How do you build an instant healing technique?
In my last major article I looked at how simplicity drives the design of a healing technique. Today I’d like to discuss the how. How do you create something new.
This question has consumed me for almost 10 years, and I’d like to share some of that journey, or at least the logic, with you. I think today’s article will be interesting to anyone who has ever wanted to create anything! It’s not often that we stand back and examine the own creative process. This is especially true in alternative healing where people claim “divine inspiration” as a substitute for acknowledging their sources of information and ideas. So, let me share my creative process with you as I prepare to launch our most powerful technique.
Before talking about the journey, let’s be clear about the destination. I want to create and teach a personal development and healing technique which is unique.
It should:
- be based on science, not imagination;
- get instant results;
- deal with the underlying issues, not just symptoms;
- be simple enough that anyone can learn;
- be available to anyone to use;
- be simple enough that people can understand how and why it works;
- not require any spiritual or religious belief in order to use it;
- not threaten anyone’s spiritual or religious beliefs; and
- be scientifically testable so that it can get acceptance in the broader scientific and medical community.
Never done before
I want to acknowledge how huge a benchmark I’ve set. Read the above list again. These are HUGE goals. This has never ever been done before. When I think of all the techniques that are out there, most of them have achieved perhaps one these traits.
For example: tapping techniques are certainly simple, but no one really knows how or why they work (even the founders of the techniques aren’t sure) and they will never get medical acceptance.
There are spiritual techniques like Theta which claim a scientific basis (altered brainwave states) but which can never be accepted medically because the underlying premise of the technique is prayer (“ask and God will do it”). The scientific language is a veneer to spiritual energy healing. Whilst “ask God” is a valid answer to many spiritual questions, it will never be accepted by the medical community. For that reason, it cannot be the basis for an effective healing technique.
On the other hand we have techniques like the original RPT which are quite effective, often get instant results, but are far from simple.
There are widely accepted tools like Time Line Therapy (from NLP) which are claimed to be quite effective. This may be true (I haven’t seen the evidence personally) but the techniques are not simple (require expensive training), and very far from instant. I’ve heard stories like “within 6 weeks her symptoms disappeared.” That’s good (much better than not working at all) but it is not an instant healing technique.
Then there are the techniques which are widely accepted by doctors and psychologists, such as cognitive therapy and EMDR. In my view these techniques fail almost all of the criteria I set out above. They help some people. EMDR is quite simple. However they do not deal with the underlying causes of the problem; they are not (in my experience) permanent; they are not available to everyone to learn and use at home; and if they do work it’s not clear how or why they work.
Creating an instant healing technique
How do you create something so remarkable, and how do you do it in a way that is acceptable to both the New Age healing community and to the broader medical community? Here’s my approach:
- find an underlying scientific theory that rings true;
- apply Occam’s Razor to keep it simple;
- find the right practical tools to apply that theory;
- apply Occam’s Razor to keep it simple;
- test, test and re-test; and
- apply Occam’s Razor again.
That’s how you would create an instant healing technique. Let’s look at some specifics.
Finding the underlying theory
The hardest part of the journey is to find the right underlying theory. The key is that the theory must:
- explain WHAT holds trauma / symptoms / disease / pain / suffering in place;
- explain WHY these things are held in place;
- offer an insight into how to heal the underlying cause.
Over the last 8 year I have explored many different theories of healing and trauma. In the coming weeks I’m going to share with you what I feel is the most effective theory for our work. Remember it’s not about the “best” theory (whatever that means). It’s about finding effectiveness and simplicity. It’s about having a theory that can be applied in a simple and practical way. I believe we’ve finally achieved that.
I’d like to share a lot more about this underlying theory that works, but it’s a whole new topic for my next blog, coming soon.
The key here, as far as the creative process is concerned, is to start with a theory that works, then apply it and make sure it gets results. The most impressive sounding theory is useless if it can’t get quick and reliable results. I think we tested hundreds of theories, from divine-intervention all the way through to evolutionary theory until we found the one that got the best results.
Keeping it simple: Occam’s Razor
In my last detailed blog I wrote about Occam’s Razor. It’s really worth a read if you missed it. The point is basically “the simplest explanation is likely to be the truth.” The way I apply it is this: don’t make any claims that defy belief, if there is a simpler explanation. For instance don’t claim “God did it” if there’s a natural explanation. Don’t claim “tapping on exact spots does it” if tapping on random spots gets the same results. Don’t claim “regress the client back to the earliest reference point” if you can get the same results without that.”
At every step of the way we’ve been applying Occam’s “Razor-sharp” insight to simplify our technique.
Simple practical tools
There’s no point having a simple theoretical model if you can’t apply it in practice in a simple way. In this respect we’ve been very lucky. That’s because the existing RPT technique we call “Acknowledgment” is already a very simple and effective technique for change.
In changing from RPT (2009-2011) to our new 2012 technique, we have changed the underlying theory, but kept the basic tool the same. The result is a technique which is superficially similar, though quite different in practice and results.
Conclusion
So how do you design the most effective technique? The right theory, the right practical tools and above all else, the KISS principle.
Over the coming weeks I’ll be sharing a lot more about these theories and tools as I introduce this new method to you.
I’m excited to share it and I really welcome your comments and questions here.
