NLP Modeling Going Meta [4 ed.] 18990001163

Citation preview

NLP MODELING GOING META Advanced Modeling With Meta-Levels NLP Volume II

L. Michael Hall, Ph.D. 1997/ 2020 -2-

NLP Modeling Going Meta Advanced Modeling with Meta-Levels ©1997 L. Michael Hall NLP Modeling — Going Meta Advanced Modeling with Meta-Levels NLP Volume II Txu — 783-565 Registered in the Copyright Office in Washington D.C., February, 1997. Library of Congress. ISBN Number: 1-8990001-16-3 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, and/or otherwise without the prior permission of the publishers. First Edition spiral binding publication: First Printing: January, 1997 Second Printing: June, 1998 Third Printing: October, 1999 Fourth Printing: May, 2000 Second Edition: Sept. 2001 Third edition: 2006 2008 Fourth edition: 2020 PDF File for “The Shop” on www.neurosemantics.com

Publisher:

NSP — Neuro-Semantic Publications ® P.O. Box 8 Clifton, CO. 81520 USA (970) 523-7877

Neuro-Semantics Website:

www.neurosemantics.com

-3-

NLP MODELING GOING META NLP Volume II Preface Foreword

6 14

I: STRATEGIES FOR MODELING Ch. 1 NLP: Identifying the Pieces of Subjectivity Ch. 2 The NLP Strategy Model Ch. 3 Strategies for Modeling

19 31 43

II: ADVANCED MODELING USING META-LEVELS Ch. 4 Why Introduce Meta-Levels to Modeling? Ch. 5 Logical Levels: What are They? Ch. 6 Models of Logical Levels Ch. 7 Bateson's Logical Levels of Learning Ch. 8 Korzybski's Levels of Abstraction Ch. 9 Dilts' Levels of Outcomes and Beliefs Ch. 10 Levels of Perception (Meta-Programs) Ch. 11 Levels of States (Meta-States) Ch. 12 Systemic NLP: Meta-Layering Consciousness

62 63 73 87 118 133 149 172 190 217

III: ENHANCING STRATEGIES WITH META-LEVELS Ch. 13 Integrating Meta-Levels With Strategies Ch. 14 Elicitation: Unpacking Multiple Layers Ch. 15 Utilization: Meta-Level Resourcefulness Ch. 16 Design: Meta-Level Design Engineering Ch. 17 Installation: Meta-Level Installation

234 235 251 274 302 325

Epilogue Appendices A: When Levels Coalesce B: Logical Levels in Emmanuel Kant Bibliography Author

341

-4-

345 346 347 351

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The adventure of modeling in NLP and Neuro-Semantics is an everdeveloping work. To date, we have only touched the hem of the garment as to what’s possible to model from the expertise of others. This work, written originally in 1997 and updated for this edition provides the foundation for our current trainings. Our current Training Manual in Advanced Neuro-Semantics Modeling takes what we have here to the next step. For this work, I stood on the shoulders of many giants, mainly the first modelers of NLP: Richard Bandler, John Grinder, and Robert Dilts. Yet I also stood on the shoulders of more distant founders of Neuro-Linguistics, namely Alfred Korzybski and Gregory Bateson as will become evident in the text itself. I also owe much to many others who have positively influenced my thinking in this area of modeling, key among them are: Dr. Carl Lloyd, Professor at George Fox University who has not only been a personal friend for over a quarter of a century, but who has provided me intellectual stimulation and inquiry over an entire range of subjects. Dr. Bobby Bodenhamer, with whom I have co-author many, many books, who through whose encouragement we co-founded the field of Neuro-Semantics. Without Bob’s constant encouragement, many of my modeling projects would have never taken place. Dr. Martin Roberts, businessman, author, publisher of Crown House in Wales, NLP Trainer and modeler who have provided me many hours of excellent conversation on the subject of modeling. Denis Bridoux, NLP and NS Trainer in England, author, who has provide professional and personal support in my modeling of Korzybski and Neuro-Semantics. And a special thanks to Cheryl Buffa and to Rita Pasour for the hours of proofing that eliminated many typos and blunders.

-5-

PREFACE This is a book about modeling. It is about standing in awe of the expertise that certain persons demonstrate and setting out to find the structure of how they do what they do so magically. The passion that drives modeling is the curiosity to understand and replicate excellence. It is this passion that inspires this book. This book extends and expands NLP modeling. Conceptually, it picks up where the first academic book in the field of NLP left off. The original developers of NLP (i.e., Richard Bandler, John Grinder, and Judith DeLozier) commissioned Robert Dilts (1980) to write Neuro-Linguistic Programming: The Study of the Structure of Subjectivity, Volume I. This work shows how Meta-States takes the NLP Strategies model and addresses more extensive and broader issues in the adventure of modeling. In that, it presents a different kind and dimension of modeling. Denis Bridoux brought this to my attention in the fall of 1998, when he and Dr. Phillip Nolan invited me to present The Merging of the Models: NLP and General Semantics as a workshop in London. As we worked through some of the Mapping / Engineering processes in Science and Sanity (1933/1994), Denis noted that the structures of Korzybski offer “modeling with a different twist.” That realization renewed my interest in the design engineering that Korzybski worked on and the kind of modeling that emerged from his work. Over the years I repeated that training had expanded my research in modeling to include mathematical models for modeling, sociological models, Game Theory, Fuzzy Logic, etc. Here I have followed the work of Woodsmall’s following distinctions between different kinds and levels of modeling. Wyatt has designated these as Modeling I and Modeling II. Modeling I: Pattern detection and transference. This modeling detects a pattern of behavior that results in certain skills, abilities, and expertise. It explicates the patterns of behavior in the skills—the what that an expert actually does in achieving a result.

-6-

NLP: Going Meta

Preface

L. Michael Hall

This kind of model presents us with sets of distinctions, procedures, and processes which enables one to reach a desired outcome. Modeling II: Modeling Modeling I. This focuses on the how of an expert. How does the expert actually perform what he or she does? In this modeling, we focus on the processes necessary to generate the patterns that form the what of Modeling I. Here we especially pay attention to the beliefs and values that establish the frames governing the expert. These include the meta-programs frames, the meta-states, contextual states, etc. The field of NLP arose as the result of Modeling I. It emerged from the joint venture between Richard Bandler, Frank Pucelik, and John Grinder as they began studying the language patterns of Fritz Perls and Virginia Satir. Richard had the genius of mimicking both Perls’ and Satir’s speech, tonal, and language patterns, John’s genius was his skills in Transformational Grammar to pull apart the structures in terms of language, and Frank translated it to the Gestalt Group wherein the first models were created. As a result, they eventually identified what the therapeutic wizards did that had such a “magical” effect upon their clients. From that adventure in modeling, they published The Structure of Magic (1975/ 1976). This introduced the first NLP Model itself and one of the central technologies of NLP for modeling—the Meta-Model. This linguistic model, as one of three meta-domains, puts into our hands a crucial tool for modeling the structure of a person’s reality. The Meta-Model allows us to peek into a person’s model of the world and to more fully understand how a given person constructs a particular subjective experience. In the beginning of the NLP adventure, Richard demonstrated a marvelous imitative ability of the language patterns in Gestalt Therapy and Family Systems Therapy. He learned such through sitting with ear-phones and listening for hours upon hours to audio-tapes of Fritz, as well as later watching and listening to Virginia in person. This highlights one powerful modeling tool and process—imitation. To pull that one off, we have to learn to sort between the descriptive and evaluative levels so that we can see and hear on the outside. This explains the NLP emphasis on sensory awareness. We cannot model very well if we’re inside talking to ourselves, seeing our own pictures, hearing our own musical background. To model we have to “lose that mind and come to our senses.” -7-

NLP: Going Meta

Preface

L. Michael Hall

NLP did not start with Modeling II. Even to this day, we have no model of how Fritz, Virginia, or Milton thought, felt, believed, etc. That level of modeling did not begin until some time later. As the NLP developers wondered about the modeling itself, they began to explore the modeling processes, assumptions, patterns, etc. Eventually NLP: Volume I arose as the result. That Bandler and Grinder did not begin with the modeling of modeling (Modeling II) becomes obvious when we ask such questions as: What strategy did Perls use in working with clients? What strategy enabled Satir to do her “magic” with families? What strategy describes Erickson’s calibration skills and use of hypnotic language patterns? How did any one of those wizards make decisions about what to use when?

Recognizing this, Woodsmall (1990) wrote: “In short, if NLP is the by-product of modeling Erickson, Perls, and Satir, then why are we never taught how they did anything? All we are taught is what they did. This means that we can imitate the powerful patterns that they used, but we don’t know how they generated and performed them to start with. From this it is evident that the part of NLP that is the by-product of modeling is a by-product of Modeling I, but not of Modeling II.” (p. 3)

Because NLP began as the product of Modeling I, the corps of NLP entails the explication and codification of the patterns and procedures which Bandler and Grinder found initially in Perls, Satir, and Erickson. This discovery revealed their genius and has given us their legacy. As a legacy, they synthesized the most basic components of the NLP model: Representational system language, the VAK or the four-tuple. Language accessing cues or linguistic markers. Neurological accessing cues (eyes, body, gestures, and breathing cues). Anchoring, pacing and leading, the NLP-enriched T.O.T.E. model, etc. Over the years, other pieces of the NLP model arose: belief change patterns, value elicitation and change, Meta-Programs, states, frames and reframing, logical levels, the so-called “sub-modalities,” the Meta-States Model, etc.

-8-

NLP: Going Meta

Preface

L. Michael Hall

Using the initial model of modeling—the Strategies Model, numerous developers, theorists, and practitioners of NLP began learning the skills of Modeling II. As they did, they went forth to model. They did this by finding experts in various fields and using the NLP distinctions about the structure of subjective experiences. This enabled them to detect, elicit, unpack, design and redesign, install, and utilize models of excellence and expertise. Out of that arose more and more specific patterns about various aspects of human experience. These include models for healthy eating, losing weight, maintaining weight, staying fit, communicating, relating, confronting, asserting, parenting, managing, creativity, shooting, skiing, diving, curing allergies, curing phobias, ending old traumas, etc. The list goes on and on. Modeling in the sense of Modeling II does not describe a simple process. There may indeed be a structure to the magic of a particular excellence that we find interesting, but that doesn’t mean that we will always discover an easy or simple structure governing it. If it were, we wouldn’t need such intensive training to learn how to find, describe, and unpack that “magic.” About the complexity of modeling, Woodsmall (1990) writes: “Modeling is an incredibly complex, difficult, and sophisticated process. It is possible, but not easy. If it were easy, then there would be a lot more expertise in the world. The reason that there are so few models that enhance performance is not from lack of interest, but from lack of ability and competency.” (p. 6)

Much of that complexity is a result from the way the expert layers levels upon levels of thoughts, emotions, and concepts to create the rich mind. It is this rich textured consciousness that we can now unpack with the metalevels of Meta-States. The Higher Complexity of Multiple Levels I happened upon the Meta-States Model while engaged in a modeling process in 1994 (Hall, 1995, 2012). After studying what other authors and theorists had written about resilience, I set out to interview several individuals considered as highly resilient individuals. These people seemed to have an expertise in bouncing back from setbacks. While many things could knock them down—nothing seemed to keep them down. They would not quit. They were unstoppable. They continually got up, dusted themselves off, and “went for it” again. Even more, though these

-9-

NLP: Going Meta

Preface

L. Michael Hall

individuals had experienced traumatic events (rapes, war, robbery, abuse, etc.) they had not been traumatized. I wanted to know their strategies. What prevented them from getting knocked down for good? What enabled them to get right back up? How were they able to make intelligent learnings from the difficult and painful experience? How were they able to maintain a positive, appreciative, and dignified attitude in the midst of setbacks and defeats? What empowered them to just “go for it again?” What enabled them not to become tramatized when “bad” things happened to them?

Using everything I knew about strategy work, I set about to decompose the neuro-linguistic processes involved in the strategy of resilience. Yet upon obtaining numerous elicitations, I found that I could not diagram the process in a linear and horizontal way. I discovered that I had to keep looping back, and up, that I had to continually move up to meta-levels to take into account the supporting beliefs and values, the criteria that governed their decisionmaking, the empowering higher level decisions, the domains of understanding, the frames-of-references that they used and the frames-ofthose-frames. When all was said and done, I was able to begin articulating a model about meta-levels to structure and engineer “the second-order abstractions,” “third-order abstractions,” etc. of Korzybski. This gave birth to the Meta-States Model (Hall, 1995, 2012). In one sense, this complicated the modeling process even more. It asks a modeler to take into account the higher level structures and the ordering of thoughts-about-thoughts, feelings-about-feelings, and numerous principles in systems thinking. Yet in another sense, it simplified the modeling process as it provided a way to tease out the levels and to recognize what was happening to the neuro-linguistic system. Later, I discovered similar models in various facets of Cognitive Psychology that had simultaneously emerged, for example, the field of Meta-Cognition (1977). This means that the patterning which occurs at the primary level of experience operates within (or we may say, is embedded within) higher patterning structures. In this work, I have continued the tradition of expanding and transforming our model of modeling by schematically adding the meta-levels described by the Meta-States model to how we think about human strategies. Developing the NLP modeling process with meta-levels describes how we -10-

NLP: Going Meta

Preface

L. Michael Hall

need to go meta to track subjectivity into the higher logical levels. This enables us to tie together all of the meta-level phenomena as the higher level contexts (and contexts of contexts) within which strategies of expertise operate. These go by various terms and phrases: Meta-Programs: perceptual filters Beliefs: confirmation thoughts about thoughts Convictions: beliefs about our beliefs Domains of Understandings: background knowledge Presuppositions: assumptions, implied frames Values and Criteria: beliefs about importance and significance States-about-States: Meta-States, second and third-order abstractions Decisions: volition, choice, will Expectations: anticipations of consequences Identifications: self-definitions Intentions: objectives, goals, outcomes

This represents both an old theme in NLP and a new development. It refers to something old in NLP, something that we have had around—higher levels (beliefs, values, Dilts’ Neuro-Logical levels, Gordon’s belief array, etc.). Yet simultaneously it refers to a brand new development in that it provides a more extensive and flexible way to conceptualize and think about meta-levels. I have devoted an entire chapter to the extensive work of Robert Dilts in his development of numerous logical level systems. That chapter highlights his insightful developments, especially his model of Neuro-Logical Levels. Yet because that model represents a static hierarchy of levels, it lacks the flexibility to take into account the non-linearality and fluidity of meta-cognition. The meta-levels of the mind are not static, rigid, or in a hierarchy. They are fluid, plastic, and function as a holography. From the beginning of NLP, the co-founders of this domain alluded to logical levels. NLP especially depended upon Bateson's logical Levels of learning (1980: 158-160, 212). In this work I have returned to Bateson's research to both highlight and mine more of his treasures regarding metalevels. I have also devoted much attention to another grandfather of neurolinguistic training (the person who actually coined that term), Alfred Korzybski. Korzybski provided the original model for how our neurolinguistics (our mind-body abstracting or modeling processes) take in "information" via our sense receptors from the territory out there to create our neurological and linguistic maps of that territory. -11-

NLP: Going Meta

Preface

L. Michael Hall

Along with Bateson and Korzybski, Robert Dilts (1983) has contributed so much to our understanding of meta-levels. He wrote the first extensive application of logical levels in NLP. The first seventy-eight pages of Roots (actually written in 1976) constitute the first NLP translation of Korzybski's levels of abstraction as well as analysis of Gregory Bateson's work. At the same time, the depth and complexity of that writing has also undoubtedly contributed to keeping it from becoming well known and integrated into NLP. Part of my design in this work is to make Robert’s original work more explicit. As NLP, a model of human functioning, has developed and grown in the nearly twenty-five years since its inception, numerous logical levels systems have appeared. I have identified and described a dozen of those models (chapter five). I have also included a list of other sets of levels that have been contributed to NLP, but which do not meet the criteria of being “logical levels.” As far as I know, the chapter on “logical levels” serves as the only written material (to date) that provides an extensive understanding of the criteria that comprise meta-levels. To understand the structure of a subjective experience we not only need to know the horizontal direction where one’s mind-body goes, we also need to know the vertical direction. The TOTE model of strategy analysis that examines a person’s representations, meta-programs, “sub-modalities,” etc. gives us the tools for the first set of distinctions. To obtain the second set of distinctions we have to take into account such phenomena as meta-levels, self-reflexive consciousness, systemic thinking, and second- and third-order abstractions. Having developed the MetaStates model in 1994 on Korzybski’s “levels of abstractions” and Bateson’s logical levels of learning, I here relate how we use that model of reflexivity and recursiveness in the mind-body system. Doing this provides us with many more essential distinctions necessary in tracking down consciousness in the adventure of discovering “the structure of subjective experiences.” Finally, as I bring this book to completion, I have attempted also to integrate some of the modeling concerns that Dr. Martin Roberts brought to the whole issue of modeling in his articles in Rapport. Have we over-sold modeling when some have publicized NLP as giving the magic key to everybody? “Anything one person can do, anybody can do.” Roberts (1998, 1999) has surfaced the concern about NLP’s elimination of -12-

NLP: Going Meta

Preface

L. Michael Hall

background knowledge. Martin has asked some hard questions. If we get a pilot’s strategy for flying, his VAK process and his beliefs and values, etc., does that give us enough to ask him to turn over the controls to us? Do we not also need to ask, “What do I absolutely have to know about these gauges before I take over?” And what about the training of the vestibular representational system that provides the pilot with a sense of balance? If you noticed the term “sub-modalities” in quotes, this highlights another facet of the NLP Model that the Meta-States Model (Hall, 1998) has challenged. When I began re-examining that model with Bob Bodenhamer, I did not know that we would end up totally questioning the prefix “sub” in “sub-modalities.” Yet we did. I discovered that there is no “sub” in the sense of a lower logical level. We have qualities, facets, components, elements, variables, and distinctions of representations in all of the sensory systems. Yet these representational distinctions are not a “sub” level. They rather exist as part and parcel of the representations. And inasmuch as you have to go meta to even detect these distinctions, we also discovered (not surprisingly) that you have to go meta to shift, alter, and transform this structural distinction. What does that mean in terms of modeling? It means that “the difference that makes a difference” (Bateson) does not occur at some supposed “sub” level, it occurs at a meta-level. This really should come as no surprise. NLP has long distinguished content from structure. It has also, from the beginning, recognized that we deal with structure at a meta-level. But that’s another story. You can find it in Sub-Modalities Going Meta (Hall and Bodenhamer, 2005). All of this highlights how NLP, as a Model of Models (Modeling II), continues to model and expand itself. And so it should. And the originators anticipated this. "The neurolinguistic programming model itself is continually changing, transforming and improving itself." (1980: 201)

And now NLP—Going Meta: Advanced NLP Modeling with Meta-Levels. L. Michael Hall June, 1997

-13-

FOREWORD Dr. Graham Dawes NLP Trainer, London

A

nother Michael Hall production! This guy has books just leaping out of his computer. 'He who runs may read,' but you'd have to run fast to keep up with his output. This man has a turbo-charged writing strategy. Words are absolutely fizzing out of his fingers. A fountain of prose first splashed across the pages of Anchor Point in articles on background figures of NLP, such as Bateson and Korzybski (both of whom feature here). Then he was toying with textual change history in pieces on thinkers and therapists who 'almost discovered NLP.' What followed was a steep jump as Hall went into overdrive, popping out the pieces that developed his Meta States Model. Now this giddy headlong rush into print has arrived as books. A dozen and counting; with many another book in manuscript, just waiting for some publisher to dress it up right, comb its hair and pat it on its way out the door and into the world. Hall's Meta States Model proposes that we have states about our states, and that many of the feeling states that trouble us are the result of tangling ourselves in these recursive loops. For instance, we may feel anxious about something. But often we don't leave it there. We go on to feel stupid about feeling anxious, then annoyed at ourselves for being stupid, then worried about what we might be doing to our immune system, and end up feeling completely out of control. However, the same process can work beneficially. Recognizing that we've got into such a state could trigger a feeling of amusement at ourselves which, as a meta state, changes the quality of the lower level states. The Meta States Model, through drawing attention to the recursive element in consciousness—its joys and dangers—reinforces the value of that stock-taking question, 'Is how I'm thinking/feeling right now beneficial to me?' (an inquiry at the heart of any practice of self-management). Ultimately, by putting our focus on the relationship between us and ourselves, the Meta States Model leads to the question: 'How are you going to treat yourself?' -14-

NLP Going Meta

Foreword

Dr. Graham Dawes

In this book we have a venture into Theoretical NLP—a somewhat neglected domain, indeed, an almost proscribed one in so pragmatic a field. NLP has been promoted on a utilitarian, 'get it done' platform—brought to you by the cowboys of instrumentalism. Theory was scorned in favour of models, which claim only to be about 'what works'. This polarization came from a time when theory was thought to be about absolute reality. That paradigm crashed long ago, though there are many still picking at the wreckage. Theory no longer speaks for a rock-solid Reality. It's a human construct. With a history. And a bunch of underlying assumptions. Just as real as anything else. From today's perspective, models look every bit as dogmatic about 'how things are' as any theory. Perhaps a more fruitful distinction is between a theory for understanding and a theory for action. A theory for understanding may offer little guidance for action (whence the NLP criticism of theory), whereas a theory for action will always carry at least an implicit theory for understanding. NLP is for action, of course, but it draws a lot on the resources of theory (e.g., distinctions, concepts, relations between concepts, classes and categories, hierarchical ordering, evidence procedures, etc.) For those in NLP, models 'r us. Putting together models, then pulling them apart to create something new—that's the in-breath and out-breath of theory. That is what keeps it alive. NLP is a restless spirit; a field for the clash and play of models, through which we design bootstraps by which to pull ourselves up. Not surprisingly, this makes of NLP a multi-model approach. There is very little core to NLP. Most of the techniques, if viewed as expressions of implicit models of human behaviour and change, point in different directions. The model underlying Anchoring is different from the model underlying Parts which is different from the model underlying Strategies which is different from the model underlying Change History which is different from the model underlying Sub-modalities, etc. That we accommodate all these disparate models of human behaviour and change, and can utilize them all in any one intervention, proposes the character of NLP as an 'open theoretical system'. In this book, Hall addresses the Strategy Model as the first and best known model of the modeling process (though it bore scant resemblance to how Richard Bandler and John Grinder modeled Fritz Perls, Virginia Satir, and Milton Erickson). Having opened it up to question, on the grounds of inadequate handling of meta levels, he takes us on a tour of Logical Levels, -15-

NLP Going Meta

Foreword

Dr. Graham Dawes

in all the many guises through which they have influenced and become part of NLP—from Bateson to Korzybski to Dilts, through to Hall's own MetaStates Model—with a detour to address the question of when is a level a Logical Level, and the confusion that arises when a Logical Type is placed in a Level. (Fortunately, the domain of description is forgiving and concepts and models can be used and useful without having to be Swiss-precision engineered.) The stage is then set for his bringing together the Strategy Model and the Meta-States Model, both to enlarge the mapping of experience and the possibilities for change. Whether or not the reader will embrace this proposal depends on personal preference and prejudice, and as for the NLP community at large, only time will tell. But it would be a mistake to think that the success of this book as a contribution to NLP stands or falls on that outcome. Whether you agree with him or not, Hall is an immensely stimulating writer. He has jumped into the NLP playpen with evident delight, enthralled by moving distinctions around like wooden blocks, building new arrangements and throwing off new framings. Mainly he's building up, going meta. (In fact, he's run through so many NLP models, re-examining them from a meta-states perspective, that there's a danger the Meta-States Model will be known as the model that ate NLP.) Ideas click-clack into place like cortical mah-jong. The game's afoot. Here is someone who has a word, or few, to say about everything. As a reader, you are given new ideas and perspectives to entertain while, at the same time, being stimulated to your own fresh thinking. That is a significant contribution to anybody's neural community. Snap those synapses, baby. As book succeeds book, the Meta-States Model is being enriched in short order. It's like watching crystals grow. Here, for instance, Hall adds the notion that meta states can coalesce into primary states. That gives them strong somatic expression. Being meta-states doesn't mean they only take us up and away into the aether, dissociated, and abstract. Collapsed into a primary state they can be experienced as multi-level hurt, and there's nothing abstract about how that feels. Here you will also find a fascinating exploration of the nature of higher level abstractions, while familiar concepts, such as 'personality' and 'the self', are given unfamiliar elaborations. Language takes a central place in the Meta States Model, and in expounding on its experiential influence Hall describes it as a meta-representational system (a status it once had in an -16-

early version of the 4-, 5- or 6-tuple). Indeed, thinkers like Humberto Maturana and Francisco Varela would probably claim that language is our only representational system (their ideas also suggest NLP will need to transcend its founding metaphor of mind as computer). With emphasis on the instrumental, enthusiasts of NLP have often fallen in thrall to techniques. "Don't just stand there, change something!" Indeed, there's a danger of NLP disappearing into its techniques and being sucked out into applications for all manner of other fields, leaving the generative fractal equation of NLP as a dry forgotten husk. There are already different definitions of NLP: as the study of the structure of subjective experience, as an attitude and a methodology that leaves a trail of techniques, or as a practical epistemology. Let me offer another. In the Big Picture, NLP is an adventure in experience. That gives it pretty well infinite scope. As humans, experience is what we've got plenty of. In fact, it's all we've got. It's the heart of being human. For some, experience has already been colonized, even paved over by urban developers and high rises in a sprawling city of Certainty. Certainty is a presumption unbecoming to NLP where experience is the Big Country, a range wide open to the horizon. A few homesteads, some warring bands, herds of wild horses, and little civilization. Michael Hall is out riding that range with a lasso and a "Yahoo!" Graham Dawes London, Sept. 1997

-17-

PART I

STRATEGIES FOR MODELING

-18-

Chapter 1

MODELING USING NLP Beginning with the Pieces of Subjectivity "The Map is not the Territory." (Korzybski, 1933)

W

hen we enter into the domain of Neuro-Linguistic Programming, we enter into the wild and wonderful field of "the study of the structure of subjectivity.” Awareness of structure is what drives NLP as a model. On the surface, where most people meet and encounter it, NLP is about “running your own brain.” Yet above and beyond that is the cognitive-behavioral model that came from the Cognitive Movement that seeks to explicate the plans and structures of experience. It is this theoretical part of NLP that leads us to explore the basic questions about how we humans function: How do humans “work?” How do our neuro-linguistic processes work? What causes us to experience things as we do? Why do we think and feel as we do? What explains the “formula” for success and/or failure? What does it take to experience more love, joy, peace, success, connection, humor, and excellence in life? How can I “run my own brain” and run it more efficiently?

The Central Facets of NLP Our study of NLP introduces us to the three most influential and essential components involved in our everyday experiences: neurology, language, and programming. Neuro-linguistic Programming, as a model of human functioning, describes the dynamics within our mind-body system and their -19-

NLP Going Meta

Chapter 1

Modeling Using NLP

interactions as a system. These interactive dynamics and the “rules” that govern them generate our neuro-linguistic "model of the world." Is this important? You bet it is. The value begins as we actually learn to run our own brain and manage our own states. These skills then affect everything. After all, out of our mapping of our model of the world come our emotions, behaviors, perceptions, communications, etc. Add all of these together, and we get the key factors that influence the very quality of our life, of our experiences. Neurology Neurology describes how our bodies, nervous systems, physiology and basic embodiment contribute in processing information, creating our basic orientation in the world, generate our states, and then the behaviors that result from those states. Neuro speaks about the grounding of our reasoning, experiencing, abstracting, and thinking in our body as an organism-in-an-environment. Linguistic Linguistic describes how we use symbols to represent the external world. We do not act on the world directly, but indirectly through symbols. We create an internal representation via various symbolic systems (i.e., words, sentences, metaphors, gestures, mathematics, music, art, etc.). This allows us to move beyond the mere signal level of animal communication to the use of full-fledged symbols for human communication. Programming Programming describes those formats, processes, technologies, patterns, models, paradigms, etc. by which we organize our neurolinguistics in useful ways. “Programming” refers to how we organize and structure information so that it enables us to produce specific responses. This description sets out an overview of the field of NLP. The NLP Model uses these three facets of experience to model the structure of experience. This first chapter will highlight the pieces of subjectivity. These factors comprise the essential genius of this model —the products created by Modeling I. In Chapter Two, I will expand upon the basic NLP model by providing a summary description of the Strategy Model itself—Modeling II. This will -20-

NLP Going Meta

Chapter 1

Modeling Using NLP

give me an opportunity to summarize the key distinctions that govern modeling. With that foundation, we will take the next step in NLP by going to meta-levels and incorporating the higher levels of mind. This will entail developing a clear understanding of "logical levels" as meta-levels, and using that information to do advanced modeling. NLP — A Model of Models Here’s some history. The NLP model arose as an experiment in modeling human excellence. It started with a student of Gestalt Therapy (Frank Pucelik) along with a college student who claims to have been studying computer programming and mathematics (Richard Bandler), along with a young professor of linguistics (John Grinder). Ultimately they put their heads together to figure out the structure of expertise of three communication wizards. It began as they started to look at the quality skills that Fritz Perls and Virginia Satir demonstrated in communicating therapeutically with clients. It seemed that they could do magic. “How were they able to do that?” From modeling their skills and patterns, Bandler, Pucelik, and Grinder (1975) created a basic model about the unarticulated models that Perls and Satir used which guided their responses, behavior, and language. They designated this model-about-a-model "a meta-model of language in therapy." With that they initiated NLP. They came to the modeling task with backgrounds that equipped them to think in terms of breaking down complex behaviors and linguistic patterns into smaller and smaller chunks. Adopting this perspective, they began to look for the components of human subjectivity. As a result, they eventually found the pieces of subjectivity in the sensory representational systems (RS). They used the sensory modes (i.e., visual, auditory, kinesthetic, olfactory, gustatory) as the building-block components of subjectivity. From there they asked a series of essential modeling questions: How does this work? How does any subjective experience like therapeutic communication, motivation to get up in the morning, staying resourceful in the face of negative feedback, etc. work? What goes first, then second, then third?

As they asked such questions, they began thinking in terms of how to sequence these elements. In this way their modeling attitude drove their -21-

NLP Going Meta

Chapter 1

Modeling Using NLP

discoveries. If our neuro-linguistic "bio-computer" (the information processing unit of brain-body) gets “programmed” so that we can perform behaviors of excellence, then what comprises the internal structure of these sequences of representational sensory systems? From this inquiry they gave birth to the Strategy Model (Chapter 2). The Philosophy/Epistemology of NLP The modeling attitude essentially asks one question, a question about process, although we may pose the question in many ways— How does it work? How do you know this? How do you know what to do next? How do you represent this?

These questions underscore the inherent constructivistic epistemology of NLP. From what source did these ideas come into NLP? Primarily from the work of the engineer, Alfred Korzybski and the field that he pioneered, General Semantics (GS). Epistemology concerns what we know, how we know what we know, and how can we know that we know. Alfred Korzybski (1933/1994) expressed this most succinctly in his famous quote, “The map is not the territory." What we know and experience "inside" (i.e., which comprises our internal subjective experience) differs radically from what exists "outside" (i.e., the territory). What we know and experience within operates as a map as it relates to a territory. It may represent the territory, accord to it, reflect it, symbolize it, but it is not the territory. These two phenomena (map and territory) exist on different levels. They refer to two different dimensions of “reality” which we refer to as the "subjective" and "objective" levels of experience. What does this mean? Reflecting on this, Dilts, Bandler, Grinder, and DeLozier (1980) noted that we do not operate directly on the world. "Rather, we operate through coded interpretations of the environment as received and experienced in our sensory representational systems—through sights, sound, smell, taste and feeling. Information about our internal universe (as well as our internal states) is received, organized, consolidated and transmitted through an internal system of neural pathways that culminate in the brain—our central processing biocomputer. This information is then transformed through internal processing strategies that each individual has learned." (pp. 3-4) -22-

NLP Going Meta

Chapter 1

Modeling Using NLP

We do “operate” and we operate directly. We do not operate directly upon the world, we operate upon our maps of the world. The models that we build to cope with the world require that we identify and represent two things: 1) A set of structural elements: the code. 2) A syntax: the order and arrangement.

