How to create an instant healing technique (part 2)

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:

  1. find an underlying scientific theory that rings true;
  2. apply Occam’s Razor to keep it simple;
  3. find the right practical tools to apply that theory;
  4. apply Occam’s Razor to keep it simple;
  5. test, test and re-test; and
  6. 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

 

22 Comments
January 9, 2012 in Logic and skeptical thinking, RPT theory and teachings
Tagged , , , , , , , ,

22 Responses

  1. 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:

    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:

    100% RSS this time :)

    [Reply]

  2. Once more, this is a great article. it fits very well.. I will do a session with Oya for my neck pain tomorrow. I am very curious about the New technique :) 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..

    She lost her hair because of an illness and she is bald now.. This physical issue gives her a very strong shame.. So I used the shame as an entry.. She wasn’t looking at the window and she was always closing the curtain.. and I worked for this particular event.. I asked the underlying emotions and we had a long lists of emotions.. at the end she saw that she wants to die and disappeares etc.. after she saw and acknowledge all these chain emotions.. her particular problem dissappered instantly.. she opened the curtain and felt nothing.. But she still doesn’t open her house’s door and go outside etc. so the other related events about this shame still continues.. What am I doing wrong? :) )

    [Reply]

    Simon Rose Reply:

    hi Bulent, let me know how your session goes!

    About your client, if you are working on an emotion, like fear/shame etc, you need to work on it in it’s context. So if the context is about going outside the house, then you need to get her to imagine going outside the house in order to see what it’s really about and what’s under it.

    But bear in mind that shame here is a symptom and not a cause. Clearing shame is good (because it may clear the secondary gains) but probably wont deal with what made her sick. I can’t answer that question without more information.

    Best wishes
    Simon

    [Reply]

    Bulent Reply:

    Hi Simon,

    Actually I didn’t work on shame.. I used it as an entry for reaching the deepest emotions.. Every underlying emotions started to appear.. it is like this: shame –> powerless –> insufficient –> unworthy –> loneliness –> want to die etc.. so when she awared and acknowledged these chain.. the symptom of not opening the curtain is disappeared.. But the question is couldn’t I find the survival instinct? My dream is :) if we find the underlying survival instinct about “shame of baldness” problem.. then every related issues (not communicate with other people, not to go outside etc.) can be dissappear? Am I wrong?

    [Reply]

    Simon Rose Reply:

    hi Bulent
    When I said “work on shame” I meant the starting point. The ending point is always an instict. In this case the “presenting symptom” was baldness and the starting point was working on shame. Probably the instinct was “I have to hide to be safe.”

    You asked whether clearing the instinct clears all the related symptoms, more than just the starting point. The answer is sometimes, not always. It depends on a few factors.

    Hope that helps

    Simon

    Elaine Reply:

    Bulent,
    I may be way off base,but I feel the need to have the client go ‘inside’ the house and ask what emotion(s) took the client inside the house. An opposite approach so to speak. Perhaps this will bring out the emotion client is ‘running’ from that brought on the shame. Perhaps a self-blame background emotion holds client. Hope this helps. Best Wishes, Elaine

  3. Hello there, I watch with interest at the latest developments in RPT. I’ve gone round the houses a bit concerning healing methods and it always really annoyed me that there was no underlying model. Or often methods would work but not because of the reasons offered by the teachers.

    One of your goals is to be available to anyone to use. I think that this is fundamental to any technique/technology/innovation spreading and developing. Any attempt to limit or control/own innovation can only stifle growth.

    In the case of EFT, the basic technique was easy to learn and it was offered to the public for free. People could thus take it or leave it, but because of this availability new applications and uses developed quickly. It was to all intents and purposes “open source”. I really believe that this new way is the future, it speeds things up and i believe the more open source a thing is then the better. The only limitation on this is whereby potential harm can be caused by misuse of the technique.

    But i note that on the current RPT technique is not available for free and is only available via a practitioner. Whilst i do see some benefits of this this does significantly restrict the access for many people. If the technique is simple and can be learned by anyone then why is a practitioner needed. I appreciate that there might be subtleties to any technique but one could give the person the option to work with a professional at a later date.

    Will the new technique be available to all or will people have to go through a practitioner?

    Much gratitude

    Rob

    [Reply]

    Simon Rose Reply:

    hi Rob,

    Welcome to the blog and thanks for your interesting comments. I was quite interested to hear your observations (first paragraph) which were identical to mine: techniques either don’t have a logical basis or do work, but not for the reasons given. That’s exactly what I was getting at in my Occam’s Razor article.

    I started answering your question about the EFT free model and quickly realized that I’d filled a page. So I’ll post it as a separate article. It’s a good question and a difficult answer (one that’s evolving) and it deserves it’s own page.

    best wishes
    Simon

    [Reply]

    rob Reply:

    Thank you simon for your reply. I look forward to reading your answer and to the new developments in RPT. I too just had some interesting thoughts about ownership/propriety rights with an analogy made to the Fosbury flop but i think i will save it too!!!!!

