伯納的變革公式 Part C

 

伯納的變革公式



伯納花了多年時間才算出精確的 頭腦清醒的公式。在他研究的早期，在 1950 年代和 1960年代初，他沒有 這麼發達的人 心靈模型和如何處理它，但像業內大多數人一樣 ， 他的工作主要基於弗洛德的心理世界及其行為結果地圖 。這些 年他所做的工作逐漸 構建 到下一章中介紹的模型，並離開 弗洛德模型，在映射帕坦伽利對我們 真實本質和目的的描述中找到了它的最終形式。

隨著他發展自己的能力， 他注意到，在極少數情況下， 他們和他將取得重大突破，改變 心理結構並消除 相關神經質行為的動機，使其 沒有復發。 在這種情況下 ，説明使人們超越 了管理他們的思想，進入了一個神經質的一部分的地方。 結構根本不存在。因此，這成為他的個人抱負 找出什麼特定的組合 為了激發這種 根本性的進步， 事件和想法是必要的。

他 寄予厚望 的過程之一是 回憶過去的方法。這樣做的想法符合 伯納的心在逐漸拼湊 自己，但也 與 許多基於弗洛德的精神分析方法。因為，它假設，我們受到基於我們過去事件的 潛 意識議程的激勵，我們 已壓制了， 假設將這些記憶帶入 意識是有道理的 意味著 這個人將不再 避開他們，不再受制於他們 現在的權力 。





弗洛德和其他人已經 認識到，回憶可以帶來洞察力和理解力。 但他 從未聲稱人們會以這種方式治癒他們的神經症。在 更好地瞭解自己， 大多數人 所能 希望 的最好的事情就是找到一定程度的和平與個人發展。 他知道，即使意識到 以前被壓抑的事件 並不一定意味著人們沒有 受他們影響的時間更長。

伯納看到了 這種方法 在 原則上的價值， 他沉思著有效性有限的 問題是否是 直到沒有完全召回。弗洛德並不一定認為這是 問題，但伯納的 目標不同。1 他希望 ，如果什麼都沒有被壓制，我們就能完全擺脫 潛意識的力量 。

然而，第一個磕磕絆絆 這種方法中的障礙是大多數人無法回憶起所有 發生在他們身上，因為他們在壓制方面做得很好。正如弗洛德· 還認為，這種方法的最大技能是找到最有效的 幫助人們 記住的方式。 弗洛德 首先嘗試使用催眠，然後對 額頭使用 實際 的物理壓力 結合 口頭指示來記住。他最終決定將自由聯想作為 進入 潛意識的最佳方式，這成為 古典的核心技術。 心理分析。2

伯納用他自己的方法證實，回憶可以幫助人們從 頭腦的反應中獲得 一些自由。 但回想一下自己 仍然存在問題，弗洛德的方法不能令人滿意。 即使可以實現完全召回，作為 全域方法，因為 意識到記住所有這些事件 需要更長的時間，而不是首先實際經歷 它們 ， 所以它 是不切實際的。 此外，在 記憶的過程中 ，還存在無意中創造的非常真實的危險。 然而，關於 這些事件的 更多敘述試圖化解它們。

伯納工作的下一件事 上是精神衝鋒。 這來了 大約是因為他 想知道 為什麼人們不能通過足夠清晰的想法來使某事發生 它應該發生。 與心靈治療沒有什麼不同3 及其分支，他認為如果一個人可以懷孕 足夠清楚的東西，那麼他們肯定可以以具體的形式實現 它 。 例如，如果他們能夠足夠清楚地想像 成功 ， 他們 就會成為 成功的。





這與魔術思維有些不同，因為它假設了概念化事物和事物到來之間的積極因果關係。 成為現實;這種聯繫並不神秘。但人們往往做不到這一點 因為他們實際上無法足夠清楚地構思想法。 原因是 他們對這些想法有 精神上的衝動。所以伯納與人們合作 他們試圖清除這一指控的想法。 當人們交流 他們正在研究的領域時，精神衝動 會消散，他們將能夠清楚地概念化。

有一段時間，伯納想 這是他正在尋找 的説明拼圖的一部分 ，並 開發了 幫助人們越來越 有效地消除精神電荷。 但最終 ，儘管它很有用，但它並沒有 消除 整個 問題。

