Results 1 to 18 of 18

Thread: Clean Language and Hypnotherapy

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Holland
    Posts
    838

    Default Clean Language and Hypnotherapy

    From the Clean Change Newsletter:

    "How they're using Clean

    "I've got a good way of using Clean Language as the set-up for a hypnotherapy session. When they come and see me for an initial assessment, I do a Clean Language session with them. Then, when they come back for the second session I take them into a nice deep trance using their own material, their own metaphors and their own language. It seems to be working really well - I'm seeing results really quickly."
    Eddie Miller, Hypnotherapist, Leicester.

    1. Why would hypnotherapy be needed in addition to clean?
    2. What would be the effect of mixing two different approaches?
    3. How ethical is it to use people's own metaphors and language in hypnotherapy?
    Last edited by Corrie van Wijk; 26 June 2008 at 01:51 PM.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Holland
    Posts
    838

    Default dirty language

    I am not in favour of mixing a dirty approach like hypnotherapy with a clean one: it is easier for a client to have their defense mechanisms in place if a therapist uses his own language and metaphors.
    If he is going to use the client's instead, how can the brain make the difference? What would David have thought about this, being a skilled and experienced hypnotherapist himself?

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Quorn, Leicestershire
    Posts
    2

    Default sloppy thinking

    Corrie,

    Rather than leaving you to debate with yourself, which I suspect may be happening because you don't appear to be able to separate your opinions from your questions, I have some comments, questions and opinions for you about the questions and assertions in your posts on this subject...

    You first asked:

    Quote Originally Posted by Corrie van Wijk
    1. Why would hypnotherapy be needed in addition to clean?
    I'm interested as to where the "needed" that you use in your question came from... is your intention to ask a question or to postulate a belief of yours as an embedded presupposition in question format?

    It could be equally valid to ask this the other way around...

    Why would clean be needed in addition to hypnotherapy?

    That changes the implications somewhat however, so if it is the case that you were actually asking a question what purpose do you intend the question to serve? what information are you seeking to elicit?

    Other questions that might elicit information less tainted by presuppositions within the question could be:

    What does hypnotherapy provide in addition to clean?

    or reversing the relationship once again:

    What does clean provide in addition to hypnotherapy?

    perhaps even:

    what does the combination of clean and hypnotherapy provide?


    Which is closer to the question you asked second with:

    Quote Originally Posted by Corrie van Wijk
    2. What would be the effect of mixing two different approaches?
    Ignoring of course that the "different" in this question already introduces bias to the answer by presupposing an undefined differing of the approaches, and "mixing" presupposes the use of the two in combination, whereas Eddie states that he uses them sequentially.

    In the quote, Eddie states that when he uses clean followed by hypnotherapy (or perhaps hypnotherapy preceded by clean) in two separate session, and that he's "seeing results really quickly" so perhaps this might be something to explore... what kind of quickly, quickly compared to what... what kind of results... you know, questions about what is happening.


    next you ask:

    Quote Originally Posted by Corrie van Wijk
    3. How ethical is it to use people's own metaphors and language in hypnotherapy?

    Again where does the "ethical" in that question come from if not to serve the purpose of inferring that what you just asked "what would be the effect" about might be less than completely ethical?

    Now if you don't know "what would be the effect of" then obviously you're not in a position to know "how ethical" it is but if you really want to know about effects you could have asked:

    What is the effect of using people's own metaphors and language in hypnotherapy?

    which might elicit some information about the results

    or perhaps:

    How effective is it to use people's own metaphors and language in hypnotherapy?

    if you want to find out about the efficacy of that approach.

    Hey, you could even ask about HOW those metaphors and language are being used in the hypnotherapy!

    In your subsequent posting, you state:

    Quote Originally Posted by Corrie van Wijk
    I'm not in favour of mixing a dirty approach with a clean one: it is easier for a client to have their defence mechanisms in place if a therapist uses his own metaphors and language. If he is going to use the client's instead, how can the brain make the difference?

    Now given that you've just asked:
    "what would be the effect of mixing two different approaches?"

    what are you basing your opinion on, if you don't know the effects?

    And whilst we're looking at this statement, how about exploring the presuppositions behind your choice of the word "dirty".
    That's rather a semantically packed and emotive word to use, don't you think?

    And What "defence mechanism" is that?, what is it exactly that you think the client needs defending from?

    A question for you, what differentiates a client's metaphor from a shared metaphor, from a therapist's metaphor?

    Then you ask
    Quote Originally Posted by Corrie van Wijk
    What would David have thought about this, being a skilled and experienced hypnotherapist himself?
    That could be interpreted as an attempt to link an authority figure with your opinion, once more using the structure of an apparent question, and if it is intended as a question, it's an unanswerable one.

