| Topic: | Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Dilts Logical Levels! (pseudo-science) |
| Posted by: | John Schertzer |
| Date/Time: | 27/08/2003 16:18:10 |
|
Stephen, If we could assume that the distinctions among F1, FA and F2 are territory and not map distinctions I would agree with you completely. While being useful fictions to eliminate ambiguities a while so one can take a breath, I don't think these distinctions actually exist with such clean precision in life. A recent article in the area neurology and vision makes a good example of what I mean by asserting that memory and other internal visualization regions of the brain, sometimes affected by language coding, send filtering instructions to optical nerves (I'll look for it for you). Does that mean F1 filters are affected by F2 to start? If so, that means there is in fact no real FA at all, that some aspect of language coding is there front and center at the point of sensory reception. That makes sense when you really begin to think about what language is, when you denominalize it, as well as what is called F2. We construct it through particular arrangements of kinesthetic, auditory and visual synesthesias -- it is not something that has its own separate abstract presence, but something that cannot be cleanly delineated from the rest of neurology except by artificial means. The patterns it takes, syntactical, semantical, are like other patterns of behavior, such as chewing before swallowing, putting one foot in front of the other in order to move forward, turning one's eyes toward the source of a sound in order to get a visual representation of its source. Or am I begging the question here? best, JS |