I wanted to add that spending many hours in mediation or leaving
myself receptive to all that is for the benefit of myself and clients
has helped me to be more present. there isnt any job that I can think
of other than being a monk maybe that would be more conducive to
being present.



Meg

--- In neurofeedcommunity@yahoogroups.com, "parisprints2002"
<megp1@...> wrote:
>
> Thank you Sue for expressing that so well for us.
> I was one of those who was threatened when neurocare pro went
> auomatic. what will be my role? I knew alot about what protocals
were
> good for what and was good at it. all of my knowledge was made
> useless in a day :-)
> Luckily I went to an immersive shortly after that and was
introduced
> to the idea of being present for the client (and myself)and how to
> use this increased freedom to work on more important things,
mainly
> myself and my relationship with the client.
> My results were greatly improved as the clients felt the difference
> in the quality of our relationship as well as the improvement in
the
> software. as good as I was at finding areas of difficulty and
giving
> feedack based on that, the computer was much much better :-). now
> that I was not distracted by tech stuff I was free to do activities
> like mindfulness meditation or tonglen which can be felt by the
> client since they are in a quiet open state. There is research
> showing the improved quality of the relationship between those who
> meditate together and from what I have seen with clients , this is
> true. we bond within one or two sessions. Even the most resistant
and
> suspicious of clients will trust me within the first session
because
> they are quiet enough (thanks to neurocarepro)to feel the real me ,
> and I am quiet enough(thanks to neurocarepro)to be the real me and
be
> felt.
>
>
> Meg
>
>
> -- In neurofeedcommunity@yahoogroups.com, "Dr. Sue Brown" <sue@>
> wrote:
> >
> > HI Sebern,
> > I liked your comment:
> > the most important thing that neurofeedback can do is to enhance
> our
> > capacity to relate to one another.
> > Absolutely! The more clear and present we can be without turmoil
> of
> > one sort or another (anxiety, trauma, headpain, you name it) the
> > greater our capacity to be connected to self and other.
> > That has been a definite emphasis for us. As the software
> > (NeuroCARE™) has become increasingly easy to run (the
expertise
> > being built in, if you will) so our emphasis in training has been
> on
> > the trainer ability to be present to their client, to the
client's
> > "journey" as we call it, and to their transformation. Our bi-
> annual
> > Immersive event is all about community, which is a natural
> extension
> > relationship to self and other. It certainly is not about
> technology,
> > which thankfully fades into the background the more powerfully
and
> > seamlessly it works.
> > I think originally, as we anticipated the evolution of the
> software
> > and the technology both, we practitioners 'worried" about "what
am
> I
> > going to do" when the software can do it "without" me, whereas
> now
> > it is more "I wish I didn't have to set the difficulty level- it
> > draws me away (however briefly) from my relationship with my
> client".
> > Sue
> > Sue Cheshire Brown Ph.D.
> >
> > 
> > www.zengar.com
> >
> > All Truth goes through three stages:
> > First it is ridiculed
> > Then it is violently opposed
> > Finally, it is accepted as self-evident....
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Jun 8, 2007, at 6:31 AM, Sebern Fisher wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Dear Val,
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I really don’t think there can be any comparison to personal
> > > computers, IPods or the like in the discussion of
neurofeedback,
> > > except in the very limited realm of engineering and
> accessibility.
> > > The implicit frame of your argument seems to be that all we
need
> in
> > > this venture is better software - that the venture itself is
> about
> > > a single brain making itself “better”. If this is your
> > > assumption, I don’t share it. To me, the most important thing
> that
> > > neurofeedback can do is to enhance our capacity to relate to
one
> > > another. I think the most significant contribution that
> > > neurofeedback makes in this regard is the reduction of fear.
> When
> > > you drain the fear out, everything changes. If you fail to do
> this
> > > the consequences are equally profound. There really has to be
an
> > > other there, the one who is monitoring, caring, understanding
> and
> > > interpreting the changes. As a friend of mine put it, “a
> > > devotional presence.” We are always working within the
universe
> of
> > > at least two brains.
> > >
> > > So to me, neurofeedback is so profoundly not about the
> technology.
> > > In the realms that I think are most profound, increasing access
> has
> > > its hazards. I think it is important to recognize that. That
> being
> > > said, I have no doubt that we will advance technologically
much
> > > faster than we do interpersonally. It seems the human way. It
is
> > > just that this technology, unlike any other, allows us,
> > > potentially, to keep pace. We only have a shot at this if we
> > > recognize this particular potential of neurofeedback.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > People will, no doubt, have increasing access to brain
training
> > > technology. Will this lead them/us to more access to each
other?
> > > That, to me, is the most important question.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Sebern
> > >
> > > From: neurofeedcommunity@yahoogroups.com
> > > [mailto:neurofeedcommunity@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Val
Brown
> > > Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2007 5:29 PM
> > > To: neurofeedcommunity@yahoogroups.com
> > > Subject: [neurofeedcommunity] Recent Events in Neurofeedback
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I've been reviewing some of the recent "events" in the field
of
> > > neurofeedback and thought
> > > that I might post a few observations. Some would say it's a
rant
> > > but, then again, some
> > > want to say that whatever I say is a rant. Certainly I'm up on
a
> > > soap box a bit so....
