| Topic: | Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Connection between state and context |
| Posted by: | John Grinder |
| Date/Time: | 15/05/2003 18:00:09 |
|
Hi JPG Not certain that I have your point yet but I will attempt a response - let me know if I hit the target. 1. You wrote, "it must be much EASIER to have negative pre-conditioning in the case of "new" contexts (if new context exist)." Sure, if you work at it, you can screwed anything, even experiences that you haven't had yet - one of the contributions of being entirely too conscious. 2. You wrote. "A new formulation would be to replace process by sequence (I had some negative feeling using "process" the first time that I have not taken enough in consideration)" You know, in the time it took you to work out and write down the fact that you have some anchored "negative" response to a word, you could have applied any simple re-anchoring format and changed it. 3. You wrote, "Naturally qualified that the state is not designed like in the New code but is there at a given moment of time." All actual states achieved through the new code sequences are "naturally qualified" in the sense that you are using the term in that the specific state from which responses are generated are not formed until the actual context is encountered. There is then an adaptation of the high performance state achieved in the game to the actual context. This is the point of the know nothing state that results from a new code change. Since the high performance state is content-free, the adaptation to context ensures a relevant, balanced... state appropriate to context and of high quality. All the best, John |