Separating the modified from the modifier

[JamesLawley]

About 20 of us attended the The London Clean Practice Group on 3 August 2010.

David Grove tells the story of how (in 1998) he turned one of his insights into the nature of language into something that could be used practically. (Note, the trick was to take the metaphor literally.)

"I have no idea what the parts of speech are – nouns, pronouns, adjectives etc. – and every year I would get someone to try and teach me and I never could figure it out, but as part of that process I was looking up the word 'adjective' and found that one particular dictionary had the root which means to throw at or to lay to. So an adjective is a word which is thrown at a noun or laid to it. In that moment I realised that the conjoining of an adjective to a noun is not that stable. If the noun is thrown at or laid to, then I ought to be able to throw it back from whence it came, or I can fire it, I can lay it off, so that an adjective is not necessarily welded or riveted to that noun." *

For example in the statement "He’s a terrible boy" the adjective "terrible" has been thrown against the noun "boy". David devised a clever "pulling back" question for releasing the noun from the tyranny of the adjective:

• And what kind of (noun) was that (noun) before it was (adjective)? **

e.g. And what kind of 'boy' was that 'boy' before he was 'terrible'?

Answer: "A free spirit."

A new metaphor appears which is not encumbered by the designation "terrible". David was not saying that this in itself solved anything. It did however give the person a new and more productive "platform" from which to continue. David warned that "If you start exactly where that person wants you to start then you will be bound by those initial starting conditions."

What is important about is the role the adjective plays. An adjective modifies, refines or qualifies the noun. This boy is no longer just a boy, he is now a "terrible boy". One way to notice the effect of a modifier is to remove it from the sentence and see what difference it makes. Compare “I have an awful sadness” with “I have a sadness”. The adjective “awful” invariably

David’s second insight was that it is not just nouns that get modified, so do pronouns. Let’s take “I am a bad person” as an example. Not only is the noun “person” afflicted with the adjective “bad”, the pronoun “I” is defined as “a bad person”. In everyday life these "characterological adjectives" can be devilishly hard to shake off. *** However, David could use much the same formulation as above to shake the qualifier off the pronoun:

• And what kind of (pronoun) was that (pronoun) before (pronoun) was (qualifier)?

e.g. And what kind of 'I' was that 'I' before ‘I was a bad person'?

While David's first insight was about the relationship of adjectives to nouns and then the effect of qualifiers on pronouns, it soon became clear that there are all sorts of ways one part of speech can modified another part. Instead of trying to identify the particular grammatical names involved, I prefer to use the more generic terms of 'modifier' and 'modified' to indicate which part is doing what.

Examples of modifier and modified:

"It is stuck tight."

"tight" modifies "stuck" ****
"It" is modified by "stuck tight".

"I live in a pit of despair."

"despair" modifies "pit".
"pit of despair" modifies "live".
"live in a pit of despair" modifies "I".

"I am heavily overweight."

"over" modifies "weight"
"heavily' modifies "overweight"
"I" is modified by "heavily overweight".

Clean Questions

David experimented with several kinds of questions which all involved pulling back to a time or place before the one specified by the original statement:

• And what kind of (modified) is/was that (modified) before it is/was (modifier)?
• And where could (modified) be before it is/was (modifier)?

In reviewing David's work I realised that in principle the modified could equally be freed of its modifier by jumping forward to after the time or place specified by the original statement:

• And what kind of (modified) could that (modified) be after it is (modifier)?
• And where could (modified) be after it is/was (modifier)?

The aim here is not to take a step forward as in "And the what happens?" since things are liable to go from bad to worse. The aim is to get to a time or place beyond the unwanted state. Few if any things stay the same forever which implies that mostly there will be a time after, when things are different. And that is all the more possible when we are speaking of mental constructs.

e.g. "I live in a pit of despair."

And what kind of 'pit' was that 'pit' before it was 'a pit of despair'?
And what kind of 'pit' could that 'pit' be after it is 'a pit of despair'?