> > >
> > > I noticed a recent posting concerning neurofeedback and
> the "need"
> > > for highly trained
> > > professional involvement in home training. It's an interesting
> > > position to take -- one very
> > > reminescent of the stance taken by IT professionals in the
early
> > > days of PCs. Nowdays, of
> > > course, the PC you're using to read this post is likely to be
> x100
> > > more poweful than what
> > > those antiquated IT professionals used. We now have GPS, VOIP,
> data
> > > mining and
> > > Googling with virtually unlimited access to the accumulated
> > > knowledge of researchers
> > > around the world -- and it's available at the touch of a
button,
> > > drag of a mouse.
> > >
> > > Putting such power in the hands of "ordinary citizens" was
> > > essentially unthinkable -- and
> > > terrifying! to those who DID think about it --not even 15
years
> > > ago. Now, it's as ho-hum
> > > as firing up your iPod or dialing the telephone. Technology
> changes
> > > everything and that's
> > > especially true in a technological intensive field like
> > > neurofeedback. The reality is that,
> > > with the right system, one doesn't need to be an "expert" --
> this
> > > is true in terms of GPS
> > > navigation, trip planning, financial matters and many, many
> other
> > > areas. It is really only
> > > some very backwards thinking that leads people to believe
> > > otherwise. Well that, and the
> > > kinds of trainings systems that they use. If you use a limited
> > > system it may very well
> > > require a lot of knowledge, expertise and training before it
can
> be
> > > used well. Newer, well
> > > designed systems -- like NeuroCARE -- are just easier to use,
> more
> > > comprehensive and
> > > fault-tolerant. It's like the difference between DOS and Vista
> or
> > > other GUI-intensive
> > > computer systems.
> > >
> > > The better and more complete the system, the less expertise
and
> > > knowledge is required of
> > > the typical user -- it's really quite simple in that regard.
> > >
> > > However, the discussions in and around this field continue to
> > > support the belief in the
> > > necessity and intrinsic value in professional-intensive
services
> > > like QEEG,
> > > neuropsychological assessment, etc in order to
> provide "effective
> > > and safe" neurofeedback.
> > > It's really quite amazing to watch -- esp when those same
> > > discussions are peppered with
> > > (very low key) acknowledgements that the expert-driven systems
> do
> > > not give increased,
> > > incremental effectiveness when compared amongst themselves --
or
> > > even when
> > > contrasted with non-expert driven approaches.
> > >
> > > Now does that mean that experts and expertise won't be useful
in
> > > the future? Of course
> > > note -- even though typical home users systems dwarf the
> > > capabilities of the NSA of 25
> > > years ago, the realm for expertise continues to expand. It's
> just
> > > not needed for the day to
> > > day, typical uses of computers. And that's the point. The
> > > technology should make
> > > training more accessible to more people with lessened need for
> > > specialization so that,
> > > when useful, specialized expertise can be fruitfully brought
to
> > > bear. You no longer need
> > > an IT specialist to setup your home network, connect to the
> > > internet and have access to
> > > virtually unlimited knowledge and possibilities.
> > >
> > > Why should it be different re: neurofeedback?
> > >
> > > And while we're using the term neurofeedback, let's clarify
> > > something. Neurofeedback
> > > requires the use of FEEDBACK -- ie a "real-time" monitoring of
> some
> > > system parameter(s)
> > > the value(s) of which can be "fed back" to the system that
> > > generates those values with the
> > > feedback being able to MODIFY the CURRENT status of the system.
> If
> > > there is no "real-
> > > time" monitoring occurring, then no matter how useful or
> > > interesting the process involved,
> > > it can't be neurofeedback because it doesn't involve any
> possible
> > > FEEDBACK.
> > >
> > > We need to be clear that using the term neurofeedback to
> describe
> > > or refer to approaches
> > > like pROSHI or LENS is simply inaccurate and misleading. This
is
> > > not to say that those
> > > system aren't being used by many with good success. This is
> simply
> > > clarifying
> > > terminology so we all can talk together. No real-time
> monitoring,
> > > no feedback -- it can't
> > > be neuroFEEDBACK. Perhaps neuroTHERAPY is more apt, but
> > > neurofeedback is clearly
> > > wrong.
> > >
> > > Terminology is important because it links us to other domains,
> > > other communities and
> > > other sources of knowledge and perspective. For this reason I
> > > continue to observe that
> > > the term "disentrainment" (used to describe pROSHI and LENS
> among
> > > others) is an
> > > oxymoron. The proper term is "entrain and migrate" where
> > > entrainment is what is done (ie
> > > a specific crafting of the non-feedback stimulus in terms of
> > > frequency, amplitude, phase,
> > > intensity, etc) and migration is the intended effect (ie moving
> the
> > > system from where it is
> > > currently "parked"). "Entrainment and Migration" is a well
> > > understood phenomenon in the
> > > world of Non-linear Dynamical engineering and it really
behooves
> us
> > > IMO and IME to not
> > > only be aware of that literature but to utilize many of the
> > > concepts, terms and processes
> > > developed within that literature to better understand and
> provide
> > > neurofeedback training.
> > >
> > > OK, I'm coming down off the soap box now.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>