Categories & patterns

[phil]

In another thread (here) Steven said:

I prefer the 'primordial soup' idea that there is no normal, no autistic, we just have different adaptions, conditioning, developments, learnings and skills, ancestral chains, genetic predisposition and so on. It is all explicable with models that I already have.

This got me to thinking about categories and how they are and are not useful to us.

I broadly agree on the 'primordial soup' - and we are pattern-matchers by nature, aren't we? We look for (and so find aka 'make') patterns in the ooze and having found one, we find it hard to relinquish - 'let's give it a name!' Categories like 'autism' are names placed on patterns of behaviour that we notice. Named patterns like autism can be useful (depending on your purpose) to help predict with varying degrees of certainty behaviour in differing circumstances. Categories could also be described as hypotheses in one sense; they predict behaviour.

There's a problem, in that categories too easily become rigid expectations and even rules, defining and binding the subjects and even making them 'wrong' when they do not behave according to prediction. At that point the patterner has stopped modelling the exemplar and started projecting their model of the exemplar's pattern back at them.

The point of working cleanly is keep modelling, to keep encouraging the client to self-model, and not to project one's own patterns or one's own model of the the client's apparent patterns at them. Not easy to do and well worth it IMO

[Corrie van Wijk]

hear hear!

Dear Phil,

You always manage to put things into words in a way that I couldn't. Thank you.

"The point of working cleanly is keep modelling, to keep encouraging the client to self-model, and not to project one's own patterns or one's own model of the the client's apparent patterns at them."

I don't have a model of the client's apparent patterns, but I do work with a model of information-processing (based on watching David at work): see my session with Steve in the You and Me thread in the Self-Modelling section.

Love,

Corrie

[Steve Saunders]

However we think we model the client reality, we are using our model even to ask them questions.

I challenge anyone to give a transcript showing that they interacted only within the client model. For this would mean designing on-the-fly a question only using the metaphors employed by the client in their opening communication.

Imposing metaphor, direction, space, time, body words, ontology, whichever, is an imposing ASSUMING until the client reveals that they at least use the word in common ... thus Don Quixote tilting at windmills and Heisenberg famously showing that the observer always affects the experiment.

What is more truthful is that we each rationalise our world model as 'clean' and stick consistently to that model while 'modelling' the client's system.

It is reasonably safe to assume most of the general clean categories for 'normal' clients, but for example, before a given age, a child will have no time sense, no before and no after. The same goes for sense of distance, space, direction and definitely metaphor, which is quite an advanced concept in terms of human development - in comparison with space, time, direction, moving, availability of senses, and so on.

I feel it is better to proclaim one's model and the client knows the nature of the projection their system has to deal with. The very word 'clean' is being used somewhat disingenuously. Rather "working to be as clean as possible with regard to minimising the reality of my faciltiating on you while we are together."

Steven

[phil]

However we think we model the client reality, we are using our model even to ask them questions.

That's Day 1, Session 1 of Clean 101, right there!

What is more truthful is that we each rationalise our world model as 'clean' and stick consistently to that model while 'modelling' the client's system.

I accept that's how it is for you; what I do feels different to that. My world model is my world model and is only inherently clean within my system. As soon as I introduce any part of my model into someone else's system, that is not clean within their system.

The clean part of my working process is continually trying to understand how the other person structures their world and how this informs their behaviour. To do this I ask questions to reveal more of the apparent structure of their system... for them so they can make some informed behavioural choices... and for me so I can ask more questions to reveal more for them... and so on.

The not-clean part of my process is that I am continually making assumptions that come from my model - both of the world and of their model. I'll always be making those assumptions - in a clean working process, what matters is how I act upon them. To minimise the not-clean nature of intruding my assumptions into their model, I use Clean Language which has been designed for that purpose and I continually check and challenge my assumptions about their model.

My world model certainly informs my choice of where in the client's model I place my questions, thus directing their attention (as all questions do).

