A Theory of Everyone (3)

[Corrie van Wijk]

There is something about walking down these glass stairs: after all questions have been asked and everything has been said and done, I can only wait. On every floor the true colours of these tiles welcome me, until I hit rock bottom on the ground. It is a pity that these tiles have all been cut into straight pieces: the corners tend to break off, which reveals the concrete floor beneath. True colours go only a centimeter deep unless they belong to the mountain itself.

Mount Blanc is covered with snow these days and the tunnel even had to be closed for a while. It doesn't make sense to close a tunnel because of risk of avalanches, since it is the only safe place to be. It would'nt have mattered if my car had broken down, no vehicles would have moved anyway. I could just have had it towned unto one of those trucks that carry cars.

The only way to save yourself from an avalanche is to start one and manage to stay out of it.

A simple clean question can start an avalanche of information coming down the mountain of knowledge, showing it's true colours of rock bottom.

[Corrie van Wijk]

Our ancestors were primarily too busy surviving to spend much time about thinking, but as soon as they had their act together, having a crop nearby and making sure useful animals would not run away, they started thinking about others, themselves and – on a more abstract level – thinking itself.

When an airplane crashes, the black box (which actually has a bright colour) from the cockpit tells you what happened just before the accident: the conversations that went on between the pilots, all the technical details of the machine. For a very long time the thinking process was like a black box: you know sensory information comes in, gets processed somehow and results in some kind of behaviour.

During the twentieth century cognitive neuroscientists identified a network of neuronal locations that serve independent functions, and the interaction between them, which yield the integrated, holistic behaviour that humans exhibit. Neurons take in information, make a ‘decision’ about it following some relatively simple rules, and then, by changes in their activity levels, pass it along at chemical or electrical synapses to other neurons. Learning involves primarily changes in the synaptic strength between neurons in the brain’s circuitry. The size and shape of sensory and motor maps in the cortex can be modified with experience. (Cognitive Neuroscience; the Biology of the Mind; 2009).

So when a human brain crashes, it is more difficult to figure out what happened: all you can rely on is your memory, but that may have been damaged as well in the process. And since memory may alter how we perceive something and attentional constraints affect how information is processed, how do you know what is going on inside?

Clean questioning is a way of mapping the information in your brain. A neuroscientist may be able to record where something is going on inside and perhaps what kind of information it is but only you can know what it is about and you are the only one authorized to make decisions about your life with it.

[Corrie van Wijk]

Empiricism is the idea that all knowledge comes from sensory experience, so let’s explore this a bit: have someone ask you the following questions or record and play them:

Close your eyes and direct your attention to the position of your body:

“How is your body positioned in the space around you?”

[e.g.: you are standing upright, your are sitting or lying down.]

“How does it feel where your body touches anything in the space around you?”

[e.g.: your feet touch the ground, your hands grab a branch, you feel the wind on your face.]

“What is the impact of this touching?”

[e.g.: you feel a deep pressure when your hands hold on to the branch; you feel the warmth of the sun on your face and your feet touch the ground lightly when you let go of the branch and lie down in the grass, feeling the texture of the grass on your back and a little pain in your arms.]

[Corrie van Wijk]

Find a position that you are comfortable in, close your eyes again and direct your attention to your breathing:

"Are you smelling anything in particular?"

[E.g.: the smell of fresh-cut grass.]

"When you sniff, does it become more dominant?"

[E.g.: you notice it is a bit humid as well.]

"When you turn your head, does it come from a certain direction?"

[E.g.: it comes from the direction of the garden.]

"What kind of odor is it?"

[E.g.: a 'very natural' odor.]

"What does it remind you of?"

[E.g.: 'the green green grass of home!'.]

[Corrie van Wijk]

Close your eyes and direct your attention to your surroundings:

Do your hear any sound?

What kind of sound do you hear?

From what direction does it come?

How far away is it?

Is it continuous or does it alternate?

What is the intensity?


Anything else?

What kind of?

Which direction?

How far?

Continuous of alternating?

What intensity?


Anything else?
Etc.

[Corrie van Wijk]

Now open your eyes just a little bit and look around you:

Where are you in relation to the space around you?

Turn around slowly.

Keep turning.

Do you distinguish any shapes?

Do they move or are they stable?

Do they have a colour?

What size do they have?

At what distance are they approximately?

