| Topic: | Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Examples of f2 transforms |
| Posted by: | John Schertzer |
| Date/Time: | 13/01/2004 18:55:53 |
|
>f2 doesn't mean just language. That's true, GSM, but John limits F2 to language for all but specialists, ie an architect has F2 visual mapping, and a musician has auditory mapping, etc.. He said as much in a post in response to something I said, and I think it's what he and Ms. Bostic say in whispering. My argument with him is -- if you want to call it an argument -- is that the sensory modes clearly have pretty much the same, if not more, of a warping effect on what comes through them. 45 years of self observation has taught me that what is usually called internal dialog is not just a continuous babble going on in my head, but a number of movies playing at the same time, some that have sound and self-talk involved, and some that don't. From what I know of other people, I'm ordinary in this way, and not a special case. And these internal reps follow the same rules of distortion, generalization and deletion that language does. In fact, I believe language is built on the rules of sensory cognition, and I think cognitive grammar is moving in that direction, though I confess I know little about it. If, for instance, I see an expression on someone's face that reminds me of someone else I had unpleasant experiences with I'll have an emotional response more appropriate to the original, not the the present situation. That is both a distortion and a generalization. Language can continue to distort and generalize if I say to myself, "all Republicans are bastards," sure, but that has already begun on the sensory level. So I would agree with you that language is a subset of F2 mapping processes. One of the things people keep on doing here is equating "know-nothing" to experiences prior to F2, and I don't know if that's possible, since we've even learned to *look* according to particular cultural rules, and I believe Castaneda's Don Juan would agree with me there. He suggests learning to see as a sorcerer, not because it is better, but so we can learn to see in the world between the sorcerer's world and our habitual world (2 ppos). I think by thinking in such a way as to associate FA and nagual too rigidly, one might be taking terminology too literally, and hence holding an F2 generated and maintained belief. John, if you read this post, I believe (sic) I do know what you mean by experiencing the world at FA, since I had spent a lot of time turning things off inside, even before discovering NLP. But I also believe that "know-nothing" is merely a figure of speech, simply because all of the filters (learnings) are still there, ready to fire off at any moment, and if they weren't we'd be in trouble. The grace of a great martial artist who is reacting without thinking, is the same grace that a great speaker speaks with without thinking. It's an integrated and fluid expression of knowing, not not-knowing. And in both cases, this was behavior learned often in spite of involuntary yes/no signals, since real negotians are rarely digital. best, JS |