I believe I am not working cleanly (intentionally or accidentally) when I notice sensory feedback in my body: a tendency to hold some tension in my posture; unconsciously holding my breath; a silent voice in my mouth wanting to say 'why don't you do this or that';

I believe I am working cleanly when I am puzzling, wondering, hearing, noticing what's happening 'at' the client. The puzzlement can come from the dichotomy between my model and theirs, yes - and also can come from pure ignorance of their model and curiosity about it.

This description is of course my current model of how I do 'clean' - and I am consistent with it until I come across other ways to do it, whereupon I incorporate those. I'm also permanently dissatisfied with it and looking to improve it. I doubt I am alone amongst clean facilitators and trainers in being like that (in fact I know I am not) and I think that's different to "rationalise our world model as 'clean' and stick consistently to that model".

The very word 'clean' is being used somewhat disingenuously.

That's a pretty strong statement to put out there without supporting evidence. By 'disingenuously' here, do you mean 'insincerely, in a calculating way' or 'naively'? Can you cite some examples of what you think is disingenuous use and your basis for believing it is disingenuous (rather than, say, misunderstood, misconceived or inaccurate)? I am not saying it doesn't happen and I'd rather discuss specifics than non, assuming you put the statement on a public forum leaving it open to debate?

In that clean (in the sense we use it) is a metaphor, I guess each of us has a different understanding of what it represents. I do think there's a responsibility on all trainers (and all of us on the forum too) to communicate to newcomers to the field exactly what they mean by 'clean'. For me it goes something like this:

In the sense that David Grove coined the phrase, clean does not mean perfectly clean. 'Clean' is a metaphor for something we strive to do, not a definitive description or state.

The facilitator and their models are always present to some extent. They still call what they do 'clean facilitation' because:

a) the client experiences it as noticeably cleaner than most other comparable processes.
For example: in a clean facilitator/client relationship, from the perspective of the client it's as if the facilitator's questions are clean because they contain very little of the facilitator's model and lots of the client's model,

b) the clean facilitator is striving, both deliberately in their modelling and automatically by following a process designed to keep them as clean as possible, to minimise the intrusion of their own model into the client's model.

I think a reasonable analogy can be found if you look closely at UK TV adverts that show cleaning products like kitchen surface spray or mouthwash. They always leave a little trace of dirt behind after the 'miracle product' has done its work. Even that famous bleach brand only claims to kill 99% of germs. At the same time, by any practical standards that kitchen surface, that mouth is considered clean - clean enough for purpose.

I think of clean as being an analogue rather than digital description and that, as facilitators, we do best to assess our work on a continuum of clean to not-clean.

As a name for the approach that David introduced us all to, 'clean' is a pretty good fit and like all metaphors - and especially their labels - it cannot tell the whole story.

Thanks for the stimulating post - that's a whole morning gone!

Phil

[Steve Saunders]

Phil,
I want to give this justice, and I'm on retreat, so please be patient, and i will reply fully. Thank you also for taking this the right way - as in "no offense intended" - a stimulating area of discussion.

I am happy to own that this is my own struggle in making sure I am in my own integrity in representing 'clean' and 'holigral' and David, appropriate, and that I see my shadow aspects of this in others. And ...

Money in itself is not evil, it was created to make a fair apportioning rewarding effort no longer directly related to food production/gathering. Over time it became distorted in use, and now it serves the few to oppress the many.

Clean as a philosophy is a wonderful and life-generative thingamybob. Clean then got redefined in the perceived minds of the public and graduate modellers as "symbolic modelling with some clean space thrown in"; in the minds of most people, and then further re-defined by who trains it, etc.

Nowadays, it seems to me, that "clean" is used in marketing literature as representing "the forms delivered by the clean establishment (SyM, CS, maybe also Po6)", a different model to the work of David. The informed general public's impression would be: 'clean language is modelling metaphors using a small set questions', and some may add: 'oh yes they also use space and sometimes they repeat a question 6 times'.

David had hundreds of questions, he once said he had over 300 clean questions. a clean question works with the client reality. In all probability, the NLP question "what is stopping you?" was first used with a client who had expressed a "being stopped" metaphor, the therapist was modelled and then the modellers rolled out the question generally. I feel that, yes we have to start teaching clean somewhere, but that clean language is a lot more than 12 question focussed on turning everything into metaphor to make the experience less emotionally painful for all concerned.