What kind of shapes do you distinguish?


Open your eyes and have a closer look:

Is there anything else about those shapes?

Do they have a shadow?

Which would you like to approach?

Which would you need to avoid?

[Corrie van Wijk]

Orient towards something that smells good:

Of the shapes you would like to approach, which ones look eatable?


Try one of them

What does it taste like?

What does it tell you?

[Corrie van Wijk]

Now, let’s dwell in this moment for a while ...

Holigral teaches an ‘at-one’ experience, that Steve has coined ‘Momentum’ (The Emperor’s New Psychology).

The clean question that goes with that is:

“and now what is happening?”

or any variation that seems appropriate in a particular case (Steve has a whole lot of them).

If you ask this question to somebody else (or record and play it), and repeat the algorithm with some rhythm to it, the other’s organism is likely to pick up on it and continue on their own.

My favorite way of asking is to leave out the last word (normally in shortening the momentum questions Steve leaves the ‘-ing’ at the end of the last word: “and now-ing”; “and-ing”), trusting they’ll learn quickly and slowly diminishing my presence and the interaction of asking:

“And now what is happening?”

“And now what is ...?”

“And now what ...?”

“And now ...?”

“And ...?”

Steve suggests to continue with some gesture, so e.g.:

[hand moving in rounds forward], suggesting [go on ...] or,

(my idea) making a sound like [tapping] or,

if the other does no longer seem to notice the facilitator, Steve tells to stay with the other’s experience: be silent and do not move.

You only know that time is passing because something is changing and once it has, there is no way back: time is irreversible, it only goes on. Changes are likely to have a spatial component: something is moving away or approaching; it swings from left to right and vice versa, it jumps up or comes down, etc. The sound of the wind lets me know the air is being replaced, the ticking of the coffee machine informs me it is still hot.

But then again, what is ‘happening’ exactly? Which changes are relevant to our organism, do they pose a threat or provide an opportunity?

As long as we are dwelling in this moment in time there is no need to define anything: on the ‘péripherique’ between time and space we still have a quantum choice: either something is changing or it holds the time. No language, no symbol, just sensing here and now. On the boundaries of hesitation we either wait and see or make a move.


“What goes on in your heart, what goes on in your mind?” (Lennon/McCartney/Starkey: What goes on.).

Our mind holds all our memories from the past as a reference and our imagination is able to play any future scenario we can think of.

Once the organism gets in balance, it will continue on its own: one notices the other or themselves ‘spontaneously decide to get up and get on with their day’, as Steve describes it: ‘as if nothing had happened and if there was never a problem in the first place: “Oh my goodness, I’ve got some shopping to do!”.’ Steve claims this can clear even a severe post-traumatic stress disorder to a level of just getting on with normal life, changing one’s life permanently and profoundly. I think it is similar to what may happen in EMDR.

Anyone who has experienced such an emergent process or witnessed it, may get addicted to this way of living: one finds oneself doing something one probably never thought of before: it just emerges as being the one and only right thing to do. All that is needed is some TLC: take good care of one’s body: find a safe place, breathe, relax, drink, eat and interact with the world.

Once a problem has been resolved, we tend to forget about it, especially if we were never really aware of it in the first place: our conscious definition of a problem very often turns out to be different from the real one: ‘reset’ the organism and it will return to attending its business.

But beware of fooling ourselves: some unhealthy need may disguise itself, overruling any healthy emergent process.

[Corrie van Wijk]

Both in Clean Space as in Emergent Knowledge David started by establishing A, that stands for who you are today.

Along with that goes the space of A: where are you now?

If someone meets with you they choose a space to stand or sit down, unless they are invited to a specific one.

When you leave them a choice by having available several options, it is interesting to notice which one they prefer.

If you were to ask them about it, their conscious choice might be different from their initial one.


It is important to establish A and the space of A, because people's thoughts may wander off into the past or future.

They need to realize that when they associate with their feelings in those times these may be different from the ones they have in the present.


So let's make some room:

Lean onto something, including your head, and close your eyes.

Have someone read to you, or record and play it (including an alarm at 15 minutes), the following:

"Notice your breathing:

How far does it go?

Does it have a shape?

Allow yourself to be carried by it's moving.

What kind of movement is that?"

[Corrie van Wijk]

"And when you're being [e.g. rocked] by your breathing, where are you in respect to your breathing?"

