger; time will tell whether its resolved, but they could not re-trigger. They are bringing in a "live" further volunteer tomorrow!

The concern: "your way might be too gentle for them [PTSD sufferers] to believe in it."
Interesting feedback!

Steven

[Steve Saunders]

The next brave volunteer:

"and now what is happening?" repeated for 25 minutes

then the client continued to self-emerge with no further questions.
then they got up and said they'd better get on with their day ...
"and this is NLP?" was their question ...

somewhat less PTSD ... more anon - wow!

[Steve Saunders]

Working WITH the symptom is the essence of clean as far as I am concerned. What is happening right now IS the present symptom, so by concentrating awareness upon a non-stationary present symptom the client becomes very self-engaged and aware. The F has to provide a little initial momentum in terms of timing questions well, and then gradually the F disappears and not even questions are required; the client will "return to the here and now" in their own time and way while F patiently waits in the same room/area/space.

The inging question "and now what is happening?" asks for the present experience only; the "now" operates like an adjacent moving time operator, but only at the speed of movement of the client's system.

David said that if a person is falling in a dream they must be allowed to "hit the rocks"; I worked with a few clients on dreams using "and then what happens?" used iteratively; and he liked this - it also is like the Jungian dream work of going through each actor's experience.

So, the difference is moving from "then" to "now" and making the experience flowing by moving from "happen" to "happening". On a few examples, it feels quicker, easier and closer to the present symptom experience of the client than other clean ways - IMO and early days ...

Steven

[Corrie van Wijk]

Steve: "then the client continued to self-emerge with no further questions.
then they got up and said they'd better get on with their day ...
and this is NLP?" was their question ..."

Clean is different from NLP, an NLP'er does something to the client, a clean facilitator gets the client to do something to him- or herself.

Steve: "Working WITH the symptom is the essence of clean as far as I am concerned."

Working with the symptom gets you right into a problem space; clean works around that.

Steve: "What is happening right now IS the present symptom, so by concentrating awareness upon a non-stationary present symptom the client becomes very self-engaged and aware."

You don't need to concentrate on the present symptom, it is present anyway and the client is very much aware of it. Concentrating on it makes them self-engaged indeed, but that's just what they need to get away from. You can't solve the problem at A.

Steve: "So, the difference is moving from "then" to "now" and making the experience flowing by moving from "happen" to "happening"."

If a client is associated in the experience, it inevitably is happening to him or her (again). (The brain always reinvents it, there is no such thing as a storage.) So if it is or was traumatic, you reinforce it. You cannot solve a problem in the now, you need to solve it right then and there, with the means available in that system at that time.

I'm really wondering if you understand these things at all.

[Steve Saunders]

You quote my quote of my client who had been told it was NLP ...

I would like to meet someone who understands them better than me.

[Corrie van Wijk]

Steve: "You quote my quote of my client who had been told it was NLP ..."

I'm truly sorry Steve, I just edited the full quote, so it is in the right context now. Please forgive me.

Steve: "I would like to meet someone who understands them better than me."

In this thread you are talking about PTSD, my remarks are in that context. It might very well be that your approach works with other kind of problems.

And if you want to meet someone: we keep missing eachother.

I talked to many of David's clients and others, so I do know a bit about it.

[Steve Saunders]

I always had an uneasiness with the "tyranny of the narrative" argument. If the F feels tyrannised then the F should work on his issue not avoid it.

That is why I was working with the "tell the story" and so I hear was David at about the same time period last year (although he would have his own reasons).

Working WITH is not re-traumatising when using the "inging" even though it might feel traumatic for an F with issues in the emotional area. It does not go "back" to an event; it just processes the system's experience in the "now" - or rather the client does. By keeping momentum the client keeps moving THROUGH and the words coming out have been really metaphorical - so perhaps this recombines metaphor but without the spatial constructs that slow it all down.

Space measures and objectifies, the moving was always the operator in clean space. David's greatest strength was also his weakness - space. Me too, my strengths are my weaknesses; as for anyone IMO. Anyway, unmeasuring being the purpose of navigating, the inging is just the latest upgrade to the work.

The truly emergent work dumped space and moved form into algorithms (sequences) no longer just spatial or ontological in nature. This is why the questions deconstruct.

This is why David was seeking to eliminate the "you" projection by making the cards for the client. This is why questions with no pronouns are superior to ones with pronouns IMO.

Steven

[Corrie van Wijk]

Steve: "It does not go "back" to an event; it just processes the system's experience in the "now" - or rather the client does."

YES indeed, by definition anyone cannot experience anything in the past, you always reproduce a memory, AND by doing so, you trigger the trauma. So the question is, can the client deal with it: would this here and now be a right context to rewrite the story? Are they up to it, do they feel safe and supported, is the context positive enough to diminish the original hurting?