Blessings
Simon
Bulent 
I tried to find a way for instant healing. When someone started to work with their surface emotion and ask it, what is the underlying emotion? and so on.. at last; all the chain emotions can appear and acknowledge.. When I tried this with my relative, it didn’t change the related events.. 
rob 
Michaela 
Jim 
Renee Hawkins 
Those are quite lofty goals! Probably the most difficult part will be to come up with something that equally pleases the scientific/medical community and the new age community. Personally I’m fascinated by the war between the why and the application . In terms of the creative process, there seems to be 2 paths to follow:
1. Accidentally stumble across something that works (through trial and error as well as taking aspects of other techniques that seem to work), test and refine it and then speculate what the underlying mechanism is. You take other known theories and, if they seem to fit, you apply those theories towards your technique. You remain open and it develops over time
- to some extent this seems to be what you did with RPT which probably explains why it was in a continuous state of change. The technique, as well as the underlying theory never stayed the same for long and this was probably difficult for a lot of people to keep up with – as soon as you thought you knew how to do it, it changed
2. Determine what an acceptable underlying theory/mechanism is and then work around that to come up with a technique.
- this seems to be your new approach. Whilst this may create a more stable modality and be more acceptable to the scientific community, it may to also restrict where it could go because it always has to remain within the boundaries of what’s acceptable as an explanation.
I don’t know which approach is better as both seem to have pros and cons. The first approach is more open to development but is more unstable and which makes it more difficult for people to get to a point where they think they understand it and can use it as a primary modality. You could argue that western medicine is similar in that it continually develops. However the pace is much slower and easier to cope with. It also turns off scientifically minded people.
The second approach seems more stable but also seems to box the technique into a predefined framework that would restrict its development. Arguably all current healing modalities (whether it be EFT, reiki or standard western medicine) are boxed into a predefined framework so they’re all restricted in how they can develop. You’re not going to start seeing angel healing incorporated into western medicine as it falls outside its acceptable framework. Similarly you’re not going to see chiropractic manipulation incorporated into tapping techniques that falls outside it’s acceptable framework.
I guess if you have the ultimate underlying theory or framework then that’s not a problem because it should cover and explain why all healing modalities work. However I’m not sure of such a thing exists. I’m all for the Occam’s Razor approach as it cuts through a lot of the bullshit but I also think it has some limits. Not everything is necessarily simple and going too far with Occam’s Razor to me becomes a case of form over function. If a theory is simple and seems to explain something 95% but not 100% then the quest for simplicity has to be balanced with whether it actually works and how debatable it is. There are also potential overlapping theories an then it becomes a case of which theory is correct. Choosing the wrong theory still explains the why but then potentially restricts how the technique can develop compared to the alternative theory. In that case Occam’s Razor can be misleading.
Quantum mechanics is far from simple and yet it’s the best explanation there is for the behaviour of subatomic particles. It’s accepted without question and yet it’s well known that it’s completely incompatible with the other widely accepted major physics theory, general relativity. There’s something not quite right as there should be one overall theory to explain the whole universe, not just parts of it. Perhaps there’s something about the underlying framework within which science operates that’s preventing the discovery of the ultimate theory. Then again, perhaps there isn’t and we’re just not smart enough to work out real answer. Who knows?
I’m constantly treading a fine line between beliefs that would be considered new age and irrational versus beliefs that would be considered scientific and rational. Personally I’m reluctant to ever throw out the possibility of either side of that fence explaining things as I think that would be too restrictive and limiting. A lot of stuff that gets bandied about by scientists as explanations for the mysterious actually tuns out to be just as speculative as the new age explanations. This is a case of overlapping explanations and both explain the phenomenon equally. Neither explanation is irrefutable but whichever side of the fence you sit on then tends to influence where you go with it. To me, whilst it has many benefits, applying Occam’s Razor as if it’s the ultimate and irrefutable universal principle by which things should be judged is, at best limiting and, at worst, misleading.
Anyway, they’re just my musings. I’m still definitely interested in where you’re going with this and I do like the logic of your approach
Cheers
Shane
[Reply]
Simon Rose Reply:
January 10th, 2012 at 6:19 pm
hi mate
As always you provide very intelligent and insightful feedback, thankyou. I see you are the first to comment again, are you still denying the use of RSS?
There is little I can add to your comments as I quite agree with your observations. It occurs to me to say though that there is a slight fudge between your options 1 and 2, call it option 1.5. That is to say that there’s always room to find and adopt a new theory.
For instance our new Level 1 technique is greatly influenced by Dr Scaer’s work on trauma and survival instincts. Our new Level 2 course retains the content of the old RPT Level 2, that is to say we are still looking at pre-natal trauma and key developmental events. These are 2 quite distinct models, but we have united them in a new way. If someone showed me a new model that worked very well, it would either replace one of these courses, or would become the new Level 3 (whatever was most effective).
So there’s room to grow at least.
The biggest problem I have right now is coming up with a new for the new method. The problem with “Reference Point Therapy” is that when the model changed, it no longer had anything to do with finding the earliest reference point. I looked at some great new names that related to trauma, survival instincts and so on, but I realized that I stood to make the same mistake again, that is to say lock the name of the technique in to the underlying model. It’s important that the technique can continue to grow, even outgrown its models, without the name holding it back.
Best wishes
Simon
[Reply]
Shane Marsh Reply:
January 10th, 2012 at 8:38 pm
100% RSS this time
[Reply]