"And when you breathe in a little deeper, what happens to you?"

"And while you're breathing, what's outside of your breathing?"

"How far does it go?"

"Does it have a shape?"

"Do you sense anything from it?"

"Anything else?"

"And while you keep on breathing, what's outside of that?"

"How far does it go?"

"Does it have a shape?"

"Do you sense anything from it?"

"Anything else?"

Take a break.

This process is called scaling. When applied to the present, you can only scale out twice, otherwise you risk ending up in the past or future. Of course anyone can imagine what is outside of their immediate surroundings (e.g. someone watches live television), but in the space of A I think it should be restricted to what can be sensed directly.

[JamesLawley]

Hi Corrie,
Rather than "Both in Clean Space as in Emergent Knowledge David started by establishing A, that stands for who you are today",
I'd be a little more specific, I'd say: A stands for who you are at the moment that A is established.
As ever, my very best wishes,
James

[Corrie van Wijk]

Thank you James, you're quite right.

Assesing A and the space of A is a rather directive process and hence one could question its cleanness.

Although anything anyone experiences is always in the present, one's present thoughts and feelings may include dwelling in the past or look forward to what is yet to come.

If someone comes to you caught up in the past or obsessive about the future you could honour that energy and allow it to it express itself. If it is traumatic or anxious, it may not be wise to reinforce it, so in such cases just acknowledge it.

If the other is ready to face it, whenever A and some event in the past or future occupy the same space, as a facilitator you may ask convergent questions that specify (size, shape, symbol) and differentiate (similar or different) it from A and the space of A. Once it has been identified in time it can take on a life of its own and be separated from the identity of A at present.

Perhaps another space with different sensory information would represent the past or future event better than the one at A, so you could invite the other to find one. Even if they are stuck, just an inch can make the difference, so look out for any changes in posture.

Philip Harland describes in the Power of Six a patient with post-traumatic stress disorder. David made him draw a symbol for the event on a piece of paper and urged him to put it somewhere. Once it had been placed outside A and the space of A the event got separated from the identity of A, and could be regarded as something different from A and the space of A, which pretty much solved the problem.

[Corrie van Wijk]

"What is the first thing you did during the break?"

"What is the second thing you did?"

"What is the third thing?"

"What is the fourth?"

"The fifth?"

"Sixt?"

As a facilitator, it is interesting to watch what people find themselves doing when allowed to make a choice of their own: changing posture [e.g.:stretch their legs], communicating to others [e.g.: sharing the experience], having a bit of fun, taking care of their needs [e.g.: grab some coffee] or somebody else's [e.g.: feeding the cat], restoring order in the environment [e.g.: sweeping the autumn leaves], planning for later [e.g.: making a grocery list].

These are all 'innings', as Steve calls it: here-and-now behaviour, most of which occurs automatically and unconsciously: usually they really need to think about the answers to the questions above.

David tried these as an algorithm. I remember standing with him at the Liverpool docks. I do not remember what he was asking about, but I do remember a lovely colourful flower among the stones (I don't remember which colour), a lonely swan floating in the water (was it black or white?) and those letters painted on the quay across: W E S N (in which order?), representing the directions of the wind. Since they were all lined up I was confused: usually I see them in a circle, so what was that about? (I still haven't figured it out!)

I told David asking for the order of things wouldn't work as an algorithm for change, since you just get different things. So that's when he decided to ask the same question several times, which was established in the Joy of Six.

Since I specifically asked for sensory information, the behaviour during the break is likely to be somehow connected to it as a result of the effect of priming, which will probably also influence the choices you make in the next process. So let's explore this a bit.

"Now that you have returned from your break, do you find yourself in a different space than before?"

If so,

"What is similar about this space and the space of A?"

"What is different about this space and the space of A?"

Walk around at random, stop if you feel like it, absorb the sensory information around you, notice any emotional reactions, consider your thoughts and feelings, continue to explore the space around you, go back to a space you stopped before, or wherever your feet take you.

Sylvie expands this process by showing pictures (clean cards) or go on a walk through nature or along an exposition in a museum.

Come back to the space of A.

"Which of the spaces you visited reminded you of the past?"

"Which of the spaces you visited represent the present?"

"Which of the spaces you visited made you think about the future?"

"Is there a connection between any of these spaces and any other?"

"What kind of connection?"

