Показаны записи 2801 - 2810 из 56260
In the human experience, the meta-function operates due to the kind of mind that we have — our self-reflexive consciousness. That is, as we think-and-feel in regard to something “out there” in the world (a primary state), perhaps experiencing joy, fear, love, anger, stress, etc., we can then as it were “step back” from ourselves and entertain additional (secondary) thoughts-and-feelings about our experience. When we fear our state of fear, we construct a meta-state. We can love our joy, fear our anger, feel ashamed of our fear, feel sad about our misunderstanding. The second state is about the first state. Here consciousness becomes richly complex. Here we do not just add another thought or feeling so that we have more thoughts and feelings in reference to something. Here we multiply.
The Greek term “meta” literally refers to something “above, beyond, or about” something else. As a relational term meta speaks about a thought about a thought, a feeling about a feeling. In meta-communication we communicate about our communications. In meta-linguistics, we use and/or develop language so we can talk about our language.
“The ability to communicate about communication, to comment upon the meaningful actions of oneself and others, is essential for successful social intercourse. In any normal relationship there is a constant interchange of meta-communicative messages such as ‘What do you mean?’ or ‘Why did you do that?’ or ‘Are you kidding me?’ and so on.” (Bateson, 1972, p. 215)
In the NLP Strategy Model, the meta-move is a move along a set of representational steps in which a person as it were “steps back” or “reflects back” onto a previous step or response and responds to that response. (NLP, Volume I, pp. 90, 91-92, 96, 109-110)
Steve has identified three definitions of “meta” and detailed them with some thought experiments. I fully agree with those and then see several additional definitions of “meta,” especially the role of self-reflexive consciousness. My guess is that this is the source of our differences, hence the emphasis (below) on self-reflexivity.
Relying on both Korzybski and Bateson, I have relied on and run with the idea that Korzybski put forward about “the theory of multi-ordinality” as the source of so many human disasters. “Going meta” for him meant that the ability for an infinite regress of responses explained how the same word at different logical levels would have very different meanings, his introduction of multi-ordinality as an important linguistic distinction.
From that I developed the Meta-States Model as one expression of delving into a theory of multi-ordinality. When Richard Bandler asked me to review the history of the Meta-Model and write a book that we would jointly author, I added “multi-ordinality” to the extended Meta-Model (Communication Magic, 2001).
“The ability to communicate about communication, to comment upon the meaningful actions of oneself and others, is essential for successful social intercourse. In any normal relationship there is a constant interchange of meta-communicative messages such as ‘What do you mean?’ or ‘Why did you do that?’ or ‘Are you kidding me?’ and so on.” (Bateson, 1972, p. 215)
In the NLP Strategy Model, the meta-move is a move along a set of representational steps in which a person as it were “steps back” or “reflects back” onto a previous step or response and responds to that response. (NLP, Volume I, pp. 90, 91-92, 96, 109-110)
Steve has identified three definitions of “meta” and detailed them with some thought experiments. I fully agree with those and then see several additional definitions of “meta,” especially the role of self-reflexive consciousness. My guess is that this is the source of our differences, hence the emphasis (below) on self-reflexivity.
Relying on both Korzybski and Bateson, I have relied on and run with the idea that Korzybski put forward about “the theory of multi-ordinality” as the source of so many human disasters. “Going meta” for him meant that the ability for an infinite regress of responses explained how the same word at different logical levels would have very different meanings, his introduction of multi-ordinality as an important linguistic distinction.
From that I developed the Meta-States Model as one expression of delving into a theory of multi-ordinality. When Richard Bandler asked me to review the history of the Meta-Model and write a book that we would jointly author, I added “multi-ordinality” to the extended Meta-Model (Communication Magic, 2001).
In NLP, meta has always been a central concept and term. And no wonder, from the beginning NLP has been recognized as a meta-discipline — one focused on the structure of experience. Accordingly in the early years (1972-1976), before the name “Neuro-Linguistic Programming” was chosen, NLP was called “Meta.”
Similarly, in the first books of NLP, The Structure of Magic, I and II (1975, 1976) meta occurs all over the place. There you will find such expressions as — meta-models, meta-representational systems, meta-tactics, meta-form, meta-distinctions, meta-messages, meta-questions, meta-position, meta-commenting, etc.
“The representational system which is presupposed by your clients’ predicates is what we call a Meta-form.” (1976, p. 16)
“The Meta-Tactic of switching representational systems allows the client to overcome the pain or the block to further growth and change.” (1976, p. 19)
“Retaining the meta distinction is useful for us in our work.” (p. 41)
Similarly, in the first books of NLP, The Structure of Magic, I and II (1975, 1976) meta occurs all over the place. There you will find such expressions as — meta-models, meta-representational systems, meta-tactics, meta-form, meta-distinctions, meta-messages, meta-questions, meta-position, meta-commenting, etc.