即使工作看起來 徹底，指控要麼沒有完全消失，目前還不清楚還能做些什麼，要麼它似乎 已經消失了，但人們 仍然在 從這些過去的事件中行動，儘管通常不那麼重要。 他還沒有 找到 他正在尋找的變革 類型 的關鍵因素。

於是他繼續嘗試 不同的方法。在減少 生活中有問題的領域的 電荷 之後，他嘗試了與 當時流行的 行為主義 ，最初基於伊萬·巴甫洛夫（1849-1936）的作品。4 通過讓人們 熟悉他們一直在 避免的事情， 原則上， 他們可以 停止壓制或避免它。 他們會 建造 向上公差。 再一次，這是 有用的，但它 並沒有導致 問題。他注意到，事實上，人們 似乎至少部分 地停留 在 意義或認知， 這需要 與行為更明確地聯繫起來。 所以他和該領域的其他人 一起 ，5 回到 認知和意義分配作為我們經歷的心理問題 的重要 場所。

每次 伯納都盡可能採取一種方法，並且每個 時間 提出了另一種接近心靈的方法。他證實那裡 有很多方法可以讓人們變得更有意識 ，減少神經質，但在 所有 情況下，這個人都會遇到根本性變革的障礙。 在這一切中 使用各種 然而，他開始意識到，內疚是 他的許多 客戶仍然被鎖在 他們的重要因素。





即使他們做過工作也會遇到困難 廣闊地。他們對自己對別人的行為方式感到 難過，不會 讓自己因此 而進步。 他想他 也許 能 讓他們克服這個問題 如果他們對自己的所作所為承擔全部責任。

如果人們選擇接受 他們所做的事情 ，以至於他們知道他們會選擇 這樣做 將來正確的事情，那麼他們 會滿足於 他們對他人 造成的傷害會在那裡停止 。這是 一件事情 他可以在會議中 與人一起實現，但他 發現 人們並沒有 繼續 隨著會話之外的行為變化。雖然 他後來很好地利用 了這個見解，作為獨立的方法仍然缺少一些東西。

伯納繼續在他嘗試的所有 技巧 中 尋找線索，當他在1959年至1960年，當他抓住答案的氣味時，他抓住了 答案 的 氣味。 明白我們陷入 的麻煩很大一部分是我們 的想法 關於我們自己和 其他是 固定的。 正因為 如此，我們無法超越這些想法來 看待事物的真實情況。 這不是什麼新鮮事;人們一直在研究這種變化 幾年的概念;諸如投影和的想法 移情包括我們對世界有錯誤看法的觀念 這給我們帶來了麻煩。6 此外，東方人認為生活是不同程度的幻覺，這是一種 解決這個時候，即使沒有廣泛用於 治療，也是 眾所周知 的問題。

伯納把精力投入到 開發幫助人們消除這種固定性的技術。這更近了 對於開發理性情感療法的阿爾伯特·埃利斯的想法，大大 為發展提供資訊 認知行為療法，7 並且在心理治療的其他領域有一些回聲，例如 心理合成。8 伯納早期消除固定觀念的實驗的後代仍然 用於 心靈清除，特別是，正式地， 在態度清除中 。9

伯納開發了一種幫助人們提高能力的方法 通過選擇進入和退出固定的想法。他認為，如果一個人可以 培養他們進入和退出固定觀念的能力，然後他們將 越來越有意識並 負責 這個過程，而不是 受制於他們自己的 無意識 自動性。





此時他已經非常有經驗了， 這種新方法的結果令人印象深刻。人們在生活中的表現 要好得多，圍繞他們的假設的固定想法更少 關於事情是怎麼回事。 他們發現他們 有 更自由地選擇如何 以各種 方式生活 。 它看起來不錯，他與客戶的 會議進展順利。 但隨後他犯了一個 重要的錯誤：認為他 可以達到更多。 具有這一系列 創新步驟 來解開的人 想法，他記錄 了自己在清晰的階段運行 技術的過程。 把這個交給 他的客戶和學生，他希望這項工作 可以在沒有他本人在場的情況下繼續。 這還有一個額外的好處，那就是 比 一對一工作便宜，所以客戶 可以做盡可能多的工作，也可以做盡可能少的工作，只要他們願意，它可以 可能會達到更大的數位。他是一位令人印象深刻的治療師， 領導者，所以他不乏願意測試他的新人 方法。然而，他發現 僅憑磁帶 就簡單而令人困惑地不起作用。 幾乎沒有 長期收益 嘗試過的人，沒有什麼比面對面 完成的相同工作的收穫更像了。