The structural elements comprise the building blocks and the syntax the set of rules or directions that describe how we can put the building blocks together. As a constructivist epistemology, NLP shares with Western scientific models its grounding in the realm of sensory experience and transforming environmental variables into decision variables (Dilts, 1980: 8-9). As such it focuses more on form than content. It differs from such models inasmuch as it includes the observer in the model (1980: 10). In doing so, NLP adopts a systems approach to mind-body. It explores how the brain creates (or constructs) internal representations (IR) that thereby generate our states of consciousness. Our mind-body, culture, language, etc., in fact, form an ecology of complex systems so that no part operates in isolation from the other parts. Constructivism means that we do not deal with the territory (“reality” beyond our nervous system), but only our own constructed internal reality. So how can we know “reality?” Two ways. Korzybski argued first for a correspondence model of truth, meaning that our models should have a structural correspondence with the territory. Secondly, he argued for pragmatic model of truth. This means we need a model that enables us to navigate effectively. Even if a map does not strictly correspond to the territory (we may code it in metaphor, myth, poetry, etc.), if it facilitates our experience, then, to that extent, it works to take us somewhere useful. The Components of Subjectivity We begin our analysis with the sensory representation systems (RS). These make explicit that we “think” or represent information in the sensory modes of seeing, hearing, feeling, smelling, and tasting. From our sensory apparatus mechanisms (i.e., eyes, ears, internal sensations, tactile feelings), we input data from the outside and so perceptually map the world “out there.” We then "think" as we use these see-hear-feel forms to re-present what we have seen, heard, felt, etc. to create our representational map. The brain uses its senses (sensory modalities) to form these modes of awareness. -23-

NLP Going Meta

Chapter 1

Modeling Using NLP

We cannot think without these basic modes. These components comprise the very form of our thoughts as distinct from their content. Given that we process information in sensory channels, we notate the RS in this way: V — Visual (images, pictures) A —

At K 0 G M

Auditory (sounds, tones)

—

Auditory tonal (sounds)

—

Kinesthetics (tactile & internal sensations of the body)

—

Olfactory (smell)

—

Gustatory (taste)

— Motor movements

The RS (representational systems) may refer to either external or internal sources of data. We may notate this by adding an e or I as a superscript as in Vi (visual internal). The RS may also refer to remembered information stored inside neurologically ® or constructed in the imagination ©. r — Remembered information (VAK) c — Constructed information (VAK) — Internal source of information. I e

—

External source of information (uptime, sensory awareness)

Nor do we stop there. Because we can reflect back on our representations and create representations of representations, we move to yet another higher level of consciousness. We do this by using language as a symbolic system. To denote that we have a meta-representational system consisting of higher level symbols (i.e., words, language, and abstract symbols) by which we create our conceptual maps, we use the following notation: Ad — Auditory Digital (the language system, words, self-talk) We also use images, icons, diagrams, etc. as symbols to stand for conceptual ideas (e.g., a scale for “justice”) and so work with Visual-digital. Vd — Visual Digital (The visual system of higher level images) We can even do that with sensations, feelings, touch, movement, gesture (Kinesthetics) and so can create a K-digital. Kd — Kinesthetic digital: using sensations, gestures for concepts. By means of all of these RS, we present information to ourselves again. This means that our internal “thinking” grows from, and builds upon, our external sensory modalities (e.g. the VAK plus all of the higher levels of symbol use and language). These endow us with several mapping tools that -24-

NLP Going Meta

Chapter 1

Modeling Using NLP

enable us to generate maps of the world that we then use as we navigate the territory. As the building blocks encode experience (i.e., behavior, beliefs, emotions, meanings, understandings), we use these RS to make distinctions about our internal and external environments, and to encode our ongoing experience. In discovering RS, the developers noted something else. Most people favor one RS over the others. Some people favor the visual sensory system, others the auditory, others the kinesthetic, and yet others the language system. This leads to the possibility of over-using a favorite RS to the neglect of the others. Later, they discovered another domain which they pictured as buried within the RS domain. First named pragmagraphics by Todd Epstein, these distinctions were later called “sub-modalities.” They viewed them as referring to sub-elements within each sensory modality, to specific qualities or properties of the RS. In 1999 Bob Bodenhamer and I wrote The Structure of Excellence, which is now retitled, Sub-Modalities Going Meta, 2005). We discovered that these distinctions, features, facets, components, elements, and qualities do not refer to a “sub” or lower logical level. To both detect and work with these distinctions, you have to go meta. This makes these distinctions meta-modality distinctions. What is the importance and significance of these distinctions? They provide the brain with specific information for sorting, coding, and framing experience. At the level where we detect and alter these distinctions (i.e., a meta-level), we discover the central place where we can encode the Bateson idea of "the difference that makes the difference." This provides us the ability to change the internal coding of the program of a behavior. Typically we do not consciously experience these distinctions. Yet, just as typically, we can easily make them conscious by simply taking noting of these qualities in our RS. In terms of modeling, the meta-domain of cinematic features is where we detect and transform the representational distinctions (“sub-modalities”). They cue us about the semantic secrets regarding the difference that makes a difference in experiences. Because this meta-level understanding enables you to quickly alter the very structure of an experience, these distinctions play an important role in the structure of experience. -25-

NLP Going Meta

Chapter 1

Modeling Using NLP

Ultimately, we format and program our behavior, skills, and competencies via the process of combining and sequencing these representational distinctions. Doing so creates our behavioral “strategies.” We call the processing of stimuli through a sequence of internal representations "a strategy." When we do strategy work, we focus on the processes of unpackaging and repackaging behavior into efficient and communicable sequences made up of these representations. We do this in terms of formulas or inductions: first see this picture and say these words to yourself in the tonality and volume of X ... In this way we can format new and better ways of functioning. Map-Making: Creating Maps For Charting the Territory Three modeling processes describe how we internally map the world to create our programs. These processes summarize how we transform the energy manifestations from the territory and map them representationally inside our nervous system. The three modeling processes involve those of deletion, generalization, and distortion. Deletion We delete because we cannot possibly process all of the billions of bits of information that impinge upon our nervous system at any given moment. We simply do not have the sensory apparatus to input all available data. Our eyes scan only a very narrow part of the light spectrum. Our ears receive only a very narrow band of sound wave frequencies. This describes two ways in which we do not deal with reality directly, but indirectly via -26-

NLP Going Meta

Chapter 1

Modeling Using NLP

brain and nervous system. We only register a small portion of the sights, sounds, sensations, smells, and tastes do come in. In doing so, our brain protects us by selectively attending items. Yet this deleting function becomes problematic when we delete essential or important items of information. Huxley (1954) described the function of the brain and nervous system as designed "... to protect us from being overwhelmed and confused by this mass of largely useless and irrelevant knowledge, by shutting out most of what we should otherwise perceive or remember at any moment ... To make biological survival possible, Mind at Large has to be funneled through the reducing valve of the brain and nervous system. What comes out at the other end is a measly trickle of the kind of consciousness which will help us to stay alive on the surface of this particular planet." (p. 23 italics added)

He later described our experience of "the world of reduced awareness" as expressed and "petrified" by language (p. 24). Miller (1956), in a classic paper, asserted that consciousness has a limit of 7 +/-2 chunks of information. Because this severely limits our learnings, we have to habitualize perception, learnings, or "programs" thereby letting our "unconscious" mind run them. When we habitually repeat a certain mental pattern, it drops out of conscious awareness so that we store and run it unconsciously (Dilts, 1980: 53-54). What is this phenomenon that we call consciousness? The NLP developers described consciousness as "an emergent property of neural system activity." Dilts, et al. said that a representation attains consciousness only when it reaches a certain level of intensity. Given consciousness' limitation of 7+/-2 chunks of information at a time (a "chunk" in consciousness refers to a patterning in experience we have not yet made unconscious), when it achieves the status of a TOTE, it drops out of consciousness, leaving consciousness free to attend other things. Generalization With the over-abundance of data, we generalize to summarize patterns. We create generalizations to simplify the world via categorizing, organizing, abstracting, and making higher level learnings. We generalize by putting items of similar function, structure, nature, etc. into categories. We look for -27-

NLP Going Meta

Chapter 1

Modeling Using NLP

gestalts of meaning, configurations of significance, and synthesis of information so as to build generalizations. We look for patterns and when we find an experience repeating a time or two, we often jump to the conclusion that we have a pattern. This saves us time and trouble. Doing this saves us from having to constantly face the world anew and map it out afresh. From similar syntax, context, form, significance, etc. we give the world of infinite variety order and meaning. In this way, we construct our realities—our Models of the World. Distortion Via our deleting and generalizing of data as we build our models, we inescapably distort things. We cannot not distort things. Even our sense receptors distort perceptual input. We first experience the territory via our perceptual filters. Once we install our programs, our representational system “thoughts” move to a higher logical level (the conceptual level) as beliefs, values, and attitudes (higher level distortions). The very process of seeing potentials in something involves distortion. When we impose meaning or value on some item, we have another form of distortion. This facet of the modeling process is not either good nor bad in itself, it simply reflects the way our nervous system handles and organizes data. Color does not exist “out there” in the world. It emerges from an interaction between the energy manifestations of the electromagnetic field and the way our nervous system and eyes process it. Our sense of color arises as a distortion of the nervous system as supplied by our rods and cones. Every form of distortion (from primary level perceptions to higher level beliefs, values, paradigms, concepts, etc.), in turn, organize us. The structure of the distortion psychologically organizes our identity and “personality.” It structures the way we think, perceive, feel, value, believe, and act. This highlights the fact that our maps have a recursiveness and reflexivity in them. They set up higher level frames that operate as attractors in a self-organizing system. This explains how, over time, they form us in their image. The beliefs and values that result from our map making induce us into our states of consciousness which, in turn, define, identify, motivate, and order us. This creates our particular form of "personality." (The Structure of Personality, Hall, Bodenhamer, Bolstad, & Hamblett, 2001). -28-

NLP Going Meta

Chapter 1

Modeling Using NLP

Neuro-Linguistic Modeling That Results in Strategy Maps What results from all of this deleting, generalizing, and distorting? We construct our own personal and idiosyncratic internal map of the world. This endows us with our own personal paradigm that we then use to navigate the territory. This explains how we come to differ from one another in spite of the similarity of our nervous systems and experience. It explains why we act, feel, and respond as we do. It even explains how very intelligent people can engage in very stupid behavior. If we have an internal map that mismatches the external constraints, we act in “stupid” and senseless ways to those who don’t use our maps. Inasmuch as our mental maps operate as internal programs which govern and control perceptions, behaviors, communications, skills, states, etc., we inevitably operate in the world according to our maps. If our map causes us to delete something essential, to generalize a principle, rule, belief, or decide too quickly, to distort too much, these very programs or strategies can organize and motivate us in very unproductive ways. We described these processes and learnings as “strategies” or Modeling I. As we "run our brain" and nervous system in structured and organized ways, deleting, generalizing, distorting, etc., our brain gets into the habit of "going to the same place." This sets up directions. It solidifies our strategies (as sequence of RS) that keep orienting us in a given direction. We describe this when we say that every experience has an internal structure. Even disorganized states such as madness, confusion, procrastination, stress, etc. have a governing specific sensory blueprint. “Strategies” simply provide a formal description of what we do inside our head and nervous system to generate a particular behavior. This includes both micro-behaviors (i.e., thoughts, emotions, beliefs, values, states) and macro-behaviors (i.e., skills, experiences, communication, etc.). "Behavior," by the way, refers to either both macrobehavior or microbehavior. All behavior (learning, remembering, motivation, making a choice, communicating, changing, etc.) results from systematically ordered sequences of sensory representations. Preparations for Modeling There are component pieces that make up the phenomena that we call "mind," "personality," and human subjectivity. The NLP Model

-29-

details these in terms of the sensory and linguistic systems by which we represent our referents to ourselves. As a model about all of the pieces of subjectivity, NLP sketches out a picture of the necessary ingredients that we have to understand and work with to identify. Modeling simply refers to making a map of something so that we have a structure that informs us about how something works. Modeling makes the mapping processes explicit so that we can update them, refine them, or re-design them. This allows us to try on new structures of expertise and increase the quality of our lives.

-30-

Chapter 2

THE NLP STRATEGY MODEL The Modeling of Modeling (Modeling II) Origin and Description

N

LP first came on the scene as a model about detecting and transferring patterns. It was about what we’re calling Modeling I. Bandler, Pucelik, and Grinder began the domain as a powerful synthesis of a variety of the seemingly “magical” patterns of Perls, Satir, and Erickson. They primarily wanted to know one thing—how did these therapeutic wizards work their magic? The developers combined what they did, along with the patterns of reframing which Watzlawick, Weakland, Jackson, and Fisch in the MRI group had developed, and the meta-patterning of Bateson and Korzybski to initiate a new way of thinking about human psychology and a more extensive way of modeling. You’ll find their original formulations in The Structure of Magic, Volumes I and II (1975, 1976). Having taken a meta position to the language patterns of the three therapeutic wizards, the developers started by asking meta-level questions about the model in the minds of these therapists. They knew that it operated at a level meta to their way of responding and languaging. So they began asking Modeling II questions: How does one capture, encode, replicate, and transfer human skills and abilities? How do these experts, and other experts, do what they do? What beliefs support their expertise? -31-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 2

The NLP Strategy Model

What meta-programs, values, criteria, rules, etc. facilitate their experience of genius?

Eventually this way of thinking led them to wonder about how the experts created and generated their powerful patterns in the first place. Given that consciousness goes places to create various representations, how does a modeler track down the places that mind goes, as well as the steps along the way, in order to capture the original process? In their modeling of Perls and Satir (and then later Erickson), the developers began with the sensory pieces of subjectivity (the VAK) by which we encode "thoughts." They used the sensory representational systems along with the distinctions in those systems. In this way, they used these pieces of subjectivity to track over to their own internal "screen of consciousness" to pay attention to the ongoing story of representation and its coding. In this modeling, they used the cognitive model (the TOTE) along with several presuppositions which they picked up from Miller, Pribram, and Galanter. They presupposed that every behavior (skill, experience, expertise) operates from an internal structure. Human experience does not occur without some form or structure. If internal representational systems comprised the ingredients that we put together, and mix around, to create our experiences (including our thinking style, emotions, behaviors, "personality," etc.), then how do these ingredients relate to each other? What principles and relationships govern their order, sequence, amount, timing, etc.? Describing this takes us into the realm of strategies that we’re calling Modeling II. The foundation of NLP modeling begins with the Strategy Model. For that reason, I have devoted this chapter to that model. While the Strategy Model is fully described in Neuro-Linguistic Programming, Volume I, my review of it here is to locate it historically, and describe facets of it that remain viable after more than a quarter of a century of use. This will provide a fuller understanding about the domain of thinking in terms of strategies using NLP. In doing this, I want to ask several important questions: How did the co-founders of NLP come up with the Strategy Model for tracking the flow and movement of consciousness in the first place? From what other disciplines and fields did they draw upon? Once Upon a Time there was a Stimulus-Response Model... -32-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 2

The NLP Strategy Model

When modern psychology began at the turn of the Twentieth Century, several new models of "mind" and "personality" vied for acceptance. Wilhelm Wundt in Germany and his American popularizer, Titchner, presented an academic model that almost invented NLP through their emphasis on the sensory systems. But Wundt hated application. He thought of anything clinical as below him, so he worked hard to keep his model entirely academic. Wundt and Structuralism (the name of that School of Psychology), wanted psychology to operate as a "science of mind." Today many facets of his model have become part and parcel of most psychologies. Sigmund Freud in Vienna mixed "the hard science" of medicine with the "soft" art of mythology and mesmerism to create his particular brand of Psychoanalysis. His model started with a wild, primitive, out-of-control Id full of sexual, aggressive, hateful, rebellious, etc. forces. To that Id, he postulated two other entities. First was a conscious Ego rational "mind" that works from "the reality principle" and brings the reality principle to bear upon it. It does this to restrain the wild primitive urges of the Id. Then emerges the Super-Ego consciousness, or conscience. As it becomes more and more programmed with the rules of home, of culture, of society, of work, etc., it brings more restraint upon the irrational and totally selfish inner Id. Freud and the psychoanalysts, and even the neo-analysts, aimed to make psychology the "science of the unconscious." John Watson and the Behaviorists had a different vision of things. They suggested that because there was no empirical way to analyze the inner "black box" of the mind or consciousness, such things could not and need not be considered in terms of building a scientific discipline of psychology. They completely refocused psychology as they designated it as "the science of behavior." As they increasingly grew in influence throughout the 1920s, 30s, 40s, and into the 50s, Behaviorism (or Learning Theory) popularized the S-R Theory of human subjectivity. This Stimulus-Response (S-R) theory explained human functioning exclusively in terms of conditioning of behavior. "Stimuli X sets off response Y." "This eating disorder originated from that particular conditioning at suchand-such a date."

The behaviorists used this model to model how a person “learns” to respond or behave as he or she does. Relying heavily upon the original work of -33-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 2

The NLP Strategy Model

Pavlov in Russia, this model found two tremendously effective popularizers in John Watson at the beginning of the century, and B.F. Skinner in the middle of the century. Miller, Galanter, and Pribram (1960) wrote: "Sir Charles Sherrington and Ivan Petrovitch Pavlov are the two men who are probably most responsible for confirming the psychologist's image of man as a bundle of S-R reflexes." (p. 23)

Then the S-R Model Grew Up and Became the T.O.T.E. As problems grew with the Behaviorist model, several people tried to redeem it. Tolman was one such person. He gave the S-R model an I.V. injection in the early 1930s. Famous psychologists like Edward Tolman were becoming increasingly dissatisfied with the “black box.” Tolman introduced Intervening Variable (the I.V.) between the S—>R. He wrote in "Cognitive Maps In Rats and Men," in Psychological Review (1948): "[The brain] is far more like a map control room than it is like an oldfashioned exchange. The stimuli, which are allowed in, are not connected by just simple one-to-one switches to the outgoing responses. Rather, the incoming impulses are usually worked over and elaborated in the central control room into a tentative, cognitive-like map of the environment. And it is this tentative map, indicating routes and paths and environmental relationships, which finally determines what responses, if any, the animal will finally release." (Italics added)

Noam Chomsky's (1956) classic reply to Skinner regarding the source and nature of language in human consciousness essentially delivered a death blow to Behaviorism. At the same time, he developed his own revolutionary model into linguistics, Transformational Grammar. That theory would overturn Bloomfieldian linguistics and prevail for a couple decades. As the information age of computers, cybernetic systems, etc. grew, it launched what became known as the Cognitive Revolution of George Miller, et al. (dated 1956). Thereafter Miller, Galanter, and Pribram's produced their classic analysis that offered a new story in the vacuum of Behaviorism’s demise—Plans and the Structure of Behavior (1960). Going beyond the simple behaviorist Stimulus-Response Model and the reflex arc, they utilized their newly developed T.O.T.E. Model (hereafter, TOTE). This model provided a flow-chart for tracking human subjectivity from stimulus through internal "processing." It did so in terms of the -34-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 2

The NLP Strategy Model

human responses in a particular sequence: Testing-Operating-TestingExiting. Test: First a person would Test a stimulus against his or her internal models (i.e., plans, expectations, thoughts, ideas, paradigms). Operate: If a person did not have what he or she wanted, then one would Operate. He or she would operate to alter either the stimulus or his or her own internal map. Test: This would then lead to another Test. The person would test for congruency or the lack of it. If incongruent, the person would recycle through the same loop. Exit: If congruent, the person would Exit the program.

In this way, Miller et al. adapted the S-R model and expanded it so that they could specify more precisely what process events went on in “the black box” of mind. In both of these models, the simple S-R Model, as well as the TOTE Model, we have a fundamental description of the modeling process. Both start with a stimulus in some present state and attempt to track the process whereby a person gets to a new, different, and better response leaving one in a more desired state. The TOTE model updated the S-R model of the reflex arc primarily by incorporating two very critical elements in its modeling of human experience: feedback and outcome. "There is feedback from the result of the action of the testing phase, and we are confronted by a recursive loop. The simplest kind of diagram to represent this conception of reflex action—an alternative to the classical reflex arc—would have to look something like figure [2:1]." (p. 23)

Figure 2:1

-35-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 2

The NLP Strategy Model

The more refined model of the TOTE offered a formal format of the internal processing sequence which gets triggered by a stimulus. Tests referred to the conditions that the operation had to meet before the response would occur. In feedback phase, the system operates to change some aspect of the stimulus or of the person's internal state to satisfy the test. Dilts, et al. (1980), illustrated the working of a TOTE with tuning in a radio to a station. "When you adjust the volume dial on your radio or stereo, you continually test the sound volume by listening to it. If the volume is too low, you operate by turning the knob clockwise. If you overshoot and the volume becomes too loud, you operate by turning the knob counterclockwise to reduce the intensity of the sound. When you have adjusted the amplifier to the appropriate volume, you exit from the 'volume-adjusting' TOTE and settle into your comfortable armchair to continue reading." "What do the arrows represent? What could flow along them from one box to another? We shall discuss three alternatives: energy, information, and control." (p. 27)

The founders of the Cognitive Movement in psychology, Miller, Galanter, and Pribram structured the TOTE to identified the flow of information through a system. To do that, they used the method of measuring information which Norbert Wiener and Claude Shannon had developed. Then they discussed the concept of "control" in the system. Namely, they described information as "a set of instructions" controlling responses or behavior. "It is the notion that what flows over the arrows in figure [2:2] is an intangible something called control. The arrows may indicate only succession. This concept appears most frequently in the discussion of computing machines, where the control of the machine's operations passes from one instruction to another, successively, as the machine proceeds to execute the list of instructions that comprise the program it has been given. Imagine you look up a particular topic in a book. You open the book to the index and find the topic. As you look up each page reference in turn, your behavior can be described as under the control of that list of numbers, and control is transferred from one number to the next as you proceed through the list. The transfer of control could be symbolized by drawing arrows from one page number to the next, but the arrows would have a meaning quite different from the two meanings mentioned previously." (p. 30)

-36-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 2

The NLP Strategy Model

Figure 2:2

When we Operate in the Test stage, this reveals congruity or incongruity. Does our map of the World (the ideas, expectations, desires, etc. in our head) fit with our Experience of the World? If we experience incongruity between the two, we loop back to the first test. If we find congruity between map and experience, we exit. This model also maps out and demonstrates the importance of continually applying resources to a present state in order to achieve a new outcome state. We keep operating on the difference between map and territory. Success comes from repeatedly testing present states against desired outcomes, then accessing and applying resources until we bring about a congruency between the two states. In this way, the TOTE model presupposes that we can achieve behavioral excellence through the following elements: 1) Having specified a future goal of what we want. 2) Having the sensory and behavioral evidence that indicate the cues that indicate when we have achieved the goal. 3) A range of operations, procedures, and choices by which we can reach the goal.

NLP did not invent the Strategy Model out of thin air. The developers took the TOTE model and enriched it with the sensory representation systems. Modeling Excellence In NLP, we usually focus on eliciting excellence rather than pathology. Yet this is not always the case. Sometimes the structure of a particular -37-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 2

The NLP Strategy Model

pathology can offer some incredible insights about what the human mindbody is capable of. More typically we elicit resourceful experiences (i.e., creativity, motivation, remembering, decision, conviction, confidence, etc.). We do this in order to invite a person to create more and more internal resources. This leads to the basic elicitation in strategy work: "As you remember a time when you experienced all your full resources and potential as a person, go there fully and completely so that you reexperience that experience completely."

Other general elicitation questions include: Trigger Questions: How do you know when to begin the process of...? (motivation, deciding, learning) What lets you know you feel ready to...?

Operation Questions: What do you do first? What happens as you begin? What do you do when you don't feel sure that you have reached your goal?

Test Questions: What comparison do you make? How do you know when you have satisfied your criteria?

Choice Point Questions: What lets you know you have finished? What lets you know you should move on to something else? What lets you know you have or have not succeeded? How do you know you've ended your process?

Let’s now apply this to a person’s learning strategy. First we ask the person to think about a time or situation wherein he or she learned something extremely well with ease and competence. Then we can follow up with the following questions. Operations Questions: What happens as you learn something? What do you do as you prepare to learn something? What steps do you go through to learn something quickly? What do you do when you don't feel sure that you have met your criteria? -38-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 2

The NLP Strategy Model

Test Questions: What demonstrates that you have successfully learned something quickly? How do you know when you have learned something quickly? How do you test whether you have achieved your desired outcome?

Decision Point Questions: How do you know when you have successfully learned easily and effectively? What lets you know that you have not yet finished learning something? What lets you know to move on to something else? When you don't feel sure you have successfully learned something, what lets you know that?

An Unpleasant Task Suppose we want to track the strategy of the neuro-linguistics (i.e. the mindbody system) of someone who can complete a task that others consider unpleasant. How do we discover that strategy? Begin by asking about the experience in a general way so that the person begins to access the state. One man I interviewed would look at the situation externally and make a constructed image of seeing himself carrying out the proposed behavior and then quickly fast-forward the movie to the end. Then he created an internal picture of the desired results and felt good about that—even compelled. After that internal movie, he would get a positive feeling of muscle tension and increasing warmth. He would then hear a voice saying, "Just do it" in a matter-of-fact tonality. When he would hear that voice, he simply would arise and execute the behavior.

Ve

Vc... Vc —m— K+

Ad t

Exit

Take a moment to do some mental tracking of your own neuro-linguistic responses. Do this with regard to the subject of getting up in the morning to go to work. Do you ever create a sense of anxiety, stress, and demotivation about getting up for work? What VAK code runs that program? One man said, "I tell myself that I can rest for a few more minutes, and I do. As time passes, my picture of arriving at work late gets bigger and closer and brighter. The same picture remains, but when it becomes big enough, I have to get out of bed to stop the bad feelings."

Ad

Vi/Vi/Vi/

K-39-

Exit

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 2

The NLP Strategy Model

Modelers Enriched the TOTE Model and Created Strategies In this way the developers of NLP discovered, invented, or polished the Strategy Model from the TOTE (Test-Operate-Test-Exit) of the cognitive psychologists, who developed that model to more completely elaborate the S-R model. This illustrates the time-binding principle of Korzybski. They did not reinvent the wheel, but used the earlier discoveries and built upon them. The TOTE provides the basic format for describing a specific sequence of behavior. It describes a sequence of activities that consolidates into a functional unit of behavior which typically executes below the threshold of consciousness. Designating this process as a neuro-linguistic strategy, Dilts, Bandler, Grinder, and DeLozier (1980) articulated the NLP model with the template of the TOTE. As they did, they enriched and extended the TOTE to include the representational pieces: sensory representational systems, the distinctions of these sensory modalities (“sub-modalities”), eye accessing cues, linguistic predicates, etc. By these pieces one could learn to unpack an unconscious strategy, anchor the elements together, reframe the meanings involved, and thereby design and install a new strategy. These new enrichments much more fully articulated a model for modeling excellence as it provided a way to look further and deeper into “the black box.” At the same time it provided a much more extensive and precise language. In these ways NLP refined the TOTE model. It specified how we do our testing and operating in terms of the sensory systems and the precise distinctions in those systems. As the NLP co-founders restated Test Conditions and Operations as taking place through the representational systems, they greatly refined the S-R and TOTE Models. For instance, a person could compare external/internal visual remembered ( Ve/Vi) to test something. "Does this spelling look like the way I remembered that it should look?" Or one could do it in the kinesthetic system ( Ke/Ki ) or in the auditory (Ae/Ai ). The experience of congruence (which leads to exiting a program), and incongruence (which typically keeps one looping inside a program) also shows up as represented through one of the representational systems. In this model, a Test may take place between two internally stored or generated representations. Tests may involve tests of the intensity, size, -40-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 2

The NLP Strategy Model

color, etc. of a representation. A person may require that a certain sensation, sound, or sight reach a certain threshold value before it produces a sufficient signal to exit a program. Since most people seem to generally prefer one representational system over another, we speak about RS primacy to describe how we use our most highly valued RS in performing Tests and Operations. We often do this even when it does not work very well and sometimes even when it creates difficulties and limitations. In the more refined NLP Strategy Model we have discovered that modeling effectiveness often involves matching the appropriate RS to the task (i.e., visual RS to spelling, auditory to music). In fact, one goal in doing TOTE and RS analysis involves just this. Finding the most appropriate RS for the TOTE steps that will allow us to get to the desired outcome in the least amount of steps. We use the term elegance to designate this. As a result, the Strategy Model provided a new focus and motivation about our RS. It enables us to think about using all of our RS as resources to improve learning and performance. Consider spelling strategies. A phonetic strategy for spelling would entail a sequence of Ae Ai/Ae /Ar (hear word—> internally sound out word/ compare it against how it sounds, and against remembered phonetic rules about pronunciation, etc.). Yet because the visual coding of the English language does not follow phonetic rules, people who use a visual strategy for spelling consistently outperform those who use auditory strategies. The sounding-out strategy works very well for oral reading presentations. It does not work well for spelling. A typical visual strategy for spelling involves a set of steps as in Figure 2:3. Figure 2:3 Ae

Spelling TOTE Vc

/Vr

Ki+ or

Exit or Ki-

(Hear sound of word Test against Sense that it feels right & construct visual IR) Visual or that it feels wrong Representation Image of the word If it feels wrong, loop back to recall another visual image.

-41-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 2

The NLP Strategy Model

Preparing for Modeling

A “strategy” in NLP refers to the representational steps from initial Stimulus in the world to final Response in our neurology. The NLP developers took the TOTE model of the cognitivists and enriched it with representational steps. While a strategy of an expert does provide a model for how that person achieves something, modeling involves more than just strategy elicitation. And yet, modeling almost always begins with strategy work. The magic of strategy elicitation is that it gives us access into the “black box” of human experience. By following where the mindbody system responds, we are able to specify how a person creates his or her magic.

-42-

Chapter 3

STRATEGIES FOR MODELING The Beginning of Modeling

G

iven that strategies are a way to think about, analyze, and track “mind,” the NLP Strategy Model provides a way to describe the structure of experience. Dilts, et al. (1980) summarized strategies and strategy analysis in the following words: "All of our overt behavior is controlled by internal processing strategies. Each of you has a particular set of strategies for motivating yourself out of bed in the morning, for delegating job responsibilities to employees, for learning and teaching, for conducting business negotiations, and so on." (26)

As we analyze the sequence and composition of a strategy by decomposing its structure (the TOTE) into its components of representations, we discover its order or sequence. In doing this we track the activities and responses of the mind in that we track the step-by-step movements of the brain as it represents information and activates neurology to create its experiences. The TOTE model informs us that this involves performing Tests on input, Operating on the representations, perhaps looping around in Retesting until we eventually Exit the program in moving toward an Outcome. As a metaphor, think of the representations as functioning as digits on a telephone. To get our desired party, we have to push the digits on the phone in a certain sequence. To reach the person we want, we have to punch in the signals (the numbers) in a prescribed sequence. Similarly, we also have to sequence internal representations in orderly ways to reach specific -43-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 3

Strategies for Modeling

outcomes. It depends on both the signals we punch in and the order in which we punch them. If we punch in a sequence of representational activity (seeing this, hear that, feeling this, etc.) that leads to accessing mental-emotional resources, then we have modeled the structure of that experience. By the same token, we mis-strategize when we apply highly valued strategies in inappropriate contexts. We may use a strategy sequence that could work wonders in accomplishing some outcomes and creating some behaviors; yet when misapplied, this can create problems and limitations. This happens when we use an auditory strategy to spell or a visual strategy to read aloud. Other problems can arise in strategies. We may develop inflexibility or we may over-generalize our strategies. We may get stuck in them or loop around without an exit. This happens in certain phobia responses. We may build up unuseful strategies like losing our temper and flying into a rage over small things, jumping to conclusions, acting without thinking, personalizing other people’s misbehaviors, etc. We may misstrategize by tuning into inappropriate information in another RS. Mastering Strategies Tracking of mind through its sequential steps of processing so that we can replicate an experience presupposes numerous skills. Given that a strategy identifies where the brain goes and how it responds along the way, to produce similar results we have to minimally do the following. Identify and detect strategies Elicit and unpack strategies Interrupt and alter strategies Design new strategies and/or redesign old ones Install strategies and design installation plans Utilize a strategy in a different context

These modeling skills presuppose that we develop awareness and sensitivity to the signs and cues which indicate the operating of a strategy. It means developing the high level skills that we will need for managing a strategy that we elicit. This means skills in anchoring, reframing, pacing, etc. It implies the ability to do comparative analysis between strategies as well. In that way, we can learn to design better strategies. We unpack a strategy to make the unconscious processes conscious. Of course, when a behavior attains the status of a TOTE, its signal level lies -44-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 3

Strategies for Modeling

outside awareness. This means that we no longer know explicitly the details of each step and so we require much skill and practice in making these unconscious strategies explicit. Typically, even the person displaying the strategy will not consciously know the steps. For this, NLP has developed the art of calibrating to accessing cues, sensory specific predicates, generic body types, breathing patterns, etc. The Overall Pattern For Strategy Elicitation Suppose you want the recipe of a delicious dish. What do you need in order to create that delicious dish? You need specific information about the elements to use, the amounts, the order for mixing them together, temperature, etc. The same thing holds with regard to detecting and using the structure of subjective experiences to create experiences of excellence. The following offers the basic pattern for eliciting a strategy. 1) Begin by establishing a positive frame for rapport. You do that very well! Would you mind teaching me how to do that? Suppose I lived your life for a day, how would I do this? 2) Access the state. The person needs to fully and congruently associate with the skill or state. To fully elicit their strategy, you may want to take the person back to the place where the behavior naturally occurs. This lets the context, with its natural anchors (i.e. sitting at typewriter) elicit the response. Or we can elicit the state by reproducing a portion of the context (i.e. tonality, gestures, playacting, etc.). 3) Intensify the state. In elicitation, you will want to amplify and intensify the state. Doing this helps because the more of the state you evoke, the more of the experience you will have to work with. This will also enable you to more fully access the state. 4) Explore the how. "How do you do this?" If the person has conscious awareness of their strategy, they will tell you. If not, look for them to demonstrate it behaviorally. Eliciting primarily involves good questioning techniques by which you evoke a person to carry out a task (actually or in thought) which requires the strategy. Have you ever experienced a time when you really felt motivated to do something? When did you last feel naturally and powerfully motivated? -45-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 3

Strategies for Modeling

How do you experience the state of feeling exceptionally creative? Have you ever gotten into a situation where you felt very creative? Typically, accessing questions involves a person recalling an experience. What did it feel like? How did you do it? When do you feel best able to do it? What do you need in order to do it? What happens as you do it? When did that last occur?

Such questions encourage a person to internally access the representations and step within their memory which contains “the deep structure” or framework of the experience. NLP utilized the Transformational Grammar phrase, Trans-Derivational Search (TDS), to describe this process. This describes how we “go inside” to search for the referents. Such referents make up our referent system by which we relate and understand things. We all engage in these TDS processes to make sense of things, to deal with stimuli, and to re-create our states and experiences. In the process of strategy elicitation, we use the TDS process to assist someone to go back through their constructs to recover how they have uniquely structured the experience, that is, create their maps. When we get to the Meta-States Model (Chapter 9), we will use a different metaphor. Instead of thinking about “going in” and “down” to the Deep Structure (the depth metaphor), we will use the height metaphor. Conceptually, we will then talk about “going in” and up to the meta-levels or frames that structure our referents. Instead of “deep structure” we will talk about the frame structure of mind. We will talk about the levels or layers that we use in the referencing process. We will talk about “going in” to access our frame-of-reference, and the entire system of embedded frames within frames. This will enable us to identify all of the contextual frames or the meta-level frames as higher level “thoughts” categories, classifications, abstractions, beliefs, paradigms, etc. 5) Calibrate from an uptime state. Strategy detection and elicitation necessitates that we become fully alert and open to the person's external cues. This enables us to effectively calibrate to the state as we watch the person demonstrate -46-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 3

Strategies for Modeling

the strategy. Due to the mind-body connection, people typically demonstrate as they talk about problems, outcomes, or experiences. So as you become attentive to such "instant replays," you can note how a person cycles through the sequence of representations that leads to the experience. 6) Ask the person to exaggerate. If you do not get the strategy through questioning, invite the person to exaggerate some small portion of the strategy. Exaggerating one step in a strategy may also access other representations linked to it synesthetically. 7) Stay meta to the content. Since strategies operate as a purely formal structure, we have to “go meta” to the structuring process to notice it. This prevents us from getting caught up in the content. Unpacking Zooming Strategies The key problem in unpacking the strategies that we want to model, modify, or utilize involves their speed. Typically they zoom by! How can we identify the appropriate sequence steps in the face of this rapidity? This problem of the quickness of strategies especially holds true for those that have achieved the status of an unconscious TOTE. To identify each step we must either increase our abilities to observe rapid and minute behavioral changes or slow the process down by asking good questions. What happened first that allowed you to respond so creatively in that situation? What happened just before that? And what happened just prior to that?

Here we keep asking backtracking questions until we find the initial external stimulus that triggered the strategy. In doing this, you will want to ask questions using the following categories of distinctions. This will enable you to unpack the strategies. 1) Predicates Part of the revealing tendency to do what we talk about involves our tendency to literally describe what we do. Our predicates often literally identify the RS that organizes our experience. [Predicates appear as adjectives, verbs, adverbs and descriptive words that identify what we assert (or predicate).] Predicate combinations typically indicate synesthesia -47-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 3

Strategies for Modeling

patterns as in the following. Here again, you will have to go meta to the content in order to note its form and structure. "That looks uncomfortable" (V-K). "It sounds like a colorful place" (A-V). "Don't look at me with that tone of voice" (V-A). "It sounded frightening" (A-K).

2) Accessing Cues Since all behavior (macro and micro) functions as a transform of internal neurological processes and therefore carry information about those processes, our behavior communicates about our neurological organization. Because of this, Bateson talked about the redundancy of speech and behavior. As we gather information (a behavior) we use various conscious and unconscious transforms. Mostly, we remain unconscious of the vast majority of representations that pass through our neurological systems as we cycle through our strategies. Yet our eye accessing cues speak about this subtle internal behavior. Typically, eyes that move up or that simply defocus straight ahead access the visual cortex. Eyes that move back and forth laterally are in auditory access and eyes that move down while “thinking” are in kinesthetic access. The other distinction to watch involves the two hemispheres. The typical right-handed person will encode memory on the left side and imagination on the right side. You sill see a reversed pattern to this in a cerebrally reversed individual. 3) Logical Questions Ask yourself if the strategy makes sequential sense. If a person seems to jump steps in the process, then move to asking questions that back the person up in order to get to the beginning of the strategy or to capture the missing pieces. What happened first that allowed you to feel motivated in that situation? What did you do before that? What stimulated that?

Eventually you will find the initial external stimulus that triggered the strategy and then the complete step-by-step process that details how the person constructs the experience.

-48-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 3

Strategies for Modeling

4) The Strategy Notational System This refers to the language that allows us to describe the tracking of consciousness through the process. "I hear alarm clock, then look at it as I turn it off. Then I lie down again and feel how comfortable the bed is. Eventually an internal voice says, 'If you stay here, you'll go to sleep and be late.' So I make a picture of a time when I was late for work. I then feel bad and I say to myself, 'It will be worse next time,' and make a bigger picture of what will happen if late again and feel worse. When the bad feeling is strong enough, I get up." Then we notate it as follows:

Ae

Ve

Ke,+,I

Ai,d

Vi,-

Ki,- (loop)

Exit

Loop back "I picture all the things that I am going to do during the day and feel good about them. The pleasant pictures then pull me out of bed. If I have to do something unpleasant, I think about how wonderful it will be when it is done."

Vi,+/Vi,+/Vi,+

Ki,+

Ai,d,+

Exit

"I feel a sensation of warmth and say to myself, 'I have to get up.' This voice is in a calm, easy tone. As voice speeds up, it becomes more clear and distinct, and I become more alert."

Ki,+

Ai,t,d/Ai,t,d/

Exit

(Analogue increase in volume/pitch)

Designing Strategies We use strategies in order to create a first approximation of a model of a desired experience or set of skills. Typically we first find someone with the ability to achieve the desired outcome and then specify that strategy with its component pieces. If a person has an excellent strategy for reading and appreciating literature, we model the structure of that skill. Not infrequently, the same person who may have a skill of excellence in one area, may totally lack even a basic strategy in another. For example, the person with the ability to appreciate literature with great understanding may not be able to produce literature.

-49-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 3

Strategies for Modeling

As we work with strategies, we realize that some of them simply do not work very well while others could work a lot better if we streamlined them or supplemented them with additional resources. Frequently, we design better tests and operations in our strategies simply by making sure that we have all of the RS components represented. What do you hear around you? What does it sound like? What do you hear inside your head? What do you see around you? Describe the tone in the dialogue Describe the volume. What internal pictures do you see? How do you feel internally? What qualities do these pictures have? What do you smell? What body awareness do you experience? What tastes do you experience?

In strategizing, we seek to discover how to think, process, feel, and respond which, in a step-by-step format, enables us to replicate a desired experience. In doing this, we organize our representational components in particular sequences which play a more crucial role in achieving our outcomes than does mere intelligence. This underscores the importance of awareness of the steps necessary to move from an original stimulus to an experience. It also increases our choices about how to change our strategy programs. Modeling the strategy of experience in this way identifies the structure of our subjective experiences. Designing New and Better Strategies The Strategy Model gives us the ability to custom design processes for achieving specific outcomes—for human “engineer designing” (Korzybski’s 1921 phrase). In strategy design work we aim to create desired outcomes, trouble-shoot problems, streamline cumbersome and inefficient strategies, limit strategies that we over-use, re-contextualize others to appropriate contexts, install appropriate tests, etc. To make our strategies well-formed, strategy design involves making sure we have all the necessary tests and operations. For example, to redesign the maladaptive strategy of someone who engages in too much internal processing, we could build in more external checks. For someone fearful of public speaking, we could design a strategy step of accessing a state of relaxation, comfort, and self-humor as supportive -50-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 3

Strategies for Modeling

resources. In design work, as we build in context markers and decision points to control the neuro-linguistic processes. Creating such cues enables us to differentiate contexts. To tailor design a strategy for a specific task, we must first determine the kinds of discriminations that we will need. Which RS will we need for gathering information? Do we have the needed RS as well-developed as we need it? Do we need to break a synesthesia pattern or divert it so it does not interfere? How much rehearsal will we need in order to practice the new sequence? Typically, a well-formed strategy will involve the following. 1) The kind of information needed for input and feedback and the RS in which we need this. 2) The kind of tests, distinctions, generalizations, associations needed in processing information. 3) The specific operations and outputs needed in order to achieve the desired outcome. 4) The most efficient and effective sequence for testing and operating. 5) An explicit representation of the desired outcome. In addition to the criteria by which we compare the representations of present state with desired state this contributes for recognizing how to Test and when to Operate. 6) A check for ecology. Will this violate personal or organizational ecology? In modeling, we always want to make sure that the strategy does not conflict with other processes. 7) Meta-outcomes. These provide organizing principles for the entire strategy inasmuch as it organizes behavior in terms of some general goals (i.e., preservation, survival, growth, protection, betterment, adaptation).

