Voilà, the transcript word for word of a Facebook posts with all the comments about the heart of the coaching process… F. is preparing himself for the MCC exam, A is probably (I don’t know him) an SF coach, Me, that’s me, K is an SF practitioner in Switzerland.
The whole thing has been started by a post of K. about some difficulties of the preparation…
The issues mentioned, not detailed:
- gobbledygook in some interesting requirement-lists...
- usefulness of not-knowing as a general principle in coaching, especially in SF coaching
- in SF world the "but" is a forbidden word, "and" is to be used instead...:-)))
F: “... listening to MCC stuff ... it is SOO hard for me to translate "drop into the gap and access the quantum physics library" into anything meaningful ... sigh.”
Me: “One possible version? ...:-)))”
A: „it seems to be a very serious topic…J)) .........or a serious certification needs a serious topic…:-)))”
F: “Duh. Sigh. Thank you [Me]. It is so hard for me to go beyond the "you are talking gibberish" and try to find out what it is they mean.”
Me: “Normally they either don't really know what they are actually speaking about (I at least doubt that a serious quantum-physicist has proposed this point...)... this type of (very) superfitial littarator remarks refer normally to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle: you cannot simultaneously - beyond a certain jointly defined precision - measure certain pairs of physical properties of particles ("under" the newtonien universe - while the newtonien universe seems to be special case of the by quantum-physics determined universe - studied by the quantum-physics), e.g. the pair of the place and the momentum of those particles, like electrons... I.e. our "understanding" has limits... which seems to be established earlier in other, less mathematisized sciences as well, as from Kant to Wittgenstein, Watzlawick, etc., lots of wise men reported about it...”
F: “Looking into it a bit more, I think what they mean is that sometimes it is a good idea to pretend that there is something outside our consciousness (like "God", "the universe", "the quantum library", "the subconscious", "the intuition") and make a decision based on the illusion that there is more than our consciousness. Philosophically difficult for me -- I think I am always one, not two and I interact with the world as the whole person that I am. But hey. That's philosophical fine print.”
A: “isn´t the "miracle question" also something like "access the quantum physics library"?
F: “could be called that. The miracle question is a way to get detailed descriptions of a preferred future.”
A: “and what the preferred future would be like ...is not proofed....it´s something "quantum physics-like" you have to know "your field" fairly well, to have an idea about it......and in other client´s "field" this would maybe not match.”
Me: “On the line of F... to know that the observer is part of the system is helping the observer to - within the limits and to the extent of possibilities - detach her-/himself to her/his different type of limitations/blind-spots and to dvelve into the system/map of the clients and supporting them so in their journey...”
K: “[Me], this is a very important thought. What are the assumptions behind the thought that the coach needs to access his her intuition? Hm.hm. interesting indeed!”
Me: “We are all human with all of our limitations... the "advantage" of the coach (I know, the usefulness of not-knowing and all these staff but at the end of the day, an excellent coach has a huge advantage in self-awareness and self-mastery...) is that he/she knows something (!!) about his/ her own limitations, blind-spots and in theory is able to compensate them in a certain degree and could be as good as a "Venetian" mirror for the clients as it is at all possible... and in this - on my map - there is no difference between the approaches... it is a general basic idea...”
Me (once more…): “Yeahhh... sorry, F. that I use your post but (yes: but...:-))) I would like to have all the "not-knowing" of, say, Chris Iveson, Peter Szabo or Marco Ronzani... For me, this "usefulness of not-knowing" is a sort of BS... I understand and agree the goal, not the means... A lot of new people who reads only the titles of the chapters might think this word for word which is kind of absurd... like the expression of "chocki-job"... It is always good to know more... how to use this knowledge, that's the point...”
F: “for me coaching is definitely not a "chocki-job". I work hard to find the things that will be optimally useful for my client in any given situation. The "not-knowing" for me only refers to "not knowing" anything about the "right" decision or path for the client. AND I think that the not-knowing is more useful in therapy than in coaching, actually. I sometimes give advice when it is asked.”
Me: “:-))) I, of course, didn't mean you...:-))”
K: “For me this translated into: "Ask an SF question and wait for the answer"…J))”
Me: “Now, K., all those knowings are then just flowing into THAT SF question...:-)))”
F: “and it's not the "quatum library" but learning, experience of lots of conversations etc. etc. nothing fuzzy about it.”