“The representational system which is presupposed by your clients’ predicates is what we call a Meta-form.” (1976, p. 16)
“The Meta-Tactic of switching representational systems allows the client to overcome the pain or the block to further growth and change.” (1976, p. 19)
“Retaining the meta distinction is useful for us in our work.” (p. 41)
Steve Andreas has asked that I write a statement about my use of the term “meta.” I have done that in the following pages. My understanding of our differences is that Steve limits the term and processes it solely in of primary states. On the other hand, I follow the idea of self-reflexivity as Korzybski developed it and the unlimited iterations that can occur so that I see and use meta in many other ways. For me meta leads to the meta-levels that we call “logical levels,” to the theory of multiordinality (as Korzybski used the term), to meta-states (as I developed in the Meta-States Model), to the process of meta-detailing, and to many applications.
Since the word “trauma” can mean almost any kind of unpleasantness, from life-threatening terror to being ignored at a party, it’s not very useful in understanding an experience, or in deciding what kind of intervention to make. Likewise “meta” or “going meta” are vague terms that can indicate one or more of several different ways to change experience. Because of this ambiguity, it’s impossible to know in advance how a “meta” intervention will change a client’s experience, and whether the change will be useful or not.
Although each of the different kinds of meta can be useful in changing a client’s experience of a problem or outcome, there are also clients whose problem is a result of already going meta in one or more of the ways described; for them a meta intervention will either make no difference, or make their problem worse. What they need is some kind of experience of “un-meta,” but the word “meta” is so vague that’s not clear what kind of “un-meta” will be a useful intervention.
Accordingly I advocate eliminating the use of the word “meta” altogether, and replace it with a specific VAK description of a client’s experience. “So you are looking back at that event and wishing it hadn’t happened,” “When you think about that event, it makes you angry,” “It’s as if you are seeing that event from her point of view,” etc.
Likewise any intervention can be an equally specific description of a change in that experience such as, “Look at that event from a point on the ceiling,” “How else could you describe that event?” “Can you see the larger context around that event,” etc.
This kind of specificity tells you exactly what a client is experiencing, and how an intervention will change it in a useful way. Nothing is lost by replacing the vague word “meta” with a more specific description.
At the very least, realize that when you use the word “meta” (as with the words “trauma,” “problem,” or “state,”) that is really only a sort of “placeholder” for a package of ignorance unless it is specified in much greater detail.
Although each of the different kinds of meta can be useful in changing a client’s experience of a problem or outcome, there are also clients whose problem is a result of already going meta in one or more of the ways described; for them a meta intervention will either make no difference, or make their problem worse. What they need is some kind of experience of “un-meta,” but the word “meta” is so vague that’s not clear what kind of “un-meta” will be a useful intervention.
Accordingly I advocate eliminating the use of the word “meta” altogether, and replace it with a specific VAK description of a client’s experience. “So you are looking back at that event and wishing it hadn’t happened,” “When you think about that event, it makes you angry,” “It’s as if you are seeing that event from her point of view,” etc.
Likewise any intervention can be an equally specific description of a change in that experience such as, “Look at that event from a point on the ceiling,” “How else could you describe that event?” “Can you see the larger context around that event,” etc.
This kind of specificity tells you exactly what a client is experiencing, and how an intervention will change it in a useful way. Nothing is lost by replacing the vague word “meta” with a more specific description.
At the very least, realize that when you use the word “meta” (as with the words “trauma,” “problem,” or “state,”) that is really only a sort of “placeholder” for a package of ignorance unless it is specified in much greater detail.
“Meta” is a very general term, one that could indicate any of the three very different kinds of experience described above — and potentially many others. Unless further specified, the instruction to “go meta” could indicate any of them. Although each kind of intervention has useful effects, they are also very different, so some of them will be much more useful for a given client’s problem or outcome.
Furthermore, some kinds of client problem already involve one or more of the kinds of meta described above, so any kind of “going meta” will either make no difference, or will make the problem worse.
For instance, a client who is grieving over a loss is already seeing the lost person from a distant point of view, which is what creates the feeling of absence/loss. Additional distance, or taking a different point of view will only increase the feeling of emptiness/loss. Recategorizing the loss as “inevitable,” or as something that “everyone experiences” may normalize it, but that won’t change the feeling of loss itself. In the resolving grief process the key intervention is to “un-meta” what they are doing by seeing the lost person out of your own eyes, close enough to touch, so that they are experienced as present, no longer absent.