Utilizing Strategies What behavioral significance will any particular experience have in our lives? Will it operate as a resource or as an obstacle? It all depends on how we utilize the experience and in what specific context. Creativity emerges as we use different strategies in different contexts. Such creative use of models empowers us so that we can transform what we call “obstacles” in one context into “resources.” This expands our choices for responding and making the most of our situations. One profound application of the strategies entails unpackaging a sequence of RS steps that a person uses to “process information” and using it to communicate to that person. In the process of identifying how a given person thinks, perceives, and decides, we can then pace or match that -51-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 3

Strategies for Modeling

person's sequence of thinking and operating. This powerfully enriches our communications with that person. Since we cannot not respond to our own way of processing, the communication will have maximum impact. Because it will naturally “make sense” to that person, it paces the person’s own information processing style and makes the communicating highly influential and persuasive. For example, suppose we notice someone with a decision-making strategy involving seeing something, then talking to self about it until it creates certain feelings (V Ai,d Ki Exit). We could then utilize that sequence for organizing our information. Doing this will match their neuro-linguistic structure. We will speak to that person in terms of picturing our idea clearly, thinking about it by engaging in some self-talk, and then eliciting some feelings about it. We can also pace the same non-verbally if we subtly assist the person in generating the appropriate eye accessing positions. These non-verbal maneuvers typically will support our communication and make it more effective. Packaging our information so that it matches the listener’s thinking processes makes our communications maximally congruent to that person's model of the world. If we cannot but respond to our own internal processes, then entering another person’s world, identifying his or her strategies for buying, deciding, motivation, resourcefulness, being proactive, etc. increases our ability to effectively communicate and persuade. Herein lies the practical value of working with strategies. It will assist us in managing, communicating, relating, understanding, training, influencing, marketing, selling, etc. We no longer will need to move through the world assuming, or imposing, our strategies for motivation, decision, belief, etc. on others. We can first enter into and discover the other’s "reality" in order to package our ideas and suggestions in ways that fit for that person. So whether in the context of psychotherapy, sales, or teaching, we will first seek to understand the other’s model of the world through dialogue. Then we can make it easy for that person to make the changes, purchases, or understandings which they want which will fit in with their objectives and goals. We do all this in a way that fits and respects the person’s constructed reality. -52-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 3

Strategies for Modeling

This process of detecting, analyzing, and utilizing a person’s strategies enables us to operate more respectfully. It enables us to communicate, relate, motivate, etc. because it provides us insight into how another’s model of the world works in the first place. It takes all the fight out of the communicating. Technologies for Strategy Installation Installing refers to getting a strategy to function naturally and automatically in our behavior as an intact unit so that each step automatically ties into the next. How do we do this? We have several technologies for doing this. We can install strategies by anchoring, rehearsing the pieces of the strategy (new dialogue lines, gestures, facial expressions, etc.), by vicarious experiences that play out the strategy (i.e. plays, movies, metaphors), and by using altered states. 1) Anchoring We can install by setting an anchor for a representation or state and then inserting the steps of the strategy as a person rehearses the strategy sequence. Anchoring in this way greatly assists in "walking" through the strategy’s form. When anchoring a sequence, we wire it to some contextual stimuli so that the first environmental marker sets off the strategy. We can elicit the steps of a strategy through questioning and observation. We could anchor each response with the same anchor. If we invite someone to "think of a time when you felt really motivated..." we could anchor the motivation response and later fire the anchor in a new context to evoke the person’s strategy sequence for motivation in that new context. Synesthesia patterns automatically carry through once initiated, then we can anchor them and tie them into other situations. In this way we can streamline an inappropriately long strategy and bypass crippling loops. One man had a cumbersome and inefficient decision making strategy. He would spend days in deliberation only to put off decisions until he had passed up key opportunities. Afterwards he would feel agitated and angry with himself for wasting so much time. In redesigning the strategy, he considered "the possibility of missing opportunities and wasting time" (Ad K-). -53-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 3

Strategies for Modeling

"What does it feel like at the end of your strategy when you think about this wasted time and missed opportunities?"

Eliciting this state enables us to anchor it. Then we only have to ask, “When you first begin to consider one of these decisions ... what would it feel like if you brought that feeling of missed opportunities and felt that now?” Asking this question and firing the anchor would enable him to install it at a much earlier and productive point as well as to streamline his strategy and cue him to feel the motivation to decide at a much earlier point. From then on he could use it as a resource to check his time schedule and use his negative feelings to signal, “Time to make a decision.” 2) Instructions Just listening to a set of instructions while vividly imagining going through the process can install a strategy. Neuro-linguistically, this works because words operate as anchors for representations of referents. This reveals how we so often get various strategies installed in ourselves—someone has given us a set of instructions. 3) Rehearsal When we rehearse a process, we use an operant method of conditioning to install a strategy. This means simply asking someone to practice each representational step until it becomes available as a spontaneously intact program To develop the visual system, we can practice holding up image, making mental snapshot of it, closing eyes to re-present it inside, looking again, etc. Eventually we will develop the ability to create and hold an internal visual image in our mind's eye. 4) Rehearsing Synesthesia Patterns This describes yet another way to install by rehearsal. While certain synesthesia patterns may feel unfamiliar or under-developed, practicing increases representational flexibility. A K: As you listen to the words in your head, pay attention to the body sensations that occur. Identify one set of feelings, then listen to the words again and allow another feeling to emerge from the words. Repeat until you have seven different feelings. K A: Pick the feelings most appropriate to the words pronounced internally and from that feeling generate seven sounds. "Get in touch with that feeling and allow it to turn into a sound." Pick one of the sounds, and let it generate an internal visual image.

-54-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 3

Strategies for Modeling

We can install also via overlapping accessing cues. V-K overlap: "Look down and to the right, defocus your eyes, breathing high and shallow, now create a picture." Repeat this process until the transitions feel smooth and easy. Then anchor it. 5) Game Playing If we make a game out of "reading" words in the air, we put emphasis on the form of spelling over the content. This enables us to focus on what to do and when, where to put one's head and eyes, when to use feelings and pictures, etc. And because such framing makes the rehearsal feel more playful and fun, it reduces the stress of the learning, thereby making the installation easier and more permanent. 6) Interruption When we encounter a well-practiced and habitual behavioral pattern, unconscious competence emerges because the neuro-pathways have become so well-developed. The pattern comes to operate automatically, regularly, systematically, and without conscious awareness. Frequently, before we can install a new behavioral pattern, we have to interrupt the old strategy to interfere with its normal processing. This is where state and pattern interruption comes in. And, there are lots of ways to interrupt a state or strategy. To interrupt, we can overload, i.e., give more information than a person can handle. Overloading situations that naturally occur include noisy places where we "can't hear ourselves think." It occurs when a person feels so good (or bad) that he or she doesn't know what to do or say (“overcome by an emotion”). Similarly, it happens when one is "overwhelmed by beauty" or "knocked out" by smell. Overloading interrupts a strategy by preventing it from completing its cycle. We interrupt when we divert a strategy with a particular input. This shifts the representational sequence away from the ongoing strategy. Noise can so override our strategy that it interrupts us when we are lost in thought. If someone or some thing stops or blocks our accessing cues, this can directly and powerfully interrupt a strategy. For example, if we wave our hands wildly in the air in front of someone's face while they are attempting to visualize something. Similarly, if we ask someone who feels depressed to sit up straight, to hold their head up high, to take in a full breath, to throw their shoulders back, to -55-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 3

Strategies for Modeling

open their eyes wide, and to smile, typically these actions interrupt a depressive strategy. The depressive posture and breathing typically elicits and perpetuates the depression strategy which involves a slumped posture that orients one for a full kinesthetic access. Another set of interruption patterns involves spinning out a strategy. Do this by feeding the output of the strategy back into the strategy. A man with an obligation strategy felt that he "should" do something whenever he would see himself doing something. He had a Vc— Monecessity structure; “If I can see it, I have to do it.” We can spin this strategy out and put him into a loop by inviting him to see himself not doing it. Each of these interrupting a strategy techniques aim primarily to accomplish one thing, to stop the progress of an ongoing strategy. We do that to create the opportunity to re-design and install more productive strategies. New Distinctions From Strategies What did the Neuro-Linguistic Programming distinctions and Strategy Model contribute to our understanding of the structure of subjectivity and to modeling? What new insights, methodologies, patterns, processes, and skills have arisen due to the contributions of NLP to the TOTE Model? 1) Sensory-based information processing in the black box. In so refining each TOTE step using the sensory representations, NLP has expanded our understanding of what we do inside “the black box” and what occurs in the arrows of the TOTE Model. Inside the Tests and Operations we use our sensory systems to input, represent, process, and output information. We gather information and obtain feedback from both the internal and external environments. We map such information as we establish sequences of representations. This creates our internal patterning. 2) Consciousness has an internal systemic reflexivity. We construct our subjectivity by our information processing. As we use our internal sensory representations and linguistic representations, we map out neuro-linguistic instructions for our neurology and body. This highlights the interactiveness of mind-body as a cybernetic system. It also reveals the extent to which our thinking-emoting creates products that later become stimuli for other thinking-and-feeling. 3) The map always differs from the territory. -56-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 3

Strategies for Modeling

Strategies only exist "inside" our neurology as a map of the territory. They never are the territory nor can they become the territory. They do not have that kind of "reality." Strategies share in and express neuro-semantic "reality" (“meaning” incorporated in the body). Strategies are therefore not real. That is, not externally real, they are only internally “real” as a description of our processes. When we know that, we can stop sequencing and punctuating representations as if we were stuck with them, as if they were permanent. Strategies only exist as learned ways of functioning, not innate traits. We can change any map that does not serve us well. 4) Variability leads to flexibility. The cybernetic concept of variability says that in any connected interactive system, the element that has the widest range of variability in behavior will, ultimately, become the element with the most choices and options, the most influence. Flexibility in responding (and in producing more variety) increases our expansion of choices. More flexibility gives us more opportunity to succeed. Many difficulties with strategies result from inappropriate or ineffective tests or decision criteria. Of course, too much flexibility can also prevent us from discriminating. Yet too little flexibility typically leads to over-discriminating and getting lost in a sea of irrelevant facts. Yet the more we can control the details of the content in our representations, the more management we can exercise over the outcome. An important area of flexibility in pacing involves substituting internally generated representations for those generated from external sources, and vice versa. Since internally and externally generated experiences share the same neural pathways, we can often substitute one for the other. "Imagine what it would feel like if you could do this..."

This explains how we can design engineer new strategies using our neurolinguistics in imagination. 5) Causal necessity leads to modeling “elegance" A strategy has elegance when we have simplified it to only those elements of casual importance. Modeling elegance cuts through the complexities of behavior to reveal “the necessary and sufficient” rules and distinctions to reach a desired outcome. Elegance in this context does not refer to gracefulness, tastefulness, richness, etc., but to simplicity.

-57-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 3

Strategies for Modeling

6) The “wiring” of our neuro-circuits involve synesthesias. When sequences of representations involve interconnected networks of activity at the neurological level we call these crossover connections a "synesthesia" (Dilts, 1980: 23). This describes the linkage when we "hear a harsh tone and feel uncomfortable" (A K). Or when we crossover the input data of "seeing blood" and connect it to "feeling nauseous" (V K). Dilts, et al. noted, "Synesthesia patterns constitute a large portion of human meaning making process." A synesthesia means that we have RS crossing over to immediately connect with other RS so that activity in one RS initiates activity in another. A strategy works by "anchoring" each representation in the string of representations to the preceding one. Establishing anchors between RS sets up a synesthesia. Additionally, because language functions as our largest and most sophisticated anchoring system, we can use words (e.g. “dog, warmth, love”) as visual and auditory anchors to create synesthesias. Non-verbal anchors work profoundly also because they often operate outside of consciousness. We can anchor with our tone, pitch, tempo of voice, tonal shifts, facial expressions, and gestures. Obviously, context plays an important role in this. We can also use anchoring to create new experiences. Because internally generated experiences use the same neural pathways as externally generated experiences, when we imagine new VAK representations of experience vividly and associatedly and thereby construct new neurological experiences. 7) Programing excellence means unconscious competence. The strategy for "learning to ride a bicycle" illustrates how we develop “programs” as we seek to effectively navigate the territory. Upon first exposure, the task seems overwhelming. We have to think about so many things: balancing, pushing pedals up and down, steering, and watching where to steer, listening to instructions, etc. With practice we streamline the process. As we train in specific skills and habituate them, we learn to do them without thinking about them. Eventually the program runs without conscious attention at all. At that point we say that we have obtained the state of unconscious competence. -58-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 3

Strategies for Modeling

8) The structure of behavior involves internal processes The sequences of internal representational functioning that generate behavior involve a structure of processes, not things. Yet most "teaching" does not emphasize structure, only content. In school, we do not learn to spell because the teacher guided the process. Most teachers just said, "Learn to spell these words for the spelling test on Friday." They do not describe the strategy format that characterizes the best spellers. "Look very closely at the word and make a picture of it. Close your eyes and see it... Open your eyes, look at it again... See its correct spelling, now get a feeling inside that validates that spelling as 'right.' Now close your eyes, and reproduce a picture of this word in your mind...."

9) Distinctions of excellence emerge as we contrast and compare. Comparing different strategies can enable us to identify the key ingredient in the structure of excellence. If someone feels stuck in a problem, we can do a contrastive analysis by eliciting his or her strategy for creativity and then for getting stuck. How do these strategy sequences differ? What does the creative strategy have that the stuck strategy lacks? Suppose someone feels unmotivated. We could first elicit their motivation strategy and then their "feeling un-motivated" one. How does this strategy differ from something toward which they feel motivated? By thinking in terms of contrastive analysis, we can walk the person through his or her own strategy that will enable them to succeed. 10) Pacing creates a "yellow brick road" to another's inner world. When we use someone's strategy as the structure for our communicating, we use his or her style for making sense of things. This generates rapport and trust—the basis for influence. When we pace someone by communicating from their model, we synchronize with his or her internal processes. Successful pacing feels nearly irresistible. In this way, rapport results from our ability to observe, understand, and use strategies. 11) Via reframing we can change strategies. Reframing allows us to change the form and structure of a representation and how it functionally fits into a system. Via attaching new meanings and frames, we transform blocks into resources. This puts us in charge of the meanings we attach to stimuli. Reframing realigns meaning so that we can create frameworks wherein all parts of the system work together. We reframe the parts so they all move toward achieving the same -59-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 3

Strategies for Modeling

meta-outcome. This involves acknowledging all aspects of the system as valuable resources. After accepting the incongruence or objection we frame it as a valuable resource, it supplies the needed feedback to improve our strategy. We here put anything that interferes with a strategy to work —seeing it as valuable feedback. Preparing for Modeling The Strategy Model that Dilts et al. (1980) formulated expanded the TOTE model from Miller and associates (1956). They created an updated and expanded version of the old S-R model of Behaviorism and Learning Theory. This bequeathed to NLP a linear flow-chart type of format for following and mapping the structure of subjective experience. Using the NLP-enriched TOTE model, the developers began modeling both living and dead geniuses. They modeled the skills and behaviors of high achievers and quality performances. In their passion to discover The Strategies of Genius (Dilts, 1994, 1995), they went on a search for excellence in therapy, hypnosis, sales, sports, business, management, etc. Bandler summarized the spirit of NLP modeling in his refrain, “NLP is an attitude, backed up by a methodology that leaves behind a trail of techniques.” Now, with all of this background, we have all the pieces we need for going meta and adding logical levels to the strategy model.

-60-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 3

-61-

Strategies for Modeling

PART II

THE NEXT STEP GOING META: ADVANCED MODELING USING META-LEVELS "Unless a person has some kind of Plan for learning, nothing happens. In order to get the list memorized, a subject must have that mysterious something called an 'intent to learn.' Given the intention, the act follows by a steady, slow heave of the will. An intention to learn means that the subject executes a Plan to form a Plan to guide recall. ... The important thing is to have a Plan to execute for generating the recall responses; ordinarily, but not invariably, that Plan will not be achieved without intent to learn, that is to say, without executing a meta-plan for constructing a Plan that will guide recall. ... It is the execution of the Plan, not just the intent to execute it, that is important." (pp. 129-130) "These meta-plans, Plans for forming other Plans, are properties of complicated systems. (173) "It is a meta-plan because the objects it operates on are themselves Plans. Is it possible for all Plans to have meta-plans that write 'em, and so on ad infinitum? Or is heuristic the end of the line? It seems that heuristic Plans are as far as one can go in this regression, for the methods used to discover new heuristic Plans would themselves be heuristic Plans." (Miller, Galanter, Pribram, 1960: 175)

-62-

Chapter 4

WHY INTRODUCE META-LEVELS TO MODELING? When it comes to modeling expertise using the formulations of NLP, the first extensive work on modeling is the book, NLP: The Study of the Structure of Subjective Experience (1980). The developers of this field, took the TOTE Model of Miller, Galanter, and Pribram (1960 Plans and the Structure of Behavior) and enriched it. As the Cognitive theorists and psychologists had updated the TOTE Model itself from the original Stimulus—Response Model (S-R) of Behaviorism, so the NLP developers created yet another update. What’s the value of these ever-evolving models? Primarily these modeling formats have provided us a way to create a flow chart of human neurolinguistic micro and macro-behaviors and responses from the originating stimulus or trigger to the final experience. In this way, it has given us a way to explore the insides of the “black box”of mind and emotion. As a result, the Neuro-Linguistic Programming enriched TOTE Model has expanded our ability to draw a picture of the flow of human subjectivity. That doesn’t mean NLP is the end of the story. There’s much that we can -63-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 4

Why Meta-Levels?

yet add, but it does take us to the next step. In doing so, we can now specify the structure of both expertise and pathology more precisely. The Next Step What is still missing in the NLP-enriched TOTE model? What do we still need to supplement that model with? What other facets would enrich our modeling?

Actually, there are numerous things yet missing, things that we do not know about, formats that we yet need in order to fully map and replicate expertise. For example, where do we put beliefs, understandings, and decisions in the enriched- TOTE Model? How do they fit into the flow chart of subjective experience? Precisely because these things operate as meta-level frames, we mostly find meta-levels missing in the modeling formats. The Strategy Model operates mostly in a linear and horizontal fashion. I say mostly because the Strategy Model certainly does include a meta response. It includes the systems processes of feedback loops within it. Yet we find the meta-responses as well as the feedback loops formatted essentially as just another linear step in the model. In terms of modeling, the Strategy Model is predisposed to work with neuro-linguistic processes in a linear way and perhaps for this very reason has tended to neglect the higher or meta-levels. Exceptions have arisen to this generalization. Among those who made modeling their business, individuals like Wyatt Woodsmall have incorporated the higher level frames of values, beliefs, meta-programs, etc. in their modeling. Others, like John McWhirter, have also incorporated the importance of the why questions into the modeling processes. McWhirter has especially recognized the importance of exploring the reasons, motivations, values, and beliefs that drive the strategy. David Gordon has brought “beliefs” into modeling via his “belief array.” To model these higher meta-level facets of subjective experience and enrich the modeling model itself—we have to expand the model of modeling so that it gives much more prominence to meta-levels. This means several things. Minimally, it means that we have to do the following: Reclaim and restore some of the “why” questions in our modeling. Cultivate our understanding of meta-levels and formulate them into the model as the internal contexts for the strategy processes. -64-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 4

Why Meta-Levels?

Develop a meta-understanding of logical levels and how the meta-stating or framing process involves a transcending and including of the lower levels. Incorporate the Meta-States Model into our model of modeling so that we move upward as well as forward in a linear way. Utilize a vertical model that incorporates both feedback loops and feed forward loops, “if then” causal circuits, embedded contexts within contexts, the coalescing of neuro-linguistic and neuro-semantic states, and much more.

The Realm of the Whys When the three developers initiated NLP with the Meta-Model, they introduced a general focus on how things work. This led them to primarily use the indexing questions of Korzybski: what, when, where, who, how, which one, etc. What the original modelers strongly opposed was asking the Why question. Why not? Primarily because they, along with Perls, considered psychology weighed down in the whys and multiple theories explaining why people were the way they were. And they wanted nothing to do with psychoarcheology or as they called it “psycho-theology.” As a result, this led to the general prohibition against asking the why question. Many, if not most, NLP Practitioners have been well trained to “not ask why” and even have this conditioned as somehow a “bad” thing. Dennis Chong, M.D. (1993) even went so far as to formalize this prohibition in his otherwise excellent little book, Don’t Ask Why. Generally speaking, this is a valuable approach. After all, as a model of models and a model of modeling—we want to develop an orientation primarily about how things work and the varying factors that govern the process of how something works rather than theorizing about all of the “whys.” Asking the indexing questions directs our attention to process, rather than content. It especially directs us away from the why of content. It is in this spirit of focusing on how and process that we ask lots of process questions in our passion to elicit the structure of the subjective experience. How do you do this? How do you know you feel joyful or depressed? How do you know when to do this? When not to? If I wanted to replicate this experience of effective leadership, what do I have to think and how do I do this thinking, feeling, choosing, etc.?

-65-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 4

Why Meta-Levels?

By shifting from theoretical why questions to process questions, the developers oriented this field by stressing the importance of process and structure. As they did, however, they also distanced themselves from the very strong and pervasive influence of content as cued by “why” questions. Why do you feel depressed? Why do you get yourself into these states? Why can’t you seem to get out of these moods? Why do you always sabotage yourself when things go well?

Why the Inhibition Against Asking Why? An important reason actually governs the prohibition against the why questions. You can elicit this reason by simply asking what happens when you ask the why question with regard to a problem state? Why are you that way? Why did you fail that test? Why did you fall into that depression?

Asking why more often than not invites us to explain our problems and problem states. It evokes us to come up with reasons for these experiences, with reasons that support and justify them. And when we gather reasons, explanations, justifications, etc., these higher level frames give validity to our problem states. The why question also sends our brains backwards —backwards to the history in which the problem arose or the experiences from which we created the non-enhancing maps and this reinforces the generalizations rather than weakens or challenges them. It also presupposes another implied frame, namely, “If I could just understand where this came from, its origins, then I could overcome it and put it behind me.” That is not necessarily true. Traditional psychology from the days of Sigmund Freud has long operated on these assumptions. “Conscious understanding about the source of problems inherently cures.” “Insight per se is curative.” “You can’t get over a problem until you understand its causes.” “Where there is Id, let there be Ego.”

Certainly understanding causes, processes, contributing factors, sources, etc. sometimes plays a therapeutic role in our minds-and-emotions. If in response to the why, we respond with greater insight and ability to take effective action, then the why question can work creatively and resourcefully. -66-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 4

Why Meta-Levels?

“Oh, so that’s why I have thought and felt like this!” “Oh, that explains the thoughts, feelings, and experiences I have had! I now see how I drew some false and inadequate conclusions about myself, others, and that I did so based on inadequate information.”

Sometimes, awareness does bring about relief and even transformation. Yet it does not always do so. Perhaps, not even usually. More typically, the exploration of the why creates more of a problem-focus so that it increasingly solidifies us in our problem or negative state. Neurolinguistically this makes sense. After all, when we ask why, we invite a person to explain and justify an experience. This drives one inside where one engages in a transderivational search to the history and model of the world that made it so. This invites the person to reference the initiatory experience as if that explains why we built our understandings as we did. In doing this, it locates a person even more solidly inside the very framesof-reference that create the problem. Further, brains seem to have this peculiar habit, they can just as easily invent answers as they can find answers. Plant a question in consciousness, and your brain will go to work to construct an answer to that question. It will do this even for toxic questions, unanswerable questions, fallacious questions, etc. Unless you teach your brain to question some questions (meta-questioning skills), your brain will naturally operate from the assumption, “There is an answer to this question.” What are some questions that are especially dangerous and toxic, that we should never even consider answering? Why am I so stupid? Why don’t things go smoother for me? Why did I marry such a jerk? Why do I always sabotage myself?

Ask those questions of a brain untrained in questioning frames and metaframes, and it will immediately go about the job of finding or creating answers. As it does, however, it unknowingly accepts all the assumptions in the questions while it focuses on simply explaining things! [By the way, this demonstrates the importance of building and running your meta-mind with some useful meta-awarenesses such as, “I don’t have to, nor should I, accept every question at face value. I can question questions before I even begin to answer them! I can decide which questions will elicit useful information.”]

-67-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 4

Why Meta-Levels?

The NLP modeling approach operates with a whole set of opposite assumptions: We do not need to understand the source or origin of a problem to solve it. We can set broken bone without needing to know how or why a person fell down the stairs. We only need to understand the internal structure and processes of an experience, how it works if we want to use it. When we recognize how we do a behavior that does not achieve our long-term goals, we are able to stop repeating that limiting behavior and then try something different —something that may succeed. We overcome limiting patterns as we focus on what we do want —our desired outcomes. The more we cue our brain with specifics of our desired outcomes —the more we program ourselves for a solution-focused orientation. Flexibility of response in the here-and-now enables us to access the resources that we need in moving toward the future. With these emphases from the beginning, NLP took a negative attitude toward asking the why questions. Yet as it did, some unfortunate consequences arose. What limitations has the why inhibition generated? It has created a basic dislike of any search for any kind of causation, even systemic causation. It has blinded many from discerning the existence of different kinds of “whys” and led some to assume that all “why” questions are the “same.” It has prevented or stopped many from modeling the meta-levels of why that define the contexts and webs of embedded contexts within which expertise arises. It has led to a devaluation of explanation, causation, contributing factors, theory, etc.

The Numerous Kinds of Whys Regarding why, we can identify several different kinds of whys. This means that every question that has a why in it does not necessarily elicit the same kind of response. There are different kinds of whys, many of them very useful, healthy, and appropriate. Some whys are, in fact, critical for a complete picture when modeling some expertise. The Why of Causation and Source Why do you act (feel, think) that way? Why do you feel this way when this trigger occurs?

-68-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 4

Why Meta-Levels?

The Why of Explanation Why do you judge yourself so harshly? Why does this pattern repeat in this context? Why would this experience have these qualities or effects?

The Why of Teleology or Outcome (Final effects, desired outcomes) Why do you do that? (i.e., What do you seek to accomplish in doing that? For what purpose?) Why would you want that?

The Why of Value and Importance (Values, Intentions) Why do you do that? (i.e., What value does this hold for you?) Why do you find this important and significant?

An Aversion to the Concept of Causation The inhibition of the why question has also created a general aversion to exploration of past “causes.” Some trained in NLP have let their intolerance to explanation create so much intolerance that they become unable to fully listen or pace a person’s problem state fully. They have taken the why inhibition so literally and seriously (which is not the spirit of NLP) that they become distraught when they even begin to work with someone’s story that involves historical content. They want to rush forward to giving out solutions with interventions of cure before they even begin to pace the person’s model of the world. By way of contrast we do see a more balanced approach in some of the Time-Lines processes and especially Robert Dilts’ Re-Imprinting Process. These NLP patterns certainly take a more balanced and thoughtful approach to “past” sources of difficulties and pains (i.e., past beliefs, decisions, experiences, etc.). They even use the TDS process for tracking down earlier occurrences of a mapping problem around “self,” worth, dignity, purpose, destiny, etc. Getting to the Whys via Meta-States In the next chapter we will explore the meaning and significance of logical levels in NLP and to the Meta-States Model (1995/2012). Later, I will devote an entire chapter to that model (Chapter 11). This model allows us to incorporate the whys of teleology, outcome, explanation, causation, and value/ importance into our modeling. Interesting enough, this approach corresponds to the most recent models in the field of linguistics. Fauiconnier (1987) developed the idea of mental -69-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 4

Why Meta-Levels?

spaces which Lakoff (1987) and Langacker (1987, 1991) have used in their development of Cognitive Linguistics. As they move further and further away from the defunct model of Chomsky’s (1956, 1965) old Transformational Grammar, they posit a linguistics and grammar based on “embodiment” about how people actually think and represent information using mental spaces. As Lakoff and Johnson (1980, 1987, 2000) and others increasingly discovered the inadequacies and anomalies of the old model, they broke away from Transformation/Generative Grammar and emphasized new factors: the role of metaphor, metonym, and image in conceptualization, prototype categories (instead of formal, classical Aristotelian categories), cognitive domains of knowledge, etc. What does all of this mean? It highlights the NLP principle about frames and frames-of-frames as the contexts within which “meaning” arises. In other words, meta-levels. Following Bateson, we recognize that meaning depends upon context. “Contexts determine and govern meaning.” In other words, we need to know more than the mere representation of data—whether the expert we wish to model codes something visually, auditorily, or kinesthetically, or even the distinctive features and qualities of the representations. We also have to know about the meta-context within which such representations occur. We need to know the domain of knowledge—the beliefs, values, understandings, etc. This takes us upward into the domain of meta-level (or meta-state) processes (Figure 4:1). I happened upon these meta-levels in modeling as I researched the experience of resilience. After getting a good sense of “the territory” of the concept of people bouncing back from disastrous events, I sought to identify the strategy of numerous individuals who manifested the ability of resiliently bouncing back from tragedies. As I unpacked their strategies and sought to understand them, I kept finding myself having to go to meta-levels to comprehend how their neuro-linguistics worked. As a result, this lead to the discovery of Meta-States (see Resilience: Being the Phoenix, 2020). The resilient ones did not just have thoughts-and-feelings that induced them into a primary state of resilience. They had a complex system of thoughtsand-feelings about other thoughts-and-feelings. They had mind-body states about other mind-body states. Recognizing these meta-levels of states (that we typically label “values,” “beliefs,” frames of references, conceptual categories, mental contexts, abstract domains, etc.), I also understood why a mere replication of the thoughts-and-feelings at the primary level (the first -70-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 4

Why Meta-Levels?

level structure of the strategy) would probably not work if directly installed in someone—without the meta-level structures. The meta-levels made the system work. It set the higher frames of mind and so informed the thinking and feeling at the primary level. Figure 4:1

Preparing to Model To not understand why a person does what he or she does—the values, beliefs, and understandings that drive the behavior (whether a skill, expertise, expression of personal genius, etc.), prevents us from obtaining a full picture of the experience. Just as we need to know what a person represents, how they code it in VAK representational modalities, and what meta-programs they use in sorting the things they pay attention to, we need to know the metalevels of why. Understanding the meta-level frames and frames-of-frames (contexts and contexts-of-contexts) within which a person lives, breathes, thinks, and operates is equally important for modeling. To do that we have to go meta. We have to go meta to the person’s meta-levels and elicit meta-level distinctions about their frames of values, beliefs, assumptions, etc. When we do this, we will work with their “logical levels” of abstractions and gain information into how their psycho-logics operate. Why does matter. Why do you value that as important? -71-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 4

Why Meta-Levels?

And why is that important to you? Why do you engage in this experience with such persistence? Why do you believe in treating people with respect? Why do refuse to let yourself become problem focused?

-72-

Chapter 5

LOGICAL LEVELS What do We Mean by “Logical Levels?” Operationally Defining Logical Levels

A

s we anticipate formalizing the next step in NLP, namely that of going meta and utilizing meta-levels to advance the field of modeling, we first need to explore the significance, meaning, and value of what we mean by logical levels. That’s the design of this chapter. Here we will first define the concept of logical levels and what we mean when we speak about such levels. This will set the frame for some of the specific logical level systems that have emerged in NLP and which we will explore in the coming chapters. This chapter briefly surveys a dozen of the logical level models that have a central place in the field of NLP. As we explore these models, we will repeatedly ask such questions as the following. What do we mean by "logical levels" or "logical types?" How do these levels work or function? How do logical levels interact or interface with each other? How is it valuable to know and work with logical levels? What applications will knowledge of logical levels provide us for business, therapy, management, negotiations, personal life, health, education, etc.? What metaphors facilitate understanding logical levels? How can we learn to speak conversationally “logical levels?”

-73-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 5

Logical Levels

While you can now find additional logical level models in NLP than I will present here (or even then I personally know about), we will here explore the following ones. 1. Learning Levels (Bateson) 2. Abstraction Levels (Korzybski, General Semantics, Dilts) 3. Brain structure Levels (Dilts) 4. Outcome Levels (Dilts, et al., Schmidt, Ewing) 5. Belief Levels or Neuro-logical levels (Dilts) 6. Meta-Model Levels (Richard Bandler, Eric Robbie) 7. Levels of States, Meta-States (Hall) 8. Information Processing Levels (Bandler/Grinder, Hall) 9. Levels of Values (ordered as hierarchy) (James and Woodsmall, Andreas and Andreas) 10. Meta-Programs as Levels of Sorting/Processing (Bandlers, Bailey and Ross, Woodsmall and James, Hall and Bodenhamer) 11. Levels of Attention (Grinder and DeLozier) 12. Levels of Conscious and Unconscious Competency

What Do We Mean by "Logical Levels?" The idea and understanding of "logical levels" in NLP goes back to two of the grandfather theorists, Alfred Korzybski (1933) and Gregory Bateson (1972). We should also include Robert Dilts (1983, 1990) as a formative force regarding logical levels because he has written so extensively and worked to develop so many logical levels models. Dilts (1991), in fact, has provided as clear and succinct a description regarding the structure, nature, and working of logical levels work on each other as anyone. "In our brain structure, language, and perceptual systems there are natural hierarchies or levels of experiences. The effect of each level is to organize and control the information on the level below it. Changing something on an upper level would necessarily change things on the lower levels; changing something on a lower level could but would not necessarily affect the upper levels." (Dilts, Epstein, Dilts, 1991, p. 26, italics added) "Logical Levels: an internal hierarchy in which each level is progressively more psychologically encompassing and impactful" (1990: 217, italics added)

In these descriptions, Robert Dilts has identified several crucial features about logical levels that separate them from other kinds of levels. In the

-74-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 5

Logical Levels

following, I have separated out five of those components that enable us to begin to build an operational definition of logical levels. 1. Hierarchies of experience. 2. Higher levels organize and control information on lower levels. 3. The modulation effect of the system necessarily works downward. 4. The modulation effect of the system does not necessarily work upward. 5. Higher levels operate more encompassing and impactful than lower levels.

About logical levels, John Grinder (1987) noted, “... an organizational structure is an example of logical levels. In any context of talking about the human being in a society, the family, the affinity group, and finally, the tribe, are logical levels of organization. So ... relationships define logical levels.” (p. 75)

Cogne (1985) noted the same thing with reference to some recent research: "... the determinants of the level at which an activity is framed and how this may be altered.... Preliminary experiments suggests that when an action can be framed at both a higher level ("having a boring life") and a lower level ("watching television all afternoon"), there will be a tendency for the highest level framing to become prepotent, with the lower level framing ignored." (p. 339)

Afterwards Coyne quotes from social psychologist Wegner who said that "when people come to think about the details of their action, they become particularly impressionable about the overall meaning of what they are doing." To have "logical levels," we need a series of levels (two or more), wherein the items operate in a certain prescribed order with regard to each other. That is, they form a hierarchical system (or more accurately, a holoarchical system). We have "logical" levels when a higher level (the one above) "inevitably and predictably" (or "logically") drives, affects, modulates, organizes, and controls the lower level. This leads to the general principle that in logical levels, the higher levels always and inevitably drive the lower levels. When a higher level idea, classification, category, generalization, belief, value, etc. does not seem to drive lower level details, thoughts, emotions, etc., then by definition, the higher level idea has not become set as the person’s actual frame-of-reference. What do we mean by a “level?” This is tricky. It’s tricky because when we just have one level, we don’t think of it as a level at all, just a primary state. -75-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 5

Logical Levels

Then the primary experience is the whole story. Level one of awareness is a primary state wherein our thoughts, emotions, and responses are in reference to something in our world. More technically, "level" refers to "making a line or surface horizontal or flat." When we do that mentally and emotionally, our energies go out in a straight line to that object before us. We’re then on level one. We are not thinking about our thought, but about some object “out there.” As an adjective, level refers to "having no part higher than another." At level one, all items exist on or along the same line of awareness. Each exists on the same horizontal level. The NLP Strategies Model provides an excellent example of a number of items (representational system distinctions) existing on the same level. Each of these items designates different steps in a process as a flow chart leading to a final outcome. We respond to a stimulus as we think, feel, and act in this or that way. Consider the spelling strategy as a series of horizontal moves involving conception and response. It’s a direct 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 pattern. 1) We first input the information about a word either by visual external or auditory external. 2) We then respond by congruently creating a visual representation of the word. 3) We compare the visual construct that we made with a visual remembered image. 4) We check the comparison kinesthetically for a sense of "right" or "wrong." Does it feel right or wrong? Does it fit or not fit? If it does not, we process back to the earlier steps. 5) If it fits, we exit the process and write or speak the letters of the word we spell.

In the process we move horizontally, one step after another, on the same level, or so it seems. Actually, the feeling stage of step four (K+/-) does not refer to a primary sensation, but a meta-level feeling (Kmeta), something that we call an “emotion” in NLP. It is a sensation that we use to evaluate our comparison. So while the first five statements listed above describe the beginning of our definition formulations and understandings of “logical levels,” they do not complete it. To further our understanding, I have included two quotations. The first one comes from Robert Dilts and the second from Gregory -76-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 5

Logical Levels

Bateson. As you read them, notice how they add to the first five elements in our operational definition of a “logical level.” From Robert Dilts: "Logical typing occurs where there is a discontinuity (as opposed to a continuity, as with the hierarchies) between levels of classification. This kind of discontinuity is exemplified: a) in mathematics, by the restriction that a class cannot be a member of itself nor can one of the members be the class. b) in logic, by the solution to the classic logical paradox, 'This statement is false.' (If the statement is true, it is false, and if it is false, then it is true, and so on.) The actual truth value of the statement is of a different logical type than the statement itself. c) in behavior, by the fact that the reinforcement rules for exploration in animals is of a completely different nature than those for the process of testing that occurs in the act of exploration." (1983: 24). "The informational effects between levels and types is called feedback and is probably the major distinguishing feature of cybernetic systems." (1983: 39) "Differences of the same or different logical type interacting at different levels (hierarchical or logical respectively) will result in the modulation of the difference on the lower level." (49)

I take the Gregory Bateson quotation that follows from his daughter, Mary Catherine Bateson (1987). In quoting her father, she has a glossary of terms in the back. This is what she has written about logical types. Logical Types: A series of examples is in order: 1. The name is not the thing named but is of different logical type, higher than the thing named. 2. The class is of different logical type, higher than that of its members. 3. The injunctions issues by, or control emanating from, the bias of the house thermostat is of higher logical type than the control issued by the thermometer. 4. The word "tumbleweed" is of the same logical type as "bush" or "tree." It is not the name of a species or genus of plants; rather, it is the name of a class of plants whose members share a particular style of growth and dissemination. 5. "Acceleration" is of a higher logical type than "velocity." (pp. 209210).

