|Topic:||Can the Wise choose Wisely?|
|Posted by:||Robert Ballentine|
"We're not offering you something that's true, just things that are useful." Co-Creators of NLP|
"…relatively sensory-grounded descriptions" regarding usefulness? (Sorry missed the post it was from) The context was in 'John what are the relatively sensory-grounded descriptions" regarding usefulness? in the context of modeling and the IMC.
In relation of ‘Useful to Whom?’
The word ‘Useful’ has a missing referential index, that is, the portion of the sentence not represented is; ‘to whom?’ The second part of the sentence ‘…just things that are useful’ has from it the deletion ‘to whom is it useful?’
The word ‘useful’ cannot be applied to an object or thing, because it is a word that implies ‘value’. A bicycle without a pedal is neither ‘useless’ in and of itself, because a bicycle has no value for or ‘use’ for a pedal. Again what is missing is the deleted portion of the sentence, more explicitly ‘pedals’ are given a value statement by humans in order to express the ‘importance’ of having x for y to achieve a specific function in a defined context, either by that individual or through group consensus. For example:
‘Peddles are useful for Jane when she is riding the bicycle’.
To say that; ‘pedals are useful for bicycles’ and not refer to the human component of the sentence would be an error in mistaken identity. That being, the bicycle has sentience and can distinguish between layers of importance to and of itself and to others.
Ergo bicycles have no values because they are both insentient and inanimate.
To say that it is ‘useful’ for a dog to eat its dinner after it goes for a walk, otherwise it could get stomach cramps, is an injunction put on it by humans and not of the dog.
To summarise, in order for x to be useful to y, x must have a value criteria associated with it by y. That is in some given context and time, x will perform a function that will be of importance / value / use to, given y’s criterial hierarchical equivalence to x.
To postulate, it can be argued that The Meta Model is a ‘Useful’ application to that of a Psychotherapist, Lawyer or even a Sports Coach. Indeed, it can be further argued that the Meta Model is a ‘Useful’ application to everyone. But the one who would argue the case is surely going to be the user of such a tool.
Would a tree cutter argue that the ‘saw’ is a useful tool, as much as a person sitting in their front room in front of their wood burning fire on a cold night in their wooden chair?
Ergo Usefulness is related to context and subject.
If such a pattern / tool / model were deemed ‘useful’ a respectively increased amount of people would consume the model’ as it filters out into its relative sphere. For example; if used by a Sports Coach in the context of coaching excellence and if excellence is achieved through his/her use of the Meta Model (not that this will necessarily be the only performer of excellence in the system) but a difference that makes the difference, then in all likelihood the Meta Model will have achieved the status of ‘Useful’ by the coach.
Like any ‘Useful tool/thing/...’ that humans acquire, they do either one of two things, they either disseminate it, or discard it.
Model’s, applications and tools are not useful in and of themselves, but require the interface of humans to make the adjustment between a passive state of existence to that of active. In this, if the tool, pattern, model or application is useful in some context to one, it is within the realm of possibilities that its usefulness will be transferred to another as in the sports coach telling his her colleagues about it or however it may else be transferred through whatever medium.
Now, of course there are going to be limiting factors to these ‘useful’ patterns. One of them in particular is in the area of ‘Timing’ or more precisely the frame of ‘Temporal Relevance’.
While a pattern or model may have the conceivability to be useful given a specific context, to a specific person or field, the further generalisation or dissemination of this, is in turn down to ‘how it is perceived’ by the community at large.
In this way this allows the model/pattern to be ‘self selective’, that is the selection of its usefulness for further dissemination, is in relation to its initial value (that is the perceived value before its application) to its relative value (the value it has relative to the task it was assigned to achieve) by the person or community. In this way, the self-selection by the larger group modifies its value to the community in relation to its function within the community as a whole. In the same vein we can look at a model/pattern and allow the community as a whole to decide how it should be valued. I.e. the more people who use it, the greater it’s value, or usefulness would be. This in no way demeans the usefulness that it may have to only one individual, but allows for a ‘self selecting’ criteria to be applied by the community. (Community can be any division of the population as can be imagined)
Of course out of this arises the issue that, a model may not appear to be useful now but is some time in the future (Temporal Relevance). So can we discard something in the face of subjective review, with the criteria being – usefulness as a review panel? I do not believe a review panel has a) the mental capacity at the conscious level to agree a criterion that would satisfy that of the unconscious, namely the community nor b) the appropriateness to decide for the community what is or not useful, and again for whom and to who’s criteria specifically.
Again it can be argued that the model, can then be marketed by the modeler either by (please read previous post on Intellectual Property of NLP) TM’ing the name of it and finding a market for it. Or that at such time it appears to be ‘just another pattern’ is picked up by someone who suddenly finds a specific market and application for it that is revolutionary. Who knows? Who has the capacity to predict? Who has the wisdom to predict?
This then offers the criterial equivalence for the term ‘useful’ namely: -
‘It can be considered to be ‘useful’ when it has reached a critical mass within a defined context relevant to a Corpus of people or community at large.
It remains to be seen whether a community at large has enough intellectual power or thought to choose wisely.
“Come and we shall make you”
“The model or pattern shall live and die by the sword” or at least the on/off button on the PC.
|Topic||Date Posted||Posted By|
|Can the Wise choose Wisely?||16/07/2003 16:03:42||Robert Ballentine|
|Re:Can the Wise choose Wisely?||31/07/2003 13:12:54||Sean|
|Re:Re:Can the Wise choose Wisely?||31/07/2003 14:04:50||Robert Ballentine|
|Re:Re:Re:Can the Wise choose Wisely?||31/07/2003 23:31:54||Sean|
|Re:Re:Re:Can the Wise choose Wisely?||04/08/2003 13:23:25||Sean|
|Re:Re:Re:Re:Can the Wise choose Wisely?||08/08/2003 17:47:43||Robert Ballentine|
|Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Can the Wise choose Wisely?||09/08/2003 18:10:49||Sean|