|Topic:||Re:Re:Re:Congruency and modeling|
|Posted by:||John Grinder|
Hi Martin, Lewis...|
I use a simple operational definition of congruency - the alignment at a point in time of all resources. The most immediate metaphor for me is a leap executed by a superb dancer - everything is either moving in that direction (the leap) with maximum force or is supporting that movement (providing a base...).
I like very much Lewis' distinction between congruity and integrity - yes, of course, we are babbling about nominalizations and without contextualization there is questionable value in such ramblings. Nevertheless, I find the application of the term "integrity", more or less, cross-contextual congruity, attractive. There are other aspects of integrity that are equally important from my point of view - for example, to have integrity, a person must demonstrate that he or she has a choice when unexpectedly and forcefully confronted with a stimulus that typically activates a synesthesia circuit. In this sense, achieving choice implies having the option of responding using the typical synesthesia circuitry or operating with an interrupted circuit so as to select your response, down to and including the immediate physiological reactions.
It seems to me that all learning (as mentioned in the thread) inherently involves incongruity - as soon as I identify something that someone else can do consistently with grace and effectiveness that I would like to be able to do but up to present have not learned to do, I enter into a state of incongruity. This is a portion of the way I motivate myself to act. I would propose that this is a distinct class of incongruity from those cases (for example, described in Magic II, section I where a person has two "parts" with conflicting standards, perceptions, rules of behaviors). This, of course, point to an nearly completely unexplored and unmapped question about the taxonomy of incongruity (and congruity, for that matter) - one of the myriad of tasks before in develop NLP into a well-defined activity.
I mention in passing that there is a need to develop in an explicit form transition strategies for moving cleanly from one state to the next. In what I witness in the world, many people have difficulty cleanly exiting and entering distinct states, especially at high speed.
Interesting thread - thanks!
|Topic||Date Posted||Posted By|
|Congruency and modeling||09/01/2003 04:12:48||Martin Messier|
|Re:Congruency and modeling||09/01/2003 13:12:51||Lewis Walker|
|Re:Re:Congruency and modeling||09/01/2003 14:59:23||Zhi Zhi Chien|
|Re:Re:Congruency and modeling||09/01/2003 15:09:14||Martin Messier|
|Re:Re:Re:Congruency and modeling||11/01/2003 17:44:40||John Grinder|
|Re:Re:Re:Re:Congruency and modeling||11/01/2003 19:17:55||Lewis Walker|
|Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Congruency and modeling||12/01/2003 06:28:38||John Grinder|
|Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Congruency and modeling||12/01/2003 10:55:13||Lewis Walker|
|Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Congruency and modeling||12/01/2003 17:48:59||John Grinder|
|Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Congruency and modeling||13/01/2003 20:52:07||Lewis Walker|
|Stalking||15/01/2003 23:25:34||Lars Ejstrup Gredal|
|Re:Stalking||16/01/2003 15:21:00||Lewis Walker|
|Re:Re:Stalking||16/01/2003 23:04:25||Lars Ejstrup Gredal|
|Re:Re:Re:Stalking||17/01/2003 16:47:37||Lewis Walker|
|Re:Re:Re:Re:Stalking||17/01/2003 19:21:11||John Grinder|
|Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Stalking||17/01/2003 22:24:41||Lewis Walker|
|process/content||18/01/2003 00:15:36||Lars Ejstrup Gredal|
|Re:process/content||18/01/2003 18:58:51||John Grinder|
|Clean third||19/01/2003 00:01:17||Lars Ejstrup Gredal|
|Re:Clean third||19/01/2003 14:01:35||Jon Edwards|