| Topic: | :Re:Re:First Access |
| Posted by: | Ryan Nagy |
| Date/Time: | 13/06/2003 06:31:39 |
|
John wrote: "OK you ask, "the process seems to assume disassociation...". Let's fill in the blanks in "disassociate X from Y" Third position in triple description is a classic example of one form of disassociation. More specifically, the movement from 1st to 3rd involves a shift in visual perspective, a shift in auditory quality (e.g. sound of your own voice) and always (by definition) a shift in kinesthetic state - that is, the kinesthetics of 3rd may not be the same as the kinesthetics of the 1st from which it came. In this particular case (the movement from 1st to 3rd (again, by definition) involves a shift of levels in a hierarchy defined by inclusion - "I see (from 3rd an image of) myself (in 1st)". Now, you will remember from, for example, the construction of 3rd exercises in London, that it involves "stocking" certain resources beforehand in the posture, breathing pattern... that defines physiologically your personal 3rd. In the vocabulary you are using, this is both a disassociation - you are actively disassociating from the physiology of the state you have in 1st." John, It took me a while to get back to the paragraphs above. They represent critical distinctions. Disassociation, to me, has often meant "not associated" or "lack of/minimal kinesthetics." I believe this distinction is implied in many NON-New Code NLP trainings. Your post and WITW is essentially saying, "Disassociation is associating into another set of V/A/K distinctions." Utilizing triple description in this "re-associative" way seems much more useful than assuming a lack of kinesthetics. After all, how could we ever truly have no K? I do use term disassociation in another set of frames. For instance, I have done Feldenkrais sessions in which my sense is that a person is not "in" certain areas of his or her body. I could be working with a person through his arm feeling that the arm is basically dead, although the more or less functional. The phrase, "there is no there, there" comes to mind. Likewise, during my initial NLP training ten+ years ago I would be willing to say that I was disassociated in the sense of having kinesthetics that were in total disarray. Due to the vagaries of a confused childhood (a polite way of putting it) and massive drug use as a young adult, I simply was not fully associated into myself. God knows what the hell I was doing as I shifted perceptual positions. Moving from one hallucinatory state to another, I suppose. A more common pattern shared by many is misperceiving areas of themselves. For instance, where a person "thinks" that their back is and where it actually is (say, in sitting) can be off by a large margin leading to (for example) pain. Anyone's comments are welcome. Ryan |