Discussion ↑

metanymous 04 января 2018, 10:17 в посте Metapractice (оригинал в ЖЖ)

“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.”)