"Which of these spaces are connected to the space of A?"

"What kind of connection?"

Represent these connections in the space you are in or make a map [e.g.: you could connect the spaces by a piece of rope or draw a network].

Select a future space that is connected to the space of A and think about an answer to the following question:

"What would you like to have happen?"

[Corrie van Wijk]

Just for the record, David didn't ask for specific time related spaces nor connections between them: I just made this up when writing it, because I want to stress that clean space nor emergent knowledge is about space. A network is an abstract concept that symbolizes connections between entities. In the case of the brain it means that some functions are connected to others as a result of evolution and experience. Only very few structures in the brain reflect a geographical order (e.g. the position of the fingers). This needs to be distinguished from associating in a particular situation and modeling its landscape, which is symbolic modeling.

In a clean set-up A stands for "who you are at the moment that A is established" as James defined it above, B is the answer to the question "What would you like to have happen?" as formulated by A from the space of A, and C is anything that keeps A from getting from to B. Again, C is not a space, just an abstract concept, formulated in spatial terms.

Whenever A doesn't manage to get to B and perceives that as a problem and tries to resolve it, perhaps with the help of a facilitator, C needs to be explored.

"What would you like to have happen?" hasn't happened yet (again), nor is happening right now. B is formulated in a way that implies it is something to be happening in the future, it is something you would like, so that you need some sort of favor or luck for it to happen, and is not something that you can do by yourself because it will need to 'have happen' as a result of something else.

I'm wondering how much this reflects some culturally learned helplessness or acceptance. If you live up north or down south on this planet you'll need to collect food and fuel to survive the winter, so you can't afford to wait for wishes to come true by somebody else's doing.

So let's explore C and remember this process called clean space is about evoking emotions, not about representing some situation. We are only using space because anywhere you go, a combination of sensory information you perceive in that particular space is likely to trigger different memories and provoke various thoughts.

"Again, walk around at random, stop if you feel like it, absorb the sensory information around you, notice any emotional reactions to it, consider your subsequent feelings and thoughts."

"Continue to explore the space around you, go back to a space you stopped before, or wherever your feet take you."

"Now, select a few spaces (no more than five) that seem to provide more information than others or by which you are more intrigued and visit them in any order that intuitively makes sense to you."

"Keep moving among them."

"Speed up a little".

"Find a rhythm to your moving around."

"Dance!"

Last autumn Caitlin gave a demonstration of her group work at Jennifer's, which she developed separate from David but they agreed is a similar process.

When asked why she moved so quickly from one group member to another, she replied that she wanted to prevent her members of going down the rabbit hole (Alice in Wonderland) of traumatic experiences. You need to keep the system running so the piling up of information and their confrontation and internal interactions produce a new order.


In Emergent Knowledge this process is fine-tuned by first establishing the perceptual relationship between A and B as precise as possible (distance, height, etc.) and by formulating B exactly in the form of a written statement, placed in space. Angela teaches this on skype so that you could do it in your own environment, which makes it more real.

[Corrie van Wijk]

This ABC set-up is implied in any form of problem solving: there will always be a difference in what you are and what you want to be, hence a difference in time/space and quality.

The question is how to achieve that: most organisms have no choice than to be what they are and only through a long path of evolution full of obstacles and trial-and-error their grand-grandchildren may have a better life.

Intelligent organisms have reached a stage in evolution for them to have a better option: we can consider what is going on around us, envisage an alternative and plan some kind of action to arrive at it.

However, this is a different story when it comes to our own emotions and feelings: once you learned a particular reaction to a certain situation, appropriate and effective or not, it is hard to unlearn it. It doesn’t help to have your neo-cortex send a message to your amygdale that it is okay and it need not worry. The physical signal already has reached your amygdale and caused an emotional reaction, reinforcing your previous experiences and your typical response. Evolution and experience have done a proper job in putting in an alarm system. And if you do not manage to reset the system after an alarming situation, your body will get on edge.

So, if you feel you do not manage to return to rest and are somehow haunted by some unresolved situation, you may want some expertise in how to go about it. “Trust me, I’m the patient” is the title of Philip Harland’s latest book, so find somebody who understands what that means.