And what kind of 'live' is that 'live' before it is 'in a pit'?
And what kind of 'live' could that 'live' be after it is 'in a pit'?

And what kind of 'I' could that 'I' be before 'I lives in a pit of despair'?
And what kind of 'I' is that 'I' after 'I's lived in a pit of despair'?

And where did 'you live' before 'you lived in a pit of despair'?
And where could 'you live' after 'you've lived in a pit of despair'?

As you can see, you may have to, as David would say, “finesse” the wording. That is, within the general structure of the question, you may need to shape the wording until it fits – it feels right to the client.

Whether you pull back or jump forward you may need to ask one or more of these questions a number of times until it is clear that the modified has separated from the original modifier.

Practice Exercise: Process for separating the modifier from the modified:

1. Identify modifier/modified.

2. Split modified off from modifier by asking something like:

• And what kind of (modified) is/was that (modified) before it is/was (modifier)?
• And what kind of (modified) could that (modified) be after it (modifier)?
• And where could (modified) be before/after it is/was (modifier)?

You may need to ask one of these questions a number of times until
it is clear than the modified is operating independently from the original modifier

3. Develop individuality of modified until becomes attached to a new modifier and then develop that:

• And what kind of ...?
• And is there anything else about ...?
• And where is ...?
• And that's ... like what?

4. Invite them to consider the original modifier from the position of #3:

• And when [new modifier/modified] what happens to [original modifier]?

Remember, as the facilitator you are not trying to solve anything. Rather your aim is to put the original statement in a wider context and then to revisit it from a different timespace – and see what happens.

Sample
1. I am impulsive.

2. And what kind of 'I' was that 'I' before ‘I’ was 'impulsive'?

I don't know. I can't remember a time I wasn't impulsive.

And what kind of 'I' was that 'I' before 'I couldn't remember being impulsive'?

Formless

3. And what kind of 'formless'?

Two dimensional with swirls.

And is there anything else about that 'formless, two dimensional with swirls'?

It pulses.

And what kind of 'pulses' are those 'pulses'?

Like heart beats.

4. And when 'pulses like heart beats' and 'formless, two dimensional with swirls', what happens to 'impulsive'?

I like it.

And then what happens?

When somebody says "you are impulsive" I shall say proudly "yes I am".

Ways to separate a potential resource from a problem statement.

While I was considering problem statements I remembered that often they contain a 'hidden' or 'potential resource'. For example:

"I have a very powerful resistance to change."

While:

"resistance" modifies "change"
"powerful" modifies "resistance to change"
"very" modifies "powerful (resistance to change)"
"very powerful resistance to change" modifies "I"

it also seems that "very powerful" is a calling the shots and therefore is a potential resource. It can be cleaved away from the rest of the problem statement simply by developing the attributes of the words "very powerful" or "powerful" or "power" and setting aside for the time being the rest of the words in the sentence.

• And what kind of (potential resource/desired outcome) is that/could that be?

e.g And what kind of 'powerful' could that 'powerful' be?

[More of this example to be added]

NOTES

* 'Adjective' derives from the Latin verb adjicere, from ad- ‘toward’ + jacere ‘throw’.
Quote from 'Conservation of Conversation' workshop given in London with Wendy
Sullivan, 24-25 May 2006.

** My first record of David using the 'And what kind of X was that X before it was Y?'
formulation was at a retreat in Eldon, Missouri, USA in January 1999.

*** For more on characterological adjectives see Judith DeLozier’s article ‘Mastery New Coding
and Systemic-NLP’, NLP World, Volume 2, No. 1, March 1995 at: www.cleanlanguage.co.uk/articles/articles/124/1/

**** Julie McCracken also pointed out the modification can work both ways e.g. "stuck" may modify "tight" as well.

[Steve Saunders]

Thank you James,

David called this process his "Seven League Boots", when coupled with patterns of six, and it echoes right back to his earliest work on Q4: The Cosmological, where he first used the "where did that come from?", developed to recover the lost outer child on the dark side of the moon - also in a pattern of six and then one step more beyond the cosmology.
I advise caution and sparing use of this powerful process if you (the reader) do not know what you are doing structurally when you navigate this way. David advised caution and rarity also. And yet he taught the basic separating version in his clean coaching workshop in September 06. Contradictions!