Some very “mental” or “intellectual” clients already live in a vague, shadowy meta-world of abstraction, with very little direct sensory-based experience. These clients don’t need any form of meta; they need the opposite — how to find specific sensory-based examples of their lofty generalizations, so that they can change their experience in useful ways. The best-known way to do this is by asking the questions in the meta-model “Who/what/where/when/how specifically?” etc. (The meta-model is appropriately named — it’s a language model of language, an example of recursive meta-categorization. However, the result of using the meta-model is the opposite of going “meta.”)
Furthermore, some kinds of client problem already involve one or more of the kinds of meta described above, so any kind of “going meta” will either make no difference, or will make the problem worse.
For instance, a client who is grieving over a loss is already seeing the lost person from a distant point of view, which is what creates the feeling of absence/loss. Additional distance, or taking a different point of view will only increase the feeling of emptiness/loss. Recategorizing the loss as “inevitable,” or as something that “everyone experiences” may normalize it, but that won’t change the feeling of loss itself. In the resolving grief process the key intervention is to “un-meta” what they are doing by seeing the lost person out of your own eyes, close enough to touch, so that they are experienced as present, no longer absent.
Some very “mental” or “intellectual” clients already live in a vague, shadowy meta-world of abstraction, with very little direct sensory-based experience. These clients don’t need any form of meta; they need the opposite — how to find specific sensory-based examples of their lofty generalizations, so that they can change their experience in useful ways. The best-known way to do this is by asking the questions in the meta-model “Who/what/where/when/how specifically?” etc. (The meta-model is appropriately named — it’s a language model of language, an example of recursive meta-categorization. However, the result of using the meta-model is the opposite of going “meta.”)
Start with the present moment, or a moment from some time in the past, and notice your response to this very short segment of time. . . .
Now make a very short movie by adding a few seconds that occurred before that moment, and adding a few seconds that follow that moment (real or imagined), and notice any change in your response. . . .
Now make that short movie a little longer, by adding a few minutes that occurred before that moment, and adding a few minutes that follow that moment (real or imagined), and notice any change in your response. . . .
Now make that movie even longer by adding the half-hour that occurred before that moment, and adding the half-hour that follow that moment (real or imagined), and notice any change in your response. . . .
Continue to gradually lengthen this movie, stepwise, pausing each time to notice your response, . . .by adding days, weeks, months, years, decades, centuries, millennia, until your movie is as long as the age of the universe before and after this moment. . . .
In this experiment, the scope of time attended to is gradually increased. You could also start with a large scope of time, and then gradually diminish the length of the movie, or you could “change frame” by attending to a completely different scope of time that doesn’t overlap at all.
When you change the scope of what you observe, that usually changes the content of what is attended to, and that often changes your response to the scope of what you see. Your experience of a longer scope of time will tend to be less detailed than a shorter one. However, all of these different scopes will be more or less sensory-based images of what you see.
The same kind of experiment can be easily done in the auditory or kinesthetic modality, but only with some difficulty with taste and smell, because of our limitations in those modalities.
Now make a very short movie by adding a few seconds that occurred before that moment, and adding a few seconds that follow that moment (real or imagined), and notice any change in your response. . . .
Now make that short movie a little longer, by adding a few minutes that occurred before that moment, and adding a few minutes that follow that moment (real or imagined), and notice any change in your response. . . .
Now make that movie even longer by adding the half-hour that occurred before that moment, and adding the half-hour that follow that moment (real or imagined), and notice any change in your response. . . .
Continue to gradually lengthen this movie, stepwise, pausing each time to notice your response, . . .by adding days, weeks, months, years, decades, centuries, millennia, until your movie is as long as the age of the universe before and after this moment. . . .
In this experiment, the scope of time attended to is gradually increased. You could also start with a large scope of time, and then gradually diminish the length of the movie, or you could “change frame” by attending to a completely different scope of time that doesn’t overlap at all.
When you change the scope of what you observe, that usually changes the content of what is attended to, and that often changes your response to the scope of what you see. Your experience of a longer scope of time will tend to be less detailed than a shorter one. However, all of these different scopes will be more or less sensory-based images of what you see.
The same kind of experiment can be easily done in the auditory or kinesthetic modality, but only with some difficulty with taste and smell, because of our limitations in those modalities.
Look out a window, and notice something relatively small, roughly an inch or so across, and notice your response to this . . .
Then expand the scope of what you notice slightly, so that your field of view is perhaps 4” x 4,” and notice any change in your response. . . .
Then expand your field of view to be about a foot square, and notice any change in response. . . .