    My understanding is that David began in therapy after learning from people who were skilled innovators and experimenters, and he continued to innovate, experiment and improve upon not only the prior work of others, but also his own.

    In my experience, people who understand and are skilled in one approach (to anything) tend to have respect for others that understand and are skilled in that and/or other approaches, and are usually interested in exploring and/or experimenting with what makes those approaches effective.

    My opinion is that it is those who do not understand what they are doing or that lack the self awareness to notice it who tend to lack this flexibility, preferring to follow a prescribed formula, and often attempt to convince others of it's rightness.

    In my opinion, For a therapist to do anything less than competently and deliberately utilise any resources available to them in working with a client, whilst holding the client's best interest as a central intent is unethical, with the proviso that the client's best interest does not impose an ethical dilemma through imposition on others.

    Also, in my opinion, to call into question the ethics of a therapist who is working in such a way to improve client results is simply disrespectful.

    As for the incongruity of stating your case in the manner you wrote it...

    "Ende wat siet gy den splinter die in de ooge uwes broeders is, maar den balck die in uwe ooge is en merckt gy niet?" Mattheus VII, 3


    Andy
    what you like would have to happen?

  4. #4

    Default Hypnosis is unconscious


    I think Corrie is debating with her self because no one is debating this with her, I certainly agree with her sentiment. Mixing dirty and clean when the clients are conscious doesnít work, so whatís going on when you do it under hypnosis!
    Under hypnotherapy are you using the verbal communications in the moment or are you reflecting from a previous time (conscious communication) this would be unclean reflection because time (and our words) doesnít stand still.
    There are so many questions I have here and unless the hypnosis is done in a controlled situation you are playing with a client. This stuff, CL like EK is not a toy, and if your not having results on a conscious level then are you accomplished enough to be playing with a person under hypnosis?

    I do however feel its important to evolve and develop work, but with the knowledge and background to make a real judgment on the results. Not a projected bias view of the results.

    If your doing this Andy Iíd be interested in observing thatís what Iíd like to have happen.

    John

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Holland
    Posts
    838

    Angry

    Andy: "you don't appear to be able to separate your opinions from your questions"

    Thank you Andy, for your analysis of my questioning: indeed it is biased because every vein in my body protests against it. So that is why I decided to give my opinion instead in the second posting.

    Andy: "the purpose of inferring that what you just asked "what would be the effect" about might be less than completely ethical?"

    Yes, that is what I was inferring; I’m sorry to have put it in such a disguised way, I was trying to be polite, which I shouldn’t have.

    Andy: "if you don't know "what would be the effect of" then obviously you're not in a position to know "how ethical" it is what would be the effect of mixing two different approaches? … what are you basing your opinion on, if you don't know the effects?"

    As long as no-one explains it to me, I’ll have to trust my own guts and experience on it.

    Andy: And whilst we're looking at this statement, how about exploring the presuppositions behind your choice of the word "dirty". That's rather a semantically packed and emotive word to use, don't you think?"

    In the context of clean, dirty means the opposite, which I think is the case here. Whereas clean follows the client’s world and logic and has the system evolve itself, hypnotherapy imposes something else on them, which is pure brainwashing. And nothing so dangerous as being brainwahsed by someone you trust.

    Andy: "And What "defence mechanism" is that?, what is it exactly that you think the client needs defending from?"

    The client needs to be defended from any person, even from an integrity with his or hers best interest at heart, that presumes to do a better job than the client him- or herself.

    Andy: "A question for you, what differentiates a client's metaphor from a shared metaphor, from a therapist's metaphor?"

    What differentiates a client’s metaphor from anybody elses, is that his or her brain is shaped accordingly, so that it is the only sensible starting point to work from and to proceed with. If the client doesn’t experience the change when it happens (if so) and after the session doesn’t have a clue where it came from, it is not likely to last very long (at least I hope not). If you presume you can use the client’s metaphors in a hypnosis you are very wrong: anyone practising clean language knows that the client’s logic is inimitable.

    Andy: "What would David have thought about this, being a skilled and experienced hypnotherapist himself? That could be interpreted as an attempt to link an authority figure with your opinion … if it is intended as a question, it's an unanswerable one."

    It is not an attempt to link my opinion, if any, to David’s authority: I spent enough time with David to be sure that is what he thinks. "I don’t want them to go in trance" he said repeatedly. Putting it in the form of a question was meant to make people think for themselves how David would feel about this and anyone who has worked with him closely can produce the answer.

    Andy: "the client's best interest does not impose an ethical dilemma through imposition on others. to call into question the ethics of a therapist who is working in such a way to improve client results is simply disrespectful."