With this additional information, we can now fill out and extend those first five crucial components of logical levels. From these two quotes, we can now expand our concept and operational definition of logical levels by adding the following. -77-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 5

Logical Levels

Operational Definition of Logical Levels: 6. There exists a discontinuity between the levels. 7. With the construction of logical levels, a relationship arises between levels that we must take into consideration. If we do not, "paradox" arises. Paradox does not exist "in the world." It arises and exists as a "mind" seeks to sort out and understand phenomena that merge together from different logical levels. 8. Hierarchical logical levels function as a system so that not only do the higher levels arise out of the lower, but they also later feed back information into the system and therefore "influence" into the lower levels. This creates the recursiveness within logical levels. 9. As a cybernetic system, as information moves up logical levels new features emerge that does not exist at the lower levels. This emergence at higher levels involve, in systems language, summitivity. In other words, the emergent property does not exist only as the sum of the parts, but new properties and qualities arise over “time” within the system. 10. Reflexivity describes one of the new features that emerge in logical levels. In living organisms this results in self-reflexiveness or selfconsciousness. 11. As a system with feedback properties, logical levels operates by selfreflexiveness, the whole system becomes cybernetic. It becomes a "system that feeds back onto and changes itself" (Dilts, 1990, 33)

This list of distinguishing factors of logical levels provides us with an operational definition. Yet it does more. It highlights how our experiences become highly complex and layered due to “logical levels.” When we transcend one level, we rise above it to layer a higher classification that then includes the previous level as a member of that class. This makes it “logical” in that sense (actually, psycho-logical). This understanding reaffirms the original foundations of logical levels in NLP that came from in systems theory, family systems, cybernetics, recursiveness, etc. Un-logical levels In reading these qualifications for logical levels, it becomes clear that not every list of levels represents a logical level system. We frequently make lists of items involving different levels, which do not have a "logical" relation between them. That is, it is not inevitable or predictable that the lower is a member of the class of the higher. So our list of criteria regarding logical levels can assist us in discerning between levels that function as mere lists of things, or "heaps," in contradistinction to those that function systemically as a logical level system. -78-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 5

Logical Levels

Consider, for example, a list of values. Such levels may move up and down a scale of abstraction with some higher and some lower, but lack a "logical" set of relationships between them. Suppose we asked someone to make a list of values and the person generated the following list: success in business, health, loving relationships with spouse and children, honesty, friends, having fun, contributing.

These items do not all exist on the same level. Nor do the levels form a "logical" system. Figure 5:1 A List of Values

Unlogical Levels Contributing Having Fun Friends Honesty Loving Relationships Health Success in Business

The levels that a person needs to master in business provides another example of unlogical levels. Some of the levels may indeed operate in a logical relation to each other and may congruently fit or not (i.e., an NLP business not pacing customers or not operating out of a resourceful state, Covey's Institute threatening a lawsuit before "seeking first to understand"). Do the levels support each other? Do they conflict and war with the each other? Customer Service Quality Management of Product (or service) Financing of Business Culture of the Company Levels of Management

An absolutely wonderful list of levels that do not operate "logically" to each other comes from Eric Robbie in his Levels of Internal Dialogue. This set of levels distinguishes kinds and levels of internal self-talk (selflanguaging). I encountered this first in my master practitioner training with Bandler when that was presented as an exercise for developing calibration to these varying levels (Spirit of NLP, 2000). 1. Reciting (the alphabet, a poem, pledge of allegiance, anything already known by rote and therefore at unconscious habituation)

-79-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 5

Logical Levels

2. Remembering (actual words or checking on "what did someone actually say?") 3. Debating (with self, typically one voice, mulling over two arguments or courses of action.) 4. Formulating (a new problem, a new context, or a new structure, etc.) 5. Posing and reposing (an ongoing continuously running theme, a primary obsession or virtual question, parental injunction, script decision, etc.) 6. Keeping the world going (as in Casteneda, the opposite of "stopping the world"). 7. Wondering (what to expect, attention direction to what will soon occur.)

Another insightful list of levels that do not relate to each other so that higher one's operate as "about" lower ones comes from the "levels of development." Zink and Wrycza (1995) presented this in NLP World. They developed it from the maps of maturation as offered by Bateson, Jung, Maslow, Piaget, Erik Erikson, and Ken Wilber. This list of levels of development operate over "time" as a maturation process, hence "premature exposure to a higher level can be threatening" (p. 21), therefore the value of discerning at what level a person's consciousness operates on. Level 5:2 Characteristic Features 1. Displays of impulse and emotion 2. Exercising power and control 3. Conformity 4. Individualism 5. Witnessing and transcendence 6. Appreciation 7. Unity and wholeness

Aimed at Achieving Basic needs Safety, security, order Social approval Self-acceptance Freedom, permanence Coherence, fulfillment Integration

A list of so-called "logical" levels, "Logical Levels of Therapy" (see Figure 5:3) shows up in some NLP trainings (I found the following among outlines from Tad James). This model purportedly provides the "therapeutic process based on logical levels." Yet the levels above each lower level does not function as a class with the lower level as a member. Nor does the higher level operate upon the lower level as a message or abstraction about it. We could more accurately describe this as a therapeutic "strategy" for how to go about the process of doing therapy. But it certainly does not operate as logical levels. -80-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 5

Logical Levels

Figure 5:3 The so-called "Logical" Levels of Therapy

Structurally if we apply the criteria of "logic" to this model, and these levels, we quickly realize that they do not relate to each other as members of a class to a class. A presenting problem does not serve as a member of the Meta-Model (the twelve linguistic distinctions comprise the members of that class). Therefore the Cause-Effect and Mind-Reading distinctions in level three do not function as a class with the Meta-Model as the member. In actuality, we have precisely the reverse of that inasmuch as C-E (causeeffect) and M-R (mind-reading) exist as members of the Meta-Model. If, however, we turn this model of levels upside down and shift some items around, we could construct a model of logical levels as shown in Figure 5:4.

This presents a therapy strategy using the NLP model. In this strategy, we first elicit the presenting problem. As we do, we search with the client for an understanding of how the "problem" makes sense given his or her model of the world. Using the classic “Temporary Employment Agency” frame (a great modeling frame), we get the client to teach us “how to have the problem.” -81-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 5

Logical Levels

“If I were to fill in for you for a day so that you get a vacation from your problem, show me how to do it.”

Figure 5:4 Levels of Therapy Reformulated

Once we get a clear sense of the mapping processes which the person has used to construct the problem (the Meta-Programs and Meta-States), we use the Meta-Model as a logical level tool to explore the levels of meaning inside the person's surface structure statements. By using the Meta-Model in this way, we essentially assist the person in developing a richer and more enhanced map by which to navigate the world. This occurs “magically” by sending him or her back to the remembered events from which they constructed the original map. Along the way various maps and constructions get deframed, others get reframes, and yet others get outframed. [For more about this, see Mind-Lines, 1997/2000, and Communication Magic, 2001.]

Levels and “Logical Levels” in NLP Within the field of NLP, you will find a constant reference to the concept of levels and logical levels, both generically and specifically. And no wonder! Given that NLP itself exists as a meta-model—a model about other

-82-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 5

Logical Levels

models, this understanding and distinction actually comprises a very important one. Korzybski (1933) gave much attention to this. He devised his "Structural Differential" to help the first explorers in this field in the 1930s and 1940s to develop a "consciousness of abstraction." That is, an awareness that we create mental maps and how we abstract to create our maps. Such awareness (meta-awareness or mindfulness) plays an essential role in both science and sanity. For that reason, he sought to assist people in developing a neurological awareness that "whatever label we hang upon an experience, that label is not that thing." (“The map is not the territory.”) He even developed a process for “training in silence" which he believed would help to drive in this distinction between map and territory. Mathematical "class" theory (Whitehead and Russell, 1910) presents various levels of classes or categories and shows the crucial importance this difference makes between levels and meta-levels. Today numerous mathematicians argue that set theory makes the class theory unnecessary. They say it better handles the paradoxes that Whitehead and Russell initially addressed. Yet this does not nullify the value of using the model of logical types to differentiate classes and members of classes, the basic structure of logical levels. If we have a collection of groups that all have 30 things in them, what happens, in terms of logic, when we finally come up with 30 groups? Does that become the 31st group that has 30 things in them? The rule of meta-levels says that we cannot categorize a meta-level as part of the class itself. "A class itself cannot be a member of the class." To do so mixes or confuses levels. Mixing or confusing levels creates an illogical class logic and creates the conceptual category that we call "paradox." Figure 5:5 ______Classification ______ / \ Members

_______ Groups Having 30 Items ______ / \ - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - --

A mental system of “logical levels” contains within its structure members and classes. Moving up and down the levels describes the general -83-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 5

Logical Levels

movement of thinking, reasoning, and "chunking" that we call inductive and deductive reasoning. In inductive thinking, we "chunk up" from the details of many members and abstract by summarizing and generalizing a certain category or class. We do so by identifying a common property and labeling them with a term for that "class" to which all of the members belong. In d educ t i ve t hi nki ng, we " chunk down" t he l evel of abstraction/specificity from the class to the members that make up the class. This describes a generic logical level. See Figures 5:6 and 5:7

Russell argued that "a class cannot be a member of itself." A class of elephants does not have a trunk, does not go on all fours, and does not consist of an actual elephant. These particulars belong within the class. They do not describe or apply to the term designating this class. John Grinder (1987) explained it this way: “Gregory [Bateson] was inspired in this matter by Russell who, in his masterwork with Whitehead, Principia Mathematica, in order to avoid certain paradoxes, legislated a meta-rule for set theory which states that no set may be a member of itself.” (p. 106)

Figure 5:6 Chunking Up and Down a Scale From Specificity to Abstraction High Levels of Abstraction Middle Low Levels of Details

We must apply this meta-rule with equal force when members of the class do not consist of things in the first place, but ideas, names, and signals. The class of commands does not consist of a command, and cannot tell you what to do. Bateson said, "If 'Shut the door' is a command, then 'Listen to my orders' is a metacommand. The military phrase, 'This is an order,' is an attempt to enforce a given command by appeal to a premise of higher logical type." (Donaldson, 1991: 60)

-84-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 5

Logical Levels

Figure 5:7 is derived from a chart that Bob Bodenhamer and I used in Figuring Out People (1997). As such it shows what we might call the structures of intuition. That is, two kinds of intuitions: Deductive Intuition: The ability to take a general principle and chunk down to apply and relate to specific situations. Inductive Intuition: The ability to chunk up to find meanings, connections, and relationships between the small pieces.

In the case of moving upward to higher levels of abstraction, language is the mechanism that enables us to move up. That’s why the language distinctions encoded in what we call the Milton Model takes us into more trance-like language and experience. In the case of moving down the scale of abstraction and into more specificity, language again is the mechanism. But now we use language in a different way. Instead of generalizing, deleting, and distorting, we seek greater and greater precision and detail. That’s why we use the Meta-Model questions. As such, the higher level abstractions (as classes, categories, conceptual constructions) exist at a different level from its members at the lower level. All "bottles" as members exist at the bottom level as "containers that hold some substance." Here the members may include such items as: coke bottles, milk bottles, baby bottles, beer bottles, etc. Here also we may have bottles made of glass, clay, plastic, paper, stone, wood, etc. We may also have ancient bottles, modern bottles, surreal bottles, imaginary bottles, etc. As we make more and more distinctions, we chunk down another level, to a sub-level whereby we can sort and separate members of the "glass bottle" class, members of the "broken bottle" class, etc. Yet in that sub-level, or in the primary level, we do not have the linguistic category of "bottle." That describes a higher logical level. That describes an abstraction that does not exist empirically, only conceptually and linguistically. "Bottle" as a word, a label, a term, and a concept does not make up one of the members of the class. It describes the class itself. Preparing to Model The bottom line is that there is no such thing as a “logical level.” You’ve never stumbled over a logical level on your way from the living room to the kitchen. Instead of things, they refer to processes —processes of how we think. -85-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 5

Logical Levels

Figure 5:7 The Specificity/ Abstraction Scale Meta-Detailing

META The Big Picture / Abstractions The “Chunking” up Process Meta-Level Abstractions Meta-Programs & Meta-States "And what does that meaning mean to you?" "What idea, belief, example describes this?" "For what purpose...?" "What intention do you have in this...?" "What does this mean to you?"

The “Chunking” Down Process Use the Indexing Questions of the Meta-Model for greater Precision

"What examples or references do you have?" "What specifically do you mean...?"

SPECIFIC DETAILING

“Logical levels” arise and exist as mental constructs about members and classes, about categorizing, and about how we layer thought upon thought to create the levels of the mind. Logical levels exist, they exist in the mind and they come into being as a way of layering thoughts and feelings. They create our mental and emotional categories and so greatly influence our meanings and emotions.

-86-

Chapter 6

MODELS OF LOGICAL LEVELS “Logical Level” Systems

G

iven the description of “logical levels” in the previous chapter as involving how we mentally layer ideas upon other ideas, we’re now ready to look at the numerous models involving “logical levels” in NLP. As a model of levels, NLP has actually devoted a lot of attention to levels, tracking levels, discerning levels, moving up and down the levels, distinguishing levels of experience, and much more. If this is true for NLP in general, it is even more true for using the NLP models for modeling as will become more evident in the following chapters. Consider the word frame in NLP. We talk about "framing" as setting a context or meaning to an interaction, "deframing" to pull those meanings apart, "reframing" to give them new meanings from different perspectives, pre-framing (Bolstad, 1996) as framing prior to entering a context, and "outframing" (Hall, 1996) moving above all frames and setting a metaframe. To further explicate logical levels, I have included the following logical level models in this chapter.. (Actually, one of these does not, in its present form, comprise a logical level which I have described later in this chapter and in Chapter 9). 1. Learning Levels (Bateson) 2. Abstraction Levels (Korzybski, General-semantics) 3. Brain structure Levels (Dilts) 4. Outcome Levels (Dilts, et al., Schmidt, Ewing) -87-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 6

Models of //Logical Levels

5. Belief Levels or Neuro-logical levels (Dilts) 6. Meta-Model Levels (Richard Bandler, Eric Robbie) 7. Levels of States (Hall) 8. Information Processing Levels (Bandler/Grinder, Hall) 9. Levels of Values (ordered as hierarchy) (James and Woodsmall, Andreas and Andreas) 10. Meta-Programs as Levels of Sorting/Processing (Bandler and Bandler, Bailey and Ross, Hall and Bodenhamer) 11. Levels of Attention (Grinder and DeLozier) 12. Levels of Conscious and Unconscious Competency

Logical Levels of Learning Gregory Bateson (1972) devoted much attention to sorting out messages, meta-messages, and meta-metamessages as he and his colleagues studied schizophrenia, play, non-play, ritual, and other experiences of subjectivity involving logical types. He specifically created a hierarchical system of classes of learning. The developers of NLP included this model in NLP: Volume I in their discussion of utilizing strategies in regard to learning (pp. 158-160). In this model, Bateson distinguished Zero Learning, mere receipt of signal, Learning I where one learns a change in the receipt of a message, Learning II where one learns about the learning. We learn about the receipt of the message. In this level of learning, we reflectively know that we know. Bateson also called this deutro-learning. In Learning III, we change the very principles and premises of learning to learn in Learning III. Bateson even postulated the possibility of Learning IV. Yet said that he didn’t think humans could currently experience such nor could he even specify the nature of such. Bateson based this hierarchy of learning upon the Logical Types theory that he derived from Russell and Whitehead (1910). In this hierarchy of learning, or "the orders of learning," he explored how "learning" occurred at different levels and the changes in learning that transpired at such levels. He began his description with Zero Learning when we have no change of response, but mere "receipt of a signal" (248). He moved from there to change in response. The learning here operates as we attach (or link) a new stimulus to the pattern of an old stimulus-response. As a result, the new stimulus also comes to set off a conditioned response. We "learn to respond to the conditioned stimulus with behavior" (171). -88-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 6

Models of //Logical Levels

At the next higher level, we learn about "the contexts of instrumental reward or escape." We learn about "changes in Learning I." "These are exemplified by the classical learning experiments of various kinds: Pavlovian, instrumental reward, instrumental avoidance, rote..." (249)

Going up one more level we have "those learnings which constitute changes in second-order learning." Or, learning to learn, "learning to learn to receive signals." At Level IV we have "Changes in those processes of change referred to in Learning III." "Whether learning of this fourth order occurs in human beings is unknown." (249). (In the following Figures, the symbol @ stands for the word "about").

Figure 6:1 Levels of Learning Learning IV:

Learning to Alter the Processes Involved in Learning III @

Learning III:

Learning to Learn @

Learning II: Deutro-Learning

Learning @

Learning I: Proto-Learning: Zero Learning:

Learning New Response @ Reception of a Signal

Due to the richness of this model, I have devoted much of the next chapter to it. There you will find an expansion of Bateson’s Levels of Learning. Logical Levels of Neurological Abstraction Korzybski (1933/1994) described "levels of abstraction" in terms of how we abstract (or summarize) from the world of the energy manifestations "out there" beyond the nervous system (Figure 6:2). At the first level we "abstract" from the world via our sense receptors and bring that "information" into our neurology. Our "understanding" at this level exists "before words." It also consists of a mixture of what actually exists out there with what our sense receptors can register. -89-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 6

Models of //Logical Levels

Then we abstract again as we process that abstracted material in specialized parts of our cortex as sensory representations (VAK). Here we create our neurological map about the previous information. We then abstract again to create our first linguistic map about the neurological map comprised of sensory-based words (Ad). And again we abstract. About our sensory-based terms, we abstract to make evaluations. And so on, again and again, we abstract repeatedly using increasingly more evaluative words until we get to the place "beyond words." Figure 6:2 Levels of Abstraction

Beyond Words Etc. Evaluative words

Linguistic maps of

Evaluative Words Evaluative words Sensory-Based Words (Ad)

Neurological maps of

Sensory Representations (V.A.K.O.G.) Sense Receptors

Before Words

___________________________________________________ "Reality" Beyond the Nervous System “Reality” The territory beyond

This model identifies two basic and distinguishable levels—namely, the world outside and the world inside our nervous system. Bateson similarly distinguished these levels as "the world of physics, forces and impacts" or Pleroma and "the world of communication, information, messages, and organization" or Creatura. Outside we have things and events that we can (at least at the macro-level) identify in empirical, sensory-based descriptions. Inside we have meanings and frames—a subjective world highly amendable to interpretation, beliefs, conclusions, ideas, concepts. Inside we have a world that we construct unlike the given world that we find on the outside.

-90-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 6

Models of //Logical Levels

Failure to differentiate clearly between these levels of the territory out there and the map in here leads to "identification" and various forms of unsanity. The "Aboutness" of Logical Levels These models provide us an important discernment regarding levels that operate in a "logical" relationship to each other. When we have something in a “logical level” to something else, it occupies a relational position wherein the higher level functions as the frame for the lower level. The higher level stands in an aboutness to the lower level. The higher level functions as an abstraction about the lower level. It relates as a class to its members, as a category to its constituents, a context to its content, and as a generalization to specific details. This provides us a way to test logical levels. Does a given level occupy a position or relation of aboutness to the lower level? Does it communicate anything about the lower level? In what way? How? Bateson (Donaldson, 1991) noted the importance of the word "about" in regard to the levels of the mind. He said that the word “about” has no meaning at all when we use it to reference the physical universe. "Ideas are not like sticks and stones. They have a curious relationship to each other. You can have ideas about ideas. You cannot have stones about stones. In fact, the word 'about' has no meaning at all in the physical universe. 'About' is a word which only can mean something in the world of ideas. It's a relationship that doesn't exist in the pleroma, in the physical universe. And because you have ideas about ideas in your head, you can get into an awful mess. I think this is one of the reasons why people meditate ... to let settle or let unravel the incredible tangles which arise out of the fact that you can have ideas about ideas." (p. 277)

Neuro-linguistic Processing Levels As a model about models, NLP itself exists as a logical level system. After all, it sorts and separates "mental" neurological processing of information in terms of several levels. In the middle of the following diagram (Figure 6:3) I have located the central NLP model of the sensory representation systems (RS). This model of the sensory systems resulted from the creation of Bandler, Pucelik, and Grinder. As such, the representational systems provide a very specific way

-91-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 6

Models of //Logical Levels

to talk about "thoughts" and their components (the VAK or 4-tuple, and the distinctive features of each system, erroneously labeled “sub-modalities”). Representational systems offered something brand new to psychology and to tracking down "the structure of subjectivity." Bateson noted in his introduction to The Structure of Magic, Volume I the profound importance of understanding the modalities of consciousness in terms of "the senses." Making the sense modalities of vision, audition, kinesthetic, olfactory, and gustatory as the cornerstone of their model both surprised and delighted Bateson. On the top level in the diagram (level 3) we have the meta-modality of language—the sixth sense, or the Ad in NLP. If we map out the territory of the world by generating internal sights, sounds, and sensations with our neurological representations, then we map out the territory linguistically when we start saying words about those first level representations. Because language functions as signals about signals, it operates as a meta-level phenomenon itself. Before the discovery that you have to go meta to even detect a socalled”sub-modality,” let alone alter or transform it, we diagramed “submodalities” as below the level of modalities. We now recognize this as a case of a false or pseudo-term. There is no “sub” in the distinctions, features, components, qualities, processes, elements, etc. of the sensory modalities. These structural aspects of the VAK representations do not deal with content, but structure—and structure exists at a higher level. We have to go meta to detect and work with these distinctions (Sub-Modalities Going Meta, 2005). The domain of “sub-modalities” was made explicit some years after the beginning of NLP even though the model contained hints of it from the beginning. The first printed reference seems to be the one given by David Gordon in Therapeutic Metaphors (1978). The next reference to submodalities was made by Bandler when he made the sub-modality model and domain explicit with his 1984 book Magic In Action. This became even more explicit in Andreas’ edited work of Bandler in 1985, Using Your Brain For A Change. This opened up an entirely new domain for NLP, and with it new patterns, insights, understandings, and technologies. Via the application of “sub-modalities,” we thereafter could make finer distinctions with such patterns as the Swish, Reframing, Changing Personal History, etc. -92-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 6

Models of //Logical Levels

These representational distinctions (“sub-modalities”) led practitioners to think about chunking down to smaller and smaller distinctions. Because this seemed to put these distinctions at a lower level, the “building block” metaphor of chemistry and the building of molecules arose and was utilized to format this area of study. In practice, however, practitioners were actually led to step back from the content and even the VAK content to notice the various features and components. Do you see the picture in color or is it in black-and-white? Does the picture seem clear or fuzzy to you? Where do you see this image? How close or far? Where does the sound come from? What tone of voice do you hear it in? Etc.

We now recognize that they were going meta to do this higher level processing. And when they shifted around the representational distinctions, making pictures bigger, brighter, and closer, or recoding the tonality so that it sounded like Elmer Fudd or Donald Duck, or sexy and sensuous, they operated from above to set a whole new frame. This is what we actually do in the so-called “sub-modality” shifts. We bring another distinction (close/far, bright/dim, loud/quiet, etc.) to bear upon the representations. We qualify the sights and sounds with these qualities. This sets a new frame. What frame do you set when you push a picture so far out and away from you that you can barely see it? What does distance mean to you? How about brightness? What does a Bugs Bunny tone of voice mean to you? What Todd Epstein first called “Pragmagraphics” and Richard Bandler later simplified into “sub-modalities,” we now recognize as representational distinctions or meta-modalities. In Bateson terminology "the difference that makes the difference" occurs at higher levels. With these representational distinctions in the sensory systems, whether digital or analogue, we have a coding that informs the nervous system about how to feel, respond, and behave. This provides us a more direct access to these distinctions or frames which allows us to more effectively "run our own brain" and, thereby our own neurology. Information Processing Levels Above the neurological and language representation systems, we have a meta area (see Figure 6:3 and Figure 6:4). NLP has explored this area as -93-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 6

Models of //Logical Levels

the domain of hypnotic language and experience, trance, metaphor, etc. We move to this area by “chunking up,” abstracting another level, and going meta. These descriptions enable us to chunk up the continuum of specificity and thereby work with meta-level phenomenon: beliefs, values, criteria, frames, presuppositions, metaphors, narrative, etc. The various meta-level technologies in NLP that enable us to work effectively in this area include: Time-Line Patterns, the V-K Dissociation Pattern, Ecology Checks, the language distinctions in the Milton-Model, the Core Transformation Process, Meta-Belief Change work, Reframing, etc. Figure 6:3 The NLP "Information Processing" Model Higher Abstractive Language (the Milton Model) Linguistics (a meta-level signal) Evaluative Language

Ad

“Sub-modalities” — actually Meta-Modalities The Specific qualities & Distinctions in each Representational System ___________________________________________________ Sensory Language MODALITIES Sensory Based Representations (Neurology) Visual/ Auditory/ Kinesthetic/ Olfactory/ Gustatory Representations _____________________________________________________

Even when we work with meta-levels, it’s the internal representations comprising our thoughts, understandings, and ideas that always induce us into various mind-body states. Yet when they do so at a meta-level, they generate states that turn reflexively upon other states. This gives us statesabout-states (fear of fear, calmness about anger, joy about learning, love about loving, etc.) or meta-states. In this meta-domain, the Meta-States Model (1995/2012) makes even more explicit the many insights and processes long utilized in these levels. It makes explicit the nature, principles, and distinctions that exist in this area and those that govern the relationship between the higher levels and the -94-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 6

Models of //Logical Levels

lower levels. We have long known that these higher logical levels phenomena drive and control the lower levels. The Meta-States model makes this overt as it shows how these meta-level processes work. The Meta-States model fits into other NLP models above the level of the representational systems and governing the meta-phenomenon. Figure 6:4 Logical Levels Meta-States (States-about-states) (presuppositions, meta-frames, paradigms, beliefs, values, narratives)

Linguistics (a meta-level signal) Evaluative Language

Sensory Language MODALITIES Sensory Based Representations Visual/ Auditory/ Kinesthetic/ Olfactory/ Gustatory Representations

Technologies The Meta-model, Time-Line, V-K Dissociation, Ecology Checks, Milton-Model--Hypnosis Emotive Work, Core Transformation Meta-Belief Change, Reframing

Belief Change, Reframing, Eye Accessing Cues Pacing, Linguistic Markers, Shifting Representational Distinctions Contrastive Analysis with Experiences

(Neurology) State Management Skills Anchoring (with VAK triggers), Collapsing Anchors

“Logical Levels” of States States-about-states (or meta-states) explains the critical importance of the unconscious frames that govern our presuppositional lives. This model makes explicit Bateson's insights about meta-levels, namely, that meaning does not lie only in words or syntax of a structure. Meaning also arises from the larger contexts within which the words and syntax occurs. Namely, it lies in the meta-frames within which such symbols do their work. This explains why and how Meta-State technology can have such pervasive and generative effects in change work. Most recently this has led to the development of a Meta-Therapy Model. This model also explains many of the so-called NLP "failures." How can we make sense of the ineffectiveness that some people have experienced with the NLP techniques? Apart from those who failed to set up adequate test conditions, or didn't have enough proficiency with the model (Yeager, -95-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 6

Models of //Logical Levels

1985, pages 193-196), many others sought to work with a meta-level experience using primary state technology. In doing so, they attempted to address a problem on the wrong logical level. For instance, to test kinesthetic anchoring, they might have had a person access a “state” which actually involves meta-levels, and not simply primary levels. If a researcher invites a person to access a complex and layered state like resilience, proactivity, self-esteeming, etc., they are actually working with a meta-state involving layers of reflective consciousness. If they then attempt to “set” a primary state anchor (a kinesthetic touch on the arm or knee) without sufficient meta-stating processes (frame setting) unknowingly they set the experiment up for failure. The majority of cases will fail when a person accesses a meta-state while the researcher only establishes primary state anchors. The inadequacy isn’t in anchoring, state accessing, or the NLP conceptualization, it lies in the confusion of levels. Inevitably when the researcher asks the experiencer to break state and then at some later time (whether a few minutes or the following week) attempt to “fire off” the sensory-based anchor, it will typically fail to recall the meta-state. I would be surprised if the person could re-access that state! This comes as no surprise to anyone familiar in working with meta-levels. Without knowing about meta-levels or metastates, an inexperienced researcher would not get the predicted response and would naturally draw the conclusion (a hasty and unfounded conclusion) that "NLP anchoring does not work.” Why would such a procedure not work? Or more accurately, how did the person design the experience in such a way so that that procedure was most likely to fail?

The central problem in that procedure comes from the researcher’s confusion of logical levels. The researcher has set things up to work with meta-level phenomena yet only using primary level procedures and technologies. By failing to distinguish the logical levels, the researcher will not get the expected results that the model prescribes. Such a process will be doomed. Generally, we cannot anchor meta-states in the same way that we anchor primary states. As a different kind of states, they operate in some very different ways. We anchor primary states with sights, sounds and sensations (VAK), the very mechanisms that drive and -96-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 6

Models of //Logical Levels

govern primary states (primary level representations). But with meta-states (meta-level phenomena), we need a meta-mechanism (like language, higher level linguistics, symbols, metaphors, trance processes, etc.) to most effectively anchor such states. When we deal with complex, layered consciousness involving self-reflexivity, we operate at a level meta to the basic modalities. This changes the way things work at that level. Can meta-states be anchored kinesthetically? Yes, they certainly can. This typically takes some doing and is best managed via language. The Meta-States Model fundamentally distinguishes between primary and meta-states. One central distinction involves how the sensory modalities (vision, auditory and kinesthetics) drive and govern primary states. By way of contrast, we drive and govern meta-states primarily not by sights, sounds, and sensations, but by language. Primary states also generally refer to the territory beyond our skin; they operate as adaptive states for coping and mastering things in the world. Meta-States (as states-about-states), by contrast, refers to a previous map, to a map within. They reference earlier abstractions about other high level abstractions: "self," "time-space," morality (good/bad; right/wrong), relationships, values, beliefs, "emotions," etc. Since meta-states refer to previous constructions of one's self, they inherently involve our recursive, self-reflexive consciousness which enables us to think about our thinking (meta-think), feel about our feelings (meta-emote), talk about our talk (meta-communicate), etc. As far as I know, only Robert Dilts in the NLP community has written about the distinction between anchoring at primary and meta-levels. In writing about applications of NLP, Dilts (1983) utilized Bateson's Logical Levels of Learning (Learning I, II, and III) and related anchoring to these levels. Notice in the following, how Robert distinguishes the “anchors” that occur at the primary level of experience from those that occur at meta-levels. "It follows that anchors will be contributing to all of these processes as well. Anchors used in the formation of Learning I (learning as it is typically thought of) are called conditional stimuli. These types of stimuli anchor a particular behavioral response or program (going when the light turns green, or adding numbers). These anchors essentially constitute the content of behavior. Learning II involves the change in behavioral content (conditioned responses) in response to varying contexts. In other words, Learning II is -97-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 6

Models of //Logical Levels

the form of behavior. The anchors that stimulate a change in the state of consciousness (the form of processing) in an individual are called context markers." (Part III, p. 51)

In anchors at the primary level, we set up a neurological "learning" as we link a stimuli “out there” in the world so that it triggers a VAK or language (Ad) response. Once “set,” the anchor conditions our response so much so that it consistently evokes the same response. When the external trigger later occurs, we immediately and automatically go into the appropriate state and produce the given response. At this level, anchors as conditional stimuli function as NLP's user friendly version of classical or Pavlovian conditioning. Here we anchor, as Dilts and Bateson noted, “content.” Yet when we set an anchor at a meta-level, at the Learning II level, where we experience learning about learning, we anchor the process of how we structure the learning in the first place. At meta-levels, we anchor the frame or the context. Dilts (following Bateson) designates these anchors as "context markers." A context marker (a cue, trigger, suggestion, word, etc.) informs you of the frame-of-reference under which you operate, that accesses a context, or that triggers a different processing that function as a meta-level anchor. What comprises these "context markers" or meta-level anchors? Mostly words. The terms and phrases within the domain of the Meta-Programs, for example, provide many context markers (linguistic markers) about metalevel processing/sorting style. So do most nominalizations, evaluative terms, terms about classes and categories, complex equivalences describing meta-frames about meanings, cause-effect terms, etc. These, in effect, define meta-level anchors—anchors that contain a meta-level within them—the auditory-digital representation system (see Chapter 9 on Logical Levels of States for more about anchoring a context or meta-level). Robert finally noted this about these different logical levels of anchors: "Conditioning stimuli and context markers are both made use of extensively in Neuro-Linguistic Programming to assist the client in entering or developing a therapeutically altered state." (Dilts, 1983, Part III, p. 51-52)

So as Bandler made the domain of “sub-modalities” (representational distinctions) explicit, and opened up an entirely new realm for fine tuning the models and technologies of NLP, the Meta-States Model does a similar -98-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 6

Models of //Logical Levels

thing. As we move into meta-realms, this model provides a way to organize our thinking, understanding, and responding. Meta-States gives us a way to organize the patterns that so many have developed in NLP for belief change, core transformation, value elicitation and shifting, hypnotic processes, etc. Additionally, by providing us a way to work methodically with layered and complex consciousness, this model specifies processes whereby we can work within and between meta-levels. It does this as it specifies numerous ways that states-about-states interface with each other and thereby create such phenomena as state reduction, state intensification, interruption, confusion, paradox, distortion, negation, humor, dissociation, etc. How does the Meta-States Model work? What drives it? Primarily by transcending to a higher level (going meta) we then "abstract at higher levels" (General Semantics). This describes the heartbeat of the MetaStates model. The very process of applying one "state" of mind-body to another, moves us up to “second-order abstractions,” “third order,” etc. With each move we create yet a higher level of Mind, an expansion of consciousness. We start with a basic mind-body state comprised of internal representations and physiology (the two royal roads to state). We then move to a higher logical level (transcend) and abstract about that level of thinking-andfeeling. Doing so generates a new construction, a state-about-a-state, or meta-state. The higher level state relates to, and has an "aboutness" toward, the lower level state. At the same time that it transcends the lower state, it also includes the lower in the new construction. This generates a new kind of subjectivity. In primary states, our thoughtsemotions and physiology has reference to some external content: "I'm afraid of John when he doesn't get his way." With a meta-level construction, our meta-state refers to the lower level, to the state beneath it. In meta-states, as a state-about-a-state, we shift logical levels by moving to a state that recursively refers back to a previous state. "I'm afraid of my fear." "I'm disgusted with my anger."

As an operational definition, a meta-state designates a state of consciousness above, beyond, and/or about (meta) any other state of -99-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 6

Models of //Logical Levels

consciousness, an order of abstraction about another order of abstraction, a second-order abstraction. It is a reaction to our reactions, it is a secondthought. Because the aboutness reflects back onto itself, meta-level structures glory in recursiveness and generate a logical level system. This system emerges from the way consciousness reflects back onto itself so that we learn about learning, think about thinking, language our languaging, etc. This not only creates a new level of complexity in human experiencing, it creates qualitative change. Now circular, causal, and feedback mechanisms arise within a system of interactions. This offers a completely different kind of reality from that which we have in lists, items, etc. John Grinder (1987) has argued that the recursiveness or reflexivity of logical levels is one of the distinguishing features in the human species. “I’m claiming that one of the three characteristics that distinguishes us from other species, and, for better or for worse, makes us dominant on the planet at the moment, is reflexive first attention. Or more specifically, first attention can model not only second attention, it can also model itself. This is called reflexive consciousness. . . . then two kinds of first attention—reflexive first attention where you are disassociated and generate representations which include representations of yourself, the representer in the representations...” (p. 277, italics added)

The "Logical" Levels of Beliefs ("Neuro-logical" Levels) The set of “levels” that we probably most often connect to Robert Dilts is the "Neuro-Logical Levels." He introduced it many years ago in NLP and it has since been used extensively in a great many contexts: creativity, genius, problem solving, therapy, belief change, systemic NLP, leadership, learning, training, etc. So extensive has this model become that many people in NLP think only of this model when they hear the words “logical levels.” This model of the so-called “Neuro-Logical Levels” is a most useful set of distinctions regarding beliefs about various facets of life. It has provided many practical uses and functions as an excellent checklist when thinking about some of the key meta-levels that govern our lives. Yet for all of that, the model does not represent a true hierarchical system of logical levels. Because its levels do not fit the criteria for being “logical.” The “Neuro-100-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 6

Models of //Logical Levels

Logical Levels” fail the test if we use the criteria quoted earlier for “logical levels.” They do not function "logically" as members within classes. Figure 6:5 6. Why? (Big) 5. Who? 4. Why? (Little) 3. How? 2. What? 1. Where? When?