The brain has the memory of an elephant when it comes to problems: that is what it owes its existence to and will keep on trying to solve. Just as physicists have looked for the missing particle for decades, memories can dance around each other without the one defining all others ever coming up. But the very fact that you are preoccupied with it and you would be willing to stop the world and spend billions on building a device that will detect it, proves how disturbing it can be. No-one else who hasn’t had a similar experience will ever fully understand what you’re going through. Veterans can support each other, acknowledging that the other knows what they’re not talking about.

Mr. Higgs said he was grateful the missing particle was found during his lifetime and so you would be lucky to find yours. David had a few clients who visited him for decades until they managed to resolve their situation. The whirly-gig was useful in some cases, because it enabled to imitate the starting conditions. The Joy of Six worked sometimes to collect all the relevant pieces and make a whole.

Thus, if you formulate a B, be careful what you wish for and be grateful if you are even able to make a first move. Do not bother to design paradise, just long for a different state of mind from the one you are in right now and caused you to reach out for help.

[JamesLawley]

I love this post Corrie.

One way to winkle out the hidden is to go straight for a B that we wish for. Our mind, body and the world will react and hence reveal themselves. The Higgs-Boson was not detected by observation but by inference.

Go well.

[Corrie van Wijk]

Thank you James for your encouragement.

Going straight for B is indeed one way of going about it, since the brain will automatically select the information relevant for a possible solution.

The thing is that I question the ability of A to formulate a proper B, given the fact that not all information is conscious at A. What I would like to find out is what happens if you just formulate a first action towards B. In that case you'd have to formulate a B in terms of just something different from A.

What if you were to ask:

"Given you at A in the context of C, is there anything you'd like to do to change C?"

"Can you?"

"Will you?"

"Are you?"

[Yes]

"Does it feel similar or different than before?'"

"Anything else?"

etc.

Like this you get a sort of evolutionary chain of change.

What are your thoughts about this?

[JamesLawley]

"The thing is that I question the ability of A to formulate a proper B". I'd call that wisdom. I tend to think of A's initial B as a first approximation. Once they get feedback as a result of their first 'move' they can revise B if needs be (always bearing in mind that continually revising B can itself be an example of 'the solution being the problem'). I agree that the "ABC set-up is implied in any form of problem solving", and this can be arranged in several ways, e.g.:

B as the problem and C as the solution.
B as the proposed solution (Penny and I call this a Remedy in the PRO model) and C as the means to achieving B.
B as a resource and C as ways to access the resource more often or more easily or more intensely etc.
B as a resource and C as contexts in which B happens naturally.

There is also another, and to my mind very different, frame:

B is a desired outcome and C is the space of possible moves A can make, given that they would like B to happen.

I do not regard this as problem solving but creating something new (a la Robert Fritz).

By his own definition (and actions) David Grove was a "problem solver" – and a great one at that. We had several discussions about desired outcomes and I don't think I ever convinced him of their value. Actually, I don't think I ever convinced him of anything. It took me several years to figure out that wasn't my role.

Back to your suggestion. I really like the "sort of evolutionary chain of change" notion, and the (1) "formulate a first action towards B" and see what happens. Equally interesting might be (2) "formulate a first action away from B" and see what happens, and (3) "formulate a first action randomly" and see what happens.

I've attended several practice groups where we put (3) or versions of it, to the test. We tried it with the client:

- throwing dice to decide where to move to
- blind folded
- using diving rods
- going where the facilitator decided.

As you might guess, all produced fascinating results.

Your "Given you at A in the context of C, is there anything you'd like to do to change C?" is a lovely idea of attending to C (and thereby taking the focus off B, although it is still involved by adjacency). I really appreciate you giving a specific example and the wording of the question doesn't quite work it for me. And the "Can, Will, Are' sequence feels a bit pushy. But I'm not sure what to suggest instead.

The 'classic' Clean Space question:

"And what do you know about C from here (A)?" could be a nice starting point.

It could be added to with:

"Given B there, what do you know about C?"
"Given B there and A here, what do you know about?"

or

"And find a space that know what C would like to have happen."

I know this doesn't really address what you are aiming for but it's all I have for now. I'll give it some more thought.

[Corrie van Wijk]

James: "I tend to think of A's initial B as a first approximation. Once they get feedback as a result of their first 'move' they can revise B if needs be."

