Notice Space

Image source/copyright: Wikimedia/Suguru Musashi


Noticing the space around people and things provides a different way of looking at them, and developing this spacious view is a way of opening oneself. When one has a spacious mind, there is room for everything. When one has a narrow mind, there is room for only a few things.


Ajahn Sumedho, “Noticing Space”

Sunday 5th June 2011
Tricycle Daily Dharma

Genius

Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see.

- Arthur Schopenhauer

New Frontiers in Imagestreaming Interpretation

I was researching some methods of intuitive interpretation of dreams, and it occurs to me that the same techniques could quite readily be added to the Project Renaissance arsenal of interpretation.

Technique 1: Name the Imagestream

After the imagestream is completed, mentally label it. It doesn't have to make sense - just label it with whatever comes to mind. For example, a stream with images of a needle and thread could be called "A Stitch in Time", which, as you can see, helps to bring out the possible meanings and interpretations.

Technique 2: Revisiting the Stream

Project Renaissance techniques have typically focussed on free flow imagery, but I don't think we have ever tried specifically revisiting the imagery through controlled visualisation. By going back into the exact stream consciously and recreating the elements, we can talk to each character or element, and ask them what they mean. Some surprising insights could come of this technique.

Training Problem Solving Ability

The ability to solve problems is highly prized. As Jose Silva used to reason,"If IQ is a measure of how effectively we solve problems, then by increasing our abilities to solve problems, we raise our IQ."

Ironically, training problem solving abilities is not a complex process. It is in fact rather simple: Use your problem-solving abilities on a regular basis. Give it a good workout.

So, the question is: How?

I recommend Winsight article 55: http://www.winwenger.com/part55.htm

That describes the windtunnel process, which is a process whereby a person is given a question or problem and probed to provide nonstop solutions to it for 11 minutes or even more. This is done by torrential talking, but I suspect it can be done by writing as well, though that would be much slower and require more time.

The idea is that we all have the solutions to our problems within us, which is a Socratic proposition. By asking the right questions, and by probing our minds beyond the scope of our usual thought processes, we can discover new solutions. Over time, doing this also expands our natural ability to process problems quickly.

The key is continue to drain out our normal range of responses to a problem as quickly as possible, hence the "torrential" solutions to the problem that we are required to push out of our minds. The out-loud description serves as further behavioural reinforcement.

Here are some hints for facilitating the process:

1. Maintain a sense of curiosity about what solutions might arise from your own mind throughout.
2. Keep talking even if you think it does not make sense - do not edit.
3. If you find that you have a lot to say about a subject, then extend the length of time you are required to talk. There should be pressure on you to grasp for more than your usual capacity.

Negotiating Positions

Source/copyright: Wikimedia

Negotiating a contract or even in daily business interactions, we often run into problems because of a lack of clarity and integrity within ourselves. When we face others, there is a discomfort in expressing certain things. What these "certain things" are will of course vary from person to person. However, the sources of this discomfort tend to be the same:

1.) Fear of rejection/disapproval/judgment. "What will they think of me?"
2.) Fear for survival. "What if I lose my job?"
3.) Fear of loss of control. "What will happen if I lose their support?"

To start with, the important thing is coming to a point of clarity within ourselves about who we are and who we choose to be. Of course, this is a work in progress, and perfect congruence is always tricky. Nonetheless, some forethought about who we want to be within a certain environment such as work or play will go far in helping us avoid these situations.

The following questions need to be considered:

- Who am I in this context?
- Who do I want to be perceived as?
- What are my values relative to this situation and how do they impact my actions?
- How should I act in order to be in line with this image?
- Are these actions in integrity with who I really am?

Clearly, there is a lot of depth in terms of how much we want to flesh this out. It is impacted by culture and mental conditioning.

When we have the identity established, then we have the basis for negotation. It determines what we negotiate and how we negotiate.

Negotiation tactics are usually fairly straightforward. I recommend a simple question: "Which is the line I can hold?"

This question is more profound than it seems. It basically introduces the concept of boundaries into a relationship. Being able to define boundaries verbally and in writing in a polite and non-confrontational manner is the main skill which is going to drive negotiations forward. Without those boundaries, the probability of resentment, dissatisfaction and conflict increase exponentially, because one of the parties feels cheated or taken advantage of. Thus, drawing boundaries is not just for ourselves, but also for the benefit of others.

There are many ways to express these boundaries and colouring them.

Examples:

Opening/setting the stage

"Thank you for agreeing to spend time with me. I want this meeting to be of benefit to both of us and hope you feel the same way." (This looks like an ordinary opening, but it establishes your position to the other party as an equal and is extremely useful for balancing an apparent inequality of position and gaining respect. It also sets a cordial but businesslike boundary.)