    A therapist working in such a way to improve client results should be able to account for what he is doing: just experimenting with clean in a dirty context, obviously whitout knowing what you are doing, is not ethical. I very much doubt the client knows what he or she consents to.

    Andy: "As for the incongruity of stating your case in the manner you wrote it... "Ende wat siet gy den splinter die in de ooge uwes broeders is, maar den balck die in uwe ooge is en merckt gy niet?" Mattheus VII, 3"

    Ik denk eerder dat mijn splinter slechts een afschaafsel is van de balk die ik in de ogen van mijn broeder zie. (I rather think that my splinter is just a fragment of the the beam I see in my brothers eye.)

    Other than that I rather have you not impose your quotes from the bible on me.

    Corrie

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Glastonbury, England
    Posts
    512

    Default quite a hornets' nest!

    Sorry Corrie, been away for a week, just back.

    Well, different aspects of David's work had more or less observable trance states - metaphor being very trancy.

    My own biased opinion is that all personal development work is hypnosis of various forms - and clean language is a very smart form of the work where the facilitator seeks to minimise reality intrusion.

    Hypnosis is normally defined as a state of mind where pure awareness and recall is available for that not normally present in conscious mind. David, valuing both, sought ways of combining flows of conscious and unconscious states - and in many emergent workshops clients were in trance, as I was, under David's leadership/guidance.

    There are times for strategy installation, like helping a person to read or to do maths, where implanting a working metaphor of theirs is a damned good idea IMO, and i've done this with dyslexics - using emergence to undo measurements and metaphor to transfer a functional area into the formerly dysfunctional one.

    So perhaps a little less judgement all round and a little more modelling of the results, why's and wherefore's. Therefore I'll now cast a judgement on a potential psychosis of "clean": the imputattion of "dirty" and a moral high ground not based in reason. This work is still intrusive and interludes of conversational and emotional projections affect the client; the client and facilitator entangle and services are exchanged.

    The whole PD industry is a psychosis making people feel somehow they are not already perfect as they are. The systems thinking paradigm of "shifting the burden to the intervener" applies to many industries that enervate their hosts rather than empowering them.

    People do not need a nanny state, nor education in the normal sense, nor anything other than being allowed to grow as they wish. Like plants and animals, they respond best to love and will learn naturally what they are motivated to learn.

    Ok, this rant could go on, so over to you, Corrie!

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

    Default

    Steve: "Well, different aspects of David's work had more or less observable trance states - metaphor being very trancy."

    It is not about the client being in trance, of course it happens all the time, it's what you as a facilitator do with it. David was very much able to keep a client out of trance as well.

    Steve: "all personal development work is hypnosis of various forms - and clean language is a very smart form of the work where the facilitator seeks to minimise reality intrusion."

    I think the boundary between hypnosis and minimising reality intrusion is the client being consciously aware of what is happening, although I know that unconscious processes run alongside at the same time.

    Steve: "Hypnosis is normally defined as a state of mind where pure awareness and recall is available for that not normally present in conscious mind. David, valuing both, sought ways of combining flows of conscious and unconscious states - and in many emergent workshops clients were in trance, as I was, under David's leadership/guidance."

    The difference between clean and hypnosis is that you have the process -- conscious or unconscious or both -- evolve in its own logic and pace.

    StevŽ: "There are times for strategy installation, like helping a person to read or to do maths, where implanting a working metaphor of theirs is a damned good idea IMO"

    That is called teaching.

    Steve: ""and i've done this with dyslexics - using emergence to undo measurements and metaphor to transfer a functional area into the formerly dysfunctional one."

    That is NLP.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Glastonbury, England
    Posts
    512

    Default

    both are hypnosis, just one conventionally eyes closed and the other eyes open.

    the difference is indeed finding the best way to let the system evolve itself - and the word clean is used to suggest minimising intrusion.

    Judging metaphor transfer as NLP is a little harsh - just how do you think people train clean language if not through exercises and diagrams and processes, and metaphors like navigating around a house ...?

    But then this is all NLP anyway according to the NLP definitions ;-)

    The mastery, or elegance, comes from doing the least for the most beneficent (used advisedly) effect. Thus neutrality, adjacency, etc

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

    Default

    Steve: "just how do you think people train clean language if not through exercises and diagrams and processes, and metaphors like navigating around a house ...?"

    Again, this is teaching.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Glastonbury, England
    Posts
    512

    Default Appropriate design for the work requested

    and judging is what? and saying what is clean or not is what?

    and David (as do I) created a unique form of facilitating for each form of work; thus metaphor, space, emergence etc.

    We see the creation of "clean applications" applying SyM and space to training and group work. In each case, there are principles applied.

    How does one educate with the minimum of reality intrusion (like enabling people to learn clean facilitation)?

    How does one provide a group training experience that minimises reality intrusion?