So let's consider B as a working hypothesis: Given A, having danced in C a bit (I introduced past, present and future spaces above), B seems to be the solution to the problem or the desired outcome. Your discussion with David about this seems useless to me: stating something as a problem is just a negative way of formulating it as a desired outcome: both require a similar effort to solve it or arrive at it.

James:
"B as the problem and C as the solution.
B as the proposed solution (Penny and I call this a Remedy in the PRO model) and C as the means to achieving B.
B as a resource and C as ways to access the resource more often or more easily or more intensely etc.
B as a resource and C as contexts in which B happens naturally."

I think this is unneccessary confusing. I understand that you mean that what A perceives at A and formulates as B can be mistaken, but in that case, you can just reformulate B. C is anything that keeps you from getting from A to B and is a definition of an abstract concept. Of course they interact as a system with multiple feedback loops.

I remember from the demonstrations clean space of David that either A, B or C could be the starting point. David preferably didn't address A, since he perceived that as a problem space. He was also careful of going after B: if B was going down the drain, he'd wait for a better B to come up, in which he noticed a possibility to escape. Miriam once used a metaphor of her life gliding smoothly and she spread her arms and leaned back a bit as if she was going down a slide. David commented that that implied going downhill.

James: "C is the space of possible moves A can make".

I like this definition because it opens up the space of C of not just being an obstacle. I'd like to redefine the space of C as a source of information: every move you make dowloads different information. From those memories and scenarios you can choose which inhibit you to get to B and which encourage you. I already defined B as a 'future space'.

James: "(1) "formulate a first action towards B" and see what happens. Equally interesting might be (2) "formulate a first action away from B" and see what happens, and (3) "formulate a first action randomly" and see what happens."

Instead of: "What would you like to have happen?", which implies a future, a favor from somebody else or sheer luck, you could ask: "What can you (already) make happen right now?" or "What can make you happy now?" (the 'happy' replaces the 'like to'') or "What can you do to make you happy right now?" (e.g.: ask for a hug would be make happen somebody else's doing).

James: "find a space that knows what C would like to have happen."

This is a bit of NLP going into another position and works well to get a different perspective than the one at A. C being the obstacle, it may be worth while to investigate its function. Does it protect you from going to B?

I remember traveling with my American friend Earl, who always thought of as many options as possible when we had to make a choice (he was a scientist). Given the situation we are in, given what we are heading for, these are our possible choices. Which one seems to promiss the optimal result?

Imagine you are lost in the middle of nowhere. The first choice you have to make whether it is wise to move at all. This lady that lost her way in the Spanish Sierra decided to stay put, because there was some water, which she didn't expect to find if she were to wander off not knowing where she would be going. She bet that somebody would come around and find her.

As I watch a documentary on Discovery about Era Airlines in Alaska, the pilot always reports how many hours of fuel he has before he takes of. He knows he has to return half way.

So the situation, including your abilities, usually restricts your possible actions.

So what I would like to have happen is for you to come up with a clean question that adresses:

Give you at A, given the context C, which action of you would give the most leverage.

[Corrie van Wijk]

And when [you'll give it some thought], when will be the first thought you'll give it?

To inspire you:

"For to progress is to move towards some kind of end, towards an end which exists for us as human beings. 'History' cannot do that; only we, the human individuals, can do it; we can do it by defending and strengthening those democratic institutions upon which freedom, and with it progress, depends. And we shall do it much better as we become more fully aware of the fact that progress rests with us, with our watchfullness, with our efforts, with the clarity of our conception of our ends, and with the realism of their choice. (By the 'realism' of the choice of our ends I mean that we should choose ends which can be realized within a reasonable span of time, and that we should avoid distant and vague Utopian ideals, unless they determine more immediate aims which are worthy in themselves.)
Instead of posing as prophets we must become the makers of our fate. We must learn to do things as well as we can, and to look out for our mistakes. And when we have dropped the idea that the history of power will be our judge, when we have given up worrying whether or not history will justify us, then one day perhaps we may succeed in getting power under control. In this way we may even justify history, in our turn. It badly needs a justification."
(Karl Popper, The Open Society and its Enemies, Volume II, 1943)

[Corrie van Wijk]

Meanwhile, let’s resume our exercise (for those who aren’t familiar with David’s teaching, it has always been like this: whenever he gave a demonstration, particularly with some experts around, there would often be a discussion about what he was doing, which contributed to what Penny names ‘co-creating’).


