| Topic: | Re:Re:ReReRe:note-able quotes |
| Posted by: | John Grinder |
| Date/Time: | 12/11/2002 19:06:22 |
|
Ernest Where did you ever get the idea that I am proposing that the consious mind (or more precisely the f2 filters) are of little importance? Who do you think modeled and coded the distinctions you use as the fundamental parts of your activity? Have you looked at Whispering? Did you notice that the model for modeling in five phases places balanced emphasis on conscious and unconscious processes: phase I: selecting and gaining access to the model: a mixed conscious and unconscious segment phase 2: suspension of f2 filters - an unconscious phase phase 3: imitation to criteria (the reproduction of the model[s behavior as measured by the responses elicited consistently in the same times frames with the same quality - unconscious phase phase 4: mapping the patterns assimulated and demonstrated to meet the criteria from the two data points (the original model and the modeler now qualified by behavior) onto an explicit model: a mixed conscious and unconscious phase. phase 5: testing to ensure that the model now explicated is transferable in an effective and efficient manner: a mixed conscious and unconscious phase Look at the section Bostic and I offered called Intellectual Antecedentes of NLP where some of the key sources of how you presently earn your keep are detailed and their impact on the creation and development of NLP is explicated. Look, get a clue - perhaps it would assist to note that a model we all seem to recognize as having a deep influence in NLP, Gregory Bateson, pointed out numerous times in numerous formulations: The logics of the conscious (f2) and unconscious (f1) are distinct in fundamental and irreconcilable ways. Further that any people (national group) or person who attempts to resolve this essential tension by living either completely consciously or completely unconsciously will never produce great art. This is my paraphrase of Bateson's position. I subscribe completely to this position and have endeavored my entire professional career to not only achieve this ever changing and dynamic balance personally but to design and implement programs that respect and develop such balance whether in our corporate work, training programs... My personal observation is that westerners spend the vast majority of their life spinning in tight little circles of internal dialogue and obsessive cyclic repetitions of images and feelings that have little or nothing to do with their present circumstances - they are rarely present and in those flashs where actual present experience brings through to shake into the present, they nearly reflexly scramble to escape present experience (FA) and seek again the masking oblivion of repetitive thoughts (that is, non-experienctial activity) to reassure themselves that what they thought the world was like before this violent interruption of their cacooned existence still is what the world is like. They spend significant energy and time constructing and defending maps that are nearly entirely detached from experience. They finally succeed in positioning enough filters in a feedforward configuration that they will never again be troubled by experience as the filters allow only material to pass that confirms what they already believe. While I suspect we might agree that the quality of the thinking (the f2 mappings) are shoddy and of a primitive nature (and therefore greatly require upgrading), the issue for westerners, at least, is not a lack of conscious activity, but the dearth of direct sensory experience - the only corrective source for these strange maps we typically call reality. Your use of the phrase "running our brain" is revealing. So, NeuroSemantics is the art of running your brains. Enjoy, you are demonstrating that you have yet to appreciate one of the most fundamental distinction required for an intelligent approach to the study of humans. The verb "run" in the sense you use it is a verb that proposed a mechanical process: you run a machine, do you run a person? The entire point made clearly in both Turtles All the Way Down and Whispering is that the rules that dominate the world of mechanical processes (physics) are in significant part distinct from the rules that dominate living biological systesm and to apply one to the one is to commit the most egregious type of thinking error - a logical typing error. Read the material that this website is designed to explore before babbling here please - it would upgrade the quality of the exchanges. You suggest some sort of anti-intellectual bias on my part. Good god, I have patiently in Different Worlds (as well as other places) offered a detailed and formal representation of precisely how someone interested might add to the meta model usefully. I have repeatedly along with Carmen Bostic invited Hall to be explicit, sensory grouded and formal enough to allow others to understand what he is proposing - he continues to cycle fluff. Various people have with the best of intentions attempted on this webstier to offer an intelligable representation (you know, sensory grounded, explicit) of meta states - meta, how specifically? No one has yet come even close. Look to yourself, Ernest and keep your faulty personal hallucinations about me to there as well. Finally, you characterize Neurosemantics as modeling - You will find on pages 50 and succeeding, pages 179 and following pages, on pages 349/350 an explicit formulation of modeling as we do it in NLP. Please present an equally explicit representation of the modeling process as you all do it in Neurosemantics and perhaps there would be some value in a furher exchange. O On the other hand, if you and your mates are unable to present material with enough of a description (you know, sensory based, explicit) about what you wish to claim and establish, then play somewhere else. This website has minimum intellectual requirements that you are not meeting. John Grinder |