    All the best
    Rob

    [Reply]

    Simon Rose Reply:

    Rob I would really value those thoughts if you want to share them (even in an email to me). I suppose Fosbury could be a good example, he couldn’t copyright it but he did get a gold medal and his name on the technique. How much more can you ask for? I would have no trouble with all therapists copying the Rose Method if it was called that and used safely! :-)

  4. Hi Simon,

    it sounds really interesting and I’m looking forward to read more.
    You describe what I’m looking for. ;-)

    Blessings
    Michaela

    [Reply]

  5. Thank you Simon, it really helps but I wonder that factors :) what makes all the sypmtoms clear and what doesn’t?

    And have you ever tried to work on inner self image? maybe the inner self image can be the blueprint of the brain.. the output of many beliefs, emotions and instincts? Like a flag of a country.. if this flag changes then the countries name, identity and behaivours changes totally like a shortcut…? what do you think about this? :)

    [Reply]

    Simon Rose Reply:

    > what makes all the sypmtoms clear and what doesn’t?

    I think there is an art to it, in other words it comes with intuition and I may not be able to spell it out in exact words.

    When I talk to a client I make a list of lots of symptoms and some of them feel like “if I clear this, I should clear everything” and some of them feel like tangents.

    When I teach a course, I try to share both the logic (left brain) and intuition (right brain) of how I work. So I write down all the symptoms and I explain why I choose the one that I choose as my starting point.

    > And have you ever tried to work on inner self image

    I think this is a question of definition. I do a lot of work with the inner story and personal sense of identity (especially on the new Level 3). I think this is more or less the same thing.

    What I am loosely calling our “Level 3 technique” (it’s not really a new technique just an approach) is this:

    Listen to the person’s symptoms, then ask them to describe their identity, who they are with all this stuff. “I am ….”

    Then find the attachment to this identity. For instance what’s the worst thing that would happen to them if their identity (and problems) were taken away. There is usually a huge fear.

    Clear that fear and you clear the attachment to their identity. If you do it right you also clear the identity itself (replacing it with a new one). And if you are really good, all their symptoms go away at the same time.

    I only really mastered this one recently in Kiev, we have some great demonstrations of how well it works.

    Blessings
    Simon

    [Reply]

    Bulent Reply:

    Thank you very much for your detailed answer Simon. We did our session with Oya and it was great.. My neck pain is very low now.. and I think it will get better and better.. We cleared many secondary gains and survival instincts :)

    I will try by myself for that identity stuff.. it looks promising..

    and one more question.. Are you using Meta Medicine type diagnosis for the physical sypmtoms for finding the starting point emotions?

    [Reply]

    Simon Rose Reply:

    hi
    I have heard about Meta Medicine but have never looked at it. It’s on my long reading list. Thing is that we have our own system of metaphysical anatomy for finding the emotions that go with different diseases. That’s the basis of our Level 3 and Evette’s upcoming Metaphysical Anatomy course.

    I am sure you could integrate RPT with Meta Medicine, just that we haven’t needed to.

    Blessings
    Simon

  6. Hi Simon,

    You caught my interest when you mentioned Dr. Scaer in one of your reply comments. “The Body Bears The Burden” is a very insightful book. Unfortunately, it has went over the heads of medical doctors I have talk to about his work and theories.

    A couple of physical therapists I know quite well are friends with Dr. Scaer in Boulder Colorado. They have developed a hands on therapy based on Scaer’s work to get the body out of chronic flight/fright/freeze. They then use a simplified version of Tapas Accupressure Technique to address active limbic issues and EFT to address the cortex. The main down fall to their program is clients need to be active participants in their treatment by doing self treatments and we all know how well that works out for most people, it doesn’t. Plus TAT and EFT have issues of their own.

    I am really excited to learn RPT next week. I think it will be a perfect fit with the manual hands on therapies that I do for chronic pain and as well as a stand alone therapy.

    Jim

    [Reply]

    Simon Rose Reply:

    hi Jim, that’s great.
    The acknowledgment work of RPT fits perfectly with Scaer’s work, and enables us to switch off survival instincts without the need for physical therapy. I’m writing more about this now for the next blog post.

    If it works for you and you are satisfied with this claim, I’d love it if you told your physical therapist friends about it. I’m sure they’d be most interested. I hope to talk to Scaer about it some day.

    best wishes
    Simon

    [Reply]

    Jim Reply:

    Hi Simon,

    I feel the same way you do, however up to this point I have not had options like RPT. Their technique is called Associative Awareness technique. The manual therapy is designed to treat the brain stem and to stop the pattern of sending out protective muscle guarding. If one follows the chain of command within the flight/fright/freeze mechanism you can look at the brain stem as being just a small player in the larger scope of the survival mechanism.
    I will mention RPT to my colleagues in Denver.

    Be well

    Jim

    [Reply]

  7. Hi Simon,
    I’ve been on the lay low but have continued to follow what’s been going on. And this post demonstrates exactly why I keep hanging around.
    Do I get pissed off that the technique is continually changing- sure. But what your continually searching for is what I wish for too. I am thankful that you are blazing the way, because I don’t have it in me to do what you are doing.
    XXXXRenee.

    [Reply]

    Simon Rose Reply:

    hi Renee, thanks for the comment. Just wondering why you say you get pissed off that it’s changing. What exactly is bad about it? I acknowledge the need to do updates etc, but it’s not as if what you’ve already learned is somehow invalidated. Just curious on how you feel about it.
    Blessings
    Simon

    [Reply]

Leave a Reply

*

Using Gravatars in the comments - get your own and be recognized!

XHTML: These are some of the tags you can use: <a href=""> <b> <blockquote> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>