Forum Message

Topic: Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:LONG (and probably wrong) INTUTIONS OF FA, f1 and f2
Posted by: John Grinder
Date/Time: 25/04/2005 20:20:57

Scott

Perhaps you could submit this posting as part of your thesis.

In any event – some nice points – allow me  following your numbering:

1.you wrote,

“1.that our f1 transforms use difference as a general default, and the perception of difference is somewhat "trained" in the individual as we grow up in our own environment”

This was one of Bateson’s key insights – that the minimal unit of analysis in living systems is difference. The training remark is more complex. Clearly, there are some pre-sets (like those in language acquisition) such as facial recognition programs – observe any infant and both their orientation to faces as well as their responses to such objects. There is some evidence for so-called critical learning periods or windows even within our species. Consider your own reference to Turnbull’s descriptions in The Forest People of the first experience of a Kung San (pygmy) leaving the rainforest and having to confront distances in excess of some dozens of feet (maximum focal distance in a rainforest) and their apparent inability to appreciate depth). The interesting question is whether it is possible to re-activate or recover the circuitry not originally exercised by the Kung San and train up distance vision – Turnbull’s description are not precise enough to determine whether he observed any such “learning”.

2. yes, we agree – nice expression

3. you wrote,

‘…a man who lost his recognition of faces (i don't have his book, just info on his homepage) but can still see the parts of the face--eyes, nose, ears, and can distinguish by the moustache (and the clothes) if the person is a man or a woman---is an example of post-FA or "F2-like transform" (my own definition, expanding upon your f2 definition of being mainly language-based, where facial recognition is akin to visual parts having a "meaning" in a visual "language"

In Whispering, Carmen and I present this possibility: the relevant examples are the visual syntax of the manipulation of visual images (change of perspective, scaling…) by an architect without language; the manipulation of sounds, rhythms, timbre… by a composer (again without language); the micro muscle movement thinking by a dancer or athlete during the creation (or rehearsal) of a new movement or chorepgraphy without language. These are all sets of f2 transforms. A Nobel to the person who works out the syntax of any one of these f2 sets of transforms!

Yes to your points 4 and 5 however 6 is more problematic – the question about localization of function has a history extending back to (at least)the early 18th century in western European work (I’m ignorant about other traditions) - especially see the Jackson/Broca/Wernicke work and those of that period. The tension historically was between the notions of plasticity and localized functions – I suspect that the debate is better cast in terms of various configurations of circuits.

But there is a somewhat larger issue here: is your question well-formed? You are asking whether there is a physical location for FA – first access; that point in each of the input channels where the individual first gains access to the already transformed representation called experience. While we are definitely swimming in unknown seas at this point, there are a couple of useful things that we can say with confidence:

1. no, there is no single stable point in the application of the neurological transforms ( f1) at which the individual gets first access – any altered state of consciousness will demonstrate this – take, for example, any deep trance phenomena – limited, vision, audition or kinesthetic (analgesia)  - these are clearly examples of pre (normal state)-FA manipulations wherein the “experience” is shifted prior to access. The point is that the FA line is a variable subject to the state of the organism and especially its feed forward circuits.
2. although it is an awkward form of speech, these same deep trance phenomena strongly suggest that it is possible under special circumstances – one point of the application of Ericksonian patterning – to influence pre (normal)- FA circuitry. I have been amazed by what can be influenced without having any explicit appreciation of what is actually occurring.

Bateson used to make an associated point by posing the following – we are here (Santa Cruz, let’s say) and we are not in Cincinnati (don’t ask me why Cincinnati) – this is an important difference. Now, where is that difference located? We could begin to attempt to answer the question by moving toward Cincinnati, hoping to pinch the difference between the two at some point in the movement or we could simultaneously set out from each of the two locations, hoping to find the difference somewhere before we found ourselves in the same place …  This was his way of making the point that the question (a localization question) is not well-formed - the argument form being an informal reductio ad absurdum. The history of philosophy is in part the pursuit of ill-formed questions. 