Above, you connected the spaces you visited by a thread or represented them in a network map:

“Which of the spaces you visited reminded you of the past?”

“Which of the spaces you visited represent the present?”

“Which of the spaces you visited made you think about the future?”

“Is there a connection between any of these spaces and any other?”

“What kind of connection?”

“Which of these spaces are connected to the space of A?”

“What kind of connection?”

Represent these connections in the space you are in or make a map [e.g.: you could connect the spaces by a piece of rope or draw a network].

Select a future space that is connected to the space of A and think about an answer to the following question:

“What would you like to have happen?”


Now, walk around and find a space in which you have a good overview of your network or map.

“What kind of connection is there between the space of A and the future space you selected when thinking of the answer to the question ‘What would you like to have happen?’ (space of B).”

“What needs to happen for A to move towards B?”

“And then what happens?”

“And then what?”

“And then?”

“And?”

“What needs to happen just before A arrives at B?”

Represent those events in the space between A and B or draw them into your map and connect them in chronological order.


“Which other spaces are connected to the space of A and/or that of B?”


“Do you need to address any other space before you can move from A to B?”


“Is it a past or future space?”


Move over there.


“And now you are in this space, that is like what?”


If you are comfortable enough in this space and would like to consider what information it has in store for you, continue this exercise. If not or if not at any time during this exercise, move to another space in which you are more at ease or take a break. Have someone watch over you.


If it is a past space, try to remember what is was like:

“How was your body positioned in the space around you?”

“How does it feel where your body touches something in the space around you?”

“What is the impact of this touching?”

"Did you smell something in particular?"


"When you sniff, does it become more dominant?"

"When you turn your head, does it come from a certain direction?"

"What kind of odor is it?"



“Did you hear any sound?”

“What kind of sound do you hear?”

“From what direction does it come?”

“How far away is it?”

“Is it continuous or does it alternate?”

“What is the intensity?”

“Anything else?”

“What kind of?”

“Which direction?”

“How far?”

“Continuous of alternating?”

“What intensity?”

“Anything else?”


“Where were you in relation to the space around you?”

“Turn around slowly.”

“Keep turning.”

“Do you distinguish any shapes?”

“Do they move or are they stable?”

“Do they have a colour?”

“What size do they have?”

“At what distance are they approximately?”

“What kind of shapes do you distinguish?”

“Is there anything else about those shapes?”

“Do they have a shadow?”

“Which would you like to approach?”

“Which would you need to avoid?”

“Of the shapes you would like to approach, which ones look eatable?”

“What did taste like?”

“What does it tell you?”

“And now what is happening?”

“And then what happened?”

Take all the time you need and then return to the space of A.


If it is a future space, try to imagine what it will be like:

“How will your body be positioned in the space around you?”

“How does it feel where your body touches something in the space around you?”

“What is the impact of this touching?”


"Will you smell something in particular?"

"When you sniff, does it become more dominant?"

"When you turn your head, does it come from a certain direction?"

"What kind of odor is it?"



“Will you hear any sound?”

“What kind of sound do you hear?”

“From what direction does it come?”

“How far away is it?”

“Is it continuous or does it alternate?”

“What is the intensity?”

“Anything else?”

“What kind of?”

“Which direction?”

“How far?”

“Continuous of alternating?”

“What intensity?”

“Anything else?”


“Where will you be in relation to the space around you?”

“Turn around slowly.”

“Keep turning.”

“Do you distinguish any shapes?”

“Do they move or are they stable?”

“Do they have a colour?”

“What size do they have?”

“At what distance are they approximately?”

“What kind of shapes do you distinguish?”

“Is there anything else about those shapes?”

“Do they have a shadow?”

“Which would you like to approach?”

“Which would you need to avoid?”

“Of the shapes you would like to approach, which ones look eatable?”

“What will it taste like?”

“What does it tell you?”

“And now what is happening?”

“And then what happened?”

Take all the time you need and then return to the space of A.

[Corrie van Wijk]

As I walk to the elevator I find myself climbing up the steps that carry the same coloured slates as the ground flour. I hesitate to turn back but I decide to walk.
At the next landing the stairs turn into glacier green glass. I effortlessly keep a steady pace considering there is something about going úp as well and notice the shining black covering when I arrive at the first floor.
Just keep going, persevering, without any expectation, knowing that whatever needs to be said and done will emerge naturally.