Okay, this is my opinion, and reflects my dislike of constraints, and also I feel a valid point in the excellent task of the authentic fellows who constantly question their own cleanliness as facilitator - that we do continually ask, struggle and seek to be clean, true to David's philosophy, is what is clean, and I wonder if this gets forgotten.

The disingenuous aspect is the unintended consequence of labelled the other modalities of coaching and therapy as "not clean", "unclean", "leprous", etc - if I feel it, it's there; the calling of other things as "dirty", is an accidental by-product of having the word 'clean' in use in a polar society. Gradually emerges this idea of what is clean, what is not, and the judgement of that; and whether this judging is owned. e.g. even david said things like "emergence is cleaner than clean", which is a view, and not true. but caught up in the excitement of creating the emergence, we were in that view.

It does not matter as to the relatively clean as long as the facilitator, in his/her own way, is seeking to work with the client's reality, with the tools that they have. That is it. "cleaner" is the problem.

Steven

[Corrie van Wijk]

Hi Phil and Steve,

That was a nice dialogue the two of you had:

"the clean facilitator is striving, both deliberately in their modelling and automatically by following a process designed to keep them as clean as possible, to minimise the intrusion of their own model into the client's model."

and

"as long as the facilitator, in his/her own way, is seeking to work with the client's reality, with the tools that they have."

It seems to me you pretty much agree on the subject!

Yesterday I talked to Damasio; his definition of mind is
the representation of object and events, inside (in our bodies) and outside (around) the organism, in perception (on-line) and in recall"

and he describes the concept of 'self' (subjectivity) as
the attribution of mental representations to a protagonist/perceiver ... the self process includes a sense of ownership of the mind (the sense that we own our mind): the fact that the mind's contacts are constructed in the organism's perspective (registered relative to the standpoint), the sense of agency (you are in control of the action); (unless there is some pathology or a distorted effect as a result of medication)."

"Every person combines visual, auditory, tactile, etc. information into maps, which then get integrated in relation to a mini-self, which has been present since reptiles and which serves to find energy-sources and the like. What we share with other organisms are our emotions and feelings as primary events. Like an infant that has a core self which is not yet autobiographical. Language comes in later in evolution. Human's consciousness allows to have better images and successfully adapt ourselves."

So everybody's psychescapes are different, but the brains are similar. A client is encouraged to map their experience. The facilitator initiates and navigates the process of representing the scape into maps or metaphors and think about them until it goes off by itself into a flow. So any information from the facilitator 'bulldozes' the neural pathways of the client's psychescape, like John once said.

Damasio hypothesizes: "Neural processes of high complexity are equivalent to mental processes. There is a whole architecture of convergence and divergence, which allows for signals, integrated by sheer temporal coincidence." Hence the clean space process, which allows for different state-dependent memories to be dowloaded within the short timespan of a session and integrated within working memory (preferably 7 minus or plus 2).

Clean facilitation is about the content of the mind in a particular case, which is equivalent to that brain's wiring. Damasio: "The perception of that by the client can be misleading. The mind is not of a different nature than the brain, they are both from the same cloth."

Any model that enhances the effectiveness of client facilitation can only be about selecting the relevant information and addressing that through a clean move (that can either be a question or an invitation). From what I have seen David doing he had a preference for the the perception from the perspective of the self, as expressed by the pronoun or implied in the verb. Or following a process of information-processing analogue to a brain's strategy to do so, like the clean space process.

I share Steve's worry about how clean is being taught these days. I come across many variants from what David did. I wish it would be clear on which presupposition about or understanding of neural processes they are.

I talked to David about that in November 2006, saying all the information is scattered across New-Zealand, the USA, Britain and France. They all have different testaments of the story. He was tolerant about that, saying: "If that's what they understand, that's a start." and "That is for me to know and for them to find out.", allowing everybody to have their own process of discovery." He probably never thought about him leaving the stage.