自心理治療開始以來，人們就提出的觀點是， 在 幫助人們克服神經質的想法方面，不僅僅是技術和 理論 很重要。 行為; 關聯 與治療師也很重要。在過去的50年左右的時間里，這種觀點逐漸 流行起來，並且通過 1950年代，許多治療師相信它 事關重大。例如，卡爾·羅傑斯（Carl Rogers，1902-1987）確立了他所謂的無條件積極關注的必要性。10 治療師對他們的客戶。 其他認可 以不同的方式 建立關係，例如哈裡·斯塔克·沙利文（Harry Stack Sullivan ，1892-1949）， 他認為人們 主要是由與他人聯繫 的願望驅動的，而真正的關係 因此，在治療中至關重要。 移情，在精神分析中如此重要，也是某種東西 這 只能發生在關係內部和關係中，並且在1950年代，越來越多的 許多分析師強調治療關係至少為 就像 有效工作的洞察力和解釋一樣。

以一種或另一種方式，大多數 治療模型越來越多地指出 這種關係本身是發展和 變化的一個 因素。





在 二十一世紀，這或多或少 被認為是 閱讀。 但相當

那是什麼因素，很難 確定。

當伯納試圖 瞭解 與客戶的聯繫是如此重要時，他 他試過當他真正聽 別人的話時會發生什麼，當他 不聽別人的話時會發生什麼。 果然， 如果他全神貫注於這個人， 他們取得了進展。 如果他在同樣的面對面情況下 經歷 同樣的 技術 同樣的眼神交流和姿勢，但沒有 真正傾聽，他們沒有取得進展。 但做一個好人 僅靠聽眾，雖然顯然有説明，但仍然沒有 讓人們 在 他可以可靠地複製的方式。它是 縮小提供幫助 的區域，但不 縮小具體因素。

最後，在 1963 年，就在 在一次會議中，他瞬間看到了決定性改變的關鍵是什麼。關係才是重要的，但關係內部發生了什麼 必須非常具體，才能取得 實際進展。 當他與客戶合作時，他突然 清晰地看到了他們之間發生的事情的 機制以及為什麼它在 那個時候起作用 。 雙方達成 了明確的諒解。在 他描述它的術語，11 當有明確的理解時， 結果 是心靈 實際數量的減少，因此對關係的干擾較小：

要讓一個人進步，需要兩個或兩個以上的活生生的人相互理解 。 如果你沒有 發生這種情況 ，你 就不會 得到結果。 這與取消指控或讓這個人做任何事情無關 ，因為你 無法得到 任何人都能在 任何事情上都更有能力，除非這個因素得到滿足。12

這一點的明顯性使其變得容易 錯過和解僱。 當然，任何值得他們鹽的幫手都會把了解他們的客戶作為他們的事。 那麼，如果這是 關鍵， 為什麼 全世界的人們 沒有取得更大的進步呢？

進步的原因不是 更常見的是當通信中斷並逐步查看時 步。然後很明顯 很少有實際的、相互的理解在繼續;理解從根本上受到損害。 這應該 不是





驚喜自它 符合我們首先擁有思想的原因，這將變得顯而易見 在觀察思想是如何產生的。13 頭腦是 直接溝通的替代品。 因此，由於 我們需要 它的原因，解決方案 註定 要被忽視。 嚴重。 我們認為我們正在 溝通，而 事實上我們這樣做的許多嘗試 都是局部的和調解的。 替代關係。 即使在以下情況下也會發生這種情況 人們明確地開始提供説明。這是我們不容易的不言而喻的 超越我們對彼此的想法，因為我們對彼此有想法。這就是問題所在 的思想。 除此之外， 大量的 心理幫助的重點 是關於 思想的內容，想法 他們自己。這並不奇怪，因為這是人們帶到他們的會議中 並 作為他們麻煩的根源 。 然而，這些內容會 分散注意力，

哪些熟練的助手學會 了看透。

即使我們認為 我們 做得很好 ，我們 也可能沒有 培養實際 進展。 伯納意識到，真正的進步可以通過 技能的 提高來衡量 直接溝通。 溝通不受 限制 到語言。清理后的語言可能會有所説明，但 這不是 關鍵。 溝通是一系列 複雜的事件，每個 事件都必須 完成 才能正常工作。 沒有這個作為 重點而不是説明的副產品 關係，這種説明將被 擊中和錯過。 為了提高效率 和經濟性，幫助必須集中在有意識的溝通中的能力增益上。故事將成為接觸的工具，尤其是在開始時，但是 整理故事並不是有效説明的主要 因素。