    Is it even relevant or advisable to minimise this during a learning experience - maybe it should be maximised?

    David's work was almost entirely aimed at recovering the inner (and outer) child, apart from a little coaching applications over his last two years. The spin-offs are many and wonderful. And yet I wonder: is "clean" essentially a paradigm suited to inner child recovery (i.e. resolving past intrusions and extrusions), and perhaps to enabling adults in terms of coaching because there is already a rich metaphor landscape suite available to the adult.

    Clearly emergence leads to new revelations learnings and insights, and new creations and destructions, because it underpins all human experience. Perhaps this is THE general tool for many applications?

    I suggest that judging other ways through "clean eyes" is distorted from the truth of the value of those ways. In inner child work, clean is essential, for adult learning emergence is clearly powerful, yet life is more than recovering the inner child.

    Steven

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

    Default

    Judging is judging.

    Saying what is clean or not is judging.

    Judging other ways through clean eyes is assessing if it is different from clean.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Glastonbury, England
    Posts
    512

    Default

    then define clean please:

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

    Default

    That's a rather clean request.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Holland
    Posts
    838

    Default

    From an earlier contribution: "clean is at the basis, it requires a whole different attitude from the facilitator who, unlike the therapist, doesn't try to put any structure on the client, or influence him or her with his or her own views and opinions."

    P.S. What kind of exclamation mark is that? What does it know?

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Glastonbury, England
    Posts
    512

    Default

    the "exclamation mark" is a "colon". it offers you a space to reply defining clean.

    I would define clean as a philosophy underpinning facilitation whereby the facilitator seeks to eliminate or minimise conscious intrusions into the reality of the client thus providing the environment for the client's own system to achieve what the client requires.

    While this might often be re-organising the system or metaphor landscape, sometimes it can be as simple as emerging a new understanding of the starting conditions.

    Another way of saying this might be: " by providing an environment of minimum projection the clean facilitator creates the conditions whereby the client's symptoms can do their job without interference and thus achieve their purpose."

    Steven

  16. #16

    Default

    Corrie,

    Would you be able to describe a case in which you have integrated the clean/hypnosis approach?

    I can see from some posts that you are meeting some apparent hostility here and I would find it helpful to know your ideas about what happened.

    Katharine (new member, only viewed the dvd and not trained in clean language but am Master Pract NLP and trained in Eriksonian Hypnosis )

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Forest of Dean, Gloucestershire, UK
    Posts
    387

    Default

    Hi Katherine

    Not sure whether Corrie is around at the moment. My own twopenn'orth:

    I trained in NLP and in Eriksonian hypnosis and then Clean Language and other clean approaches.

    One of the fundamental presuppositions when using hypnosis is that the facilitator deliberately seeks to influence the client in line with the latter's stated desired outcomes. Hypnosis is used to bring them to a state where they are supposedly at their most suggestible.

    Meanwhile the principle of clean is to minimise* facilitator-on-client influence. So there's a fairly hefty mis-match there to start with.

    It is possible to use an understanding of clean to 'clean up' manipulative techniques. In hypnosis, a guided induction can be tailored to the client's preferences: might not be much point trying to relax someone into a summer garden, for example, if they suffer from hayfever. NLP techniques too: does it need to be a 'circle' of excellence? The language and voice skills that hypnosis training instills can come in very useful when running clean processes.

    It would seem that most facilitators using clean are not doing so exclusively, rather they tend to use it by alternating with other techniques for influencing the client more deliberately. Personally I find that 'clean first and for much longer than you would think' is a good principle to follow. Clean is vital if you want to encourage a client to build their own model of their world.

    *None of the clean processes can be entirely clean of course. We are always influencing our clients. In Symbolic Modelling for example, it is made quite clear that the facilitator does direct attention (Caitlin Walker has a nice phrse which became her compay name: Training Attention). In Clean Space, clients are directed to 'find a space'. In EK and Po6, clients are directed very specifically to follow certain procedures a certain number of times. The clean-ness resides in the way a clean facilitator keeps their interpretations and advice and their own metaphors OUT of the client's landscape.

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

    Default

    Hi Katharine

    "Corrie,

    Would you be able to describe a case in which you have integrated the clean/hypnosis approach?

    I can see from some posts that you are meeting some apparent hostility here and I would find it helpful to know your ideas about what happened."

    I'm sorry, but you misunderstood: I am the one that is hostile against integrating clean and hypnosis or any other method for that matter. First of all because I am allergic to any kind of manipulative intervention and I think it is unethical to do, and second because I know what David did was based on neurobiological principles. To mix different approaches or to change one of David's would take a thorough knowledge of how the brain works. E.g. it is not possible to influence episodic memory without a client's conscious knowledge.

Posting Permissions

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