However, if 'clean' is to be a brandname, the clean community better join up and come to terms with eachother, starting to engage in discussions like these.

Antonio Damasio said he was very much interested in emergence, and I'll keep trying to understand his research on neuroscience. (New book this year!)

[Steve Saunders]

His (damasio) definition is object-oriented and his works speak (to me) of being those of a person living in the 'left-brain' perspective. Fine, but limited compared to the broader perspective of clean that encompasses moving flowing experiencing (that which OO people call 'momentum').

I perceive the mind as greater, far greater, than the brain; the brain is the most active physical transducer enabling the electromagnetic field to interface mind to body, person to matrix.

All IMO!

[Corrie van Wijk]

Hi Steve,

"limited compared to the broader perspective of clean that encompasses moving flowing experiencing.": Your perception that the right half of the brain (or the left in some people) wouldn't be included in the study of neuroscience is naive and an excuse to suggest that 'mind' cannot be studied. Like Damasio says: "The perception of that by the client can be misleading."

"the brain is the most active physical transducer enabling the electromagnetic field to interface mind to body": if you consider the brain as the interface between mind and body, how can 'mind 'be more than 'brain'?. Which electromagnetic field?

John H. Holland:
"we have neither theories, models, nor artifacts wherein each agent (neuron) simultaneously interacts with thousands of other agents (via synapses), and wherein the connections among agents involve so many feedback loops that a single agent may belong to hundreds of thousands of loops. [...] how can the interactions of agents produce an aggregate entity that is more flexible and adaptive than its component agents?" (Emergence, 1998).

Corrie

[Steve Saunders]

i am not suggesting the mind cannot be studied: it can, and also be understood, but not from a purely biological perspective with any hope of a complete understanding.

the mind is more than the brain; the whole body is full of neurons transducing, the mind is infinitely more. the e/m field of the human being, and the e/m fields of the collective and planet and more ...

JH has no model; I do.

[Corrie van Wijk]

Hi Steve,

"from a purely biological perspective with any hope of a complete understanding.": how do you know a biological perspective will never lead to understanding?

"the mind is more than the brain; the whole body is full of neurons transducing, the mind is infinitely more. the e/m field of the human being, and the e/m fields of the collective and planet and more ...": how do you know any electromagnetic fields equates to 'mind'?.

Damasio"s definition of mind is "the representation of object and events, inside (in our bodies) and outside (around) the organism, in perception (on-line) and in recall"; so how does one represent an electromagnetic field?


"JH has no model; I do.": have you got it published in any serious scientific journal, so that your colleagues can verify it?

Corrie

[Steve Saunders]

as you know very well Corrie, I am working on publishing my thesis of human nature. ;-)

the e/m field is not the mind, it is the interface between the real and the imaginary.

"objects and events" i.e. things localised, not flowing-emerging-moving

Because I do know IMO, because other people who do clear all their cosmological boundaries agree on the same reality ... and I know my perception cannot be agreed by a person coming from the physical perspective.

[Corrie van Wijk]

Hi Steve,

"the e/m field is not the mind, it is the interface between the real and the imaginary.": of what nature is something in-between the real and the imaginary, is it more real or more imaginary or something different?

"'objects and events' i.e. things localised, not flowing-emerging-moving: how is something flowing-emerging-moving represented in the mind?

'Because I do know IMO, because other people who do clear all their cosmological boundaries agree on the same reality": how do people who have cleared all their cosmological boundaries differ from people who do not have?

"... and I know my perception cannot be agreed by a person coming from the physical perspective.": why would that be?

Richard Dawkins: The Selfish Gene, 1976: "The meme for blind faith secures its own perpetuation by the simple unconscious expedient of discouraging rational inquiry"

Daniel C. Dennett: Darwin’s Dangerous Idea, 1995: "The meme for faith exhibits frequency-dependent fitness: it flourishes particularly in the company of rationalistic memes. In a neighborhood with few skeptics, the meme for faith does not attract much attention, and hence tends to go dormant in minds, and hence is seldom reintroduced into the memosphere."