Berner重新調整了一對一會議的重點，並切入 了構成説明的核心 洞察力。他的貢獻似乎是一件小事，很容易被忽視。 也許 有點像中國人 的故事 屠夫丁的刀在使用19年 中從未變鈍：他精湛的技巧，知道 在哪裡切割 這意味著肉在最輕的觸摸下 掉了下來，他的刀保持鋒利。14 屠夫的技能看起來像 其他屠宰，但它是 根本不同 精度和效果，因為這個屠夫對道路感興趣並看到了 道路。15 伯納的技術與其他技術有 相似之處，但 精度 對目標的理解改變了一切。 另一件使它與眾不同的事情 是 心靈的 模型





支撐它。它向我們展示了我們來自哪裡 以及我們要去的地方，所以我們 不僅要 採取行動 並希望 它起作用， 我們知道為什麼這些行動有效。

提高 溝通 能力 的原則隱藏 在眾目睽睽之下。不知道這就是我們保持自己的方式 處於不相關的狀態。 這就是 我們如何 麻醉自己 對抗他人的現實。 這也是我們如何讓人們陷入困境，讓自己被鎖定在我們生活中重複的受害者 戲劇 中。

這很容易被忽略，因為我們認為 我們知道 什麼是理解另一個人;畢竟，我們是 在我們清醒的大部分生活中都嘗試它，無論是在會議 中，與 朋友喝杯茶聊天，還是買一 品脫牛奶 或者寫一篇關於蝴蝶的文章。但無論這些溝通運作良好且令人愉快 是的，人們通常 不會獲得 與他人溝通的實際能力 。

個人永遠是 已經很完美了。伯納的模型沒有醫學化，因為沒有什麼可以治癒的。 我們唯一能做得更好的 就是我們與他人的關係 。

根本性的變化是通過意識的微小但地震般的轉變來實現 的。這 結果是更多地從 我們是誰而不是從頭腦的錯誤觀念中行動。只有回到 問題 的根源 ，通過增加能力來改變關係。 和溝通技巧，然後傳達我們之前沒有溝通的內容 脫離了別人，獲得了一個頭腦。在識別資訊 然後表達它的確切點上，補償性的想法和行為變得無關緊要並消失。

我們的方法是1）讓這個人成為 意識到他參與了 他思想的形成，並且

2） 讓他意識到 ， 然後 克服他最初有思想 的原因。 那時 他準備放棄 參與他的思想形成 ，因為他 已經發現 他已經 沒有任何用處 了。 因此，他在沒有潛意識的情況下運作。16




要進行更改，消息還必須 與它所代表的情感電荷聯繫起來，並直接從真實的人中表達出來。 這是 與身體和情緒的聯繫 。 這就是為什麼 僅靠 清理語言 是不夠的。

把溝通，而不是 比起內容，説明的核心是將個人置於中心舞臺。一旦 個人可以直接交流，那麼內容是一個 選擇問題。

幫助者必須將個人視為 現實。 當這種情況發生時，個人就會成為現實。個人是 不是基於對人是什麼的任何想法 或任何彙集 迄今為止不同或未被識別的特徵。個人是 與頭腦的想法不同的東西。17 為 出於這個原因，心靈清除澄清並付諸行動，正是幫助 人們克服思想並從自己獲得更多的東西。 它採用正念的原則 冥想直接進入關係的核心，使真實充滿活力 想法背後的 人。這是一種經濟而精確的 説明方法。



BERNER’S FORMULA FOR CHANGE 



Berner took many years to work out the precise formula for Mind Clearing. In the early days of his research, in the 1950s and early 1960s, he did not have such a well-developed model of the mind and what to do about it but, like most people in the business, based his work broadly on Freud’s map of the psychological universe and its behavioural outcomes. The work he did during these years gradually built up to the model presented in the next chapter and departs from the Freudian model, finding its final form in mapping onto Patanjali’s account of our real nature and purpose. 

As he developed his abilities, working on himself and with others, he noticed that, in rare instances, they and he would have significant breakthroughs that changed the structure of the psyche and removed the motivation for associated neurotic behaviours such that they did not return. In such cases, help took people beyond managing their minds to a place where part of the neurotic structure simply ceased to be there. So it became his personal ambition to work out what particular combination of events and ideas were necessary in order to spark this kind of fundamental progress. 