Requesting clarification/responding to a challenge

"Help me understand what you mean when you say..." (This looks innocuous, but it is a very effective method of neutralising a combative situation. Back in my boarding school days, one of my fellow House Captains had a very straightforward way of dealing with those who challenged his authority or talked back to him. He would look them in the eye perfectly calmly and say,"What are you trying to say?" I haven't seen that line fail yet.)

Calling in an external force/buying time

"I appreciate your honesty and feedback. I need to confer with ... before I come to a commitment that I can make with integrity. Will it be all right to get back to you by ...?" (This line should be used with integrity. You may beat a strategic retreat, but do it with dignity. You can also say that something needs to happen before you have enough information. Again, honesty is crucial here, and I do not recommend manipulation, but that is a reflection of my own values.)

Straightforward boundary drawing

"I hear what you are saying and I am taking it into consideration. I still don't feel fully comfortable with it somehow and would like to get back to you on whether it is a yes or no." (Again, it buys time. Eventually, however, you need to get back. If it is a "yes", in most cases it is not a problem. "No" is trickier. See next line.)

"Thank you for being patient with me. It appears that this is not a fit for where I am going at the moment. However, I want to thank you for your time and input in helping me reach this level of clarity." (Do it strongly but respectfully.)

Of course, there are many ways to do it. Everyone will have their own way of doing it. However, these are some basic tools.

Figuring Situations Out

This is in response to a call for papers by Dr. Win Wenger for the Project Renaissance Double Festival 2011. Win asks two questions:

"What simple practice might best let you gain traction, building toward your best possible outcome?"

"How best can you bring yourself to be applying/implementing that answer?"

Project Renaissance techniques are notoriously powerful for finding creative answers to troublesome questions with its unique mix of Socratic and Einsteinian technique, otherwise known as imagestreaming. My aim here is not to extend or refine the technique base, but to look at the context within which we analyse situations. I propose that many of weaknesses found lie not within the traditional purview of the Beyond Einstein training, but in the context.

Basically, let us assume that, whatever the question, we can find an answer with standard Beyond Einstein/ImageStreaming (IS) techniques. Two areas immediately present themselves as potential issues:

1. What's the question?
2. What can we do with the answers?

I (mis)quote Jose Silva when I assert that, "If IQ is a measure of how well someone solves problems, then if we can raise their problem solving skills, we raise their IQ." A good percentage of the inhabitants of planet Earth will come across a number of biases in extending their problem solving base which is completely unrelated to the effectiveness of the Project Renaissance techniques. I wish to discuss two of these problems in turn:

Context Bias - Where's the problem?

When we define a situation as a "problem", basically we are saying we have an issue with it. Our internal roadmap, as defined by what NLP calls our metamodels, have a bone to pick with a situation. We would rather a situation not be what it is. Even if we don't know what we would rather have, we just would rather have something else. Or, we might be willing to put up with some situation in the interim, but when a point in time arrives, we want it resolved in a way that agrees with our internal roadmap.

Any and all of the above situations create blindspots which will hinder our ability to solve problems, because they create certain presuppositions about a situation.

1.) We may assume a situation is "bad" and "needs fixing" when in fact it does not, in the greater scheme of things.
2.) We may not know how to phrase a question if we do not know what we want as a satisfactory outcome.
3.) Even if we had a satisfactory outcome according to our roadmaps, there is no guarantee that we are correct in our assessment of what is satisfactory, or that it is even possible.
4.) We may also be missing a better outcome orientation because of what we want.
5.) We may be outright wrong, and a situation may in fact be perfectly acceptable - we just don't like it.

So, in finding the right questions to ask, we have to consider all these possibilities before even getting to the problem solving stage. It is not wrong to put questions such as the following through the Beyond Einstein processes as preliminaries:

(a) Given my mindset, what is the most optimal outcome of the resolution of this problem?
(b) With my mindset's current flexibility, what could the most optimal outcome of the resolution of this problem be?
(c) Why do I have a problem with this?
(d) With my complete willingness to change and adapt with the situation, what is the most optimal outcome of the resolution of this problem?
(e) If I were not who I am, what is the most productive/useful/empowering etc. way of perceiving the situation?
(f) How would an "optimal me" perceive and assess this problem?

Sometimes the questions will be irrelevant. At other times, we may well discover that we ourselves a key issue in the problem. And my personal experience is that a lot of times, we are. The dangers of too external a focus become evident even when we ask these questions without applying standard IS techniques.