The Neuro-Logical Levels Spiritual Mission Motivation/Meaning Process/Strategy/Plan Actions/Reactions Opportunities/Constraints

God/ Universe Identity Beliefs/Values Capabilities Behaviors Environment

Woodsmall (1996) suggested several problematic factors with this list as a model. One of the problems preventing it from operating as a hierarchy of “logical levels” is the fact that Environment is larger than Behaviors. Even though Behaviors may affect Environment, Behaviors do not drive or modulate Environment. Environment is not a member of the class of Behaviors. It does not make sense to classify Environment as a member of the class of Behaviors. Environment does not have that kind of a relationship to Behaviors. This prevents it from operating as a logical level system. If we eliminated Environment, we would have more of a logical and orderly list. In Bateson's “logical levels,” learning is the thread that goes through the system and unites it as a system. Learning (as a concept) drives each level. But what thread drives this list? Woodsmall noted that this list provides a very useful laundry list of items for us about beliefs. It specifies a number of different kinds of beliefs. It obviously also provides a memorable list by using the indexing questions (where, when, who, what, why, etc.). Yet it does not consist of a system of logical levels. I will offer a fuller critique about that in Chapter Five. Logical Levels of Outcomes In NLP another model of logical levels shows up in the Model of Levels of Outcomes. The origin of this model appears in NLP: Volume I. There Dilts, et al., in describing the role of well-formed outcomes in the process of designing strategies, discussed "outcome sequitur," the outcome after the outcome (1980: 210) and "meta-outcomes" (211). "One of the most important questions to ask yourself when designing a strategy or choosing an outcome is, 'Will it violate personal or -101-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 6

Models of //Logical Levels

organizational ecology?' Make sure that the strategy you design does not go directly against any other strategies that the client has. . . . Any given specific outcome is framed within the context of a higher order outcome, an organizing principle or 'meta-outcome' for the system (i.e., the individual or organization). A meta-outcome is one that organizes the behavior of the system in terms of general goals like the preservation and survival, growth and evolution, protection, betterment, adaptation, etc. of the system. To be ecological, any other outcome or strategy must contribute to these basic outcomes." (211-212)

The authors also used this idea of meta-outcomes to explain the essence of reframing. "The essential goal of reframing is to create a framework in which all parts of the system become aligned toward achieving the same metaoutcomes ...by accepting and acknowledging all aspects of the system (positive or negative) as valuable resources to the system, given the appropriate context." (243)

Figure 6:6

Outcome Levels Meta-Outcome/s (Vision, Life's Purpose) Outcome — Outcome — Outcome — Outcome

Sub-outcome — Sub-outcome — Sub-outcome — Sub-outcome Evidence

Evidence

Evidence

Evidence

Evidence

Schmidt and Ewing (1991) presented this model as consisting of the class of outcomes at meta-level, primary level, sub-level, and then evidences of the outcome (Figure 4:13). In a later chapter, we have explored the value of this model in business and management relationships in leading a group to accomplish various outcomes and outcomes of outcomes. It leads to several valuable NLP interventions. The Meta-Model as a Logical Level System While the original formation of the Meta-Model of language (1975) did not include a formulation in terms of “logical levels,” later formulations did. Figure 6:7 presents the Meta-Model as restructured and reformulated in terms of the larger level linguistic units that drive, and operate on, the lower level units. I do not know who originated this way of formatting the Meta-102-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 6

Models of //Logical Levels

Model. I first heard it in my master practitioner training and thereafter incorporated it in my notes of that training (Hall, 1989). Those notes eventually became the book, The Spirit of NLP (1996/2000). Later I discovered that Stephen Lankton noted this format very early (1980) in his work on Practical Magic (p. 54). There he noted the operational and “logical levels” in the Meta-Model, but only devoted a couple paragraphs to the idea. I utilized this in the revisit to the Meta-Model after twenty-five years in Communication Magic (2001; formerly, The Secrets of Magic, 1998). Figure 6:7

The Operational Levels of the Meta-Model

Thinking about the Meta-Model in this way shows how language itself contains “logical levels.” We have "class" or category type of words: "men," "play," "crime," "fun," (unspecified verbs and nouns) which we can then specify "membership" words for: tossing a ball, breaking into a house, climbing up a mountain. Imagine someone saying, "I want to stop procrastinating." What questions can you ask to get the largest chunks of information? Suppose you challenge the universal quantifier. "Do you always procrastinate?" The person can say, "No." Suppose, however, you ask about context markers. "How do you know when to procrastinate?" Then you would get a larger chunk.

-103-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 6

Models of //Logical Levels

Suppose you challenge the attribution of meaning: "How do you know you 'procrastinate?' What lets you know that?" You would get even more information. Suppose you go for their complex equivalence, "What does procrastinating mean to you?" Or a modal operator, "Do you have the power to stop it?" "What prevents you?" "Have you ever stopped procrastinating?" Or a cause-effect challenge, "How can I help you to stop procrastinating?"

Asking Meta-Model questions invites a person to reconnect to his or her fuller linguistic model of the world—what Transformational Grammar called the Deep Structure and what Meta-States calls meta-level frames (e.g., the frame of history and past referents). Such questions set several direction for consciousness, to solve the problem, to recover critical information, to remap the missing pieces, etc. This may involve recovering deleted pieces that have impoverished the map. Or it may involve moving up to create new and more resourceful generalizations. Either way, we set an orientation by the very process of gathering information from the person. Discover for yourself the largest logical level of the Meta-Model by asking, What part of the Meta-Model will give me the most detailed information? What part will give me the most global information? What questions will lead to the most useful structural information?

This kind of questioning will enable you to recognize that we can structure the model from small chunk pieces to largest (words, terms, phrases, sentences, beliefs, etc.). In terms of levels and “logical levels,” we have three major classifications or categories: deletions, generalizations, and distortions with various linguistic distinctions/patterns within each of those classes. If we inquire about the order and chunk size of those categories, then we have deletions within generalizations within distortions. Thinking about the Meta-Model in terms of “logical levels” leads us to ask other questions that play a role in modeling. At what level of the Meta-Model should I start? Should I start at the broadest and largest chunks and work down? What one piece of information do we want to go for when we use the Meta-Model to gather high quality information?

-104-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 6

Models of //Logical Levels

Figure 6:8 Meta-Model Operational Levels

Asking such questions enable us to identify and to develop consciousness of the levels that work upon each other in the Meta-Model. Doing this allows us to sort and separate crucial information from trivial information. The “logical levels” of the Meta-Model enable us to respond to structural and semantic ill-formedness in language from the largest levels (presuppositions, distortions) to the smallest chunks (deletions). Why would we do this? Namely because we know that the larger levels “operate" on the smaller levels. -105-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 6

Models of //Logical Levels

Figure 6:9

The “airplane” metaphor creates a vivid word picture for this. An airplane "operates" on all of the passengers it carries inasmuch as the passengers live within the space carried by the plane. In the same way, the wind currents "operate" on, or carry, the planes thereby effecting their path. If the passengers stand for the linguistic distinctions of deletion, the plane for generalizations, the wind for the distortions, and the spinning of the planet for presuppositions, then we get a sense of how the larger levels carry the lower levels. Within the larger levels, all of the lower levels exist. In the Meta-Model, the larger level patterns lift and carry along the smaller levels. At the lower levels of the smaller chunks we primarily have words (unspecific nouns and verbs, simple deletions, etc.). As we go up into the larger levels we get to bigger chunks which show up as sentences (lost performatives, mind-reading, cause-effect, complex equivalence). As we go up these levels (more ill-formedness) of this model, we get into more complicated forms of unsanity. The Nature of Higher Level Abstractions At the sensory-based level we have descriptions and observations, factual, empirical language that we can verify as true or false via our senses. When we abstract from that level, we create classification words. These higherorder abstractions portray a more static "reality" in contradistinction to the dynamic movement of lower-order abstractions. A green pepper "is" a vegetable as long as we keep it in that category. Since classifications describe how we manipulate our symbols, and not the objects themselves, it remains "put" until we decide to change the category. This gives an -106-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 6

Models of //Logical Levels

"allness," static nature, and even timelessness to such terms. Weinberg (1959/1993) wrote: "We can make allness statements on these higher levels of abstraction because the non-verbal world does not intrude. . . . "In a pure mathematical system, true and false do not apply, only valid and invalid. True and false belong to the level of description and factual statement. They can be determined only after observation and, of course, are never completely certain. Valid and invalid apply to sets of relationships and are a measure of the consistency of a symbolic system." (pp. 78-79) Figure 6:10 ------------------THE PATTERN OF DISTORTIONS----------------12. Ps: Presuppositions 11. C-E: Cause-Effect Statements (causation words, present tense verbs)

10. CEq: Complex-Equivalence (meaning equations equating things on different logical levels)

9. MR: Mind Reading (Projecting our hallucinations & concepts onto others)

8. LP: Lost Performative (performer of map lost or deleted)

-----------THE PATTERN OF GENERALIZATIONS------------7. GRI: Generalized Referential Index (Labeling)

6. MO: Modal Operators (Necessity/Desire, Possibility/Impossibility)

5. UQ: Universal Quantifiers -------------THE PATTERN OF DELETIONS-----------4. NOM: Nominalizations (Verbs turned into Nouns-- Processes into Things)

3. UV: Unspecified Verbs 2. URI: Unspecified Referential Index (Unspecified Nouns)

1. Deletions: Simple and Comparative

At the higher level we have conceptual reality, verbal reality, semantic (meaning) reality, etc. This kind of reality radically differs from sensory, empirical reality on the lower level. The higher level arises from some constructed "logic"—for that identifies where "logic" exists. Weinberg: -107-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 6

Models of //Logical Levels

"Is sensory existence more 'real' than verbal? It is if we are talking about existence in terms of qualities such as hardness or color. It is not if we mean that both lower-order and higher-order abstractions are products of neural functioning. The higher-order abstractions probably involve, to some degree, different and/or different kinds of brain circuits, cells, and other psychophysiological mechanisms than lower-order, so the products are different. But one is just as real a neural product as the other." (92)

This means that when we move up into the world of meta-words (higher level abstractions)—we can expect new properties to emerge that do not (and cannot) exist on the lower levels. Moving up into meta-words creates more and more of a sense of reality as static, solid, and permanent. Here we delete enough and generalize enough in our map-making to create a safer and more secure world (conceptually). Here we can stabilize our world and reduce the sense of flux and flow of the lower levels. Of course, the price we pay for this distortion involves our loss of the ever-changing world of distinctions. This can create rigid neuro-semantic meanings if we are not careful. The "frozen universe" at the higher level may also delude us about the unchangeableness of a phenomenon. When we poorly map out such “realities,” we are left feeling stuck, limited, fated, unresourceful, etc. We so construct a toxic conceptual semantic state from the allness implied in the meta-words. How Do “Logical Levels” Work? Regarding the operating of “logical levels,” Gregory Bateson (1972) has extensively described how "meta-messages always modify lower-level messages." Why? Because the level above a level relates to, references, organizes, and controls the lower state. In neurological levels, as in the human system, it arises as an abstraction about that lower state. This occurs because a "class" comprises a higher abstraction than the "members" of a class. And the class, along with other classes, may then comprise members of the next higher level or category. Regarding this, Korzybski identified the wonderful, mysterious and yet most powerful phenomenon that we call self-reflexive consciousness as the source. This phrase refers to the modeling process whereby we reflect back -108-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 6

Models of //Logical Levels

onto our previous thoughts-emotions (or representations) and create new and additional thoughts-emotions. This occurs linguistically and representationally. It creates such phenomena as meta-cognition, metaawareness, meta-communication, meta-commenting, etc. This power of consciousness to reflect back upon itself recursively enables us to move to meta-levels. When we do, we entertain thoughts-and-feelings about previous thoughts-and-feelings. With this dynamic, consciousness and experience operates recursively so that it takes on system qualities—emergence, feedback, feed forward, looping, etc. Consider the state of anger. You think angry thoughts and feel angry emotions about John for interfering with your project. This evokes in you a primary state of anger. So far, so good (or so bad). Now consider what happens when you take your angry thoughts-and-emotions and reflexively turn that state back upon itself. You become angry-at-your-anger. This evokes new complications. It generates a new gestalt of subjective experiences. Frequently, but not always, when a state recursively feeds back onto another state, it creates a closed-loop system. When it does this, it has the effect of creating a self-reinforcing, self-validating, and selffulfilling prophecy. We get what we expect. Very few works in NLP have even addressed this subject of reflexivity. A rare exception occurs in Grinder and DeLozier (1987). There, in the context of identifying the prerequisites for personal genius, John and Judy made a distinction between “first” and “second” attention, self-reflexive consciousness, and self-reference. “Notice that this class of paradox characteristically involves selfreference. It’s a result of first attention modeling itself, without reference to the whole first-attention/second-attention cybernetic loop.” (p. 104) “There exists no pure reflexive first-attention state in humans such that for any particular moment in time, t1 all the neurological activities of the organism are represented. In particular such reflexive first-attention states will fail to include a representation of the representer of that class of representations in the representations although they may include the representation of the previous representer...” (pp. 105-106) “Don Steiny told me of an amusing example of the Incompleteness Theorem from Monty Python Flying Circus. Two of the Pythons crew are crossing a barren desert. They run out of food and water. Lying close to one another—close to their end they muse about how they came to be in such dire straits. Close to their last one suddenly observes to the other, -109-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 6

Models of //Logical Levels

‘Wait a bit! —who’s running the camera?’ This leads to the camera crew responding to the two previously isolated dying men. Some time after sharing their meager resources both the original dying men and the camera crew are out of food and water stranded in the desert until, of course, someone asks again, ‘Who’s running the camera?’ ... ad nauseam.” (p. 107)

Levels of Attention John Grinder (1987) presented the phenomenon of “attention” in his work with Judith DeLozier in Turtles All the Way Down: Prerequisite For Personal Genius. They re-label consciousness and unconsciousness as “first attention” and “second attention.” In analyzing the structure and functioning of the Visual-Kinesthetic Dissociation pattern, John described it as involving “logical level” shifts whereby one steps out of a context, processes it anew with reflexive first attention, and then moves to another higher logical level to refer it back into the context. “. . . the client is asked to create and focus on representations which include a representation of the representer. This special state we call reflexive first attention. . . . suddenly the client is freed of the overwhelming feelings of having to cope directly with the sights and sounds of snakes and instead, can, like a director in the theater of the mind (supported by the anchored state of resourcefulness), propose a new class of responses, watch and listen to them, make an evaluation of their effectiveness and aesthetics and (with the proper NLP skill base) select and integrate new behavior. Life with such a state of reflexive first attention available becomes a chess game. As long as the human involved has the requisite skill base, he or she becomes literally self-programming . . .” (p. 190) “The trade-off, then, between disassociation and wisdom is necessary only if the two remain at the same logical level. Access to the next higher logical level offers the possibility of a return to the wisdom of a referral to context. To talk usefully about logical-level shifts and how to accomplish such shifts requires a more precise representation of the phenomenon of attention.” (p. 191) 1) The lowest (or primary) level of attention involves animal awareness —“a type of consciousness too tightly tied to the sensory world—it’s what distinguishes us from an idiot savant.” 2) The next highest level, reflexive first attention or the kind of consciousness that we use when we attend our representations. “Attention is an operation defined on the lattice and is therefore at a higher logical level than the structure it illuminates.”

-110-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 6

Models of //Logical Levels

3) Yet, because you can “make the meta-move—you re-represent the meeting so that you are a director/author of a stage place ... You achieve meta-position—by moving up a logical level of representations you make the previous context you were responding to— the meeting—one of a subset of a larger frame—the theater.” In this way, we can change our context or environment and become the creator of our own context (pages 191-196).

Levels of Conscious and Unconscious Competency These conscious/unconscious levels describe the development or stages that we typically move through as we learn and develop new skills. Figure 6:11 1) Unconscious Incompetence 2) Conscious Incompetence 3) Conscious Competence 4) Unconscious Competence 5) Conscious Competence of Unconscious Competence:

Incompetent and ignorant of it Intelligent and aware enough to recognize the state of incompetence Development of sufficient skill and understanding to operate competently Habituation of the skills until the competency drops out of awareness and one operates automatically with ease The state of mind for providing conscious training about the expert state

Moving Through the Competence Stages In apprenticing ourselves as disciples to any discipline, we move through developmental stages of competence. It begins with incompetence—when we have no skill and when we don’t even know that we don’t. In this blissful state of ignorance we are unconsciously incompetent. Here there is no discipline, no learning, no skill development, no challenge. Here we live in our Garden of Eden, blissful and happy. We are also unskilled, unchallenged, and unable to enter into a domain of excellence. Then we become conscious. Then light appears and we realize that a whole new world of excitement, skill, expertise, and knowledge exists. We bite into the forbidden fruit of the “Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.” Yet this creates a certain amount of anxiety, pressure, distress, unpleasantness. We now become consciously incompetent. Here we face for the first time some of the reality constraints about what it would take to become competent, the work, the process, the struggle, the challenge. Here -111-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 6

Models of //Logical Levels

we feel confused, inadequate, incomplete, “dumb,” and incapable of handling this domain. And so we are. In the stage of conscious incompetence many feel tempted to run back to the Garden of Innocence. Most of us don’t like feeling incompetent. And if we run programs of comparison, perfectionism, impatience, etc., we may go into a state of self-judgment. “I hate being put down like this.” “What’s wrong with me that I can’t get this?” “Why does it have to be so hard?” “I’ll never get this” Figure 6:12 Competency Levels

Here it seems like the “discipline” of apprenticing ourselves to the new domain seems so hard, overwhelming, uncomfortable, and rigorous. Many people turn back at this point. They refuse to go on. They don’t have a good relationship with learning itself, with unsuccessful attempts, with using so-called “failure” as just feedback, etc. They don’t seem to know how to give themselves a chance—an opportunity to grow, develop, get better. They judge and evaluate themselves harshly. If only they would take a kinder and gentler approach, validating and celebrating every little step of progress. Yet if we do the “work” in the second stage, we find ourselves eventually in the marvelous and wonderful place of the third stage. In conscious -112-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 6

Models of //Logical Levels

competence we feel great. Here the discipline seems easy and delightful. We have attained a level of competence and so enjoy it as a skill, confidence and continual development. We have become a practitioner in the science or art. We know our business, and we do it well. And though we know that we have many more things that we can develop, we delight in the level of mastery that we have attained. Eventually, this habituates so that we lose awareness of how we do things, even of what we know. We just know it. As it drops outside of awareness, we have stepped into the next level of development—unconscious competence. The discipline now seems like “a piece of cake.” We experience it as “No problem.” We can do it without our conscious mind. The programs for the competencies have become installed in our very neurology. Now we do it “intuitively.” There is literally an “in-knowing” (in-tuition) about the skills. Here the mastery has become quite pronounced. We find experts and masters at the level of unconscious competence. Yet this also means that the expert, typically, will not be able to explain his or her expertise. They just do it. They have lost awareness of how they do it. What’s beyond that? Moving up to a newer and more complex level of conscious competence of unconscious competence. Here we bring our competence back into awareness and become aware of its structure, form, and process. We do that so that we can teach others how to do this. What is the Value of “Logical Levels?” Generally, going meta to a higher level of thought-emotion enables us to obtain a bigger picture, to take a more objective view, to reflect more thoughtfully, and to modulate lower levels Moving upward also enables us to synthesize our resources which prevents fragmentation into warring parts (see pattern four in Chapter 13 on Utilization). Abstracting to a higher logical level enables us to more globally manage many lower level awarenesses, states, and experiences and so making a change at a higher levels empowers us to perform generative change which will then reverberate throughout the whole system. Understanding the structure of “logical levels” allows us to make distinctions at these kinds of levels just as we make distinctions with “sub-113-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 6

Models of //Logical Levels

modalities.” Doing this gives us the ability to precisely specify the difference that makes the difference — at a meta-level. Understanding the structure of “logical levels” enables us to understand the scientific adventure itself. Most readers of this work already have familiarity with the rule that we cannot verify a scientific hypothesis by inductive procedures. The proposition of lower type can certainly contradict a higher type, but it can never verify it. We have to use statements of a higher logical type than lower level descriptive propositions to generate and explain an hypothesis. Taking “logical levels” into consideration enables us to understand interactions, relationships, abstractions, etc. as well as to cope with the world. Bateson explained, "Without identification of context, nothing can be understood. The observed action is utterly meaningless until it is classified as 'play,' 'manipulation,' or what not. But contexts are but categories of the mind." (Donaldson, 1991, 76)

Such "class" words do not exist on the same level as the specific descriptive behaviors and actions to which they refer. Someone has abstracted and evaluated and moved to a higher “logical level.” When we first pour out all of the pieces of a puzzle on a table, we have a multitude of jig-saw pieces scattered about with no order. So what do we do first? We work at classifying the pieces and grouping them together. In other words, we use higher levels to organize and manage lower levels. We first set out to set the frame-of-reference for “doing the puzzle.” By establishing the frame first, we can then more effective engage in sorting out the details [Sub-Modalities Going Meta (1999/2005) we introduce this process and concept as Meta-Detailing]. So we first form broad categories: edge pieces, blue-sky pieces, blue-water pieces, house-pieces, etc. We develop ad hoc taxonomic categories. This governs our actions and direction, does it not? Then, slowly, patiently, we move from disorder to different stages of order, from randomness to structure. We build the overall frame and then work in this or that corner. As we do, we begin to move faster and faster. Sometimes whole sub-assemblies suddenly go into place. The remaining tasks come into the foreground of our perception and then develop more -114-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 6

Models of //Logical Levels

sharply and clearly. Eventually, even the pesky ambiguous pieces begin to find their places. Understanding “logical levels” enables us to discern description from evaluation. Basic to both NLP and General Semantics lies the distinction between description and evaluation. Descriptive analysis occur at the primary level of see-hear-feel empirical descriptions. Evaluative or inferential statements go beyond (transcend) mere observation to reflection, judgment, comparison, analysis, etc.

Mis-evaluation typically occurs when we evaluate yet consider our statements as nothing more than “factual observations” (or descriptions). To make evaluations without realizing that we have moved to a higher logical level (the world of meta-words) leads us into various forms of unsanity (dogmatism, closed-mindedness, misevaluations, allness, etc.). We can evaluate factual, descriptive statements in terms of "true" and "false" (trueto-fact, false-to-fact). But not so with evaluative, inferential statements. There we can only judge or verify them in terms of probability. In General Semantics this leads to “training in silence” in order to respect the logical level distinction between representation and evaluation. In NLP we access a state of “stopping the world” to appreciate the inexpressible differences at the primary level apart from judgments. Failing to make this distinction leads people to act, perceive, feel, and believe as if language “is” experience rather than just a way of talking about it. This logical level category error evokes confusion of levels or “identification” according to Korzybski. People then believe that their words “are” real. Finally, understanding logical levels enables us to think systemically. Bateson repeatedly argued that unless we learn to think in loops that respect circuit integrity, we will see only an arc in the full circuit, and that will get us into some deep trouble. We Resolve Paradoxes Recognizing the presence of logical levels as a function of "mind" empowers us to effectively handle paradoxes. Consider the traditional barber paradox. -115-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 6

Models of //Logical Levels

In a certain town there lives a barber who shaves every man who does not shave himself. Does the barber shave himself?

If we accept that description as all being on the same level, we experience paradox. But the paradox vanishes as soon as we realize that the phrase, "a barber" names a class or category, not a person. This language of “a barber” (an evaluation, not a specific description) may also stimulate other distortions. The person in this classification has no other classification (the barber never plays the role of a customer?). The classification exists as a rigid “fact” (rather than a fluid man-made abstraction). Taking “logical levels” into consideration enables several solutions to arise: 1) A woman may serve as "the barber" in that village 2) As long as the man barbers he acts as "the barber;" when he stops, he becomes a man who shaves himself.

Treating the class term "the barber" on the same level as the persons barbering and receiving such creates states of confusion and non-sense. We call it "paradox." Knowing “logical levels” enables us to solve many so-called dichotomies. This understanding informs us about how to resolve and sort out many of the dichotomies that have plagued and tormented people for millennia. Consider the hedonist/ non-hedonist dichotomy (selfishness / unselfishness). When we confuse two different levels of abstraction so that we treat them as if on the same level, it leads us to identification or unresolvable conflict. At the primary level we seek what feels good, what is pleasurable, and desirable. Yet we can override the level from a higher level. That’s how we can submit ourselves to short-term pain and even do so willingly. We do it for the sake of long-term pleasure, gain, benefit, belief, etc.. That’s why we go to the dentist and why we will undergo surgery. It’s why the toasting martyr continues to refuse to recant. We do such things from a higher level. At that higher level we see, understand, believe, value, etc. things of greater importance to us. At that meta-level, we also act hedonistically. But there we seek to fulfil meanings, values, and beliefs that endowed with meaning that creates a psychological “pleasure.”

-116-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 6

Models of //Logical Levels

Preparing to Model NLP, as a meta-level discipline, exists as a system of “logical levels.” It offers a model for sorting out the way the brain and nervous system process information at different levels. It enables us to recognize and deal with linguistic concepts that involve different levels. In NLP we have numerous sub-models which specify how learning, outcomes, states, values, meta-programs, etc. operate at different levels. Recognizing the role that “logical levels” play in neurology, linguistics, human experiences, etc. can empower us to take the next step as we go meta in our ongoing study of the structure of subjectivity.

-117-

Chapter 7

LOGICAL LEVELS OF LEARNING Gregory Bateson On Meta-Levels "All behavioral science and all analysis of mental processes are liable to fall on their face when logical typing is ignored." Gregory Bateson “The finest compliment that I ever got from Bateson was the statement ... that NLP was a set of Learning III tools...” John Grinder (1987, p. 221)

W

hile modeling meta-levels may seem like a new idea in NLP, it actually has a long and venerated history. Gregory Bateson was modeling the meta-levels of schizophrenia, play, and many other experiences many years before the founding of NLP. As Bateson (1972) modeled the meta-levels in these experiences, he articulated many of the key meta functions. From his research and theorizing, he created a model of learning that incorporated a meta-levels model, which has greatly influenced the field of NLP. As he and his associates modeled schizophrenia, they postulated a doublebind theory of schizophrenia to explain the “crazy” thinking, emoting, languaging, and behaving of persons suffering from this very strange mental disordering. They noted that it was on the primary level that a person’s thinking and emoting would not make sense. On that level, a person would seem conflicted and split. That’s when they asked about the causes of this particular form of “craziness.” -118-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 7

Logical Levels of Learning

What’s going on in schizophrenia? How does it “make sense” at another level? Does it make sense on another level?

Bateson et al. eventually concluded that the disordering involved a confusion of levels and a “binding” of the person against stepping aside from it to comment upon it. As a result of this, it creates within a person the inability to function effectively at meta-levels. They noted that a metalevel structure stopped, hindered, and prohibited the person from “going meta” to untangle the meta-muddle. The schizophrenic is not allowed to meta-comment on the double-bind situation. This meta-prohibition, in fact, locks in the bind. In this chapter, I focus exclusively on Bateson, his model of the logical levels of learning, his work with schizophrenia, double-binds, dolphins, the twin “worlds” of Creatura and Pleroma, his explanations of “difference” in the world of Creatura as “that which gets onto the map,” the kind of “logic” that occurs there, systems and systemic thinking, and more. These distinctions, while highly abstract and academic, play a crucial role in modeling using meta-levels—and so deserve our attention. The Bateson Story Bateson (1972), while working on the nature, source, and quality of schizophrenia, explored the learning contexts within which such strange thoughts-and-emotions arise. He concluded that the schizophrenic fails to recognize and distinguish messages of different logical typing. The schizophrenic makes these errors in the categories of logical levels by failing to recognize the function of meta-levels. This involves "the absence of meta-communicative framing" that we generally notice in such states of consciousness as dreaming, but which tend to characterize the waking communications of the schizophrenic (p. 190). What they were not doing was the problem—the distinction not made. In other words, the schizophrenic hears a message, but does not know the order of the message. And because he does not know on what level the message occurs, he does not know what sort of message it is that he’s confronted with, and with which he must deal. This prevents him from knowing how to sort it out in his mind and how to respond to it. As a result, this puts the person into a meta-communicative tangle or muddle. He feels confused and disoriented. Then, in that learning environment, it -119-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 7

Logical Levels of Learning

prevents one from developing the ability to discriminate the typing (or levels) of the messages. In a seminal paper entitled, "Toward a Theory of Schizophrenia," Bateson wrote: "Our approach is based on that part of communications theory which Russell has called the Theory of Logical Types. The central thesis of this theory is that there is a discontinuity between a class and its members. The class cannot be a member of itself nor can one of the members be the class, since the term used for the class is of a different level of abstraction —a different Logical Type—from terms used for members. Although in formal logic there is an attempt to maintain this discontinuity between a class and its members, we argue that in the psychology of real communications this discontinuity is continually and inevitably breached, and that a priori we must expect a pathology to occur in the human organism when certain formal patterns of the breaching occur in the communication between mother and child. We shall argue that this pathology at its extreme will have symptoms whose formal characteristics would lead the pathology to be classed as a schizophrenia." (pp. 202-203)

Because schizophrenics do not discern logical levels, they cannot tell "where they stand" with others. They especially cannot discern where they stand in relationship to an emotionally significant and/or powerful person when such persons send out contradictory messages. Schizophrenics, said Bateson and associates, live in a relational and conceptual world that forbids them from "going meta" to the frame-of-reference within which the messages occur. This consequently locks them in at a primary level with no context markers for knowing "how to understand" the events that transpire or the messages sent. So they feel "crazy." They get "yes" messages and "no" messages, but they cannot sort the incongruity. The messages jar with one another. Ultimately, they solve the problem by splitting themselves. Analogously, imagine living in a world where one gets lots of faxes and emails, but no meta-information at the top of the sheets regarding the sender, his or her purpose, time frame, subject, address, etc. This would leave us confused. “Who sent this?” “When did this come?” “About what does this refer?” “How should I take this?” -120-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 7

Logical Levels of Learning

“Does this refer to me?”

If the lack of reference with regard to a fax confuses us, imagine how the confusion would multiply if we received additional faxes or emails contradicting the first ones, and then more contradicting those, etc. Then add to that confusion a structure that prevents or gives no opportunity to go meta and ask the sender for clarification. Eventually that could send us into a closed-system recursive loop—a world without an exit. Since this breaching of the formal logical levels shows up in such communicational modes as humor, play, non-play, fantasy, sacrament, metaphor, etc., understanding how messages and meta-messages interact enables us to understand and work with such breaching. In other words, we not only send messages to each other, we send out messages-about-ourmessages (meta-messages) to signal each other regarding how to take us, and the sort of messages we send. Such meta-messages occur at a higher logical level and consist of a higher logical type than the messages they classify. And this framing of messages and actions "reaches considerable complexity" in us humans, yet "our vocabulary for such discrimination is still very poorly developed." (p. 203). Gregory Bateson, Don Jackson, Jay Haley, and John Weakland made this original analysis and from it they constituted their theory of schizophrenia. Entitled, the Double Bind Theory, they said it comprised the heart of the pathology of schizophrenia. This not only involved messages and metamessages, an intense relationship, a message of fear and/or danger, plus a conflicting message of love and/or safety, but most importantly, a tertiary message about those messages to not ask for clarification. "A tertiary negative injunction prohibiting the victim from escaping from the field." (p. 207)

Given all of that complexity of relationship, what typically results from this kind of structural interaction between messages? "We hypothesize that there will be a breakdown in an individual's ability to discriminate between Logical Types whenever a double bind situation occurs." (p. 208, italics added)

Schizophrenics live in a perpetual state of feeling meta-muddled. No wonder they feel “crazy.” They lack the ability to discriminate between logical levels. They live in a world where the confusion of levels creates -121-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 7

Logical Levels of Learning

identifications (Korzybski) so that they take symbols, signs, metaphors, etc. as if “the thing.” This condemns them to constantly make logical level category errors. All of this provides us a very unique and special picture of human subjectivity. This picture involves qualities that go beyond what we find in the TOTE Model. Here we have forms of subjectivity that involve some of the most intense pathology and dysfunction, namely, schizophrenia. Here also we have forms of subjectivity that involve some of the most intense pleasures and productivity, namely, humor, play, creativity, ritual, poetry, metaphor, etc. Bateson offers a common structure for all of these regarding their internal form. He shows how each involves a structuring of logical levels. In fact, we cannot understand, identify, model, or replicate such human experiences without understanding and utilizing the role of logical levels, frames and meta-frames, messages and meta-messages, etc. Therefore to replicate such experiences we have to work with meta-levels. This means the following: Without building the meta-position, or meta-move, into our strategies, we cannot accurately model those forms of human subjectivity which involve layers of learning about learning, thinking about thinking, states about states, etc.

The Levels of Learning Within this context of study about schizophrenia and how one "learns" to think-and-feel and act in a schizophrenic (split) way, Bateson explored learning and levels of learning. He derived the concept of "learning" from Learning Theory (Behaviorism) and simplified it to designate "changes in what an organism does in response to a given signal" (p. 247). We begin with a Pavlovian situation in which a dog hears a buzzer, but the dog makes no regular response. In this case the dog has “learned” nothing. The dog has linked, associated, or connected nothing with the sound of the buzzer. This is Zero Learning. But then, after some repeated trials in which the dog receives meat immediately after the sounding of the buzzer, the dog salivates whenever he hears the buzzer. Now we have Learning I. "We may say loosely that the animal has begun to attach significance or meaning to the buzzer. A change has occurred." (p. 247)

-122-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 7

Logical Levels of Learning

For Bateson, the symptoms that we call "schizophrenia" involve a special case of an epistemological error. The person has "learned" that response, and within its own contexts—it makes perfect sense. Learning I. Yet at a larger level, it does not make sense. It has failed to take a meta-position and so does not recognize the existence of logical levels and how the levels govern the frames-of-reference. Bateson also came to the same conclusion in his work with dolphins. There he noticed the nature of learning in the experimental work and the contexts of such learning. His analysis of animals and humans learning to learn in experimental contexts enabled him to describe the process of "becoming test wise." That describes Learning II. But then, when an experimenter would put a mammal "in the wrong regarding its rules for making sense" of the experiment or of the relationship with the experimenter, this would inevitably lead to severe pain and maladjustment for that animal. The animal's learning to learn the learning context ("test wise") moved the animal to a meta-level of awareness about the "context markers" and its "rules." This gives us Learning III. To translate into human understanding, the animal behaves as if he or she realized, "These signals and cues inform me that, in this context, my trainer wants me to roll over, play, demonstrate a brand new behavior, etc."

Then when the trainer "puts the animal in the wrong" so that no response comprises the "right" (i.e. rewarded) responses, the animal eventually learns various behaviors that we designate as "experimental neurosis." This suggests that the animal experiences a meta-muddle in which it does not know where it stands with the reality constraints imposed upon it, nor how to find out. At a meta-level it learns that “nothing works.” Seligman and associates (1975, 1990) labeled this meta-level learning, “learned helplessness.” Logical Levels of Learning To now construct a hierarchical series around the theme of "learning," Bateson focused on the word "change" and explained the process in terms of change and change-of-change. "Within the field of pure communications theory, the steps of an hierarchic series may be constructed by successive use of the word 'about,' or 'meta.' Our hierarchic series will then consist of message, metamessage, meta-meta-message, and so on. . . . Further complications are -123-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 7

Logical Levels of Learning

added—rarely in classical physics but commonly in human communication—by noting that message may be about (or 'meta' to) the relationship between message of different levels." (p. 248)

From this use of "logical Levels" (derived from Russell and Whitehead, 1910-1913), Bateson sorted out classes of learning. He then arranged them in a hierarchy so that each higher message stood "meta" to the previous message. At Zero Learning we have specificity of response, which does not change via feedback or correction (p. 293). Here we simply experience "the receipt of a signal." Nelson Zink (1994) says that this describes ". . . a machine or a robot or perhaps some lower life forms like plants. These systems or organisms follow to the letter whatever instructions or directions they receive or contain."

At Learning I we have a change in the specificity of response by correction of errors of choice within a set of alternatives. "I hear the hospital whistle and know it is twelve o'clock. I reach out and take my lunch. The whistle may be regarded as an answer to a question laid down in my mind by previous learning of the second order; but the single event—receiving this piece of information—is a piece of learning." (p. 248, italics added)

This learning functions as we attach (link, connect, anchor) a new stimulus with the old stimulus so that the new stimulus sets off the same response. We "learn to respond to the conditioned stimulus with behavior" (p. 171). An assumption about the context occurs in Learning I. "The definition of Learning I assumes that the buzzer (the stimulus) is somehow the 'same' at Time 1 and at Time 2." "Without the assumption of repeatable context (and the hypothesis that for the organisms which we study the sequence of experience is really somehow punctuated in this manner), it would follow that all 'learning' would be of one type: namely, all would be zero learning. ... We would argue that without the assumption of repeatable context, our thesis falls to the ground, together with the whole general concept of 'learning.'" (pp. 288-89)

Is the information to classify the "same" stimulus different? Sometimes we punctuate some "context marker" of the signal and at other times we bring our own classifying system to bear on the signal. What one learns in Learning II involves "a way of punctuating events." (p. 300). -124-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 7

Logical Levels of Learning

In the previous quotation (Bateson, p. 248), I italicized the phrase "a question laid down in my mind by previous learning of the second order." In other words, what we learn does not stay put at the primary level. Instead, it moves up (to speak metaphorically) and then begins to operate as a context-defining learning. As a learning about learning it generates a state of readiness to see-and-feel in a certain way. [We could also describe this in numerous ways: i.e. as a “thought in the back of the mind” that then creates the background of knowledge, as a conceptual state, as our higher Frame-of-Reference, etc.]

