So . . . It seems I needed a few days to process and distill this next part down. (In short, I went away, and came back to it (several times)). Also, a quick thanks to Greg for the nudge . . . ;-) So I’ll post what I’ve got so far. Interestingly, Part 4 seems almost complete (and there may even a Part 5 peeking it’s head around the corner) and yet I realize I still need to fill in this large gap, and am not quite sure just how to get there. This section (3) keeps getting longer, and I’m having trouble sorting it all in a way that I’m comfortable with. Perhaps it’s an ordering thing, or a chunking thing or a logical types thing. Probably some combination them. So, if you find that this section jumps around a bit . . . sorry, (and I noticed it too). ;-) Anyway, meta-commenting aside, let’s start from wherever we left off and see where that takes us. Okay . . . So we’ve got a signal, maybe even more than one. We are pretty sure that we do. Through whatever means we have employed we are now aware/convinced that we are interacting/communicating with some part of us outside of our conscious awareness. Whatever the signal. Now, as mentioned in previous posts there can sometimes be strong “initial reaction” (often “interpreted” as excitement, and/or urgency) from the unconscious to communicate (taking the form of multiple, and/or rapid, and/or confusing signals), and it may seem like the unconscious has forgotten (momentarily) that the conscious is only working with those 7+- 2 chunks. However this “initial reaction”, (from my experience) is (usually) just the unconscious being very, very obvious that it is there, and is interested in communicating, (as has been confirmed once the signals have been stabilized, (for all of you “how do/did you know that?” epistemology checkers out there ;-) )). Once “recognized” consciously (“Hey . . . I’ve really got one!”), the unconscious is usually willing to stabilize the signals. If it doesn’t seem to want to slow down/pick one/repeat the same one, etc., you can use a simple reframe like: “Is this really the best way for you to direct my conscious attention toward whatever you’re trying to? Because, so far….I’m not getting it?” If it continues to offer too many, or confusing signals, it might be worth reminding it that you are consciously only working with those tricky 7+-2 chunks, and as such, are prone to “make up meanings for all these signals”, and will promptly begin doing so, unless it is willing to be more clear/consistent. This is usually sufficient, (as you’re unconscious usually realizes that you’ve had a history of ignoring, misinterpreting, and inventing entirely wrong meanings for many of it’s signals in the past, and here is it’s chance to finally straighten you out). ;-) The next step, (from my model), for those in the early stages, is to attempt to establish some sort of stability and consistency in the signal(s) from your unconscious. As per John’s recommendation, the “thank you” with a touch lets your unconscious know you’ve (consciously) chosen a specific signal you’d like to work with, (metaphorically . . .the wave you’d like to ride). ;-) Stabilizing the signals: So…what are we going for? What is ideal? Well it seems to me there are few basic elements: 1) Evident (seems so simple eh?): Signals that meets the requirement of “convincing the conscious” that we are being communicated with (as discussed in Part 3A) 2) Meaningful: Meaning, we need to be able to derive “meaning” from these signals. This is perhaps one of the more compelling reasons for using “yes” and “no”, as a starting place for this type of exercise. (What are some others? An interesting discussion for another day perhaps) 3) Consistency: Ideally we want a set of specific signals that are robust and reliable, so that we can use them, (and count on them) regularly, (at least in the early stages). Later on we will still want to consistently “know” and ”trust”, that our signals are from the unconscious, however once we begin to recognize the pattern of “a signal from the unconscious”, your conscious and your unconscious may explore other signals, beyond the first one or two established. (Part 5 stuff perhaps?) We spent time in Part 3A talking about evidence criteria and threshold of noticeablity, and not adding/inventing/ascribing extraneous “meaning(s)” to these initial signals. It seems that meaning and consistency (of those meanings), are closely linked together so I’ll cover them in the rest of this part (3B and 3C), (perhaps that was the chuck/type trouble I was having), although I have the nagging suspicion it was something else too (shift in presentation style from inductive to deductive perhaps???). Anyway. Establishing meaning, and consistency of meaning: Where to start: Well, to quote from Alice’s Adventures In Wonderland, “’Begin at the beginning’ the King said, very gravely, ‘and go on till you come to the end: then stop.” More usefully, (for the conscious), (it seems to me) the goal here is to establish a pattern. Some set of unconscious signals, that comfortably paces our conscious ability to interact with them. As such, a good place to start is to use your internal dialog to ask simple yes/no questions that you are fairly certain you’ll both agree to the answer on. Much like establishing the base line on a polygraph test, or using “yes sets” in hypnosis. Note: Some people prefer to ask these questions “out loud”. (Another interesting tangent not followed here) Which would work best for you? Anyway, a few of the most common opening moves are: Are you (my unconscious) willing to communicate with me now? Are you able to make that signal clearer/stronger? (After a “thank you” touch) Can you please repeat/amplify that signal if that is the one you are willing to use? (Note the potential embedded command (that is the one you are willing to use)) ;-) Can you please repeat/amplify that signal for “yes”? Can you please give me a different signal/decrease that signal for “no”? Could we enjoy communicating with one another? Note that these particular questions are posed using the “possibility” modal operators “can you”, and “are you able”. This creates the double bind effect mentioned earlier (powerfully and indirectly implying a response). As such, (in some cases) an “absence of a noticeable response” may usefully be taken as a response. However, a word of caution, these “double bind” type questions (although quite effective at eliciting responses), can also (very easily) lead to confusion. More specifically, “Is the unconscious telling me that it “can/can’t/is/is not able”, OR is it actually doing what I’ve asked it if it can do?” This difference may not matter in many cases (which is what makes the question useful), however because it may, in others, I recommend that they be used along with a complimentary set of simple questions/suggestions/commands, to clear up any ambiguities that may arise. E.g. Please amplify that signal. Please repeat that signal. Will you communicate with me now? Is this an acceptable signal to use? Amplify that for “yes”. If that was a “yes” signal, please repeat it. Etc. These two different “sets” are designed to give you more choice about how to communicate best with your unconscious. Some are more direct and polite, and some are more indirect and subtle. All imply some level of response. So . . . How much leverage do you need to use to get clear, consistent responses? Does being polite and patient work better? Is there a difference? Time for a break. I’ll post 3C later. I’ve still got more, about actual conversations/meanings, and the confusing “no” signal, but not the time, nor (currently) the clarity to explicate it right now. I’ll be back soon, and for those that may be waiting, thanks for your patience, and please post responses in the meantime to any part of this thread (or any other threads, (I enjoy reading this site to...lol)). My own (so far, mostly un-included, but often pointed to) footnotes and addendums to many of these ideas would have made this post easily twice as long, and trying to find the best places to include them or tease them out, while moving the post along has be quite a challenge. Feedback please, (otherwise I’m just posting into the ether), Mark MacLean