Steven

[MatthewH]

James & Steven,

I modelled this process and adapted versions of it from David in 2007, the results of this can be found in the Self-Alignment process.

It is very useful and very powerful!

From your description as well James, has brought home why David called the workshop : Working on a Pro-Ject, which is so close but just 'in front' of the Ad-Ject!! Ref: Steve, I think this starts the Moving... (in David's way)

Much Love

Matthew

[Corrie van Wijk]

Lovely James, as always.

"An adjective modifies, refines or qualifies the noun. This boy is no longer just a boy, he is now a "terrible boy". [...]
David’s second insight was that it is not just nouns that get modified, so do pronouns. Let’s take “I am a bad person” as an example."

Grammatically, 'to be' has another funtion than any other verb: it is an auxiliay. Phil, please help me on this?

James: "David warned that "If you start exactly where that person wants you to start then you will be bound by those initial starting conditions.": he would always pull back to a pristine state first, or a metaphor with an exit-strategy implied.

James: "Instead of trying to identify the particular grammatical names involved, I prefer to use the more generic terms of 'modifier' and 'modified' to indicate which part is doing what." Intuitively, it does make a difference to me if 'to be' is used to equate ("I am a bad person."), or any other modifier is used to distinguish between this and any other noun or pronoun. ("I behave badly."), the latter just qualifying something I do, not defining who I am. (Which, by the way, opens up therapeutic possibilities.) Mathematically, this would be the difference between an equasion and a function. Steve?

James: "The aim is to get to a time or place beyond the unwanted state. Few if any things stay the same forever which implies that mostly there will be a time after, when things are different.": how would you make sure that your question doesn't trigger an 'evolutionary' answer (inherent in the logic of the client) rather than a 'future' (outside the box) answer? If you were to use space you could simply scale out. The time equivalent of scaling would be placing it in a historic context. So instead of pulling back or jumping forward, as you coin the latter. you could use a spatial metaphor (e.g. a time-line) to open up the possibility of choosing another path than the one you are on. 'Could' asks for scenarios, 'would (like)' for positive change. "And what kind of (modified) could that (modified) be after it (modifier)?" or, e.g.: "Where would (modified) go after it (modifier)?". If this should produce an evolutionary answer in terms of "going from bad to worse", you could ask for another time that invites you to go to.

James: "it also seems that "very powerful" is calling the shots and therefore is a potential resource. It can be cleaved away from the rest of the problem statement." Wouldn't that be a bit of an NLP-trick?

Steve: "where he first used the "where did that come from?", developed to recover the lost outer child on the dark side of the moon - also in a pattern of six and then one step more beyond the cosmology." How does this comment relate to time? (Gorilla!) "The dark side of the moon" is a metaphor a client used in a workshop after scaling out from 'howling to the moon'. Every other client would have a different metaphor, so please don't use it in general terms, especially not in relation to "the lost outer child", by which you mean a dissociated memory, probably very young.

Steve: "I advise caution and sparing use of this powerful process" What kind of message is this to the innocent reader instead of just explaining "what you are doing structurally when you navigate this way"?, which is just imagining moving back and forth in time, which we as humans are doing all the time. Only a non-clean approach calls for caution, you wouldn't be in any kind of danger just by introspection, since you already know. Don't mistify these things, they are basically very down-to-earth.

"David advised caution and rarity also. And yet he taught the basic separating version in his clean coaching workshop in September 06. Contradictions!" Why would this be a contradiction, since he was teaching himself and assessed his students to be wise enough to learn the skill? Don't imply it would only be in safe hands with you.