In NLP, we have several ways to describe these facets of Learning II. One involves describing them as the meta-programs (sorting styles and filters) and beliefs (meta-understandings) that we bring to bear on events in the world. By means of these, we punctuate the events in terms of our precoded filters. The learnings that we reflexively apply back to our very thinking and emoting become our perceptual filters or “programs” for perceiving. This reduces “news of difference” that can come in via our senses. For Learning III, we go up one more level. We go up to where we have "those learnings which constitute changes in second-order learning" (i.e. belief changes, changes in how we code "time," changes in our metaprograms, changes in our perceptual filters, etc.). Bateson also termed this as learning to learn. Later he said he should have coined the word "tritolearning." By this he meant "learning to learn to receive signals." This refers to those changes in an individual whereby one "comes to expect his world to be structured in one way rather than another." Bateson described this kind of learning as comprising the highest learnings that often occur via the psychotherapeutic process. Here one changes one's basic assumptions and premises about life—about one's self, past, future, destiny, purpose, masculinity, femininity, etc. At Learning IV, we have "changes in those processes of change referred to in Learning III." But what would this entail? Bateson never elaborated on this. In fact, he wrote, "Whether learning of this fourth order occurs in human beings is unknown." (p. 249). Later, when asked about this, he said he postulated its existence to create an opening in the model—a possibility to plant in our minds. (Figure 7:1, the symbol @ designates "about" or "meta"). -125-

NLP: Going Meta

Logical Levels of Learning

Chapter 7

Figure 7:1

Bateson's Levels of Learning Creatura — The World of Communication

Learning IV:

Learning III:

Learning II: Deutro-Learning

Learning to Alter the Processes Involved in Learning III @ Learning to Learn @ Learning @

Learning I: Proto-Learning:

Learning New Response

Zero Learning:

Reception of Signal

—>

Pleroma The World of Physics

For Bateson, the world of communication radically differs from the world of physics. He stressed this in order to highlight the fact that "learning," as change in perception, exists as "real" in the world of communication, and that the event "out there" cannot enter this world. Only messages (neurophysiological messages) can enter this world. For the external world, Bateson used the term Pleroma and for the internal world of communication, information, organization, etc. he used the term Creatura. Separating these two "worlds" (realities), for him, provided the basis for discerning logical levels. "The event itself or the object itself cannot enter this world, and is, therefore, irrelevant, and to that extent, unreal. Conversely, a message has no reality or relevance qua message, in the Newtonian world: it there is reduced to sound waves or printer's ink. ... in thought and in experience there are no things, but only messages..." (p. 250)

Logical Types The theory of Logical Types that Bateson derived from Russell and Whitehead asserts that ". . . no class can, in formal logical or mathematical discourse, be a member of itself; that a class of classes cannot be one of the classes which are its members; that a name is not the thing named..." (p. 280)

-126-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 7

Logical Levels of Learning

While on the surface, this may seem trivial and obvious, when we confuse types, or identify phenomena from two different levels, we experience an "error of logical typing." When we do that—we operate as if we do not know the difference between "eating the menu" and using a menu to order the dinner (the Korzybskian map/territory and identification distinctions). To highlight, from a meta-relational perceptive, the symmetry of logical typing, Bateson wrote, (a) "The class of chairs is of the same order of abstraction (i.e. the same logical type) as the class of nonchairs; and further (b) that if the class of chairs is not a chair, then, correspondingly, the class of nonchairs is not a nonchair." (p. 280)

But if we contravene these rules of formal discourse, he warned, we thereby generate paradox and vitiate the discourse. This, for Bateson, played a central role in the genesis of our theoretical understanding of schizophrenia. If — Then Constructions: Logical and Temporal Bateson used the example of the classic Cretan Liar Paradox to make a distinction between two forms of then: the logical "then" and the temporal "then." "If Epimenides was right in saying that Cretans always lie, and he was a Cretan, was he a liar or not a liar? If he was a liar, then he was not a liar. If he was not a liar, then it was untrue that Cretans are always liars, and so on. Now look at the 'then' in that paradox. If yes, then no. If no, then yes. If the 'then' is logical, there is paradox, but if the 'then' is causal and temporal, the contradiction disappears. The sequence is like that of the electric bell on the front door. If the circuit is complete, then a magnet is activated which will break the circuit. If the circuit is broken, then the magnet will not be activated, and the circuit will be restored. If the circuit is restored, then the magnet will be activated, and the circuit will be broken, and so on. So we get an oscillation, and the paradox 'if yes then no; if no then yes' contains a real temporal 'then.'" (Donaldson, 1991, 181)

Here Bateson sets out two kinds of references for our singular word "then." In temporal 'then' we have "time" introduced into a sequence of actions or events, so that when one thing happens, that then leads to an action that thereby triggers another thing to happen, etc. As a result, we have a system that contains "if-then" temporal links.

-127-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 7

Logical Levels of Learning

["Time" here refers not to conceptual "time" or subjective "time," but to the happening of events, actions, hence physical "time."] "By introducing time into the if-then relations, we have made classical logic obsolete. But that doesn't mean, you know, that it is now impossible to think. It means that classical logic is a poor simulation of cause. We used to ask, 'Can computers simulate logic?' But computers work on ifthen relations that are causal: 'If this transistor tickles that transistor, then such-and-such.' That's a causal 'if-then,' with time in it." (Donaldson, 1991, p. 182)

Bateson here describes the physical universe where events occur and when one event occurs its forces and impacts causally effect another event or sets of events. This describes the world of physics, of forces, of actions, of events, and of sequences. "This stimulus causes or triggers that response." This gives us the "then" of cause involving true "time." [Time-Lining, 1997 describes this kind of "time" as a primary state.] Let us now shift to the other world—to the world of ideas, communication, and organization. In that world we have no such "things." In that world we have a world of ideas—messages, information, representation. “I keep coming back to the assertion that what we deal with are descriptions, second order representations of how it is [how it functions]. How it primarily is, we don't know. We cannot get there. The Ding an sich [Kant's "thing in itself"] is always and inevitably out of reach." (Donaldson, 1991, p. 182) "The mind contains no things, no pigs, no people, no midwife, toads, or what have you, only ideas (i.e., news of difference), information about 'things' in quotes, always in quotes. Similarly, the mind contains no time and no space, only ideas of 'time' and 'space.'" (1976, p. 141)

Only in this world of ideas and representations, and ideas-about-ideas do we have the logical 'then.' The computer operates by cause and effect. So to function, computers need an actual causal/temporal "then" (i.e. "If this event occurs, it sets off that event."). What significance does all of this have for this discussion? It follows that when we use computers to simulate the "if...then" of logic, the "then" becomes temporal (actual "cause" of events interacting). "If I close this switch, then (almost immediately) the lightbulb will light."

-128-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 7

Logical Levels of Learning

Yet, as Bateson pointed out, the "if...then" of logic contains no such "time." In the statement, "If three sides of this triangle are equal to three sides of that triangle, then the triangles are equal," we have no causal "time." From this Bateson concluded: "If at time1 the Cretan's statement is true; then at time 2, it is untrue, if it is untrue at time2, then it is true at time3, and so on..." There is no contradiction, and the only "if...then..." of logic is obsolete." (Donaldson, 1991: p. 204)

Here Bateson has used the General Semantic extensional device of indexing with the superscript numbers1,2,3 for different times. In so doing, he has set forth a number of statements that operate horizontally along the same level. "Now true."

"Now not true." "Now true."

To introduce the "if...then" of logic, we solve the so-called paradox by using the "class/membership" distinction. "The statement by the Cretan that all Cretans are liars functions at a meta-level, as a class-level statement about all of the other class-membership statements that Cretans utter." The "if . . . then" of logic does not deal with sequence of events ("time") and how these physical forces set other physical forces into motion ("cause"). It deals with representations (ideas) and it concerns how an idea can recursively reflect back onto itself (ideas about ideas) so that it logically, inevitably, and predictably refers to itself (or other ideas) at a previous level. Here aboutness occurs. Here secondary order abstractions (or reflections) occur. Here in the circuitry of the mind, force or impact does not trigger "mental" events. Instead, differences trigger the “mental” events. This describes, for Bateson, the most central and unique distinction between Pleroma and Creatura. In Pleroma we have events, forces, impacts, etc. But in Creatura we have no such things, we only have differences (news of difference). "I realized that what gets from the territory to the map, i.e. from the outside world to the brain—is news of difference. If there is no difference in the territory, there will be nothing to say on the map ... Further, I saw that any given map has rules about what differences in the territory shall be reported on the map." (p. 199)

-129-

NLP: Going Meta

Figure 7:2

Chapter 7

Logical Levels of Learning

Meta-Levels of Statements

If news of difference describes the only thing that gets from the territory to the map, then the currency of the "mind" involves difference and the ways we represent and encode such. Judith DeLozier (1987) put it this way: “The minimum unit of mind is difference. Where does new information come from? It comes out of difference just like depth perception comes out of the two convergent images. A new class of information emerges from the synthesis of two different descriptions.” (p. 35)

In NLP, we talk about such "differences" in terms of modalities and in terms of the representational distinctions (“sub-modalities”). We also speak about it in terms of double and triple descriptions. From the very beginning of NLP practitioner training, we learn to run contrastive analysis between experiences so that we can identify, and then work with, the difference that makes a difference. We learn that such "difference" does not exist literally, but only representationally in the "ideas" that we code in a different way from some other coding. "The primary data of experience are differences. From these data we construct our hypothetical (always hypothetical) ideas and pictures of that 'external' world. A report of difference is the most elementary idea—the indivisible atom of thought. Those differences which are somehow not reported are not ideas." (p. 188)

Not only can we describe difference in terms of representational coding, but we can also describe differences by discerning the level or order of abstraction of our idea. An idea of fear that we abstract about some object, event, or person in the world describes a first-order abstraction that we code in whatever modalities and distinctions that we choose. But the idea of fear-about-our-fear represents a second-order abstraction that moves us to -130-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 7

Logical Levels of Learning

a higher logical level—a level about the lower level and introduces more news of difference. Meta-Conceptual Understandings about Knowledge When we learn about learning, know about knowing, develop ideas about ideas, etc., we move from a primary state and step into higher logical levels of conceptualization. In cognitive development, Piaget experimented to determine when a child develops the ability to construct class-inclusion hierarchies. More recently other researchers have called his methodologies and conclusions into question. "In some of Piaget's writings it seemed that he was positing changes in the child's actual representational capacity. If children literally cannot represent linear orders, or class inclusion, then it is difficult to see how they could learn to do so; some maturational mechanism would be implicated in such a change. In other writings it seemed that Piaget was positing meta-conceptual development: the child becomes aware of knowledge, of inference, and of learning. Meta-conceptual understanding is one important aspect of children's knowledge of people, part of their theory of mind, and thus is learned like any other knowledge." (Osherson and Smith, 1992, 156)

Pleroma and Creatura Levels In Bateson's last work, co-written with his daughter, Mary Catherine Bateson (1987), he again addressed the issue of logical levels. There he made the distinction between the "world of non-living things" (forces, physics, chemistry, etc.)—Pleroma, and the world of living organisms characterized by communication, information, and organization— Creatura. In Pleroma there exists no description, name, class, message, etc. Not until we come to the world of living things, the Creatura, do we find classes, distinctions, messages. Bateson then asked, “What from the level of Pleroma gets mapped onto the map of Creatura?” To this he made his now classic reply, "news of difference... the difference that makes a difference." "Throughout Creatura the logical types are important, but the confusion of logical types also plays a part in the syntax. I suspect that confusions and contradictions of logical type limited to linguistic communication function differently from those that spill out into other types of communication, and this is why the double binds that create pathology always involve non-linguistic and contextual elements." (p. 189)

-131-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 7

Logical Levels of Learning

By way of contrast, Bateson wrote: "The world of nonliving matter, the Pleroma, which is described as the laws of physics and chemistry, itself contains no description. A stone does not respond to information and does not use injunctions or information or trial and error in its internal organization. To respond in a behavioral sense, the stone would have to use energy contained within itself, as organisms do. It would cease to be a stone. The stone is affected by 'forces' and 'impacts,' but not by differences." (p. 18)

Bateson accordingly drew the conclusion from this recognition of these levels that structure, and only structure, provides us our only mechanism for dealing with the ineffable territory. Yet structure operates as a "somewhat flattened, abstracted version of 'truth'" as a photo makes a person look very small and flat if you confuse it with the territory. If we can only know structure and not territory, then to effectively manage these logical levels we need to utilize the mechanisms by which we model the territory, induction, deduction and abduction with awareness and skill about meta-levels. Preparing to Model Gregory Bateson taught us how to "go meta" and to recognize the existence of logical levels in subjective phenomena. From him, NLP received its first model of logical levels, the Levels of Learning. He modeled learning at its multiple levels by tracking upward the layeredness of learning and change. Bateson introduced the power of meta-communication for setting frames, meta-frames, and the importance for sanity and effectiveness of making meta-moves in order to orient ourselves as we cope with the world of communication. By this process, we can step outside of a system, evaluate it, understand it, and transform it. Via Bateson’s meta-move, we can now step aside and adopt a new perceptual position—the meta-perspective.

-132-

Chapter 8

LEVELS OF ABSTRACTION Alfred Korzybski's Neurological Meta-Levels “The map is not the territory.” Alfred Korzybski (p. 58) “. . . the label is not the object . . . the object is not the event, For the number of multiordinal characteristics which we ascribe to the label by definition does not cover all the characteristics . . .” (p. 417) “‘Consciousness of abstracting’ is a psycho-logical attitude toward all our abstracting on all levels and so involves co-ordinated working of the organism-as-a-whole.” (p. 426) “The introduction of a language of ‘different orders of abstractions’ is structurally entirely justified and physiologically natural, as it describes, in terms of order, the activities of the nervous system.” (p. 429)

W

hen we explore the question as to where NLP came from, all of the road maps that we consult refer us back to the intellectual soil of Korzybski’s General Semantics. It was from there that numerous foundational ideas of NLP and terminology arose. This especially applies with regard to the most foundational NLP presupposition, the one that establishes the basic epistemology of NLP. I’m here speaking about the absolute difference between map and territory and about the classic formulation of it in the succinct statement, “The map is not the territory.”

-133-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 8

Levels of Abstraction

This engineering statement came from Alfred Korzybski and sets the frame for his exploration into structure, which he said was the only content of knowledge. This epistemological understanding about understanding and the nature of human consciousness continues to serve as the basic principle in General Semantics as it does in NLP. This statement also explains why we model. We model because we do not (and cannot) operate upon the world (the territory) directly or immediately. We can only operate on the world indirectly as we mediate it via our mental maps of the world. Our nervous system will not allow us a direct route. We have to go through the limitations and constraints of the abstracting nature of our neurology. Map and Territory — Mapping the Territory Korzybski (1933) founded General Semantics upon the epistemological analogy and distinction of map and territory. In doing this, he distinguished two critical levels: the levels that we grossly label "objective" and “subjective” reality. Korzybski argued that the old language maps (which he designated "Aristotelian") confused these levels and encoded or programmed unsanity into the human evaluation processes. To make a better adjustment to reality, we need to create maps that more accurately reflect the differences between levels of abstracting. In his own words, he explained this frame-of-reference. "A map is not the territory it represents, but, if correct, it has a similar structure to the territory, which accounts for its usefulness. ... If we reflect upon our languages, we find that at best they must be considered only as maps. A word is not the object it represents; and languages exhibit also this peculiar self-reflexiveness, that we can analyze languages by linguistic means. ... Antiquated map-language, by necessity, must lead us to semantic disasters, as it imposes and reflects its unnatural structure... As words are not the objects which they represent, structure, and structure alone, becomes the only link which connects our verbal processes with the empirical data. ... Words are not the things we are speaking about... If words are not things, or maps are not the actual territory, then, obviously, the only possible link between objective world and the linguistic world is found in structure, and structure alone. The only usefulness of a map or a language depends on the similarity of structure between the empirical world and the map-languages. That languages all have some structure ...we unconsciously read into the world the structure of the language we use..." (pp. 58-60) -134-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 8

Levels of Abstraction

If the map does not comprise the territory, then we have to use language, metaphors, and symbols as maps of reality. This directs our attention to the concepts of correspondence, relation, and structure in defining the relationship between our mental models and the world itself. We do this because symbols (i.e., words, pictures, concepts, etc.) and "reality" exist on different logical levels. We make a category error when we confuse logical levels. That’s why we need to distinguish between the "reality" of words and the “reality” of their referents. Words point to, stand for, and symbolize the territory, but are not identical with the territory. Our picture of our holiday is not the holiday. To complicate matters further, neither is the territory always the territory. The territory keeps changing. No event ever stays the “same” over time since at the submicroscopic level of reality, everything is in movement. So mapping things as “the same” or using the concept of “sameness” maps something that does not exist either. Everything real moves and changes. These processes only and always occur. So because we live in a process world—a world forever in flux, we need to map process and change into our mental model of the world. Yet most of our languaging does not reflect this. In fact, not only does language generally fail to reflect this, but it has a tendency to do the very opposite—to make our mental maps more static. That’s because most languages over-rely on nouns and nominalizations—linguistic distinctions which treat processes as static, unmoving, and permanent. In so using a “thing” language that reifies processes, we erroneously map the process world. To counter-act this tendency, Korzybski introduced indexing and timedating as two devices. By these we can communicate to ourselves and others the non-identification of every event. In fact, he noted that "identity," as absolute sameness, does not and cannot exist. There is no such thing as identity or sameness. "Anything with which we deal on the objective levels represents a process, different all the 'time,' no matter how slow or fast the process might be; therefore, a principle or premise that 'everything is identical with itself' is invariably false to facts." (p. 194)

This absolute uniqueness of every "thing" and every process calls into question a very basic term present in most languages, namely, the “to be” -135-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 8

Levels of Abstraction

verbs which includes the word "is." In fact, there is no "is." Static “isness” does not reflect or represent anything that exists in the world. General Semantics (GS) has specified two usages of the "to be" verb ( is, am, are, be, been, being, was, etc.) that create neuro-linguistic problems. 1) The "is" of identity. "He is a man," "He is a fool," etc. This refers to how we identify one level with another level and then equate the two as if identical (the "same"). Yet such does not (and cannot) exist. Sameness cannot exist "out there." So instead of using the "is" of identity, we can translate our meaning by referring to our mental process of classifying. "I classify him as a man, a fool, a democrat." Or, "I call her selfish, a wife, a republican." This means that these labels do not exist on the same level with the actual living, breathing person. We have generalized to a “class” term at a higher logical level to create such static representations. 2) The "is" of predication. In this kind of predicating (or asserting), we state that some quality or property that arises either totally from within us, or as an interaction of our experiencing an object, exists "out there." So we then project it outward. "That chair is blue," "He is so sweet," etc. Consider the statement, "That book is brown." Here the quality of "brownness" does not exist external from the contribution that the person who sees the book. The neurology of the person’s rods and cones in the eye contribute significantly to the process. "Brownness" arises from an interaction between the object (its energy manifestations) and our sense receptors as well as our evaluating. Instead of this false-to-fact over-simplification, we can translate this form of "is" to indicate this complexity of interaction. "I perceive that book as brown. It looks brown to me.” Proverbially, General Semantics asserts that "Whatever we say a thing 'is' —it 'is' not." (p. 35). Our saying represents our labeling, languaging, classifying, evaluating, and map-making. As such, it exists at a higher logical level to the thing itself. “The map is not the territory.” It partakes of a different kind and level of reality inasmuch as it arises from the constructing of conceptual and linguistic reality. These two forms of "is" do a lot of semantic damage. When we use them, we map false-to-fact understandings and evaluations. Then, given the -136-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 8

Levels of Abstraction

nature of our mind-body structure, this leads us to inappropriate responding (emoting, valuing, speaking, acting, etc.). To some extent, we find the "is" of identity in the NLP meta-model as a complex equivalence. This linguistic distinction describes equating an external behavior (EB) with some internal state (IS). While these exist on different logical levels, we equate them to thereby confuse levels. "When he talks to me in that tone of voice (EB), I know he is lying (IS), thus he is a liar." "When she looks at me like that (EB), I know she doesn't like me (IS)."

It also shows up in identity beliefs wherein we take phenomena of behavior (roles, jobs, experiences), phenomena of experiences (relational interactions, trauma, success, etc.), phenomena of thoughts (beliefs, values, decisions, understandings, ideas, etc.) and then equate these with a higher logical level abstraction ("self"). "I am a democrat." "I am a plumber." "I am a Christian." "I am a politician." "I am a father." "I am a child of an alcoholic parent."

Two other forms of "is" do not do such semantic damage. These include (3) The "is" of existence. "Where is she?" "She is next to that tree." With this form of "is" we can easily translate by using some present tense verb, "She stands next to that tree." Or with, "Here are the keys!" we can turn the passive sentence around and use an appropriate verb, "I have the keys in my hand." (4) The "is" of an auxiliary verb. "I am holding the keys." "He is coming over this evening." Since this "is" does not carry the action of the statement, but helps out another verb, it creates no semantic problems as do the others. D. David Bourland, Jr. (1991, 1994) has invented the extensional device which he named E-Prime to help eliminate the dangerous "ises." In priming the English language of the "to be" verbs (be, being, been, is, are, am, was, were, become, etc.), we make it more difficult to fall into these aforementioned linguistic pits. I wrote several books using E-Prime and later shifted to E-Choice which refers to only eliminating the “ises” of identification and predication. Logical Levels of Neurological Abstraction In exploring how we do our mapping (modeling) from the world into models inside our nervous system and brain, Korzybski (1933/1994) -137-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 8

Levels of Abstraction

described "Levels of Abstraction." He used the term "abstracting" as his key phrase for how we bring information in from the world to create our abstractions. Abstracting summarizes the modeling processes that NLP has designated as deleting, generalizing, and distorting. We do this first neurologically and secondly, conceptually. What exists "out there" in the world beyond our nervous systems we do not know. Nor do we have any way of knowing. What impacts us from "out there" on our sense receptors (i.e., eyes, ears, skin, tongue, inner ear, inner organs, etc.) involves various energy manifestations—the electromagnetic spectrum, waves of energy in the form of sound, movement, etc. After the stimulation of the energy, we abstract. We summarize from these energy manifestations via our sense receptors to generate a neurological “sense” or map of the event or experience. Interactively, we generate a neurological map that gives us a "sense" of the world. We have a "sense" of light, sound, sensation, taste, touch, smell, etc. (Figure 8:1). As we abstract from the world via our sense receptors, we bring that "information" into our neurology. Here our "understanding," at this level, exists in our body and nervous system "before words." This "knowledge" of the things out there consists of an unspeakable level, an indescribable awareness. Next, we abstract again by processing that abstracted material in specialized parts of our cortex and nervous system as sensory representations (VAK). Here we create our second neurological map about the previous information. At this level, we have the "sense" of internal sights (pictures, images), sounds, sensations, smells, and tastes. We do not literally have internal pictures, sounds, voices, smells, etc. in our heads or nervous systems —there we only have neurons and bio-chemical movement activating various neuropathways and neurotransmitters. We only seem to phenomenologically have sights, sounds, sensations, etc. We have used our senses as a model for representing the external world. This gives us an internal "sense” of the world. We do not have any awareness of the neurological processes that generate these abstractions. We may at this level experience the sensory modes of representation, but not know it. Here we do not recognize the existence of our pictures, sounds, sensations. So the next level of abstracting would involve awareness of our VAK productions. -138-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 8

Levels of Abstraction

Abstracting again, moves us up to the next level where we create our first linguistic map about the neurological map. Here we create a map of sensory-based words (Ad)— empirical words in see-hear-feel format. These empirical words operate as a map of the VAK of the map of the neurological sense of the territory. Again we abstract. About our sensory-based terms we move up to abstract as we make evaluations, understandings, comparisons, insights, beliefs, etc. These evaluative words involve our inferences, conclusions, and judgments. Here we use more abstract words that move up another logical level. If we talked about John, Jim, and Joe, now we talk about "men"—a higher logical level. Yet this "classification" term does not refer to anything in the world itself. As a class word it refers to our evaluation and abstraction, to how we are thinking and structuring our understandings. Figure 8:1

Beyond Words Etc.

Level of meta-language concepts

Evaluative words

Linguistic maps of

Evaluative Words Evaluative words

Level of Language

Sensory-Based Words (Ad)

Neurological maps of (Conscious abstracting) Before Words

Sensory Representations (V.A.K.O.G.) Sense Receptors

(Unconscious, unspeakable level of pure sensory experience)

___________________________________________________ "Reality" Beyond the Nervous System The Quantum Field “Reality” The territory beyond

And so on, again and again, we abstract using increasingly more evaluativebased words. We do this because at whatever level we abstract, we can step back (or "up") another level and say more words about those words. We can continue this abstracting process until we get to the place "beyond words." Here, unlike the "before words" level where we experienced the -139-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 8

Levels of Abstraction

energy manifestations in a pre-linguistic form, we now have moved to such a high logical level that we have used up all of our words and symbols and lack any way to track our understandings with these limited and finite tools. (Figure 8:1) Abstracting as a Semanticizing Exercise Given the way we use our nervous system to make abstractions, this creates our reality as a "semantic class of life." "Meaning" first of all refers to the neurological and conceptual connections that we link with things. This describes how we "make meanings" (or maps) of the events and experiences in life. At a low level of abstracting, what does the event of "fire" mean? It depends upon the history of a given organism with that class of events and how that person has abstracted from the experience of fire neurologically and conceptually. If the person's relation to fire has always led to sensations of warmth, good smells, cooked food, etc., then the particular abstractions in that person's nervous system and conceptual understandings (VAK and words, beliefs, values) of "fire" would carry and convey meanings of warmth, comfort, pleasure, etc. If another person was once severely burned, then it stands to reason that his or her abstractions and concepts derived (abstracted or "mapped out") in the nervous system probably has semanticized fire as meaning “pain, hurt, bad, danger,” etc. The first level experience of getting burned now associates the event of fire with “pain, hurt, danger,” etc. As the person keeps referencing that event linkage, it moves up a level to become the person’s internal mental context or frame-of-reference. What does "fire" really mean? Nothing. Apart from a nervous system, it means nothing. Yet in terms of a particular person’s nervous system and brain, it can mean a wide range of things. It all depends upon indexing whose meaning, at what time, under what circumstances, etc. It all depends upon a particular person’s abstracting and map-making about fire. Again, meaning does not exist in dis-embodied form, and so does not exist "out there." This doesn’t mean we cannot put the “meaning” out there. We can. We can develop “shared meanings” and use them to govern our relational and social lives. We can then build meaning systems like linguistics and culture and then give external expression to these meanings. -140-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 8

Levels of Abstraction

We externalize our meanings into social forms: laws, buildings, schools, churches, etc. Yet meaning only and exclusively exists inside a nervous system because it results from how our neurology abstracts at a given moment about something Meaning occurs in the mind-body system and is therefore embodied meaning. Cognitive Linguists George Lakoff and Mark Johnson (1980, 1987) have designated this as embodiment. We make meaning in the world using our neurology according to “the kind of bodies” that we have. Out of these bodies and their functioning, we create our basic orientational metaphors. Using Bateson's terminology, we can say that meaning exists in the world of Creatura, not Pleroma. This explains what we mean when we say that “words do not mean" in a dis-embodied way. Events carry no inherent "meaning." Nothing means anything per se. To discover the meaning of something we have to index it to a meaning-maker. This means what to whom? When does this mean that to them? At what location does it mean this?

We semanticize by the way we use our nervous system/brain to map reality and to create symbols of the world. At every level of the abstracting process we generate symbols. Then we live by those symbols. Such symbols enable us to orient ourselves to the events "out there." We create symbols about our experiences as pictures, sounds, sensations, and words which, in turn, allows us to pass on information and learnings (our maps) from person to person and generation to generation. This generates our "time-binding" abilities (Korzybski, 1921). A problem often arises with our semanticizing, symbol-using abstraction power. Namely, we can live by our symbols of the territory so much that we can forget their nature as symbols. When that happens, we fail to distinguish symbol and reality. We fail to distinguish between a map of reality and the territory itself. When we confuse linguistic symbols with territory, we identify (or confuse) things that exist on different logical levels. Korzybski noted repeatedly that this reduces us to using our nervous system in an animalistic way, i.e., the way animals use their nervous systems. When that happens, we stop using words as symbols and use them as "signals" (or mood-signals, Bateson, 1979). This means that we treat the -141-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 8

Levels of Abstraction

word as if it is the referent, the map is the territory. They no longer stand for, point to, or reference the territory, they are the referent. This generates what Korzybski called semantic reactions. As a semantic class of life, we inevitably create and use symbols. We respond to our world in terms of our maps. We navigate life using our conceptual maps (constructs) of the world. Yet we do this too much when we stop checking the territory to see if it correlates with our map. We may even fall into the not so sane habit of judging the territory by our maps. This describes the structure of uncontrolled hallucination. To filter exclusively through our maps indicates living too much at a meta-level. In the long run it will guarantee that we will make a poor adjustment to the world. Doing so at first makes us "unsane." Yet if continued without reality checks, we eventually become "insane." A signal of this unsanity begins as a semantic reaction. We react to a linguistic meaning of our own creation treating the symbol as if externally “real.” This explains the dynamics in the pathological semantic reactions that occur in neurotic and psychotic states. Yet since we function as a semantic class of life, our "nature" inevitably arises out of our semantics. What can we do about this? What measures can we take to use our abstracting powers more sanely? We can learn to develop consciousness of abstracting. Neuro-linguistically, what bothers most people entering therapy concerns how they have come to feel emotionally convinced that their words entirely cover the object which “is so and so." So they ascribe to words "an entirely false value and certitude which they cannot have" (p. 418). Consequently, the person does not ask about meanings, but assumes the "reality" of the words. "For him, words 'are' 'emotionally' overloaded, objectified semantic fetishes, even as to the primitive man who believed in the 'magic of words'. Upon hearing anything strange, his semantic reaction is undelayed and may appear as, 'I disagree with you', or 'I don't believe you', etc." (p. 418)

This languages a person for unsanity. The languaging (given one's language system and idiosyncratic maps) then leads to a poor adjustment. Using the Structural Differential, we can train ourselves for consciousness of how we use our nervous system in abstracting and languaging (modeling). These -142-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 8

Levels of Abstraction

neuro-linguistic devices functioned as a form of re-languaging and hence re-modeling. [See Mind-Lines: Lines For Changing Minds for a fuller discussion of the meaning-making process.] Differentiating Structure For Korzybski, the central neuro-linguistic solution arises from developing consciousness of abstracting about the map/territory distinction and about the levels of abstracting. To provide such training, he developed a Structural Differential diagram, from which he then invented processes (i.e. “training in silence”) to enable people to incorporate the map/territory and levels of abstracting difference into their neurology. This makes explicit the levels of abstraction and gives one the opportunity to learn them experientially. The Differential begins with an event from which someone abstracted certain qualities (object level), from which someone abstracted more qualities, etc. (a chain of events). Korzybski wrote: "Once we have order, we differentiate and have orders of abstractions. Once we abstract, we eliminate 'allness, the semantic foundation for identification. Once we abstract, we abstract in different orders, and so we order, abolishing fanciful infinities. Once we differentiate, differential becomes the denial of identity. Once we discriminate between objective and verbal levels, we learn 'silence' on the un-speakable objective levels, and so introduce a most beneficial neurological 'delay' — engage the cortex to perform its natural function. Once we discriminate between the objective and verbal levels, structure becomes the only link between the two worlds. This results in search for similarity of structure and relations..." (p. 404)

By consciousness of abstracting we come to have "awareness that in our process of abstracting we have left out characteristics" (p. 416). We develop awareness of how we delete in making our mental maps. When we lack this consciousness, we identify by confusing words with objects and feelings. This causes us to fail to make proper evaluations, which, in turn, effects our adjustment to reality. Mapping for Navigating Levels General Semantics summarizes this model in the following statements. These also suggest various linguistic devices for enhancing our map-making and semanticizing. These processes and distinctions especially play an important role when we want to model using meta-levels. The map does not exist as the territory.

-143-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 8

Levels of Abstraction

The map does not show all of the territory. No “allness” exists; we always leave characteristics out. The map operates self-reflexively. Maps can and should refer to themselves. Because of this, we can cultivate consciousness of abstracting. The ever-changing territory "out there" never remains the same. Reality itself exists as a process and processes-of-processes—"a dance of energy." Mapping the territory involves indexing date, place, person, etc. Subscripts and superscripts enable us to map out differences to avoid non-useful generalizations. Figure 8:2

Structural Differential

....................... ..................... .................. .............. ......... .... ....... ........... ............. ......... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ......

Event

Object Level

Descriptive level

Inference level

Generalization Level

Et Cetera

-144-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 8

Levels of Abstraction

Mapping the territory frequently involves hyphenating related aspects. We do this to eliminate elementalisms: hence, mind-body, neuro-linguistic, space-time, etc. Mapping the territory involves using quotes to indicate multiordinal words. This addresses words that operate at multi-levels of abstraction. To map the territory, use "etc." to cue map users that we have deleted a lot! Mapping the territory reduces distortion by priming English of the “is” of identity and the “is”of predication. To use a map effectively, inquire about who made the map, when, how, under what conditions, etc. This eliminates treating the map as absolute or divine, it recovers the Lost Performative. Multiordinal Words Korzybski (1933/ 1994) pioneered another neuro-linguistic tool, namely, multiordinality. This represents a linguistic distinction not originally brought into the Meta-Model, but which I suggested later (1992, 1997) and then incorporated in Communication Secrets (2001). Multiordinality describes the language of meta-levels. Since we abstract several levels away from the sensory-based level, the same words used at ever increasing levels of abstraction take on a special kind of ill-formedness. As nominalizations, and then as "class" words, they provide categories for the classification of items. This means that they suffer from the ill-formedness that characterizes both deletion and generalization. The nominalized word then operates at many different levels, and so functions ambiguously about its level of use. As such, the word only has the most ambiguous and general sense. Without specifying its level—we cannot know what a given speaker means by it. He or she has failed to index at which level they refer. So, words that we can apply to various levels we call multiordinal. Multiordinal words closely resemble nominalizations in that they frequently (usually) involve turning a process into a static "thing." These include such basic and important terms as: "Yes, no, true, false, fact, reality, cause, effect, agreement, disagreement, proposition, number, relation, order, structure, abstraction, characteristic, love, hate, doubt" etc.

-145-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 8

Levels of Abstraction

The main characteristic of such terms consists of how, on different levels of abstraction, they carry different meanings. Consequently, they have no specific meaning. The context determines their meaning. Context, not inherent symbolic definition, controls the meaning of such words. And because context determines meaning, we must identify the context (or level) that determines the meaning of a word. In the process of developing consciousness of abstracting we need this awareness of multiordinality and an instinctive semantic realization of the stratification of knowledge and multiordinality. Whenever we fail to detect multiordinal terms problems arise. This confusion of orders of abstraction inevitably leads to an endless arguing about "what a word really means." "What this word really means is...!" Such arguments presuppose the existence of some absolute standard of meaning and that meaning lies in a word itself, rather than in the one who uses the word and the context of such use. Via consciousness of abstracting we also recognize the non-reality of words in terms of carrying "meaning" inherently within them. Inherently, words do not mean anything. "Meaning" arises as a personal attribution of significance within the nervous system of a meaning-maker. Words (the external stimulus), at best, function only as vehicles of meaning (the internal conceptualization). This enables us to recognize more readily ambiguous or infinite-valued terms and immediately ask the contextualization question. "Used specifically in what context?" "In what way do you use that word in this context?" As modelers, we cannot but make mental maps of the world. We create internal "models of the world," world-views, paradigms, etc. and then use such to navigate reality. We also make abstractions of abstractions, and abstractions of those, and so on. This process of "self-reflexive consciousness" generates more reflexivity. It enables us to deal with differing logical levels, to develop awareness of this process, and to reflexively become aware of that. Korzybski (1933) wrote: "This self-reflexiveness of languages introduces serious complexities, which can only be solved by the theory of multiordinality." (p. 58, italics added) -146-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 8

Levels of Abstraction

Korzybski’s Theory of Multiordinality shows up everywhere in Science and Sanity—in the Structural Differential, in Consciousness of Abstracting, in Training in Silence, in his contextual theory of meaning, etc. His contextual theory of meaning refers to his assertion that meaning operates as a function of position in a logical structure. "When both the writer and the reader recognize this multiordinality and look for the meaning in the context and discriminate between the orders of abstractions, indicated by the context, confusion becomes impossible." (Evans, 1983, p.42)

As a linguistic distinction, multiordinality offers us an important tool for discerning meta-levels and navigating meaning at such levels. It also informs us of how we can shift logical levels in language without changing words, namely, we use “the same word” for multiple levels. We can, and do use, the very same term to design various levels of abstraction. The danger lies in how we can so easily not recognize the logical level shift. Due to the importance of multiordinality, I have examples of multiordinal words (Chapter. 11): "hate," "beauty," "emotions," and feelings, "time," "selfishness," etc. Also in Chapter 12, I have used multiordinality as providing a linguistic tool for unpackaging meta-level structures. There you will find lots of illustrations of multiordinality which will tune your ears to recognize it. Beginning to Model NLP Modeling goes back to the General Semantic epistemology about the Map/Territory Distinction. This most basic understanding of the difference between the world and our mental/neurological maps about it explains the value and essence of neuro-linguistic processes. This distinguishes the levels between the reality that exists "out there" beyond the nervous system and the neurolinguistic maps that we map "inside” about the territory. As an engineer, Korzybski provided the conceptual understandings for how our neurology abstracts at various levels and creates multilevel maps. In so modeling the modeling processes, he described how consciousness goes up (goes meta) to generate second-order abstractions, third-order abstractions, etc. He also labeled the language of the multi-levels as multiordinal terms and he suggested that what increases our sense of sanity (and therefore good -147-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 8

adjustment in the world) comes from abstracting" at various levels.

