David Grove asked me not to propagate EK to those who had not paid for it, nor understood his real work. There are now an increasing number of people offering EK and now, it seems, people with no recognisable EK training offering deep retreats.

The quality of seminars at the conferences on Emergence frankly has shown no insight whatsoever, just mimicry - and frankly this is scary. It's like children copying the teacher, without knowing why they follow the instruction sequence.

David was clearly concerned about people using something they did not understand. I think it is time to offer some questions, which, if answered correctly, will ease my concerns about the consequences of doing this deeper form of lean work without the appropriate training and knowledge.

[And Jennifer, Corrie, Tania, as you've read my draft book, no answers from you, please.]

So, here goes:

1. a) Why patterns of 6, and b) under what circumstances would you vary this number, and c) why?
2. What is the underlying structure that gives rise to using patterns of questions?
3. What was David's original purpose in using metaphor in what became known as GMT?
4. What was David's original purpose in developing Clean Space?
5. a) What was the original question that sponsored David's work? b) and why is it so important to understand why that question is fundamental to understanding the true nature of his work?
6. Why is it important to move away from the spatial-thinking roots to properly facilitate emergence?
7. What is the purpose of involving momentum in the latter stages of working with a client using EK?

There will be more ...

Steven

Excited about what we can achieve as a group of clean modellers with 24 people who thrive on teaching and learning in the HE sector 5th and 6th July