My own research into problem resolution suggests that the dissonance that is the dissatisfaction with a given situation arises from the fact that we wrap our minds too tightly around a number of things. Notorious within this category are our identity and what we conceptualise something to be. Because of who we think we are, and how we perceive it to be threatened when one scenario of reality plays out rather than the other, we perceive a "problem". Similarly, because of how we label and conceptualise the essential characteristics of a problem (different people may emphasise different characteristics, or even mix values into it), a situation becomes acceptable or unacceptable.

There is much to be said for the theme in the human potential movement that talks about acceptance of a given situation. However, for practical purposes, solutions must still be sought. Nonetheless, it is important not to lose sight of the fact that we may be calling a rope a snake. And that instead of calling for exterminators the "problem" might be solved simply moving it aside. Or ignored, for that matter, for it does not pose the danger we thought it did.

This leads us on to the application of solutions bit.

Blindspots: I don't understand it/can't do it!

One of the trickier aspects of the IS process involves decoding the actual stream of images. One of the causes of these blindspots is the fact that what may be a perfectly obvious solution to someone else may be invisible to us due to the way our mind habitually works. That is why we have the Joking Analyst process to help with this, at least as far as the decoding is concerned. I will avoid discussion of actual processes here and assume that, for better or for worse, an acceptable answer has been arrived at.

I say "for worse", because more often than not these solutions do not get implemented. A large part of that has to do with (again) perceptual bias and identity. This is not meant to be a thesis on the subject, so I will withhold many of my more involved comments. Suffice it to say that how one views oneself will have a very large impact on how effectively the solution is implemented. A lot of literature in the last decade or so have focussed on "congruence" - how a solution must be in line with someone's passions, beliefs or thought processes. That would indeed be an ideal situation. However, I am finding that many people's passions, beliefs and thought processes create such a dead loop that very little productive comes of it.

In delving into my old libraries, I have noticed that whilst much of the literature and recommendations from the human potential movement are the same cats wearing shiny new spots, a number of players are conspicuous by their absence from about the mid-1990s. These include: resilience, determination, ingenuity and the willingness to be a maverick. Resilience has since devolved into a dirty word, it seems. Determination is now called resistance. Ingenuity is missing altogether, since the industry appears to prefer pussyfooting around people's lack of self-esteem. And willingness to be a maverick? In my capacity as both spiritual and life coach, I have come across precious few of those, although they still exist.

I am not saying that these traits are the key. In fact, I agree with some of the criticisms. However, creating change in a situation involves also changing oneself. Thus, one key question that needs to be asked is, "How should I position, change or adapt my personality/identity/self-image in an acceptable way in order to best implement the solution?"

Food for thought, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you and goodnight.

Japan - A Release for the World by Hale Dwoskin

Note: The video isn't really configuring correctly on my blog, so if you want to watch Hale more clearly, I have provided the link below.

This is a deeply insightful release. Hale says to notice that there is no separation between you and our planet. It has to do with the fact that at some level, we have an interconnectness. That is how we mirror into the world what we wish it to be.

He invites us to start by simply being what we are. And does this repeatedly. As we do this, we find that even the ideas of "what we are" start to fall away. This is returning to our original nature.

Then, we think of something that is unfolding on planet earth that we have resistance against. The Sedona process then kicks in - allowing that which we resist to be, letting go of the wanting to change or control, and allowing ourselves see the perfection. This is the power of love and acceptance in opening up the knots of our minds. We become more open to the thought or energy of the relevant body-minds to support our home world.

Now this is very crucial. We first have to release our identities and resistance before allowing the idea of harmony or peace or perfection to enter. This is how we tap the frequencies of harmony with our liberated minds, and begin to ride these energies.

This process is pretty much a synopsis of essentials for manifesting, because it talks about the erasure of the illusory self and mind first, rather than resisting it. If we were to do this daily, and love and accept things we resist, before focussing on perfection, then it is very useful for dissolving the situation. We then allow the love and perfection that we are to shine, which is a recognition of our implicit perfection. And then we reflect that energy into life. We become shining beacons of light.

Clearly, I do not own or represent the Sedona method, but readers of my blog will know I have tremendous respect for Lester Levenson's work, and highly recommend it.

The original clip is available here: http://www.sedonamethodcommunity.com/highest-best-good/1945-release-japan-world.html

I would add that when I first began the Sedona method many years ago, it was a largely intellectual exercise for me. Over the years, my understanding of it has matured, and the opening of the heart has become increasingly important for me. Ultimately, the wisdom path still needs the compassion path. We are coming back in touch with the inherently expansive and joyous nature of the universe. This is how the bodhisattva path goes as well.