[Steve Saunders]

Corrie,
the e/m field is both real and imaginary - a lightwave corkscrews through complex space time, being nowhere as it travels at the speed of light - momentum - fields are measured and thus disturbed.

flowing-moving is experienced, essentially the beingness of no-mind is this: mind in the OO sense does not exist in flow - but more accurately 'ego' does not exist in it, ego only exists in OO worlds.

they differ because they feel they are one with all, they differ because they know they are one with all, and they differ because they live the paradox of being both one and all, and the deaf cannot hear the sound of the speaking.

because science without metaphysics is like a fish without water ... you kill the animal to study it.

and dawkins is one of the worst offenders of dissociated scientific reasoning IMO. Rational debate includes the possibility of "god", includes the possibility of the imaginary also being part of the whole. Irrational debate says its only biological.

No idea what point you're trying to make quoting Dennett or why he might be right or wrong.

It is unreasonable to assume the world is only "real"; physics can find nothing other than 'energy" and 'space' as it looks ever more inside. Mathematics says the world is real and imaginary, so do quantum physics, cosmological physics and e/m theory. All I'm saying is that there is a REAL imaginary.

Steven

[Corrie van Wijk]

"they differ because they feel they are one with all, they differ because they know they are one with all, and they differ because they live the paradox of being both one and all": how do you know others feel differently?

"Rational debate includes the possibility of "god", includes the possibility of the imaginary also being part of the whole. Irrational debate says its only biological.": why would a biological view exclude the imaginary?

"It is unreasonable to assume the world is only "real"; physics can find nothing other than 'energy" and 'space' as it looks ever more inside.": why would energy and space exclude imagination?

"Mathematics says the world is real and imaginary": mathematics just supposes the imaginary to calculate, but distinguishes it as irreal.

"so do quantum physics, cosmological physics and e/m theory. All I'm saying is that there is a REAL imaginary.": how do you know; what is the difference between an imaginary in reality and one in mind?

[Steve Saunders]

one knows because one has asked, felt, experienced and differed, versus asked, felt, experienced and samed.

because a biological view is a biological view not a holistic view.

who says energy and space do exclude imagination - perhaps the people who say the imaginary is only a mathematical convenience to explain space-time and particles being in all space-time until measured ...

mathematicians tend to say its only a convenience, the mathematics is impartial!

think of real-real, real-imaginary, imaginary-real and imaginary-imaginary and then maybe ...

[Corrie van Wijk]

Hi Steve,
"one knows because one has asked, felt, experienced and differed, versus asked, felt, experienced and samed.": so in your model there are two categories: those who feel/know they are one with all and those who don't, based on their perception of themselves. How do you know they are not imagining this?

"because a biological view is a biological view not a holistic view.": a biological view may well explain the holistic. Holland has programmed a model for a neural network that shows 'cycles are subtle consequences of the interaction of prosaic mechanisms', which seems rather plausible. So what do you consider it's flaw?

"who says energy and space do exclude imagination - perhaps the people who say the imaginary is only a mathematical convenience to explain space-time and particles being in all space-time until measured ...": you said: "It is unreasonable to assume the world is only "real"; physics can find nothing other than 'energy" and 'space' as it looks ever more inside.": are 'energy' and 'space' irreal?

"mathematicians tend to say its only a convenience, the mathematics is impartial!": mathematics is a tool of scientists, trying to represent the real universe.

"think of real-real, real-imaginary, imaginary-real and imaginary-imaginary and then maybe ... ": real-real is how it works; real-imaginary is the wiring in the brain of imaginary things; imaginary-real is the representation of the brain of something real that is not perceived right now, imaginary-imaginary is the representation of the brain of something that is not real.

And then may-be what?

Corrie

[Steve Saunders]

I have to keep enough evidence private to avoid faking on the part of those students who would fake it. However, I have evidence I keep and use. And indeed NLP processes can confuse sense of real and imaginary, but not this.