One of the processes for which he had great hopes was the method of recalling the past. The idea of this was in line with the model of the mind Berner was gradually putting together himself, but also confluent with many Freudian-based psychoanalytic approaches. Since, it is posited, we are motivated by subconscious agendas based on events in our pasts that we have suppressed, it makes good sense to suppose that bringing these memories to consciousness would mean the person would no longer avoid them and no longer be subject to their power in present time. 



Freud and others had already recognised that recall could bring with it insight and understanding. But he never claimed people would be cured of their neuroses in this way. In better understanding themselves, the best most people could hope for was to find a measure of peace and personal development. He knew that even being conscious of previously suppressed events did not necessarily mean people were no longer influenced by them. 

Berner, seeing the value of the approach in principle, mused on whether the problem of limited effectiveness was down to not having total recall. Freud had not necessarily seen this as a problem, but Berner’s goal was different.1 If nothing at all was suppressed, we would, he hoped, be free from the power of the subconscious entirely. 

However, the first stumbling block in this method is that most people are unable to recall everything that has happened to them because they have done a good job of suppression. As Freud also thought, the greatest skill in this approach is in finding the most effective way of helping people to remember. Freud had first tried using hypnosis and then the use of actual physical pressure to the forehead combined with a verbal instruction to remember. He finally decided on free association as the best way to access the subconscious and this became a core technique of classical psychoanalysis.2 

Using his own methods, Berner confirmed that recall helps people gain some freedom from the reactivity of the mind. But recall itself remained problematic and Freud’s methods unsatisfactory. Even if total recall can be achieved, it is inefficient as a global method since he realised that it would take longer to remember all these events than it had to actually live through them in the first place, so it was not practicable. Furthermore, in the process of remembering there was also the very real danger of inadvertently creating yet more narratives about these events in the attempt to defuse them. 

The next thing Berner worked on was mental charge. This came about because he wondered why people could not make something happen by having a clear enough idea that it should happen. Not unlike mind cure3 and its offshoots, he thought it plausible that if a person could conceive of something clearly enough, then they could surely bring it about in concrete form. For instance, if they could conceive of being successful clearly enough, they would become successful. 



This was somewhat different from magical thinking because it posited a positive, causal link between conceptualising a thing and it coming into being; the link was not mysterious. But people often cannot do this because they cannot in fact conceive of ideas clearly enough. The reason for this is that they have mental charge around those ideas. So Berner worked with people on their ideation to try to clear that charge. As people communicated about the area they were working on, the mental charge would dissipate and they would be able to clearly conceptualise. 

For some time, Berner thought this was the part of the jigsaw of help he was looking for and developed ways to help people remove the mental charge more and more efficiently. But in the end, useful though it was, it did not take away the whole of the problem. 

Even when the work seemed thorough, the charge either was not entirely gone and it was unclear what more could be done with it, or it appeared to be gone but people were nevertheless acting from these past events, though generally less so. He had not found the key ingredient for the type of change for which he was looking. 

So he continued to try out different methods. Following on from reducing the charge around problematic areas of life, he tried a variation on aversion therapy in line with the behaviourism that was popular at the time and based initially on the work of Ivan Pavlov (1849–1936).4 By getting people familiar with something they had been avoiding, they could in principle stop suppressing or avoiding it. They would build up a tolerance. Once more, this was useful, but it did not result in change at the root of the issue. He noticed that people in fact seemed to be stuck at least partly at the level of meaning or cognition, and this needed to be linked more clearly to behaviour. So he, along with others in the field,5 went back to cognition and meaning assignment as an important locus of the psychological problems we experience. 

Each time Berner took a method as far as he could, and each time another way of approaching the mind was suggested. He confirmed that there are many ways in which people can become more aware and less neurotic, but in all cases the person would come up against a block to fundamental change. In all this time working with a wide spectrum of people, he had begun to appreciate, however, that guilt was an important factor in why many of his clients remained locked in their 



difficulties even when they had worked on them extensively. They felt bad about the way they had behaved to other people and would not let themselves progress as a result. He thought he might be able to get them over this if they took full responsibility for what they had done. 