Matthew: "I modelled this process and adapted versions of it from David in 2007, the results of this can be found in the Self-Alignment process." I fail to see how your Self-Alignment process relates to this Clean Language exercise as James describes it. Yours is more a Holigral product, which is distinct from David's work. Unlike " this starts the Moving... " Clean Language is more like a still.

"It is very useful and very powerful!" (put on a white suit if you want to be noticed): separating A, B and C by spreading them over seven days, takes away the dynamic interaction, which is a necessary condition for emergence.

[MatthewH]

Hi Corrie,

To be honest, I really don't want to be noticed that much! "It is very useful and very powerful!" is referring specifically to the process James has presented - I was sticking to the subject matter of the thread.

With regards to Self-Alignment, I was merely stating that the same process, that which James has presented, features within the Self-Alignment process - exactly as David was teaching it in 2007.

"this starts the Moving...", is a tongue in cheek mention of Steve's Moving-Form : i.e. If the Adjective is attached to the Noun/Pronoun - then the Pro-Ject (which is derived from Thrown-Forward or In Front Of) would mean one would have to begin 'moving' away from the original state to get the information, which resides 'In Front Of' the Noun.

With Love

Matthew

[Corrie van Wijk]

Hi Matthew,

Thank you for explaining!

Love,

Corrie

[Steve Saunders]

Corrie,

James' way is a good safe approach for mainly Clean Language (SyM) users, and I will continue to advise caution on going further into inner/outer child territory by accident. It's not about who does the work, but whether the facilitator "can get the client out of jail" ... or back from the dark side of the moon :-).

Regarding the maths, the question is like and "inverse operator" that undoes a product, something only possible in a complex space (real and imaginary). The adjective+noun is a product in the present mind. By "rewinding" time one moves to the time before the product a.b = ab, separating a from b. To better separate one would source a and b, returning the ad to the jector (parent in all likelihood), and maybe further.

It was a contradiction because he had asked me not to teach it to other people, and then promptly, a few hours later was teaching to you, Keiko and others - and he saw my incredulity.

Steven

[Corrie van Wijk]

Hi Steve,

What you refer to as 'inner/outer child territory' relates to T-1/T/T+1, which is about trauma. Indeed it calls for caution because if T somehow gets triggered the trauma is relived and reinforced. If that happens accidentally indeed the facilitator should be able to "get the client out of jail" ..., by which you mean a dissociation, but it is very unlikely that will last more than a few seconds.

'Back from the dark side of the moon' didn't apply in this case, since that was my suggestion to change 'space' to the safe side opposite to 'howling'. Please stop using this metaphor, I felt very sorry for the guy.

As for the maths, my question was simpler than your answer: how does an equation relate to a function?

How does jumping forward relate to an "inverse operator" that undoes a product, something only possible in a complex space (real and imaginary)."

"The adjective+noun is a product in the present mind. By "rewinding" time one moves to the time before the product a.b = ab, separating a from b. To better separate one would source a and b, returning the ad to the jector (parent in all likelihood), and maybe further." James' question is meant to use a future time to separate the modified from the modifyer, regardless the source. And, wouldn't space of B be a future space by definition, in which the adjective will have been 're'jected to whence it came?

[Steve Saunders]

Aww, but I do so enjoy the company of werewolves, and I do not know "the guy". :-)

T-1,T,T+1 are, IMO, the dimensions of time, real and imaginary; each different; 3 complex dimensions, projected into space in/around the client's field of awareness in space.

An equation is a balance like y=x+1, whereas a function is the expression of the right-hand side of the equation in this case, y=f(x) meaning y is a function of x; that y can be derived from x. In an equation it might get such that y and x cannot be separated so easily, like: y/x = 2x/y+y/x2+1.

jumping forward is only an approximately inverse operator to something already jumped forward ... your question makes no sense to me.

