| Topic: | Re:Re:Re:Hall's Meta-States, Andreas' Summary Reps and f2 transforms |
| Posted by: | Martin Messier |
| Date/Time: | 01/12/2003 04:34:30 |
|
Hi Lewis, I fully agree with your post. I see meta-states as very close to Dilts's neurological levels and both deal with f2 or even f3 transforms if there's such a thing. In spite of being content models, I find some value to them. They seem to point to the source of all limitation. The only thing I'd correct in Hall's work is that they are not "meta-states" but "meta-levels," or to put it simply, beliefs or dissociation patterns. About self, about what's good, about what's possible for self, etc. And I can even see how Hall would argue that they are organized in logical levels. Identity (belief about self) will definitely bind/limit values (beliefs about what's good), which in turn bind/limit capacity, which in turn binds behavior. If you believe you ARE a businessman, you will carry certain beliefs and the chain goes on. These meta-levels will certainly have a determining effect on the range of states you can allow yourself to experience, especially if you lack the flexibility to reorganize those meta-levels at will. As John Grinder suggested, a good practicioner should be able to change beliefs as comfortably as he changes shirts. Also, Hall's work revolves around dissociation patterns, which could even simply be how those meta-levels are created in the first place and bind experience (read, fixate the assemblage point or state). Take feeling guilty about your happiness, for instance. It just seems to set a threshold in the experience of pleasure. It binds it. It's as if you stood apart from your happiness, looked at it, and felt guilty. I'd argue that we could call that "culture." Culture is a nominalization for a post-F2 construct that sets those thresholds in our experience. Take any behavior, imagine a few thousand people starting at you going "no, no, no" or "yes, yes, yes" and notice the difference in how you feel. So you can play around with all that stuff. Create new dissociation patterns and "feel outstanding about your mediocrity," "curious about your anger," "ecstatic about your confusion." It's almost as if these meta-levels are la-la land. It's like the stock market, in which stock performance has become almost totally disconnected from the actual business performance of the company for which it stands. While Michael Hall and Dilts state that you can supercharge yourself by working at those levels, I think that no matter how much you work at those levels, you're imposing unneeded limitation on yourself. You can achieve incredible change by switching one of these constructs, but it's still trading a car for a car instead of trading up. I'm rereading Whispering, but I'm short on memory as to whether John and Carmen organize FA and post-F2-transforms access in logical levels structure. Does FA influence post F2 access or is it the other way around or is there no influence relationship? Rock on! Martin |