You wrote:

“I am guessing that approach of new code games…and that of other successful interventions (not necessarily therapeutical) such pain-removal hypnosis as well as state changes are necessarily being done at f1 up to  FA”…

The new code games are explicitly designed to shift circuitry at the pre-FA phase of processing – this is what makes it possible to use a know nothing state with its enormous flexibility to constantly adapt itself (behaviorally - this is a accurate meaning of generative for the context of change) to the nuances of the set of application contexts selected. This distinguishes it sharply from, as you say,

“... most recent offshoots of NLP…such as some principles of meta-states and dead-people modeling propose)…”

Funny, I found myself staring fixedly at the pruning shears after reading your remarks here.

Finally, I find myself in essential agreement with your comment (see below), although I would have put quotation marks around the term reality.,

“...the appeal to measurement (and of changing points and duration and frequency of observations as well), prior to f1, can mean a great deal (as i understand it) when it comes to making better maps of reality...therefore...the more the observations you make at f1, the more accurate the measurement is (meaning using more sensitive tools than our senses, giving unambiguous signals to our senses), and the more vantage points at which you observe, the lesser the illusions, and misperceptions of reality will you make...

I am not certain that the most relevant variables are the frequency or duration of the observations - as Carmen and I propose in Whispering - of more importance is the fact that measurement operations are mapped onto a very limited and unambiguous set of symbols (ones that will survive the effects of the f1 transforms intact enough to NOT be destroyed by the f1 transforms - the set of natural numbers - and thereby escapes much of what we take to be the f1 transforms (in the sense of changing the perception - the reading of the number as an essential part of the measurement process).

John 




Entire Thread

TopicDate PostedPosted By
help on the difference between FA, f1 and f214/04/2005 01:52:37scott
     Re:help on the difference between FA, f1 and f214/04/2005 11:06:06Robert
          Re:Re:help on the difference between FA, f1 and f214/04/2005 13:36:51scott
          Re:Re:help on the difference between FA, f1 and f214/04/2005 15:58:40John Schertzer
               Re:Re:Re:help on the difference between FA, f1 and f220/04/2005 20:13:04Michael Carroll
          Re:Re:help on the difference between FA, f1 and f220/04/2005 16:23:42John Schertzer
               Re:Re:Re:help on the difference between FA, f1 and f220/04/2005 18:01:25scott
                    Re:Re:Re:Re:help on the difference between FA, f1 and f220/04/2005 19:46:34John Schertzer
                         Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:help on the difference between FA, f1 and f220/04/2005 21:02:49John Grinder
                              Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:help on the difference between FA, f1 and f221/04/2005 11:59:59kc
                                   Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:help on the difference between FA, f1 and f221/04/2005 12:26:16A
                                   Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:help on the difference between FA, f1 and f221/04/2005 18:19:18John Grinder
                                        Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:help on the difference between FA, f1 and f221/04/2005 21:42:20A@aol.com
                              Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:help on the difference between FA, f1 and f221/04/2005 14:50:55John Schertzer
     Re:help on the difference between FA, f1 and f220/04/2005 19:57:10Michael Carroll
          Re:Re:help on the difference between FA, f1 and f221/04/2005 09:01:52scott
               Re:Re:Re:help on the difference between FA, f1 and f221/04/2005 18:39:24Michael Carroll
               Re:Re:Re:help on the difference between FA, f1 and f221/04/2005 18:46:26John Grinder
                    Re:Re:Re:Re:LONG (and probably wrong) INTUTIONS OF FA, f1 and f223/04/2005 20:04:34scott
                         Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:LONG (and probably wrong) INTUTIONS OF FA, f1 and f225/04/2005 20:20:57John Grinder
                              Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re: walk the earth26/04/2005 11:54:33scott
                                   Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re: walk the earth27/04/2005 20:05:49John Grinder

Forum Home