Holland is hinting that chaotic attractors are the underlying generators of cycles: any good electronics/systems engineer should know this, and he is pretty good as they go. A biological view is not also a physics view, a maths view, an artistic view, a geographic view, a geological view; a holistic view considers all these and more, thus it is a wider view.

Energy and Space are Both real and imaginary - mathematically, and so yes they are really both real and imaginary.

Mathematics is a tool used to try to represent the universe/nature: both real and imaginary.

Disagree with your last comment, and accept your right to it.

And then may-be what?

Measurement destroys, un-measuring frees.

Steven

[Corrie van Wijk]

"I have evidence I keep and use": how would you be able to teach anything if your students are not allowed to understand the underlying principles? How would a client know you are not faking?

"A biological view is not also a physics view, a maths view, an artistic view, a geographic view, a geological view; a holistic view considers all these and more, thus it is a wider view.": the human brain is capable of any view on any subject and to integrate them if relevant.

"Disagree with your last comment": in what way?

[Steve Saunders]

I do not teach : people discover for themselves; and the discovering happens to be consistent.
Students do not need to learn holigral; the beingness makes it natural, and they find their own way of facilitating holigrally.

There is no fake if there is no "goal". I have "nothing" to fake. Peace is peace is peace.

The human brain is capable of nothing without an animating spirit; and a spirit can do nothing without a connecting into the physical.

Disagreeing - all of it - the 'real real' is not how "it works" IMO. Simple, you have your brain-oriented view, mine is different.

[Corrie van Wijk]

Hi Steve,

How does "I have to keep enough evidence private to avoid faking on the part of those students who would fake it"

relate to:

"people discover for themselves ... and they find their own way of facilitating ... there is no fake if there is no "goal"?

And when "The human brain is capable of nothing without an animating spirit; and a spirit can do nothing without a connecting into the physical." how does 'animating spirit connect into the physical' and what happens when the body dies?

Animating Corrie

[Corrie van Wijk]

It is not about you specifically answering this question, let alone confessing to it in public.

Wouldn't it be a rather relevant question to ask oneself what your own answer would be, as your worldview as a facilitator may somehow influence the process of the client?

Or, as Tania said in her presentation for 'Ze fruitcake' group:
" ...the practices of inquiring into the self are as old as humanity. Our imagination is perhaps our only true faculty. The history of self is made up of a succession of models that do not resemble one another in their essence. We construct and shape our understandings like we make up our life stories, and these in turn serve us well. Hence our understandings are the fruit of our imaginations, bound up in other imaginings."

If brain and life are inseparable, how would you address, e.g. a pre-conception memory, as there would be no physical basis for it (unless we were to inherit concrete information through our DNA)?
I once heard a facilitator say: "What were you wearing in a former life?": this can never refer to a real episodic memory. All a person can know about a previous life, if any, is from stories told by others or made up by themselves.
You know it isn't 'real' because there is no perception of the external context attached to it (unless you made that up as well; would the brain be able to distinguish them? E.g. someone who lies tends to add less detail, see elsewhere on the forum).

I suspect it will be rather different to cure someone from suffering from a real memory than one they imagined or took to be true. I remember David trying to find the right question to address something he suspected didn't really happen to the client (being 'stoned') and managed to find out it was from an episode of "The Life of Brian".
Who is the owner of a memory?

How healthy is it not being able to distinguish between what really happened to you and the things you imagine?

[Steve Saunders]

Hi Corrie,

I'm in the good 'ole usa - and thus not easily replying, now into retreat, and already one client "through the skin" - wow!

because there is no set goal, there is nothing to prove, people address what they do, and leave when they are happy with the changes made.

animating spirit connect through the e/m field ...

you can read my web articles if you wish my world view but its my own, not projected on others or expecting others to believe - there is no need for faith - enough cosmological boundaries crossed and the worldview is totally consistent for everyone so far.

preconception - ancestral, projections of post-conceptual events and intrusions, and also why cannot an aspect of the all have had a past life, or at least a projected set of past lives ...

Steven

[Corrie van Wijk]

Hi Steve,

Did they let you in this time?