Levels of Abstraction

"consciousness of

TWO KINDS OR LEVELS OF MODELING MODELING I: Pattern Detection and Transfer Identifying a Skill, Expertise, Behavior Specifying how the pattern works Specifying the necessary distinctions and procedures that allow one to replicate the excellence MODELING II: The Modeling of Modeling I Identifying the frames of mind, states, and metastates of the expert Specifies the meta-level structures of beliefs, values, decisions, understandings, intentions, meta-programs, identifications, concepts, etc.

-148-

Chapter 9

THE LEVELS OF OUTCOMES AND BELIEFS Robert Dilts’ “Logical Levels”

W

hile three scholars stand out in the development of NLP regarding logical levels— Alfred Korzybski, Gregory Bateson and Robert Dilts, only one still has a pulse. As with the former theoreticians, Robert Dilts has made seminal contributions to the domain of “logical levels” in NLP by developing numerous models involving meta-levels. This chapter focuses on the contributions of Dilts in much the same way that I did with Bateson and Korzybski. Our focus here will be on two models of logical levels. The first originated in the book that Bandler and Grinder commissioned Robert to write, NLP: Volume I (McClendon, 1989, p. 103). That work describes the fundamental NLP Model for thinking in terms of outcomes, establishing the basis for reframing and outframing. The second model has totally permeated the field of NLP and has greatly contributed to effective change patterns and analysis patterns. In spite of this, I will dare to offer a critique with regard to one facet. Namely, that it does not strictly qualify as a model of "logical levels.” In taking this bold step I mean no disrespect to Robert in the least. I offer the suggestions about how to reorder his model of Neuro-Logical levels of beliefs to make it even more effective, especially with regard to using it for the purpose of modeling using meta-levels.1 -149-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 9

Levels of Outcomes

Logical Levels of Outcomes We begin with the NLP model of logical levels known as "the levels of outcomes." The origin of this model goes back to NLP: Volume I. There Dilts, et al. described the role of well-formed outcomes in the process of design, and discussed "outcome sequitur," the outcome after the outcome (1980: 210), as well as "meta-outcomes" (p. 211). "One of the most important questions to ask yourself when designing a strategy or choosing an outcome is, 'Will it violate personal or organizational ecology?' Make sure that the strategy you design does not go directly against any other strategies that the client has. . . . Any given specific outcome is framed within the context of a higher order outcome, an organizing principle or 'meta-outcome' for the system (i.e., the individual or organization). A meta-outcome is one that organizes the behavior of the system in terms of general goals like the preservation and survival, growth and evolution, protection, betterment, adaptation, etc. of the system. To be ecological, any other outcome or strategy must contribute to these basic outcomes." (pp. 211-212)

Dilts and the co-developers of NLP, also used the model of meta-outcomes in explaining the structural essence of reframing as a NLP intervention. "The essential goal of reframing is to create a framework in which all parts of the system become aligned toward achieving the same metaoutcomes ...by accepting and acknowledging all aspects of the system (positive or negative) as valuable resources to the system, given the appropriate context." (p. 243)

Doing this generates a high level agreement frame-of-reference. We can then use that agreement frame to govern and control negotiation processes within a person, a family, or an organization. In doing this, we establish specific outcomes for each individual within a group "in relation to a metaoutcome that all parties agree upon" (1980: 275). "Establishing that all of the parties actually have the same goal immediately puts a frame around the rest of the interaction [it outframes at a meta-level]. When all parties agree that they are attempting to achieve the same outcome, their conflicts become reframed as a matter of detail to be worked out, and the rest of your task is essentially team-building. . . . Any time that you run into problematic disagreements return to the meta-outcome to reestablish the positive framework." (pp. 275, 277)

Gary Schmidt and Lara Ewing (1989) later presented this model more fully in a workshop entitled, NLP in Business. In this model, they presented it as

-150-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 9

Levels of Outcomes

the class of outcomes at meta-level, primary level, sub-level, and then evidences of the outcome (Figure 9:1). Figure 9:1

Outcome Levels Meta-Meta-Outcome (Overall Objective) Meta-Outcome — Meta-Outcome (Visions, Purposes)

Outcome —

Sub-outcome

Evidence

Outcome

—

—

Outcome

Sub-outcome — Sub-outcome — Sub-outcome

Evidence

Evidence

Evidence

Evidence

Outcome Elicitation "What do you want to accomplish by having a workshop on communication skills?" I asked the general manager in a business who had asked that I come in to do some "communication training." "I want to get our people to the place where they can communicate better with each other and our customers."

"And when you say 'better,' what do you mean by this?" "I want them to express themselves more clearly, to truly say what they think, rather than just what they think someone wants to hear and to not have so much misunderstanding."

"So one outcome that you want this training to accomplish involves getting people to produce more clarity of expression and a second outcome would involve less hesitation about asserting their thoughts-feelings rather than staying in the 'pleasing' mode. . . . Does that summarize what you want?" "Yes, more clarity of expression and more basic assertiveness. We have too many who pussy-foot around, and only later do we find out what they really meant."

"So you also want to reduce conflict through more forthrightness." "Yes. Right now we experience a lot of miscommunication and people blaming each other for the problems."

"Does this blaming about the misunderstandings create a problem for you?" "You bet it does. Our people are always blaming each other. It has created an atmosphere of distrust." -151-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 9

Levels of Outcomes

"So another outcome you hope to achieve through this training would involve reducing blaming and increasing a sense of personal ownership or responsibility in the communication process." "Yes."

"So we want to accomplish several things in doing this training—equip people with more clarity of expression, assertive skills, reduce conflict through more forthrightness, and reduce blaming as we increase a greater sense of personal ownership or responsibility. Does that pretty well describe it?" "Yes. That's right on the money."

"Have I left out anything else as far as what you want to see through this training?" "No. That pretty well does it."

"Let me now ask you this—imagine that all of your people have learned a model of communication that trains them in taking ownership in communicating, so that they do so with forthrightness and clarity. They speak up and provide the necessary and sufficient information and they do so from a state of thoughtfulness and kindness... When they begin to do that and this reduces the conflict and blaming that has slowed things down around here... what will this do for you?" "What will this do for me? Well, it makes me feel like all of our people have become a team—and team players and... is that what you mean?"

"Yes, precisely. That gives me an even more important picture about why you want this training for your people and your ultimate goal." "Well, I want more cooperation and teamwork and..."

"And what will that do for you?" "It will make work a much more pleasant place, give everybody more of a sense of support..."

"And what will that do for you?" "I knew you were going to ask that! (laughs) ....It will cut out all of the competitiveness and then we will feel more like a win/win team."

"So now that we have an idea of your desired outcomes, give me some specific ideas about what, for you, gives you proof positive that we have accomplished these first goals of clarity of expression, assertiveness, less conflict, and ownership instead of blaming. Let's take them one at a time and give me some see-hear-feel terms, terms that we could video-tape of your people so that we know for sure that they can first of all 'clearly express' themselves."

-152-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 9

Levels of Outcomes

Figure 9:2 Develop a Win/Win Team Atmosphere Pleasantness — Supportiveness

Cooperative

Clarity of Expression

Assertiveness Forthrightness

Team Spirit

Less Conflict Cooperation Communication

Less Blaming Ownership

"So now that we have an idea of your desired outcomes, give me some specific ideas about what, for you, gives you proof positive that we have accomplished these first goals of clarity of expression, assertiveness, less conflict, and ownership instead of blaming. Let's take them one at a time and give me some see-hear-feel terms, terms that we could video-tape of your people so that we know for sure that they can first of all 'clearly express' themselves." We began exploring these levels of outcomes at the middle level by asking about what the manager wanted. Once we got his full list of objectives, then we moved to a meta-level. We asked what having a particular goal would accomplish for him, etc. Via such questioning we eventually moved up to his highest objectives and values—his meta-meta-outcome. From there we moved back to the middle level again and began chunking down to the evidence level. If we received too much information, we could chunk the goal to subgoals and then obtain evidence criteria on each one. The "Neuro-Logical" Levels Robert Dilts (1990) offered a set of levels that has come to be known as the “Neuro-Logical Levels” In his excellent work, Changing Belief Systems with NLP, Robert developed these from his studies in Bateson's work, and so credits Bateson with the source of his model. In this he also insightfully shows how beliefs operate "on a different level than behaviors or capacities," and so "they don't change according to the same rules" (p. 8, italics added). The processes of change, transformation, and communication operate in different ways and according to different "logics"

-153-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 9

Levels of Outcomes

when it comes to differing logical levels. Understanding this plays a crucial role therefore in working with belief changes. Robert noted that because beliefs exist at a higher logical level than the environment, abilities, and behaviors, beliefs do not describe reality. At least they describe nothing real in the external world of Pleroma. "A belief isn't about reality. You have a belief in the place of knowledge about reality. Beliefs are about things that nobody can know in reality." (p. 9)

This means that our beliefs function as high level maps that specify our conceptual constructions and evaluative conclusions (generalizations) about things. They do not comprise empirical representations and descriptions of things that occur on the primary level of sights, sounds, sensations, smells, etc. We develop beliefs as conceptual constructions about classes, categories, and abstractions. We construct beliefs about such concepts as "time," "purpose," "destiny," "self," "mankind," etc. Yet we cannot see, hear, feel, taste, or touch any of these phenomena. They do not exist on that level of empirical reality which Bateson called the Pleroma and which Kant called Sensibilia. They rather exist at a higher logical level which Bateson designated Creatura and Kant called Intellibilia—the realm of "pure knowledge." This explains why our beliefs can so powerfully drive or modulate our abilities and behaviors, namely, they exist at a higher logical level and therefore outframe (set the frame above and beyond) our abilities, behaviors, purposes, etc. In this way, a belief differs from a thought. While both thoughts and beliefs contain and involve representations (i.e., sights, sounds, sensations, and words), we can think lots of things and entertain lots of ideas as “thoughts” without believing them. We can read, understand, and even develop an extensive comprehension about ideas that we do not believe or that we once believed, but no longer believe. A belief is so much more than a mere thought. So, what makes the difference between a thought and a belief? The level on which it occurs. Thoughts begin at the primary levels and occur at each higher level (this makes “thought” a multiordinal term). Beliefs involve a meta-level construction—a thought or feeling of -154-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 9

Levels of Outcomes

validation and confirmation about an idea. This means that a belief is a thought validating another thought. A thought which you do not think about within the frame-of-reference of “validation” does not qualify as a “belief.” Dilts (1990) also specified that a belief operates as "a generalization" about such non-empirical realities as causal relations, meaning relationships, limitations (pp. 20-22). Because this puts beliefs up two logical levels, it thereby offers an explanation as to how it can generate "self-fulfilling prophecies" (p. 19). Figure 9:3

Levels of Beliefs

How would that function? Thoughts confirming and validating a “thought” (as a “belief”) operate at a meta-level and so outframes the lower level “thoughts.” It sets the frame and the mental or conceptual context for our primary level “thinking.” In this way, beliefs operate or function as a perceptual grid for how we see the world, for our expectations, criteria, understandings, etc. With such high level “thoughts” operating as our referencing frame, we then have a built-in meta-level tendency to “see” things that accord with our belief and to not-see things that do not fit. As our canopy of consciousness (see Chapter 11), it would govern both our perceptual maps and conceptual maps about reality. The belief would operate as an attractor in a self-organizing system so that it always can find confirmations for itself in the world. -155-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 9

Levels of Outcomes

Given Robert’s interest and focus in health issues and medicine, he identified three really toxic beliefs that create all kinds of personal limitations. These three toxic beliefs deal with: Outcomes: Ability: Identity:

Hopelessness "It won't work!" Helplessness "I can't get over this!" Worthlessness "I don't deserve it!"

Because these three really sick beliefs operate as meta-level knowledges, we need to address them and change them if we want to build more constructive maps (pp. 22-23). Without getting into meta-levels, Dilts presupposed such in his explanations of beliefs. "'The clearer I see it the more it makes me feel I probably won't be able to do it.' This is an example of how beliefs can affect visualization. Ability to visualize is a function of one's capabilities, but what gives the visualization meaning is the belief." (p. 26)

In this example, the person brings his or her thoughts-feelings (T-F) containing languaged meanings (e.g., the cause-effect statement of impotence and helplessness, "the clearer...the more") to bear upon his or her “ability.” This thought-feeling belief of inability refers to, and stands as, a concept about another conceptualization (ability). And, over-arching constructions always drive and organize a person’s primary level experiences. To put it another way, as this person believes that he will not be able to do something—so he will not. In this way, the meanings that we give to concepts (e.g. ability, identity, purpose, etc.) operate as "beliefs" about them. These meanings operate at a meta-level. Via our beliefs, we bring generalizations to classify generalizations as well as sensory specific behaviors. Our beliefs function as our classification categories to our weal or woe. As a demonstration of changing beliefs, Dilts (1990) invited a woman (Linda) to think about a past "failure" that continued to hold her back (p. 27). In response she thought about events wherein she did not succeed in losing weight. In asking this question, Robert elegantly invited her to move up two logical levels—to "beliefs" about her "history" about events wherein she didn't reach some goal. He then described her “sense” of this by using the metaphor of a synesthesia molecule—wherein all of her representations (VAK, Ad) had collapsed -156-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 9

Levels of Outcomes

together upon each other to form a fused or glued together molecule. Then, to interrupt this synesthesia, he slowly had her, in a meta-position, think and analyze about this, and sort it out by putting the representations into their eye accessing places (29-31). Figure 9:4

The "Failure" Belief

Obviously, some of her languaging about her kinesthetics, images, sounds, etc. operate at a meta-level. Linda notes that she has a criticizing voice about her negative sensations (K-). [Here the word “about” cues us of a higher logical level.] So Robert invited her to try on a "new voice" (p. 34), which then [without describing it as a new voice about the old K-] he brought this new tonality to bear on it. This shifted things so that he invited her to make a learning about the old pictures (p. 35). In doing this, he brought a non-linguistic thought-feeling (e.g. the new tonality) to bear from a meta-position on the lower level (p. 37). "When you use sub-modalities to shift the meta-message you can change the meaning of the same content as you want." (p. 37)

While Robert described a belief as involving "some kind of combination or synesthesia of senses" (p. 42), he did not picture or talk about the molecule as involving logical levels, even though he assumed such in the actual belief change pattern that he used. In doing so, he got Linda to make several meta-moves as she brought various thought-feelings (in both VAK form and linguistic form) to bear on their primary level. "Here is a past experience; if I just look at it by itself, it only means one thing, but if I look at what it tells me in relationship to my outcome, I learn something different from it." (p. 44) -157-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 9

Levels of Outcomes

Notice in this statement that the more abstract thoughts-feelings involved in the concept of "relationship to outcome" invited Linda to move up a logical level. In making this move up the levels of abstraction, she entertained these thoughts and applied these higher level thoughts-feelings to the lower level "past experience." Now, as if this didn't already represent some wonderful and elegant maneuvers, Robert meta-stated her in yet another way. "Now I ask, What is some other goal that you are already sure that you will be able to get to in the future?" (p. 46)

Consider this question in terms of meta-levels. In this question he has invited Linda to imagine a "future event" (a concept) wherein she "feels sure" (T-F of confidence) (the concept of confidence in my "self") that she will get to. This represents a powerful resource state. It accesses thoughtsand-feelings about one’s ability to move toward a positive outcome. So, taking this empowering state and applying it to the arena wherein she had previously failed (not succeeded, but learned), he brought this state to bear on it. Then, to language it with VAK representations, he asked her to make all the “sub-modalities” (the representational distinctions) of the desired outcome (i.e., losing weight) match those of the thoughts-feelings (T-F) she has when she feels sure of reaching some future goal (e.g. buying a new house). Let’s now look at the structure of this intervention. He had her take the thoughts-and-feelings of a positive reference (e.g. a state of certainty about future goals), anchor it, and bring it to bear upon a reference wherein she needed the sense of conviction. Then he anchored it to that new referent. As he did this, it glued together another belief molecule so that all of the representations (T-F) collapsed together. Figure 9:5 Her Old Meta-State

The New Meta-State

"Failure"

"Sure" (Confidence)

"Self"

Ability to Reach a Goal

State of T-F of "Down" @ Losing Weight

Actions involved in Losing Weight

-158-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 9

Levels of Outcomes

Moving to Meta-Beliefs One indication that we have not used logical levels in NLP consistently or methodically shows up in the metaphors used to describe them. These crop up in our languaging as we talk about logical levels. Dilts illustrated this as he repeatedly described the higher logical levels of beliefs, identity, and spirituality using the metaphor of "a very deep level" (p. 56), "this seemed deeper" (p. 59), "how do you detect a 'core' belief (p. 70), etc. I noted this in some earlier works about the Core Transformation process (Hall, 1995). There I suggested that when we "step back" and "go meta" that we more consistently utilize the language of logical levels as we go "up" to "higher" and more "meta" frames, perspectives, beliefs, etc. Depth psychology has always gone "down inside" to those dark unexplored basements of the unconscious. By way of contrast, the new suggestion is that we think and talk about "going up inside" into a Height Psychology (Viktor Frankl's term). Up or down. Higher level thoughts or deeper more core thoughts. Higher level feelings or deeper core feelings. All of these expressions are metaphors. Lakoff and Johnson (1980) noted how they function as basic orientational metaphors that arise from “the kind of bodies that we have.” We cannot say that one is the right way to talk about things and the other is the wrong way. Both simply offer a way to map the layering of thoughtsand-emotions. The question really becomes one of usefulness. Which offers a more enhancing way of mapping things? Which offers us a way to track and model consciousness so that we can do more things? Lakoff and Johnson also noted that all metaphors have entailments. This refers to the unintended things that we unconsciously drag along with the metaphor that we may not have intended— the connotations above and beyond the denotations. In developing the Meta-States Model, I used the up orientation rather than the down one, and so built the model around the height metaphor. This leads to the language of going up, meta, above, above and beyond, higher, transcending, etc. When we apply this to beliefs, we begin with the realization that beliefs typically operate outside of conscious awareness. To use the height metaphor, we say that they operate as the larger or higher frames or contexts over or above us. No wonder we do not notice them. Instead, we notice the content at the primary level. When we move up to notice the way -159-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 9

Levels of Outcomes

we have coded our beliefs, we suddenly find ourselves moving up into generalizations. No wonder we often get lost in fuzziness in our hunt for our beliefs (Dilts calls this "the smoke screen," pp. 71-72). We may also have difficulty in tracking up our beliefs due to having built a higher level belief forbidding awareness or exploration. Dilts calls this "red herring" and suggests that internal incongruity creates false cues to distract us. From an analysis of logical levels, I would describe this by saying that we operate as if at one level. We have built in a taboo against knowing (Figure 9:6). This leaves us at odds with ourselves, because at one level we want to know, yet at a higher level we feel forbidden to know. Such beliefs usually arise from taboos received during childhood. "You shouldn't ask so many questions." "Curiosity killed the cat." "It's dangerous to want to know too much; you'll have a nervous breakdown like your Aunt Susie." Figure 9:6 Meta-Level

Inhibition against @ "Don't think, feel, act..." ------------------------------

Primary Level

Person ... experiencing in reference to the

( ego barrier preventing awareness that creates an unconscious barrier)

Events in the World

Tracking up to beliefs also runs into problems due to the way abstract and evaluative language works. Namely, just asking a higher logical level question can evoke a person to construct the answer to the question. Most questions are not simply questions in gathering information. They directionalize the brain and install higher frames. That’s why elicitation frequently functions as installation. That which we merely inquire about, and which may not have existed before you asked, may come into existence via our asking. Dilts calls this "fish in the dreams" (p. 74-75). This highlights both the power and danger of asking sloppy higher logical level questions. Planting such questions in the mind can invite a person to "chunk up" and construct very non-enhancing meanings. For example, consider the impact of this toxic question. Don’t answer it. Refuse to be seduced by it. Just notice its structure. -160-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 9

Levels of Outcomes

"When you think about the numerous times you started a project that went nowhere and that caused problems in your life, doesn't it begin to make you feel more and more like a failure and to sometimes wonder if you should ever try again?"

In our meta-beliefs we not only have beliefs about objects and events in the world and about various concepts, but we have beliefs about beliefs, and beliefs about those beliefs. This generates our "system" of beliefs. Robert noted this when he wrote: "The way in which we resolve a belief is not necessarily to try to get rid of the content, but to rearrange the relationships." (p. 77)

Suppose, for example, we believe that we should not "think too much," and that "It is forbidden to become too philosophic about things." Here we have prohibitionary thoughts-feelings about our thoughts-feelings. If we make a meta-move to a higher level and think-feel thoughts about the ecology of those tabooing beliefs—we rearrange the relationships. “Does this way of thinking about some thoughts as taboo serve you well?” Similarly, if we entertain accepting thoughts of the tabooing thoughts—the system similarly shifts. We cannot not communicate. We cannot not influence. We cannot avoid installing things as we “just talk” with each other. Using Meta-Levels in Working with Beliefs and Belief Systems In his very long third chapter (pages 69-148) and his immensely long demonstration with "Carla" (pages 77-114), Robert worked with metalevels and eventually utilized the power of "the meta-position" (pp. 118119). He did this through a more complex version of the NLP Change History Pattern, namely, the Re-imprinting using Time-Lines, the V-K Dissociation, and what has been labeled “Sub-modalities” Shifts. Here I will offer a much shorter and more elegant pattern. It involves making meta-moves and meta-stating the unresourceful states and beliefs in Carla's problems. Carla presented her difficulty as "When I 'have to,' I can't" (p. 78). She used the metaphor of feeling a revolver going off in her head. She experienced a double-bind in that she did not feel that she was allowed to do what she wanted to do. As a consequence, this put "a hook" on her so that whenever she attempted to do what she desired (what gave her pleasure, i.e. art, theater, play, etc.), she felt pulled back to a position of

-161-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 9

Levels of Outcomes

being tabooed from doing it (p. 80). She wanted to, but she could not. (See Figure 9:7). As Robert elicited her representations of this, she made it apparent that on the primary level when she felt pleasure (a pleasure state), at the next higher level she felt "wrong," and ashamed of, enjoying the pleasure. This set up the basic conflict. But to make it even more convoluted and complex, she then had thoughts-and-feelings of taboo that forbid her to even know or to speak of her shame and of her pleasure (a meta-meta-state or frame). Figure 9:7

Carla's Meta-Level System of Beliefs

The system of beliefs that ran her current emotions and behaviors arose most predominately from the meta-frame of the belief that forbid her to "be conscious" of her experiences (p. 81). This meta-state "dragon" unconsciously motivated her to "try to pretend to not do what I like" as her way of moving through the world—a convoluted navigational style for sure! In addition she had another meta-frame of reference organizing everything, "You have no right to know or speak..." "I can't know. I have no right to know... I have no right to say that I know. ... I will never be able to know, because I am not allowed to. If I know, I -162-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 9

Levels of Outcomes

am betraying and I don't know what I am doing wrong. I pretend that I know nothing." (p. 86)

The overall gestalt configuration that arose from these levels-upon-levels consisted of an unconscious barrier between the shame state and the desire state (symbolized by a broken line) so that she would blank out, experience an inability to know, and then her conscious knowledge would prevent her from acting, etc. If this describes and models "the problem," then what describes and models "the solution?" Robert essentially meta-stated her by announcing to her that this "thing" that does this to her "is a part of you" (p. 92). In saying this, he suggested that she acknowledge and accept it. Structurally, he invited her to bring a state of acceptance about the taboo state, about the identity state, about the shaming state. "Because it has been a part of you that we really need to acknowledge just now . . . A part of you that follows you everywhere..." (p. 101)

Later, he invited her to identify some resources. To this she said if she could "trust her strength . . .” (p. 109, another meta-state). Specifically this referred to trusting her strength to set limits about pleasures and when a pleasure crosses over a boundary to wrongness (Figure 9:8). The objective event in her past from which she mapped all of this began when a young man went too far with her sexually when she was yet a child. This led her to originally draw some conclusions (create the generalizations) about herself, the meaning of “pleasure,” her own permission to be conscious of such, the pain of the shame she felt, etc. As a result, she created several meta-frames which created severe limitations. By them she developed a repressive style of coping, a fear of experiencing consciousness, inner taboos and conflict about certain experiences, an either-or way of thinking and responding (“either put a gun to my head or to theirs!” p. 79), etc. She undoubtedly did the best she could in this mapping, but it nevertheless generated some pretty toxic mapping and therefore dragon states. The "subjective reality" (p. 117) of these meta-frames shifted completely when Robert used the meta-position. He used it to create a context from which to run an ecology check state (p. 140) on the whole structure, access higher logical level resources (pp. 121-122) and "make peace" with her past while bringing these new resources to bear on the primary levels.

-163-

NLP: Going Meta

Figure 9:8

Chapter 9

Levels of Outcomes

Meta-Stating Carla

Resources at various meta-levels (behaviors, abilities, beliefs, identity, mission) insightfully identifies how these higher logical types can address and bring to bear upon lower levels so that we can experience more resourcefulness. Robert explained his own thinking about this, "At this stage we find which resources are needed. And you might need resources at all levels" (p. 122). With these meta-resources, we can meta-state our younger self in our memory or meta-state a significant other (e.g., using the NLP Change History Pattern). We can use the Ecology Check to bring to bear a quality control on an experience. If the state of quality controlling other states then floats above every other meta-level, we empower it to operate as a floater meta-state so to speak. It would then provide a context or space into which we could step (conceptually) to evaluate our evaluations (Hall, 1995, p. 55). "We then bring new resources to that past situation, and have the person realize, 'This is a decision that I made. Is that the most appropriate decision? Is that what all these things add up to? Or did I only come to that decision because of the limited perspective and resources that I had then?" (p. 140)

-164-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 9

Levels of Outcomes

The Neuro-Logical Levels Dilts’ model of “the Neuro-Logical Levels” consists of a fascinating list of six items that are very useful. Most of the items are beliefs and so provide us basic checklist of beliefs. We can consider this list as a list of mental and emotional belief resources which operate at various meta-levels to behaviors. Namely, we have beliefs about our abilities, values, identity, mission, spirituality, etc. "At this stage we find which resources are needed. And you might need resources at all levels" (Dilts, 1990, p. 122).

Yet the structure of these levels (in its present form) does not fulfill the criteria for logical levels. These levels lack the structure of "logical" levels in that each level "is progressively more psychologically encompassing and impactful" (1990: 217). Using Dilts' own criteria, that in logical levels the higher levels drive the lower levels, we find that this set of levels does not operate "logically." Figure 9:9

The Neuro-Logical Levels

6. Why? (big) 5. Who? 4. Why? (Small)

Spiritual Mission Motivation/

3. How? 2. What? 1. Where? When?

Process/Strategy Actions/Reactions Opportunities/ Constraints

God/Universe Identity Beliefs/Values Meaning Capabilities Behaviors Environment

Transmission Mission Permission/ Motivation Direction Actions External context

Woodsmall (1996) has pointed out several problematic factors with this list in terms of being "logical levels." One of the problems preventing it from being a hierarchy of logical levels is that Environment describes a larger phenomenon than Behaviors. Even though behaviors may effect environment, behaviors do not drive or modulate Environment as suggested by the term "logical levels." This prevents it from operating as a system. If we eliminated Environment, we would come closer to having a logical and orderly list wherein each higher level would govern, drive, and modulate the level immediately below it, and each higher level would operate in a "more psychological encompassing and impactful" way (Dilts, 1990, 217).

-165-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 9

Levels of Outcomes

We cannot classify Environment as a member of the class of Behaviors. It does not have that relationship to Behaviors. Behaviors do not stand as much more psychologically "encompassing and impactful" than Environment. In Bateson's logical levels, learning operates as the thread that goes through the system uniting it as a system. Learning "drives" each level. But, asks Woodsmall, "What thread goes through this list?" Woodsmall noted that this list provides a very useful laundry list of items to keep in mind about beliefs and to check out regarding different kinds of beliefs. It obviously provides a memorable list by using the indexing questions (where, when, who, what, why, etc.). But it does not consist of a holistic system of logical levels. "These different levels each bring a deeper commitment of neurological 'circuitry' into action." (p. 210)

Given this, the chart in Figure 9:10 illustrates the Neuro-Logical Levels. Figure 9:10

The Levels and Neurology

6. Spiritual 5. Identity

Holographic Immune system

4. Beliefs

Autonomic N.S.

3. Capabilities

Cortical systems

2. Behaviors

Motor system

1. Environment Peripheral N.S.

Nervous system as a whole Deep life-sustaining functions and Endocrine system Unconscious responses (heart rate, pupil dilation, etc.) Semiconscious actions (eye movements, posture, etc.) Conscious actions (pyramidal and cerebellum) Sensations and reflex reactions

With regard to his diagram, does the higher level of Behaviors drive, organize, and modulate the lowest level of Environment?' Does our motor system of conscious activities drive and organize our peripheral nervous system of sensations and reflex reactions? Should we not reverse this order? When Robert later turned this into "examples of statements about the different logical levels," (Figure 9:11), this model generated the following items. Figure 9:11

The Neuro-Logical Levels and Cancer

5. Identity "I am a cancer victim." 4. Belief "It is false hope not to accept the inevitable." 3. Capability "I am not capable of keeping well." 2. Behavior "I have a tumor." 1. Environment "The cancer is attacking me." -166-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 9

Levels of Outcomes

Notice again that on the bottom level, we have an evaluative statement loaded with a high level generalization (a nominalization, 'the cancer’). "The cancer is attacking me." Yet above that statement in the chart we have a simple declarative statement in sensory-based language. "I have a tumor." Which statement represents a higher logical level? Obviously, the bottom statement, “The cancer is attacking me.” Again, I would suggest that we reverse these if we want the higher level to classify the lower. Behaviors occur within environments. In yet another example, Robert has provided the following chart. "The following statements indicate the different levels in someone who is working toward a health goal." (p. 211)

Figure 9:12 5. Identity 4. Belief 3. Capability 2. Behavior 1. Environment

The Levels and Health "I am a healthy person." "If I am healthy I can help others." "I know how to influence my health." "I can act healthy sometimes." "The medicine healed me."

This set of statements comes closer to a set of logical levels in that an almost specific detail or item ("the medicine") acts upon the person to bring healing. Yet in the sentence the phrase, "the medicine" functions more like a nominalization and the verb (taking a specific medicine into the body) has disappeared. Here “medicine” designates a class of items instead of specifying anything (e.g. taking aspirin). Below Behavior should occur sub-behaviors or micro-behaviors that make up the class of "Behaviors." If we here put "Environment," we stick a much larger phenomenon below a specific behavior. Again, behaviors always occur within the context of some environmental situation. In a final chart in the book on Changing Belief Systems With NLP, I think we see the ever-evolving genius that Robert Dilts continually demonstrates. Here it seems to me, Robert has faced the problem here addressed about the neuro-logical levels and made a correction. In his final chart (see Figure 9:13), Robert integrated a time-line of a person’s past, present, and future with the psycho-social developmental -167-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 9

Levels of Outcomes

stages adapted from Timothy Leary (pp 133-134) with his Neuro-Logical Levels. Yet in this, he dropped the "environment" level from the diagram (p. 135). This final diagram brings us much closer to a true hierarchy of logical levels. The only problematic facets that I see continuing include the following. Figure 9:13

Imprints and Developmental Stages of Intelligence

1) The vagueness of the term "capabilities." Does this stress "the potential" to do something or the actual "ability" to do it? If it relates to ability, this would make it a behavior—an actual doing. It would describe an unspecified ability as to whether one has the power to speak, think, emote, behave, relate, etc., but at least an actual acting or doing. If it signifies potential, then it takes us back to the internal mentalemotional resources, strategies (mental maps) within the person. In the meta-states model, I have represented these as members of the same class, namely as components that make up the class of a mind-body state of consciousness. 2) The vagueness regarding "beliefs." In NLP we analyze the components of "beliefs" in terms of the VAK "thoughts" and language (Ad) "thoughts" that come together in such a strong way that it generates "emotions" (evaluative movements in our physiology). Ideas coalesce through habituation and the constructing of ideas upon ideas -168-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 9

Levels of Outcomes

until we validate and affirm them. We come to say "Yes" to certain ideas. This confirms them and so creates more solid constructions which form our “beliefs.” Figure 9:14

A Mind-Body State

This distinguishes an internal representation or "thought" from a belief. Both involve "knowledge." Yet in beliefs we have developed thoughts-andbeliefs of validation and confirmation about another thought. To disbelieve something we begin with primary level of representations (thoughts). Then we bring a meta-level thought of disconfirmation to it. We utter a Meta-No to it (see Sub-Modalities Going Meta 1999/2005). Robert has provided much insight into this nature of beliefs as meta-frames (frames about our frames). He has described beliefs as setting "a frame that determines how everything afterwards gets interpreted" (1990: 133). As beliefs function as thoughts-about-thoughts at a higher logical level, a belief, as Dilts has repeated, "is not about reality." Beliefs are about ideas—ideas of meaning, cause, ability, self, mission, time, etc. In other words, belief operates as higher level confirmed thoughts about various categories and concepts. This makes Beliefs and Capabilities problematic in this model. If by capabilities we mean "potential," then we have a belief on our hands. We have a belief about what we "have the ability" in the future (time) to accomplish. We have thoughts about possibilities and expectations with regard to future development. That’s a very different criterion from current ability.

-169-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 9

Levels of Outcomes

This also makes Beliefs and Identity problematic in the model. For our "identity" consists of our beliefs about the concept of our "self" as a person. Thus Identity and Capability would function as members of the class of Beliefs. Then, a belief-in-our-belief-about-our identity and purpose would generate the level called the Spiritual. Re-Formulating the Neuro-Logical Levels At the risk of appearing overly bold, I want to offer some suggestions for altering the Neuro-Logical Levels so that it can fully function as a logical level system. Robert’s use of this model over the years in modeling and creating numerous processes shows its value and power. This only seeks to more finely tune it. Diagram Figure 9:15 is a re-formulation which keeps all of the levels that Robert has identified and developed, it simply reorders them. Beginning at the primary level, we find that we have the distinctions of Behaviors, Capabilities and Environment. Behaviors come out of the primary state as an expression of state. It indicates a person’s neurolinguistic state. We may discover some as micro-behaviors and others as macro-behaviors. They may be verbal behaviors, mental behaviors, emotional behaviors, gestures, and full body actions. In this formation, I have located Capabilities within the primary state as a person’s innate neurological heritage. Such capabilities refers to both those genetic and DNA predispositions as well as those generalized human capacities that we can cultivate and nurture. It speaks about our potentials as human beings and about our innate abilities to respond. Here you can see that I have located the first-level Environment as the immediate context within which we experience any given primary level. The state occurs somewhere at some time and in some culture. At the first meta-level above the primary state, we have three meta-states or metaframes. Conceptual understandings-feelings about our abilities as a human being, Conceptual constructs about being a human being—a Self living in “time,” and Conceptual understandings about our “purpose” and “meaning” in the universe (i.e. our “spiritual” understandings).

-170-

NLP: Going Meta

Figure 9:15

Chapter 9

Levels of Outcomes

The Neuro-Logical Levels Reformulated

These thoughts-about-thoughts construct our frame-of-reference about these categories of our abilities, identity, and purpose. Then, above that level, we have yet another meta-level—a level comprised of our beliefs about our first level of meta-states. Here we have thoughts-and-feelings of validation, a saying of “Yes!” to our concepts. And all of these meta-levels operate in a rather plastic or flexible way since we can then have beliefs-about-beliefs, a sense of purpose about our identity, an identity about our beliefs, etc. Preparing to Model Nobody in NLP has worked with logical levels more extensively, thoroughly, and with as much scholarly depth as Robert Dilts. He has provided multiple models of the logical levels: the neurological levels in brain structure, neuro-logical levels, meta-position, and levels of outcomes. The Neuro-Logical Levels models has fallen short of the criteria of being a logical level system, and yet can easily be adjusted and expanded. The critique offered here enables the Neuro-Logical Levels model to meet the criteria. Doing this then gives us yet another tool for modeling with meta-levels. End Notes: 1. Since writing this chapter, I have written two additional articles that address the concerns of this chapter, The Other Logical Levels and Meta-States and Logical Levels. You can find these on the www.neurosemantics.com web site. -171-

Chapter 10

LEVELS OF PERCEPTION The Domain of Meta-Programs

A

ny book describing NLP: Going Meta would not be complete without a chapter on the NLP model of Meta-Programs. These perceptual filters not only describe the way we see and perceive the world as we process information, but they also indicate the extent to which a higher level thought can become so incorporated into our neurology that they seem inborn, permanent, and part of our very “temperament.” The key word, however, is “seem.” As you will soon discover, these seemingly innate programs are learned and developed and that’s what make them amendable to change and transformation. The Origin of Meta-Programs Meta-Programs, as an NLP Model, originated with Leslie Cameron Bandler as she and Richard Bandler explored classic NLP patterns. Wyatt Woodsmall (1988) described the model emerging while Leslie was doing "textbook NLP." As she did, she began running into difficulties. She found that sometimes the patterns would not work, and she wondered why. “What governs when and with whom a pattern works?” “If a pattern works to achieve a given outcome, why does it sometimes not work?” “What would or could interfere with it?” This led her and Richard to eventually discover various perceptual filters or meta-formats (now called meta-programs) which caused the problems. In Leslie's original use and codifying of the meta-programs, these filters dealt exclusively with the context of therapy.