I understand what James is doing - and probably why. No, in this case the pronoun is A and the qualifier is at A; there is no B as such unless the person is perceiving from an aspect of self not associated with the problem ... but they ARE associated with it; else its not a problem. In this case one is dissociating something; whereas the norm in emergence is to associate ... as you probably know, in pronoun scaling we would re-associate the ject to the person who ad'd it and then continue down the probably ancestral line of projecting ...

[Corrie van Wijk]

Steve: "whereas a function is the expression of the right-hand side of the equation in this case, y=f(x) meaning y is a function of x; that y can be derived from x." Somehow I feel the adjective is a funtion of the pronoun, it qualifies it and can increase and decrease with it?

S: "jumping forward is only an approximately inverse operator to something already jumped forward": would imagining to jump forward, like James' question invites to, be an inverse operator to having jumped forward?

S: "in pronoun scaling we would re-associate the ject to the person who ad'd it and then continue down the probably ancestral line of projecting ... ": asking the space of B will start the imagining of a future space that has solved the problem.

[Steve Saunders]

Hi Corrie,

Did David ever go into the future for solutions? I am sure he thought the prior self had them all.

1. In response to the function, y = present perception = F(ad,pronoun), like y=ax+b if linear, but a function more correct would be the convolution of ad with pronoun, which is the result of the pronoun's impact with the person at the time of its encounter in the past.

A convolution is an operation where the dot product of one object with another is gradually passed along a delay corresponding to the length of both the objects concerned, making an extended result, just like a radar return from an object. A dot product is the result of multiplying two vectors together. Sorry but you're going to have to read some maths if you want to know more. cj=[sum over i](a(i).b(i-j), where j= -n to +n, and i=n. Missing data is filled with zeros.

David did once ask me a meta-driver pattern of question targeted exactly at revealing the interaction and how it worked, and we did get to an answer that worked for him, but I have lost ir / forgotten it. I know its like a convolution, but it depends on the nature of the person's collective when the ad is jected. There are analogue/amorphous aspects and there are solid/attractor elements, and depending on the nature of the ad and the form of the ject, the convolution can be like a particle collision or like a radar interaction, or like a golf ball nestling into a bunker ... it depends and is unique.

2. No, imagining, or asking to imagine is quite an NLP intrusion IMO. An inverse operator for something already jumped forward is either jump-back or jump-forward, depending upon the specific A&B geometry.

3. why are you persisting in focussing on future solutions? I guess this must be your present structure, and that somehow, in the past, you projected solutions into the future? And therefore, a jump (not a leap, not a stride) forward is required to access the solution space? A clean approach could map the sense of future or sense of solution ...

"is there a space that knows about 'solution'?", "is there a space or movement that knows about "jump forward"? "do you have a sense of 'future", "solution", "jump forward"? ... etc

Steven

[MatthewH]

Pink Floyd (Roger Waters) knew all about the "Dark Side Of The Moon"...

[Steve Saunders]

Right - it was in that general sense of how the outer child hides that I referred to it.

[Corrie van Wijk]

Hi Matthew,

Of course that is where I got this idea from! Such a beautiful song.

Hi Steve,

I've always had trouble with the coining of an 'outer child', because it has not gone out, let alone to the other side of the moon, which, by the way, gets just as much light as any part because it is turning all the time. What is referred to as an 'outer child' is a dissociated memory at a certain time in somebody's life.

I'm sure those who know a little more about mathematics will know what you mean; mathematics serves to describe the nature of relationships. Depending on the knowledge of the client it may help to clarify them as do your metaphors for them.

S: "imagining, or asking to imagine is quite an NLP intrusion IMO.": I agree the prior self has the solution to the future, that's why I think imagining B, which is a product of A, might help. James defends this intervention as being clean with the argument: "Few if any things stay the same forever which implies that mostly there will be a time after, when things are different."

S: "why are you persisting in focussing on future solutions?: within the A-C-B structure, B is in the future by definition, since it answers 'WWYLTHH?'. Indeed, 'the sense of future or sense of solution ...' would be A's inverse operator of B.