"connect through the e/m field ...why cannot an aspect of the all have had a past life, or at least a projected set of past lives ...": how could it? What is the difference between a past life and a projected past life?

Imaginating Corrie

[Steve Saunders]

yes I am in. Purely as a quality controller, you understand, in meetings, checking on the ability of our american holigral-trained trainers to deliver.

how could what?

past life: the imaginary real
projected past life: the imaginary imaginary

and yet the 'real imaginary' is also projected by the source anyway, but in the same sense as the real real and real imaginary ... ;-)

a tortological present ... ;-)

Steven

[Corrie van Wijk]

Hi Steve,

Thank you for volunteering to keep up my skills of questioning! How would you assess my quality to deliver?

Holland is in shock for having lost a gold medal at the Olympics because of a thought of the coach, who imagined the skater had to turn left, but in fact he should have turned right. As a result our hero was fastest (real), but was disqualified (real), because his coach imagined something the skater's body visibly hesitated to accept as real (he almost stumbled) but acted on the coach's command (real) anyway. Now who is the real Olympic Champion? Should make a nice conversation game with Bart (he may be biased) in the evening!

"how could what?": "connect through the e/m field".

"past life: the imaginary real; projected past life: the imaginary imaginary": how 'real', in terms of brain wiring, is something 'imaginary'? How does the brain know for real it is imaginary?

"and yet the 'real imaginary' is also projected by the source anyway, but in the same sense as the real real and real imaginary ... ;-)": how does which source project anything, be it real imaginary or real real?

"a tortological present ... ;-)": you mean 'tautological'?

Really Corrie

[Steve Saunders]

hello corrie ... how would i assess? I would observe you facilitating and the effect of a client transforming.

the e/m field is real and imaginary - like space-time. e/m fields move by corkscrewing through space(time) - it is really the only mechanism other than 'magic' that i can think of that would be the interface between mind and body ...

the brain knows nothing - it is a device for primary translation between mind and the physical matrix

have you read any asimov, especially about his "prime radiant"? projecting I reckon, requires complex 3D time to visualise how it works - its called 'delay-space embedding'.

no i mean tortological - do you not like desert? ;-)))

Steven

[Corrie van Wijk]

Daniel C. Dennet proposes that "the secret to spirituality has nothing at all to do with believing in an immortal soul, or in anything supernatural: What these people have realized is one of the best secrets of life: let yourself go. If you can approach the world’s complexities, both its glories and its horrors, with an attitude of humble curiosity, acknowledging that however deeply you have seen, you have only just scratched the surface, you will find worlds within worlds, beauties you could not heretofore imagine, and your own mundane preoccupations will shrink to proper size, not all that important in the greater scheme of things. Keeping that awestruck vision of the world ready to hand while dealing with the demands of daily living is no easy exercise, but it is definitely worth the effort, for if you can stay centered, and engaged, you will find the hard choices easier, the right words will come to you when you need them, and you will indeed be a better person. (Breaking the Spell, 2006)

So what kind of stories do people make up when you scale out?

[Steve Saunders]

when THEY scale out ... they tend to no longer be in a story - its more about seeing all the stories in the world around ... and the stories is only one aspect of the whole that is then enjoyed.


indeed no need to BELIEVE in anything ... once there is no self ... agreeing with your quotation for the most part

[Corrie van Wijk]

C'est ma vie, c'est ma vie
Je n'y peux rien
C'est elle qui m'a choisi
C'est ma vie
C'est pas l'enfer,
Mais c'est pas l'paradis

(Adamo)

Thank you Steve, for getting to the bottom of this with me; I'll settle for the truth of the palms of my hands when drinking from Chalice Well.

Now Phil, since you've started this thread and allowed us to diverge on the subject, you may close it and leave your name on top, e.g. by translating Adamo's song; for me it can only be true in French.

[Steve Saunders]

so that settles how we know the session is over ... the client tells us it is.

[Corrie van Wijk]

so shut up; it's up to Phil now!

[phil]

Off the cuff interpretation:

'It's my life, it's my life
I can't do anything about that
It chose me.
It's my life
It's not hell
And it isn't heaven either.'