Steve: "By keeping momentum the client keeps moving THROUGH and the words coming out have been really metaphorical - so perhaps this recombines metaphor but without the spatial constructs that slow it all down."

Wouldn't the spatial constructs help to create the right context?

Steve: "Space measures and objectifies, the moving was always the operator in clean space."

What do you mean by 'operator'?

I think that by moving around the client establishes the perceptual system: all the information that the brain comes 'up' with to be relevant.

Steve: "David's greatest strength was also his weakness - space."

In what respect would space be either a strength or a weakness?

Steve: "unmeasuring being the purpose of navigating"

Measuring is a quantummechanical term in this context: what would be an appropriate psychotherapeutical term? Why would 'unmeasuring' be the purpose of navigating? How does this work?

Steve: "The truly emergent work dumped space and moved form into algorithms (sequences) no longer just spatial or ontological in nature. This is why the questions deconstruct".

Why would algorithms work better than space or ontology? What is the working of algorithmic questions, how do they deconstruct? What happens when the questions deconstruct?

Steve: "This is why David was seeking to eliminate the "you" projection by making the cards for the client. This is why questions with no pronouns are superior to ones with pronouns IMO."

What kind of interaction is that, giving a client a card?

[Steve Saunders]

Corrie: [Steve: "It does not go "back" to an event; it just processes the system's experience in the "now" - or rather the client does."
YES indeed, by definition anyone cannot experience anything in the past, you always reproduce a memory, AND by doing so, you trigger the trauma. So the question is, can the client deal with it: would this here and now be a right context to rewrite the story? Are they up to it, do they feel safe and supported, is the context positive enough to diminish the original hurting?]

Answers:
a) You pre-suppose a re-writing of story; I do not; I pre-suppose the symptoms can do their
job once released.
b) Feeling safe and supported is the pre-requisite of any F-client relationship?
c) Is the job to diminish original hurting? That hurting is the gravity of information at the attractor (hence it is serious). The job is to un-measure (see later for measuring/unmeasuring.)
d) Can the client deal with it: so far, yes, very well indeed. Can any client? Do not know.


Corrie: [Steve: "By keeping momentum the client keeps moving THROUGH and the words coming out have been really metaphorical - so perhaps this recombines metaphor but without the spatial constructs that slow it all down."
Wouldn't the spatial constructs help to create the right context?]

Answer: Maybe, but they are not necessary; the context is the symptom and the present awareness of it: bearing in mind a person will be most likely distancing themselves from pain then one must adjacently start from the present awareness.

Corrie: [Steve: "Space measures and objectifies, the moving was always the operator in clean space."
What do you mean by 'operator'?]

Answer: As David and I discussed, spinning, space, meta-driver patterns are "operators": mathematically an operator acts on information and transforms it into a new form. Thus a pattern of questions operates on a psyche-scape (to use a spatial metaphor) and transforms it into something different as a result of the Q and A.

Corrie: [I think that by moving around the client establishes the perceptual system: all the information that the brain comes 'up' with to be relevant.
Steve: "David's greatest strength was also his weakness - space."
In what respect would space be either a strength or a weakness?]

Answer: Space is one of two fundamental ways of thinking about and addressing the human condition; momentum is another. By thinking purely from one of these two perspectives one has the strength of insight and experience, but one lacks the dimension of the other form. It is not space so much as "space-oriented thinking" that limits and also is a strength.

Corrie: [ Steve: "unmeasuring being the purpose of navigating"
Measuring is a quantummechanical term in this context: what would be an appropriate psychotherapeutical term? Why would 'unmeasuring' be the purpose of navigating? How does this work?]

Answer: A psychotherapeutic term for unmeasuring could be "releasing the emotional attachments permanently and returning the energy/life force into the body". Navigating is only done to achieve this end - else there's no purpose to the navigation. How does un-measuring work? Mathematically and physically, the questions operate in space-time that is both real and imaginary - in other words complex. This allows a special form of operator, called "Hermitian" to exist which cancels itself out when re-applied. Empirically, the measurement made during a trauma is unmeasured using the process of navigating. now, as awareness was navigating during trauma to record the information in locations and movements, it is clear that re-navigating that flow of awareness while psycho-active and therefore real+imaginary, will result in the pure and clear unmeasuring. Now, I will try a layman's go at explaining this another time, but its a start!

Corrie: [Steve: "The truly emergent work dumped space and moved form into algorithms (sequences) no longer just spatial or ontological in nature. This is why the questions deconstruct".
Why would algorithms work better than space or ontology? What is the working of algorithmic questions, how do they deconstruct? What happens when the questions deconstruct?]