Perhaps "Is there a space or movement that knows about "jump forward"? would be a question to the space of C?

Now, to those 'About 20 of us [that] attended the The London Clean Practice Group on 3 August 2010.': Steve, Matthew and I have been chatting till three in the morning about this, what were your reflexions about this excercise afterwards?

[Steve Saunders]

Hi Corrie,

It was David who "coined the phrase" - because in his and in my world view the metaphysical self (the mind / the imaginary) is not limited to the body, but is, in deed, left at the focus of attention of the moment of dissociative distraction. Thus it is the 'outer' child in his terminology because its the dissociated bit. The "inner" child, topographically, is inside the body, contracted to 'less than present-body' size.

Steven

[Corrie van Wijk]

Neurologocally, "the metaphysical self (the mind / the imaginary)" is a product of the brain and thus "limited to the body".

"the focus of attention of the moment" is the memory of what happened. Since what happened caused "dissociative distraction" the memory may be inaccessible to the conscious.

"the 'outer' child in his terminology ... is the dissociated bit.": dissociated is still inside, perhaps inside-inside would be a better term.

"The 'inner' child, topographically, is inside the body": the inner child is a memory of a self-conscious before adulthood.

"contracted to 'less than present-body' size": the memory may seem that way, because you usually are smaller when you are young. It is not contracted, it didn't shrink, it just was smaller at the time. So it would be more accurate to say that your present-body size has expanded to more than the younger body-size.

[Steve Saunders]

This is the fundamentally different cosmologies that you and I live in, Corrie. In your world, its all from the brain's cause, in my world, its all from the mind's cause. I do not see mind limited to the body, and so I see dissociation very differently to you.

Life Force contracts and expands - just look at some old people where the life is far inside from the skin; they are like the walking dead, whereas others have still vitality.

[Corrie van Wijk]

S: "In your world, its all from the brain's cause, in my world, its all from the mind's cause. I do not see mind limited to the body, and so I see dissociation very differently to you.": I know your imagination is capable of traveling far; yet you need your brain to be aware of that.

S: "Life Force contracts and expands - just look at some old people where the life is far inside from the skin; they are like the walking dead, whereas others have still vitality.": it's your metaphor for the degree of expression of energy.

[Steve Saunders]

Corrie, that all depends on whether you believe or know ghosts and spirits exist. As I said, we have irreconcilable, different views; I respect yours; I understand why from that perspective you frame it your way.
And, of course, my perspective is the right one for me, and for me it is not a metaphor, although 'energy' might be! For me, it is REAL. :-))))

[Corrie van Wijk]

James says above: "An adjective modifies, refines or qualifies the noun.", so does your perspective qualify you, hence indeed it is the right one for you if you choose so.

It's not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of fact.

[Steve Saunders]

"my perspective" - in this case the noun is perspective and my is the adjective, thus I qualify the perspective not the other way around, this is a matter of fact, not opinion. :-)

[Corrie van Wijk]

Lovely Steve: "I qualify the perspective". Gives me something to think about on the way home.

Who qualified your previous perspective?

How does "I" relate to "my"?

Allow me to take this into the 'Theory of Everyone' thread; this London group has long gone, even Matthew fell asleep.

[Steve Saunders]

Hey Corrie, i'm not sure many people have called me "lovely" before ... LOL

i have to have a time code to have a previous perspective, Corrie. nowing ising alling

my is a possessive adjective of the perspective of i, linguistically associating i with the perspective - a more real alternative is "i see ..."

"allow" as if you ask for permission, and have not already done so - LOL again!

S

[Corrie van Wijk]

Lovely referred to your statement: "I qualify the perspective", so to your behaviour; I'll leave it up to these angels in your home to qualify your personality in these kind of terms. As for me, a big hug would do the job appropriately.

A time code would be your memory of a conscious you, previous to who you are today, that thought otherwise than you do now.

Now, do I have your permission to move this discussion elsewhere?

Love,

Corrie