If people chose to accept what they had done to the extent that they knew they would choose to do the right thing in future, then they would be satisfied that the harm they did to others would stop then and there. This was something he could achieve with people in the context of a session, but he found that people did not continue with the changed behaviour out of session. Although he made good use of this insight later, there was still something missing as a stand- alone method. 

Continuing to chase clues in all the techniques he tried, Berner caught the scent of an answer when, in 1959–1960, he understood that a big part of the trouble we are in is that our ideas about ourselves and others are fixed. Because of this, we cannot see past those ideas to how things really are. This was not new; people had been looking at variations of this notion for some years; ideas such as projection and transference include the notion that we have erroneous views about the world that cause us problems.6 Moreover, Eastern ideas about life as varying degrees of illusion was a take on the issue that was, by this time, commonly known if not widely used in therapies. 

Berner put his energy into developing techniques for helping people undo that fixidity. This came closer to the ideas of Albert Ellis who developed rational emotive therapy, greatly informing the development of cognitive behavioural therapy,7 and has some echoes in other areas of psychotherapy such as psychosynthesis.8 The descendants of Berner’s early experiments in undoing fixed ideas are still used in Mind Clearing, particularly, and formally, in attitude clearing.9 

Berner developed a way that helped people improve their ability in getting in and out of fixed ideas by choice. He argued that if a person could develop their ability to get into and out of their fixed ideas, then they would be increasingly conscious and in charge of the process rather than at the mercy of their own unconscious automaticity. 



By this time he was very experienced and the results of this new approach were pretty impressive. People functioned in their lives considerably better with fewer fixed ideas around their assumptions about how things are. They found they had greater freedom to choose how to be in all sorts of ways. It was looking good and his sessions with clients went well. But then he made an important error: thinking he could reach more people with this innovative series of steps to unfix ideas, he made a recording of himself running through the technique in clear stages. Handing this over to his clients and students, he hoped the work could be continued without his physical presence. This had the added bonus of being cheaper than one-to-one work, so clients could do as much of the work, or as little, as they wished, and it could potentially reach far greater numbers. He was an impressive therapist and leader, so he did not have a shortage of people willing to test out his new method. However, he found that the tapes alone simply, and bewilderingly, did not work. There was virtually no long-term gain for people who tried it and nothing like the gains of the same work done face to face. 

Since the beginnings of psychotherapy, the idea had been mooted that it was not just the techniques and theories that mattered in helping people get over their neurotic ideas and behaviours; the relationship with the therapist also mattered. This view had gradually been gaining ground over the previous 50 years or so, and by the 1950s, many therapists believed it mattered a great deal. Carl Rogers (1902–1987), for instance, established the need for what he called unconditional positive regard10 on the part of the therapist with respect to their clients. Others recognised the relationship in different ways, such as Harry Stack Sullivan (1892–1949) who believed people were driven primarily by a desire to connect with others and that true relating in therapy was consequently vital. Also the transference, so important in psychoanalysis, is something that can only happen within and about relationship and, in the 1950s, increasing numbers of analysts were emphasising the therapeutic relationship at least as much as insight and interpretation for effective work. 

In one way or another, most therapeutic models increasingly pointed to the relationship itself as a factor in development and change. 



In the twenty-first century, this is more or less taken as read. But quite 

what factor that was, was harder to pin down. 

As Berner tried to home in on what it was about the connection with the client that was so important, he experimented with what would happen when he really listened to someone and when he did not. Sure enough, if he gave the person his full attention, they made progress. If he went through the same techniques in the same face-to- face situation with the same eye contact and posture but was not really listening, they did not make progress. But being a good listener alone, while clearly helpful, still did not get people over their cases in a way he could reliably replicate. It was narrowing down the area in which help took place, but not the specific factor. 

Finally, in 1963, right in the middle of a session, he saw in an instant what the key to conclusive change is. The relationship is what matters, but what went on within it had to be very specific for there to be actual progress. As he worked with his client, he saw with sudden clarity the mechanics of what was going on between them and why it was working at that point. There was explicit understanding between the parties. In the terms in which he described it,11 when there was explicit understanding, the result was a reduction in the actual quantity of the mind and so less interference with the relationship: 

To get a person to improve takes two or more live individuals understanding each other. If you do not have that taking place, you do not get a result. It has nothing to do with removing charge or getting the person to do anything, because you can’t get anyone to be more able at anything unless that factor is fulfilled.12 

The apparent obviousness of this point makes it easy to miss and dismiss. Surely any helper worth their salt makes it their business to understand their clients. So, if this is the key, why are people the world over not making more progress? 

