Higher Logical Level/ Eliciting a more general category ↑
metanymous в посте Metapractice (оригинал в ЖЖ)
Higher Logical Level
Eliciting a more general category:
Meta-frame The prefix “meta” alone has been used ambiguously in the past to indicate either a larger scope or a more general category. Since “Expand frame” already describes a larger scope, I will use “meta-frame” to mean a shift to a more general category that includes the original scope or category. “And that is an example of. . . ?”
There are many such meta-frames, and many specify content. Some of the more useful and familiar ones that have been described previously are listed below:
Positive Intent “And the positive intent of that is. . . ?” Positive intent creates a category of which this experience is an example. (“I did that to make you happy.”)
Learning “And what you learned from that is. . . ?” elicits a more general category of “learnings.”
Curiosity “And what was most interesting to you about that is. . . ? elicits a more general category of “interesting things.”
Hierarchy of criteria “And what is more important to you than that is. . . ?” elicits a more general category of “things that are important.”
Metaphor/Analogy “And that is like what. . . ?” Metaphor elicits a category that an experience is “like,” in some way or ways, meaning that it satisfies one or more (but not all) criteria for inclusion in the category.
Self-reference elicits a category that includes itself as an example) These patterns are seldom applicable, but very useful when they are, because they are logically “airtight.” Both of these loop between logical levels;
Apply to self (applying a category to itself) “And is what you just said an example of itself?. . . ” “You said that you hate complaining; is what you said a complaint?”
Paradox (apply to self with negation) “And is what you just said not an example of itself?. . . ” “You said, ‘I won’t communicate with you,’ but what you said is also a communication.”