Answer: Space and ontology are algorithms when meta-driven in 6's, but they are less working WITH the symptoms and more working with F's constructs; the more the F biases are removed from the system the more it can flow of itself. By chunking up to say an issue buster that applies the same algorithm at the pattern of sets of questions, one further reduces the F responding-variations, and further empowers the natural emergence; by moving into a single-question which form is irrelevant but which is really just a pacing marker for the client, the more the client self-relies to do what is needed. How they deconstruct is explained above in "unmeasuring". When the questions deconstruct there is no going back. Evidentially client may not even recall their starting issue; often say they did it all themselves; a reality not including the issues is experienced; a true DIY brainwash!

Corrie: [Steve: "This is why David was seeking to eliminate the "you" projection by making the cards for the client. This is why questions with no pronouns are superior to ones with pronouns IMO."
What kind of interaction is that, giving a client a card?]

Answer: Ask David. No comment from me.

Steven

[Corrie van Wijk]

Steve: "You pre-suppose a re-writing of story; I do not; I pre-suppose the symptoms can do their job once released."

Working with the symptoms is a homeopathic term; I started a separate thread on that to discuss if that metaphor would be appropriate. Phil moved it from the section of the concept of clean into the clean language section, because it seemed an attempt to define something metaphorically.

'Working with the symptoms' is used as opposed to medical science, in which very often the symptoms get 'cured' or silenced, e.g. by painkillers, instead of treating the cause or the system of which they are a part.

One of David's axioma's was to treat all information equally: symptoms play their part in the self-emerging process, it is not something the facilitator does ('work with'), but something that is part of the client's map, like in a body-scape.

Steve: "Feeling safe and supported is the pre-requisite of any F-client relationship?"

Yes, but even so, you may need more than that to address traumatic issues.

Steve: "Is the job to diminish original hurting? That hurting is the gravity of information at the attractor (hence it is serious). The job is to "releasing the emotional attachments permanently and returning the energy/life force into the body."

I think we mean the same thing here, but just use different words. Releasing emotional attachments will change the perception of the original hurting: it may still be evaluated as a not-want but the physical reaction to it is less disturbing.

Steve: "a person will be most likely distancing themselves from pain then one must adjacently start from the present awareness."

How would the present awareness be different from the painful one? Wouldn't you be working with A?

Steve: "an operator acts on information and transforms it into a new form. Thus a pattern of questions operates on a psyche-scape and transforms it into something different as a result of the Q and A."

How does 'transform into something new' (active) relate to the client's map being changed (passive) as a result of a self-organizing process?

Steve: "Space is one of two fundamental ways of thinking about and addressing the human condition; momentum is another. By thinking purely from one of these two perspectives one has the strength of insight and experience, but one lacks the dimension of the other form."

Clean has both time and space questions, does your -inging intend to combine both? How would the "Hermitian" form of operator work in this context?.

Steve: 'questions with no pronouns are superior to ones with pronouns IMO."

Corrie: "What kind of interaction is that, giving a client a card?"

Steve: "Ask David. No comment from me.

Steve: "This is why David was seeking ..." You refer to something David and you obviously discussed and agreed on. When I ask about it, you choose not to comment on it and tell me to ask David. As David cannot speak for himself any more, please treat those who are mourning David courteously by not referring to him in this way.

Perhaps somebody else knows what David's opinion was on this aspect? Lynne?

[Steve Saunders]

OK, Corrie, so sorry for my "ask David". I do not actually like the "giving card" idea personally - I perceive it to be flawed, but an attempt for the F to escape projecting the word "you", but instead the card-giving is projected. But the F can only truly escape if the client enters a non-objective space - in other words enters their own flow or momentum, and thus the F is no longer "present" as far as the client is concerned. David knew this and talked about "Ericksons "my voice will go with you"" and David's "no voice going with you".

There is nothing wrong with working with A - "treat all information equally" - even "A"! Indeed, perhaps it is most respectful to stay with A?

Corrie: Clean has both time and space questions, does your -inging intend to combine both? How would the "Hermitian" form of operator work in this context?.

1. Space and time are both part of an object-oriented world view; time is another space; David often mapped out "time-scapes".

2. Inging is not relevant to space or time; it is a momentum process, so it does not combine or use time or space at all. The concepts of time and space are as irrelevant to inging as inging is irrelevant to space or time questions.

3. Assuming that you are asking how "inging" is a Hermitian operator and how it works in momentum; in the same way analogously as EK/Space emergence operates on space:

The present state, once measured, can no longer sustain itself, so it changes. A momentum state like an emotion or a thought or a moving then flows and is "done" - no more.

Corrie: How does 'transform into something new' (active) relate to the client's map being changed (passive) as a result of a self-organizing process?

The words "transform into something new" can be equated to "a self re-organising process".

loving Steven-ing!