The reason progress is not more common can be seen when communication is broken down and looked at step by step. It is then apparent that very little actual, mutual, understanding goes on; understanding is fundamentally compromised. This should be no 



surprise since it is in line with why we have minds in the first place, as will become apparent in looking at how the mind comes into being.13 The mind is a substitute for direct communication. Consequently, the solution is doomed to be overlooked for the very reason we need it so badly. We think we are communicating when in fact many of our attempts to do so are partial and mediated substitutes for relating. This happens even in situations where people are explicitly setting out to help. It is a truism that we cannot easily get past our ideas about each other because we have ideas about each other. This is the problem of the mind. Alongside this, the focus of a great deal of psychological help is on the content of the mind, the ideas themselves. This is hardly surprising since this is what people bring to their sessions and present as the source of their troubles. That content is a distraction, however, 

which skilled helpers learn to see through. 

Even when we think we are doing a good job, we may not be fostering actual progress. Berner realised that real progress is measurable by the gain in skill in communicating directly. The communication is not confined to language either. Cleaned-up language will probably help, but it is not the key. Communicating is a complex series of events, each one of which has to be complete for it to work. Without this as the focus rather than the by-product of the helping relationship, that help will be hit and miss. For greater efficiency and economy, help must focus on the ability gain in conscious communication. Story will be a vehicle for contact, especially at first, but sorting out the story is not the primary element of effective help. 

Berner refocused one-to-one sessions and cut to the heart of what constitutes help in the light of this insight. His contribution may seem like a small thing, easily overlooked. It is perhaps something like the Chinese story of Ting the butcher whose knife was never blunted in 19 years of use: his great skill in knowing precisely where to cut meant that the meat fell away at the lightest touch and his knife stayed sharp.14 The butcher’s skill looks like other butchering, but it is fundamentally different in precision and effect because this butcher is interested in and sees the Way.15 Berner’s technique has similarities to others, but the precision and understanding of the aim changes everything. The other thing that makes it different is the model of the mind that 



underpins it. It shows us where we have come from and where we are going, so we do not just have to perform the actions and hope it works, we know why these actions work. 

The principle of raising the ability to communicate is hidden in plain view. Not knowing it is how we keep ourselves in a state of non- relating. It is how we anaesthetise ourselves against the reality of other people. It is also how we keep people on the hook and ourselves locked in the repetitive victim dramas of our lives. 

It is easy to miss because we think we know what understanding another person is; after all, we are attempting it for much of our waking lives, whether in a session, chatting with a friend over a cup of tea, buying a pint of milk or writing an article about butterflies. But however well functioning and pleasant those communications are, people are not usually gaining in their practical ability to communicate with others. 

The individual is always already perfect. Berner’s model is not medicalised because there is nothing there to cure. The only thing we can get better at is our relationships with others. 

Fundamental change comes about through a small but seismic shift in consciousness. This results in acting more from who we are and not from the false notions of the mind. It is only to be found in returning to the root of the problem and transforming relationship through increasing capacity and skill in communication and then communicating what was not communicated up to the point we broke from others and gained a mind. At the precise point of recognising the message and then expressing it, the compensatory ideas and behaviours become irrelevant and fall away. 

Our approach is 1) to get the person to become conscious of the fact that he is involved in the formation of his mind, and 

2) to get him to become conscious of, and then get over, his reason for having a mind in the first place. At that time he is ready to give up being involved in the formation of his mind because he has discovered that he no longer has any use for it. Therefore, he operates without a subconscious mind.16 


For change to take place, the message must also connect with the emotional charge it signifies and be expressed directly from the true person. This is a connection with the body and emotions. It is why cleaned-up language alone is not enough. 

Putting communication, rather than content, at the heart of help puts the individual centre stage. Once the individual can communicate directly, then content is a matter of choice. 

The person helping must address the individual as a reality. As this happens, the individual comes to the fore as a reality. The individual is not based on any ideas of what the person is or any bringing together of hitherto disparate or unrecognised characteristics. The individual is a different kind of thing from the ideas of the mind.17 For this reason, Mind Clearing clarifies and puts into action exactly what helps people get over their minds and come more from themselves. It takes the principle of mindfulness meditation right into the heart of relationship and animates the real person behind the ideas. This is an economical and precise approach to help.