Continue to enlarge the scope of your experience, stepwise, pausing each time to notice your response, . . . until you finally reach a panoramic scope in which you are completely surrounded, imagining the scope behind you, above you, and beneath you, where you can’t actually see unless you move your head.
In this experiment, the scope of space attended to is gradually increased, while maintaining the same point of view. You could also start with a large scope of space, and then gradually diminish it, or you could “change frame” by attending to a completely different scope of space that doesn’t overlap at all.
When you change the scope of what you observe, that usually changes the content of what is attended to, and that often changes your response to what you see. Your experience of a larger scope will tend to be less detailed than a smaller one. However, all of these different scopes will be more or less sensory-based images of the content in the scope.
The same kind of experiment can be easily done in the auditory or kinesthetic modality, but only with some difficulty with taste and smell, because of our limitations in those modalities.
Then expand the scope of what you notice slightly, so that your field of view is perhaps 4” x 4,” and notice any change in your response. . . .
Then expand your field of view to be about a foot square, and notice any change in response. . . .
Continue to enlarge the scope of your experience, stepwise, pausing each time to notice your response, . . . until you finally reach a panoramic scope in which you are completely surrounded, imagining the scope behind you, above you, and beneath you, where you can’t actually see unless you move your head.
In this experiment, the scope of space attended to is gradually increased, while maintaining the same point of view. You could also start with a large scope of space, and then gradually diminish it, or you could “change frame” by attending to a completely different scope of space that doesn’t overlap at all.
When you change the scope of what you observe, that usually changes the content of what is attended to, and that often changes your response to what you see. Your experience of a larger scope will tend to be less detailed than a smaller one. However, all of these different scopes will be more or less sensory-based images of the content in the scope.
The same kind of experiment can be easily done in the auditory or kinesthetic modality, but only with some difficulty with taste and smell, because of our limitations in those modalities.
Experiment 2
Begin by thinking of someone you have strong feelings about — either positive or negative. . . .
Now imagine that person fairly close to you in a specific context, and notice both what your image of this person looks like, and your feelings toward them. . . .
Now describe that person with a more general word such as “man,” or “woman,” or a word that describes that person’s occupation, and notice how that image changes, and how you feel toward that changed image. . . .
Now use an even more general word, such as “mammal,” and notice how the image, and your response to the image changes. . . .
Next use the word “vertebrate” and notice how your image and response changes. . . .
Next use the word “animal,” and notice the changes. . . .
Next use “organism,” and notice the changes. . . .
Finally, notice what image and response you have to a “flow of energy and information.” . . .
As you went through this process of going from a very specific and “concrete” image to a much more abstract and general one, I want to point out three things:
- Each successive image became less sensory-based and detailed, more fuzzy, vaporous, and indistinct. Typically the only relatively distinct part of the image is the part that represents the key criterion for the category, for instance the breasts for the category “mammal,” or the spinal column for “vertebrate.”
- The context soon vanished, making it impossible to identify a specific time or place for your experience.
- Your feelings became less intense, perhaps dwindling to near zero with “flow of energy and information.”
Experiment 1
Start by noticing what you see now, looking out of your own eyes. . . . Now move your head two feet to the left or right, and notice how that changes what you see. . . . Probably most of what you see is the same, but this new point of view will be somewhat different; you will see parts that you couldn’t see before, and no longer see parts of what you saw before. Next imagine moving your head two feet to the left or right, but without actually moving your head, in order to change your view point. . . .
Next imagine moving your head two feet up or down, but again without actually moving your head, and notice what you see from this different point of view. . . .
Next pick a point on the ceiling, floor, or corner of the room, and imagine what you would see if you were looking from this point of view. . . .
There is an infinite number of different points of view that you could take. Each of them will include somewhat different content, but each one will be a more or less accurate sensory-based image of what you would actually see from that viewpoint.
Start by noticing what you see now, looking out of your own eyes. . . . Now move your head two feet to the left or right, and notice how that changes what you see. . . . Probably most of what you see is the same, but this new point of view will be somewhat different; you will see parts that you couldn’t see before, and no longer see parts of what you saw before. Next imagine moving your head two feet to the left or right, but without actually moving your head, in order to change your view point. . . .
Next imagine moving your head two feet up or down, but again without actually moving your head, and notice what you see from this different point of view. . . .
Next pick a point on the ceiling, floor, or corner of the room, and imagine what you would see if you were looking from this point of view. . . .
There is an infinite number of different points of view that you could take. Each of them will include somewhat different content, but each one will be a more or less accurate sensory-based image of what you would actually see from that viewpoint.
Дочитали до конца.