| Topic: | Re:Where and how I see meta states fitting in. |
| Posted by: | Jon Edwards |
| Date/Time: | 13/11/2002 13:38:38 |
|
Feel like I'm stepping into the Lion's Den, but maybe the perspective of a relative newcomer can help a little. I wonder if what underlies the disagreement is the process vs. content distinction? Say you have a client who presents a problem called agoraphobia. It turns out that she was bullied at school, and in some social situations, memories of the bullying are triggered and she suffers panic-attacks. She has become so scared of those panic-attacks that she has developed a sort of phobic-reaction to them, and so withdraws from social contact to avoid the possibility that they might be triggered. The meta-states approach (if I understand correctly) suggests that the phobic-reaction is a meta-state to the panic-attacks, and the "agoraphobia" is a meta-state to the phobic-reaction. Furthermore, it suggests that it is important to understand this chain of states in order to be able to help the client. The New Code NLP approach suggests that the "content" - the chain that causes the states - is not relevant. You just apply simple procedures to tackle the problem. If another problem surfaces during the procedures, you tackle the second problem in a similar way... rinse and repeat until satisfied. It could be argued that the meta-states approach ensures that all levels of the "problem" are tackled, but equally, good use of ecology checks (and/or checking with the unconscious that the solution is satisfactory) will achieve the same outcome. Seems, to me, to be a similar difference on the Meta Model - Dr Hall feels it is important to identify every possible variation (content), whereas John and Carmen look for the underlying algorithm (process) from which all the variations are derived. It reminds me of those amazing Fractal Images that were so popular a few years ago. You could write a long description of one of those images, covering every detail and colour variation. Or you could define the underlying formula that, when continually applied to its own result, produces the patterns. They are two different approaches, and while John and Carmen favour the second approach, their underlying point is that the two should be recognised as different. The approach taken by Neurosemantics is sufficiently different to the approach taken by (John and Carmen's definition of) NLP that they feel it should be given a different label to avoid confusion. You might prefer Neurosemantics, you might prefer NLP, you might use both - but they are different. The Neurosemanticians may argue that John does not have the right to define what is and isn't NLP, but I'd argue that it's a generally accepted "social norm" of scientific endeavour that the person(s) who creates a field is entitled to define what is and is not included in that field. Cheers, Jon |