-172-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 10

Levels of Perception

Later Roger Bailey and Ross Stewart further developed and expanded the meta-programs with an eye on the context of business. From there Wyatt Woodsmall integrated them with the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, then taught the Myers-Briggs Model to Tad James which then enabled them to produce their list of meta-programs in their classic book, Time-Line Therapy (1988). Meta-Programs refer to those programs which operate at a level meta to content thinking and refer to the perceptual sorting devices or patterns that we use as we perceive, pay attention to information, input and process stimuli around us. The meta-level model of Meta-Programs, coming after the Meta-Model, gives the field of NLP its second meta-domain model—and a tool for modeling. It enables us to recognize the dynamic structuring that experts do which give rise to new skills and abilities. By definition, meta-programs refer to those programs above the strategy programs of specific content like reading, writing, parenting, negotiating, problem-solving, expressing creativity, etc. These higher, and more out-ofconsciousness, programs function as our programs for sorting and perceiving which govern (or frame) how, and for what, we sort. As metalevel processes they function as an operating system for processing information for how we process information. They create our information processing style. These are the programs that run the lower level programs. And because they do, they obviously play a crucial role when we want to model an expert’s way of perceiving things in a given field. Your Meta-Programs for “Reading” For instance, consider the typical strategy for "reading." We begin with the stimulus of words in the form of a visual external. That is, we see such words as: "The little brown and white cat fought furiously with the dog . . ."

Next, we take those scribbles of ink on paper and use them to anchor (or trigger) internal representations of their referents so that we can see, hear, feel, smell, and taste them on “the screen of our mind.” Consciously or unconsciously we are asking, “What do those words refer to?” We then answer that by accessing past referents and constructing internal representations for our cinema made up of various combinations of VAK codings. In this way we "make sense" of the words. In the end, reading works because we use words and generate internal movies. -173-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 10

Levels of Perception

Yet while we are doing that, other things are going on. At a meta-level, we are using various formats to process the information. We call these formats meta-programs. Perhaps the most central of all meta-programs are our sensory representational systems (the VAK). What meta-program, in terms of sense modalities, do you use as you processed those words? Did you see the little brown and white cat? Did you hear it “fighting” with the dog? Any smells in your mind? Sensations? Did you use the appropriate sensory system? Did you use them all? Did you over-use one of the systems and leave out others? Do you have any representational weakness in one of the systems? Another meta-program is that of Matching/ Mismatching. This sorts for Sameness/ Difference and governs our focus in reading. When you read, do you do so with a view on checking to see if it matches what you already know? Or perhaps you sort for differences? Do you look for what differs from what you already know? At a meta-processing level, the matching style compares for similarities. The mismatching style searches for differences. These thinking styles are cognitive patterns that operate at a level meta to the content information—what we read. At that meta-level, they govern how we read, what we pay attention to, and the kinds of thinking processes that we bring to bear on our reading. These responses and processing styles also exist along a continuum. We can sort at high and low degrees. We can do so in an extreme way—at one of the polar ends of the continuum. Or we can do so in a balanced and flexible way—experiencing a flexibility of consciousness to match one moment, and to mismatch the next, to use the visual system, and then to switch to auditory. By recognizing the degree or intensity of a given meta-program, we can examine how it might govern someone's sorting style. If a person typically and habitually over-uses a meta-program and consistently operates at one of the ends of a continuum, then he or she has a driving meta-program. People in the middle will typically not feel driven by either response. Such a person will typically have more flexibility of consciousness in choosing which program to use. -174-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 10

Levels of Perception

Meta-Programs and "Personality" As we speak about meta-programs the concept of “personality” almost immediately arises. This raises numerous questions: How are meta-programs and “personality” related? Are our meta-programs the same thing as our “personality?” If they are not, how do they differ?

First it should be obvious that meta-level patterns governing our thinking style (what we pay attention to, how we sort for information, etc.) cannot but critically affect how we experience ourselves as “persons,” and our “sense of self.” They also critically affect our emotions—how we feel, how and what we value, the states that we access, how we speak and behave, etc. If we relate these processes to that larger conceptualization that we refer to with the nominalization "personality," we recognize them as component behaviors. In other words, we experience ourselves as “persons” and having a “personality” which we present to others as we express the powers of our person, namely, our powers of thinking (reasoning, representing, valuing, believing, etc.), of emoting (feeling, caring, valuing), of languaging (talking, self-dialogue), and of behaving (acting, responding, relating, etc.) The linguistic distinctions of the Meta-Model cue us that the word “personality” operates as a nominalization. As such, it hides a set of processes. Some verb, or set of processes, have been turned into a noun, “person,” and that pseudo-noun has been nominalized even further into “personality.”. So what hidden verb lies inside these terms? What process have we nominalized when we use this term?

Since personality refers to "the organization of an individual's distinguishing character traits, attitudes, or habits" (Webster), the hidden verb harks back to “acting as a person." The term "person" goes back to Latin and designates "persona" referring to an "actor's mask" used in the Greek and Roman plays that would portray or characterize a person. These former usages of the terms help us to recover the process within this highly nominalized term. What are the processes? The characteristic ways that a person typically behaves in thinking, believing, valuing, emoting, communicating, acting, relating, etc.

-175-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 10

Levels of Perception

The overall gestalt that emerges from all of one’s particular response styles in thought, emotion, speech, and behavior. The overall configuration of a person’s meta-levels of perceiving, sorting, and paying attention—the meta-programs. The overall configuration of a person’s meta-levels of frames that describe believing, valuing, identifying, understanding, deciding, intending, etc. —the meta-states. Understanding “personality” in this way frees us from the misunderstandings that so easily and seductively result when we nominalize "personality." When we turn “personality” into a thing, or worse, into an internal entity, we falsely think about it as if it were a solid, unchanging and “real” thing. It is not. De-nominalizing "personality" enables us to recognize that this multiordinal term refers to the combination of our content programs (strategies) that we use in life as we play out our roles and from our style of structuring information (the Meta-Programs, Meta-States). More recently, we have devoted an entire work to this subject. [The Structure of Personality: Modeling “Personality” Using NLP and NeuroSemantics, Hall, Bodenhamer, Bolstad, and Hamblett, 2001.] Regarding these levels of functioning (i.e., content programs and metaprograms), any behavior or response style that we perpetuate will eventually drop out of conscious awareness and begin to operate unconsciously. If this happens for conscious content programs like typing, driving a care, playing ball, expressing social skills, looking friendly, reading, etc., then how much more does it occur for the more unconscious meta-programs? Such meta-level unconsciousness, of course, increases the power and stability of these programs. When we have lots and lots of "characteristic ways of functioning and thinking" operating at an unconscious level, we experience them as solid, real, and enduring. Why is that? Because we don’t question them. We just assume them. We come to think-and-feel and experience our "personality" as solid, and as not susceptible to change. So inasmuch as they lie close to how we experience our "temperamental" nature (another nominalization that refers to our "temper" of mind or mental style) typically we feel tempted to think of them as "built in" and permanent. Yet this other term, "temperament," simply refers to the "makeup" (or temper) of mind, "the peculiar or distinguishing mental or physical character" of it.

-176-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 10

Levels of Perception

Lists of meta-programs have generally followed the list originally codified by Leslie Cameron-Bandler, Bailey and Stewart, and then by the Woodsmall and James (1988). From time to time others have added new meta-programs to the list. In The Spirit of NLP (1996/2000), I described them as arising from how we make a meta-level move to the content of our thinking. Thereby we create these meta-levels. I have sorted these into six categories of meta-programs. These comprise the categories of processing: temperamental, mental, emotional, relational, and communicational. This posits the meta-programs as meta processing levels. Each of these areas of meta-programs functions as a class of meta-programs. Bob Bodenhamer and I (1997) developed a fuller model from this re-working of the metaprograms in terms of logical levels in Figuring Out People where we utilized numerous distinctions in the field of Cognitive Psychology (See Figure 10:3 at end of the chapter). Source: Meta-Processing or Meta-Programs Levels Because these processes occur at a level above the primary level of everyday life of content thinking and responding, they concern the structure of perceiving itself rather than the content of what we perceive. Metaprograms operate as meta-level functions. Where do they come from? They arise (and operate) as solidified meta-states, meta-states that have coalesced into muscle. That is, they have “gotten into our eyes” and have become our way of looking at the world. The categories in Figure 10:1 and 10:3 suggest that we have a wide range of ways to pattern, or structure, our experience of the world. As we engage in mapping cognitively, emotionally, conatively, communicatively, and conceptually or semantically—we thereby generate our personal "style" (i.e. our "personality"). In this way our learned and cultivated style of patterning develops into a meta-level "reality" (constructed subjective reality) and we then begin to bring it to bear upon any and all information processing (encountering and experiencing, see Figure 10:1). Our habituated style of choosing we also bring to bear upon all of our choices. At this meta-level, we experience this stable phenomenon in terms of our "personality" or "temperament." At this level it exists. It exists as the way we have learned to typically structure our perceptions and responses.

-177-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 10

Levels of Perception

The Sources of Meta-Programs If by definition, meta-programs operate at a meta-level, at a level above our primary level thinking-and-feeling about things in the world, then it’s really no surprise that they are related to meta-states. But how? What’s the relationship between meta-states and meta-programs? Figure 10:1

Meta-Programs as a Logical Levels System

Meta-States form the foundation of meta-programs. Meta-Programs result from having meta-stated one thought or emotion with another. This makes meta-programs solidified meta-states, the higher state has become habituated and coalesced into muscle.

Meta-programs began as meta-states. These perceiving patterns began as a mind-body state made up of particular thoughts, emotions, and physiologies. Eventually, we defaulted to them so often, perhaps so intensely, perhaps because we “had to” (were commanded to do that, or forbidden to go the opposite way), that eventually they became the primary (or even only) way that our mind-body neuro-pathways would go. They got into our muscles. They became neurological. In fact, some early descriptions of meta-programs called them “neurological sorts.” It does not take a lot to imagine how this takes place. Imagine, for example, that we grew up in a home where we were told to “get the big picture.” Or -178-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 10

Levels of Perception

what if that was the style of thinking most often demonstrated by our parents. Or, what if we experienced pain in the form of humiliation or insult if we got too involved in details. Given those contexts, it would be easy and natural to learn to think and process information in terms of the big picture, globally, by getting a sense of the overall gestalt rather than specific details. Or the opposite could occur. We may have been repeatedly instructed, “Pay attention to the details!” If so, we would have learned and practiced zooming in on the most minute specifications. And, if we did that month after month, year after year, such thinking would inevitably induce us into either a detailed state of mind (or a global state of mind). And if it worked, if it succeeded in helping us get on in life, then we would have valued that way of thinking. And after awhile, we might have even drawn the conclusion that, “I’m that kind of a person; I naturally sort for details.” As a prototype, this describes how a way of thinking and the holistic mindbody state of consciousness it would have created, becomes a meta-state. We would have used it, defaulted to it, let it become our way of thinking and feeling and eventually use it reflectively in all of our thinking. It would then have become our perceptual pattern or meta-program. This understanding of how meta-programs arise gives us a model for thinking about what happens to a meta-state in the process. As we activate the reflexivity mechanism of mind so that we continually bring thoughtsand-feelings to reflect back onto our thinking, we construct state-about-state structures. It is reflective thinking then that operates at the core of our ability to make meta-moves to higher logical levels with our thoughts-andemotions. As we reflexively think about our thoughts, this moves us up to ever higher levels (conceptually). In other words, we keep layering metalevel of thoughts-and-feelings onto thoughts-and-feelings. Yet it doesn’t stay layered in the way this metaphor suggests. Unlike an onion with stable layers or a set of Russian Dolls embedded in each other, mind-emotion states are dynamic. They keep moving. They are fluid, and so are always in flux. As we run our neuro-pathways in a particular way (Matching/ Mismatching; Options/ Procedures; Global/ Specific, etc.) these ways of processing information using our nervous system and brain habituate. These higher levels coalesce into the lower levels. They merge into them. Eventually, all we have left is a perceptual frame-of-reference -179-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 10

Levels of Perception

richer and fuller than just a perception. Our representational frame is textured and qualified by a higher state. Now it becomes our stabilized state, the state that we use to see the world. It is in this way that our metastates solidify into meta-programs. Suppose a person over-uses the meta-state of global thinking while at the same time de-emphasizes detailed, specific thinking. At the same time that this particular thinking or perceiving pattern (a meta-program) is operating it is also a state of consciousness (a meta-state). We could describe the person as being in a global state. As such, the person would be accessing thoughts-and-emotions of a particular state. We could say that he has stepped into a state or position of being a visionary, seeing the big picture, operating from a philosophical stance, etc. We could just as well describe him as operating from the meta-program of global. If he does this regularly, we could say that the global meta-program generally governs his way of operating. We would then want to use it in order to pace his sense of reality. Meta-Programs arise when we bring value to the state. When we believe in the importance of the global perspective, then we outframe the first state (global) with value. We could also construct this meta-program by bringing it upon itself (global about global), joyful about global thinking, fearful to get too specific, dislike or disgust about details, etc. There are actually a great many ways that we could construct the meta-program out of various meta-state structures. What happens when we over-use a meta-state structure? A meta-program emerges. Repeating any meta-state structure over and over will lead to creating an habituated meta-state or meta-program. Sometimes these metastructures become a new category—a gestalt state. In the early Meta-State books, I described these as a canopy of consciousness. This phrase, canopy of consciousness, was a way to talk about how specific meta-states can become so completely engulfing (metaphorically) of all of our other states that it creates (so to speak) an entire mental atmosphere (or context). The meta-state becomes so pervasive, that like living within an atmosphere, it filters everything, from all incoming information and all outgoing perceptions to all of our understandings, experiences, memories, anticipations, etc. Such canopies of consciousness would then become the very fabric of our mental and emotional life. More recently, I have shifted -180-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 10

Levels of Perception

metaphors. I have shifted from canopy to Matrix to describe the idea of meta-states as embedded frames within frames and the overall configuration as the Matrix of our Frames (Frame Games, 2000). So, meta-programs arise from meta-states. Meta-Programs are coalesced or solidified meta-states. And the more we value, believe in, appreciate, find benefits in, and identify with the meta-state, the more we create a driver meta-program. A driver meta-program means that the state and its “program” for how to perceive, sort, and process information has become our default operational style. It has become our “way of being” in the world. Of course, that means, it operates as our particular way to do “personality.” (By the way, because “personality” is not a “thing,” but a set of processes, we speak about it as what we do. This keeps the action and process within the concept front and center making it more fluid and easy to transform.) In a driver meta-program we have our primary states embedded inside of a larger context that is made up of the meta-states that form the metaprogram. Consider when the meta-program of Mismatching becomes a driver meta-program. Here we have the cognitive style of perceiving, sorting for what’s different, embedded inside of various higher states. The person undoubtedly believes that doing this is important and valuable. It’s a way to “be oneself,” to “think one’s own thoughts,” to “not be controlled,” to “not be told what to do or think,” etc. It’s probably embedded in other higher level frames or states: this is who I am; I have to do this; memories of parents or teachers forcing me to do things their way shows what happens when you just give in and compromise, etc. Modeling any particular person who is highly driven for mismatching, however, will provide different structures for a given gestalt. Yet the basic principle is that within every meta-program we can find layered meta-states within even higher meta-states that support, validate, and give the meaning structure. In Meta-States we say that there are always “frames by implication.” That is, whatever state we apply to another state and so layer Mind level upon level, there are multiple implied frames that we have not made explicit, but just assume. Put all of this together and we have meta-state structures that grow into meta-programs and into canopies or maxtrices of consciousness. Together -181-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 10

Levels of Perception

as a synergistic force, they work as a pervasive psychological force that pervades all facets of our lives. They define and construct meta-level structures of "reality" for us. Meta-Stating / Meta-Programming Appreciation Did you get all of that? Yes, I know that was pretty heady, and in the next chapter I’ll sort it out further. But for now, let me give a practical application. I will do it with a state that is typically considered a metaprogram in NLP, and an important one, self-reference. Let’s begin with the state of self-reference. This means that you experience yourself in terms of your own mind, emotions, voice, and behaviors. We are not born that way. In fact, we are born without any of those discriminations. We are born without any sense of self or other, any sense of boundaries or distinctions. We are born undifferentiated. So at first, everything is the same. Then we begin to open our eyes and use our senses to notice differences and eventually to differentiate ourselves from mother, family, home, etc. It’s the way we grow, individualize, and become an autonomous human being. We learn that our thoughts are ours; our emotions are our own; and so with our movements and words. Now imagine what would happen if you embedded all of your states with self-reference. Suppose that you began by asking: What do I think about this or that? What do I feel? What do I say? What do I want to do? What can I do? Suppose you brought this state of referencing from yourself, from your values and visions, from your opinions and choices and applied it to every primary experience, thought, emotion, and behavior you experience? What if you embedded every belief about yourself, others, the world, your identity, mission in life, etc. in this kind of self-referencing? Once self-referencing becomes your highest frame of reference, your highest meta-state, and meta-program it would engulf all of your life. It would engulf your sense of being responsible, owning your choices, and running your own brain. Then it would become the very fabric of your reality. Then blaming would be next to impossible. Then passivity, helplessness, and reactivity—these would be very foreign states, and seldom visited. Then ownership of your own responses would operate at the core of your perceptual filters for thinking and feeling. It would become one of your more permanent character traits, belief systems, and disposition styles for how you orient yourself in the world. -182-

NLP: Going Meta

Figure 10:2

Chapter 10

Levels of Perception

Canopies of Consciousness and Meta-Programs

The Value of Meta-Programs The value of meta-programs is that we can develop effective ways of thinking and make them part of our default programs. This allows us to incorporate effective use of our nervous system and brain so that it becomes our way of being in the world. This streamlines knowledge and puts into muscle the higher levels of Mind. We can even do this consciously and intentionally. We can design and install new meta-programs from the states of mind that we discover are most useful, practical, powerful, and resourceful in running our own brains. Imagine that! Now that we know where meta-programs come from, we can intentionally design those that would give us a mental-and-emotional edge regarding a given expertise and install it as a meta-state and then as a metaprogram. Once we have done that, then when using meta-states we can establish higher level frames that enhance the solidification process. In this way we can choose the higher canopies or matrices and make them part of the very structure of our consciousness. By habituating our states and meta-states at higher logical levels, we no longer have to access a particular frame of mind when we want it. It rather becomes the resource -183-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 10

Levels of Perception

state that makes up the very mental-emotional and conceptual atmosphere in which we live and from which we operate. We never have to go there because we never leave it. It would automatically operate as our consistent and structured way of being in the world. It would operate as simply as a part of our structure of consciousness, as how we naturally see, hear, feel, and smell. We can even do this for states of mind that are not now considered metaprograms in NLP. For example, suppose you never had to access the state of respect for people, personal confidence, thoughtfulness of others, mindfulness of map-making, etc.? Suppose you made any of these (or any other resourceful state) one of your canopies of consciousness? How would that change things for you? How much more resourceful would you be then? Doing so lets the conceptual construct and feeling (as a meta-level program) simply function as the frame of mind that you wake up in every day. It would then govern all of your thinking-and-emoting, all of your emoting, languaging, and responding. Or, you could make it sensitive to various contextual cues so that it would only operate under certain conditions. It would even govern your sense of identity. It would “be” you. This explains the significance and power of these meta-level processes and how they operate as the largest structures of subjective experience. Identifying our Canopies Due to our nature as a symbolic class of life with reflexive consciousness, we already have numerous meta-states, meta-programs, canopies of consciousness, and gestalt states. We never leave home without them. Do you know yours? How easily can you identify those in others? Given the nature of our self-reflexive consciousness, we can do none other than to build such structures, structures that become what we call our “personality.” Whenever we have a thought or feeling, we immediately reflect back on that experience and so develop thoughts-and-feelings. Our problem does not lie in this process. It lies in the content of what we run through it. Typically, most of us do not develop meta-states or metaprograms of appreciation, acceptance, respect, dignity, or other resources. More typically, people build meta-states of contempt, blame, fear, anger, dread, skepticism, pessimism, etc. As self-reflexive persons who have -184-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 10

Levels of Perception

already generated thoughts-about-our-thoughts and inevitably experience the habituation of thought-feelings, we already operate out of many canopies of consciousness. Given this, we must first find these constructions and evaluate them for their neuro-linguistic ecology. After detection we can then decide which ones to eliminate, transform, update, or build. Understanding how meta-programs naturally grow into meta-states explains the difficulty that we can experience with such meta-level constructions. Imagine attempting to help someone who operates out of a primary state or a meta-state embedded in a matrix canopy of pessimism. With such a person, everything you say and do to help gets filtered by the person through a filter of pessimism. “That won’t work!” “You’re too positive, you don’t think about the real world!”

How could we offer any message that might effect a positive change? In this case, all of the optimistic, hopeful, and encouraging suggestions that we offer at the primary level would in all likelihood get distorted and filtered out through the person’s meta-pessimism. If dealing with someone in a primary state of pessimism gives us enough difficulty getting through, and if attempting to interrupt that state of mind to shake someone out of that state would be challenging enough, how much more when the pessimism occurs at a meta-level? What if they had a metaprogram of pessimism? Our state dependent learning, memory, perception, etc. contaminates things pretty severely at the primary level. How much more would it contaminate things when we operate from a meta-state of pessimism, when we have a whole matrix of frames (or meta-states) that operate as a canopy of consciousness? In such a structure, the pessimism would be pervasive and thick as a set of filters. As a result, we experience the person as "thick-headed" and hard to influence. Yet it can be done. We can recognize their meta-program mapping and how it has become stabilized and pervasive as meta-states. Such awareness first makes us alert to “the dragon state” and alerts us to use various Dragon Slaying and Taming skills. Even though the thinking has become stabilized at meta-levels as seemingly permanent and static structures —all of it still represents mental mapping and has to be constantly refreshed by use in order to not deteriorate. (See Dragon Slaying: Dragons to Princes, 2000) -185-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 10

Levels of Perception

Changing Meta-Programs Can meta-programs be changed? Can we switch our own or another’s meta-programs around? You bet they can! After all, meta-programs do not point to things or entities, but to ways of processing information. That makes them learned and structured meta-level processes. Therefore, as a thinking pattern they are a meta-level structuring of consciousness, the way that a person has learned to date to pattern his or her thinking. It prescribes nothing about how a person has to structure thinking. Actually, as a dynamic, on-going process of patterning and structuring thoughts-and-emotions, we can always alter our patterning. It may take some time and trouble. It may take a skilled technician, but it can be done. Typically it necessitates what we call “cognitive or ego strength.” MetaPrograms that have become a part of one’s neurology and in one’s muscles sometimes require a lot of determination and persistence to alter. Checking with a person’s willingness to change, motivation, and permission typically makes the transformation more effective. In his work on changing belief systems, Robert Dilts (1990) used a metaposition to change meta-programs. This involved using a process to take a person back on his or her time-line to a position before an experience or a decision that generated a meta-programming style. From that position, he invited the person to access new resources and beliefs. The meta-position above the meta-program provides a space from which to shift representational distinctions (“sub-modalities”), build enhancing identity beliefs, re-imprint, change history, etc. To do this can alter one's metaprograms. "In a way, the re-imprinting context provides you with a means to change meta-program patterns and sorting styles. For instance, you can easily influence a person to be in time or through time, away from or toward or sort by the present to the past or the past to the future, or the present to the future. You can have the person sort by self, by others, or context." (p. 137)

There’s more about changing meta-programs. You will find patterns in Time-Life Therapy (1988) by Woodsmall and James, in Time-Lining by Bodenhamer and Hall (1997) Time-Lining and in Figuring Out People (2006 second edition). -186-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 10

Levels of Perception

Meta-Programs in Modeling This description of the model of Meta-Programs provides insight about the role these processes play in any and every strategy. In detecting and eliciting a full description of the sequence of representational steps of a strategy—the meta-level distinctions of the meta-programs inevitably plays a crucial role. To not know, detect, or discover the governing metaprograms of an expert in a particular expression of expertise would effectively prevent us from discovering the critical elements in the strategy. We have to go meta to the meta-programs to fully model the structure of expertise. Not infrequently the meta-programming (or patterning) of consciousness governs a strategy of excellence. It explains how a sequence of representations becomes a model that provides us instructions for replicating a given structure of expertise. Knowing that a person makes an internal picture without knowing its size (global or specific) or if a person uses it to compare with the similarity or the differences of a remembered picture—prevents us from knowing many of the “differences that make a difference” in a strategy. Preparing to Model Meta-Programs exist at a logical level above conscious processing of information. These patterning styles speak about those sorting styles and processes that we have learned to use in thinking about things. This makes these programs, for the most part, outside (or above) consciousness, but certainly not inaccessible to consciousness. Meta-Programs arise from habituated meta-states that have been solidified over time. Understanding how we create our metaprograms informs us about how we can change them. Above and beyond the traditional list of NLP Meta-Programs (which only presents them as one level above content) there are programs meta to those. These are even higher programs that run our other mental programs.

-187-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 10

Levels of Perception

Knowing the structuring of meta-programs enables us to both model and design engineer human excellence in communicating, confrontation, understanding, etc. Figure 10:3

Meta-Programs Template

-188-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 10

-189-

Levels of Perception

Chapter 11

LEVELS OF STATES Self-Reflexive Consciousness

N

LP began when two modelers constructed a model about the linguistic patterns that three therapeutic wizards (i.e., Perls, Satir, and Erickson) used. Bandler, Pucelik, and Grinder (1975) described this as a model meta to language and about language that they used as a way to track the internal mappings of a person in therapy. This initiated the first meta-domain in NLP, the Meta-Model. A few years later, the second meta-domain emerged, Meta-Programs (Bandler and Cameron-Bandler, 1982). As the Meta-Model used language as the avenue or pathway into subjective experience, Meta-Programs used perception styles as a way to track a person’s style or mode of processing and sorting information. That provided two meta-paradigms into “the black box” of Mind. A few additional years rolled by and the third meta-domain came to light using states and levels, the Meta-States Model. Meta-States, as a model, began focusing on the gestalt experience that we feel when our reflexive thinking-and-emoting applies back to itself and creates layers of neurolinguistic states. In this chapter, I’ll briefly overview this third metadomain of NLP, a model that has led to the formulation of NeuroSemantics. -190-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 11

Levels of States

The Meta-States Model The Meta-States Model (Hall, 1995) grew directly out of the abstracting principle of Korzybski in General Semantics and what he called, "abstracting at higher levels." This “abstracting” corresponds to the NLP expression, going meta. In making a conceptual move to a higher logical level, we generate the Korzybskian "second order,” "third order level of abstractions,” etc. Applying these meta-moves to our mind-body (neuro-linguistic) states, and treating the resulting experience as a state of consciousness at each level, this model introduces the concept of meta-states. Actually, each additional level textures the primary state in a fluid and dynamic way making it richer. The Meta-States Model starts with a basic mind-body state comprised of internal representations and physiology (the two royal roads to state). We then move to a higher logical level and abstract about that lower level. In doing this we generate a new construction, a state-about-a-state, or a metastate. Doing so creates a new aboutness at the meta-level. Consciousness no longer refers to the external world “out there,” it refers to the internal world of thoughts-and-feelings. And with each jump in reflexive levels, the overall state of mind-body becomes layered or textured with higher or more conceptual states. This process actually encourages a new kind of subjectivity. In primary states, our thoughts-emotions and physiology have reference to some external content. So our consciousness goes out. It goes out to a referent outside of itself. "I'm afraid of John when he doesn't get his way." “I really enjoy a brilliant sunset.”

By contrast, with a meta-level construction, our meta-state refers to the lower level, to the state beneath it (or some facet, product, or process of the state). "I'm afraid of my fear." "I'm disgusted with my anger."

In a meta-state, as a state-about-a-state, we shift “logical” levels. We do this as our consciousness recursively refers back to a previous state. As an operational definition, A meta-state designates a state of consciousness above, beyond, and/or about (meta) any other primary state of consciousness, an order of abstraction about another order of abstraction, a second-order abstraction.

-191-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 11

Levels of States

Fluid Levels of States Primary and meta-states radically differ from each other. The quality and nature of first-order abstractions (thoughts-emotions) have a much more dynamic feel to them. By contrast, the quality and nature of second-order abstractions (thoughts-emotions about other thoughts-and-feelings) have a more "intellectual" feel or conceptual feel to them. After all, they are metafeelings. At the primary level, our internal representations and corresponding neurological responses operate at a "deeper," more direct, and more "powerful" way. Here we experience primary emotions: fear, anger, relaxation, stress, joy, sadness (loss, grief), love, hate, attraction, aversion, etc. At the primary level, these states feel more basic, primitive, direct, and sometimes over-whelming and controlling. For example, consider the fear of the stranger and substitute for "stranger" any group of people who seem different and strange to you, and therefore a group whom you may evaluate as scary. Here we have some primary emotions that typically define race-hatred and prejudice. "I hate blacks." "I hate whites." “I hate Catholics.” “I hate Buddhists.” Now notice the quality and nature of the second-order abstraction (the metastate) in relation to that. Suppose I realize the hurt, harm, nonproductiveness of such hatred and so "hate my hatred of them." Try that one on. Typically, the meta-level awareness will reverse a person's feelings and thoughts, and may even lead to a "desire to like them." But what if I justify my hatred. What if I invent reasons to hate them even more, and in doing so I come to feel even more powerful, bigger, and important. In that structure, I will "love my hatred of them," "believe in my hatred of them," "want to keep my hatred of them." To talk about "hate" (a multiordinal word), without an awareness of what level of thinking-feeling (abstracting) we refer to, creates confusion. It confuses levels. To say "hate is bad" deletes on what level hate works in a "bad" way. On the second-level, "Hating my hate..." works to ameliorate my primary hatred and prejudice. That kind of hate can be very good. It can free us from prejudice.

-192-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 11

Levels of States

Feelings (or more accurately, emotions) on a second-order level have a very different "feel," genesis, character, quality, and nature from those on the primary level. What explains this? This arises because they result from a different quality and kind of thinking. Usually, but not always, they arise from evaluation and education and so have a more conceptual basis of understanding. The symbolic processes involved in generating our second-order love and hate influence these feelings so that we experience them as much less violent, less intense, and less transient. They function as more enduring, more stable, and more easily influenced by reason. The most wonderful and intriguing effect of all this lies in how moving to a meta-level empowers us so that we can actually choose our emotions. On a meta-level, we can deliberately and consciously choose, generate, and cultivate the higher-order emotions that we desire. This does not hold (or at least it holds to a much lesser degree) at the primary level. At a metalevel, I can "will to desire to care about another" (three levels). If I do not feel bold or brave on the primary level, I can will to have courage about courage. Thinking about some painful event can induce me fully and completely back into that state and thereby make me less resourceful. But thinking about my painful thinking represents a very different experience. This socalled "dissociative" experience indicates that we view and think about the experience from a second-order level rather than from a first-order level. This moves us from thinking-feeling "of" the experience to thinking-feeling "about" the experience. Emotions at the higher-order levels typically feel much less powerful than their first-order counterparts (feelings). Yet, over time, as those higher-level thoughts-feelings habituate and "sink down" to the feeling level (the metastate coalesces into the primary state, see Appendix D), then the second and third and fourth level states take on more and more powerful feelings. Actually, the higher-order abstractions get anchored (or associated) to the first-order kinesthetics. The Generating Mechanism of Meta-States Since "the world of communication, language and organization" (Bateson, 1972) involves reflexivity (self-reflexiveness) and recursiveness, it lies in -193-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 11

Levels of States

the very nature of communication, language, organization, and consciousness to reflect back onto itself. So whatever abstractions (generalizations, ideas, concepts, feelings, etc.) we create in our mapmaking, we can take these (or other) abstractions and apply them to themselves. Joying and delighting ourselves in playing with a child or animal describes a first-order abstraction (happy playfulness). Applying the same to itself issues forth in "enjoying our joy" (a happiness in feeling happy), a second order abstraction, or meta-state.

Dilts (1983) described this mechanism and the resulting differentiation in logical levels relative to therapy. "A good example of functional overlap causing a meta-complimentary relationship is talking about a relationship. Talking about something is generally considered of a different logical type than the things itself (for example, talking about a cat biting you cannot physically hurt you). Talking about the relationship you have with another individual, however, may be subsumed under the functional significance of that relationship. So even though talking about a relationship may be meta to that relationship it may itself be modulated by the interactive rules defined by the relationship." (p. 58)

A significant facet of how "therapy" works in bringing relief, renewal, and transformation lies in this mechanism. When at a meta-position we talk about our problems, it shifts the kind and quality of our thinking. In the presence of a third-party who asks questions about the patterns of how they relate, we can step back to take a meta-position to how we relate. We step out of the problem space on the primary level and move up (conceptually) into a solution-focused space. This makes for more objectivity, thoughtfulness, access to resources, etc. The influence of state-dependent learning, memory, perception, communication, and behavior (LMPCB) sometimes takes over and controls our experiences. This generally occurs when a state becomes very intense or highly focused. As we relate to another, we begin to apply the nature, quality and "rules" of that state to ourselves. This shows up when we get so caught up in our relational style and state (perhaps arguing, feeling resentful, seeing problems, etc.) that we then apply these very qualities to each other at a meta-level. We argue about our arguing. We defend our defensiveness. As a result, if we go meta to our interactions and talk about it and use the same quality and style at that level as in the primary state, -194-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 11

Levels of States

then the problematic state is turned against us. If Person #2 relates to Person #2 by presenting complaints in a blaming, accusing, black-and-white way, when Person #1 goes meta, she may talk about their relating in the same way. The following diagram (Figure 11:2) illustrates this. Figure 11:1

Such toxic looping from primary level to meta-levels using the same unuseful and non-enhancing thoughts-and-feelings describes a closedsystem that couples can sometimes use as they spiral downward into more negativity. They use the very qualities and features of the problem space to try to solve it. But it does not work. The same kind of thinking that created the problem cannot solve it. Yet the same mechanism, reflexive consciousness, that enables us to move conceptually to higher logical levels and to create hierarchies of levels can do more than merely create living hells. We can use the same dynamic of mind to create new, enhancing, and empowering systems. Actually, a wild and wonderful thing happens when we access a state, and then relate it to other states. When we generate a meta-state all kinds of magic emerges. In these complex states, self-reflexive consciousness relates, not to the world, but to ourselves, or to some abstract conceptual mental state (some belief, idea, emotion, etc.). We access a state of thoughts-feelings that we apply to, or bring to bear on, another state of thoughts-feelings. This process of relating

-195-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 11

Levels of States

state to state so that one operates in a meta-relationship to the other describes what we mean “meta-stating.” Figure 11:2

We feel upset about our anger; joyful about freedom; anger at our fear. The object of our state changes from an outside and external object to an internal, conceptual, and semantic object. We now think-and-feel about previous thoughts-and-feelings. We now can experience a state of joy about our state of learning. Figure 11:3

Joyful Learning

States And Meta-States As Systemic Processes Operationally, a meta-state designates a state of consciousness above, beyond, and about a primary state of consciousness. This puts it at a higher logical level. A meta-state exists as an order of abstraction about another order of abstraction, a second-order abstraction. The power of consciously reflecting back on our consciousness (meta-cognition) provides us the neuro-linguistic technology for becoming a meta-class of life. It empowers

-196-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 11

Levels of States

us so that we can endlessly reflect upon our thinking. That’s because there is no end to this recursiveness. As consciousness and experience exercises this recursiveness, our states and meta-states increasingly take on systemic qualities. Mind itself becomes systemic in nature. Recursive thinking enables us to use consciousness to feed-forward our thoughts-and-feelings into a conceptual “future,” to feedforward memories and learnings from our “past,” and to use feedback as a positive corrective influence. This changes everything. It enables us to become our own self-programmers. It supports us in evolving our own consciousness. Reflexivity, a process of "bending back on itself" (ML reflexivus, Latin reflexus) introduces circularity and recursive processes into consciousness and our neuro-linguistic states. Where does the power of reflexivity come from? It emerges from a consciousness that not only goes out to objects and events in the world to take cognizance (awareness) of them, but also reflects back onto itself. When we do this as we think about our thinking and feel about our feelings, this moves us to a higher logical level. This generates what philosophers and psychologists call self-reflexive consciousness. Watlzwick, Beavin, and Jackson (1967) have noted that: ". . . systems with feedback distinguish themselves not only by a quantitatively higher degree of complexity; they are also qualitatively different from anything that falls into the domain of classical mechanics. . . . Self-regulating systems (systems with feedback) require a philosophy of their own in which the concepts of pattern and information are as essential as those of matter and energy were at the beginning of this century." (p. 32) "Much more than any other disciplines, psychology and psychiatry are ultimate self-reflexive: subject and object are identical, the mind studies itself, and any assumptions have an inevitable tendency toward selfvalidation." (p. 43)

Interfacing Level With Level/ State Upon State Given that we inevitably and inescapably bring states of mind-and-body to reflect back on previous states, what kinds of interfaces arise? In these interfacing dynamics, the Meta-States model provides a way for us to track and model what otherwise would confuse. Complexity arises with the layering of mind-and-emotion with multiple levels, yet it involves a complexity with which we can tease out the embedding layers. -197-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 11

Levels of States

Briefly, as we begin to notice the ways and manners of state-upon-state interfacing, we will begin to detect that sometimes it results in increasing, reducing, and even reversing the primary level experience. These three interfaces describe but a few of the ways and resulting interactions of higher levels upon lower levels. Given that we can choose our higher-order emotions, we can learn to "run our own brain" by negotiating the logical levels to which we expose and format our minds. This gives us the ability to consciously run our metabrains or manage our meta-minds. We do this when we choose to doubt our doubt, decide to become unselfish about our selfishness, take courage to have courage graciously, accept our grief, comfortably welcome our stress, become light-hearted about our angers, etc. What range of things can happen when we meta-state ourselves and others? What range of responses and consequences can we create by using various meta-stating patterns?

The following briefly introduces and identifies the key interactive gestalts that can arise. 1) The interface can reduce painfully intense states. Some meta-states will reduce the primary state such as when we feel calm about anger; doubt our doubt, relaxed about our fears, thoughtful about irrational ambitions, etc. 2) The interface can intensify states. Some meta-states will amplify and turn up the primary state such as when we worry about worry, love learning, feel anxious about anxiety (hyper-anxiety), love love, feel calm about calmness, become passionate about learning, appreciate appreciation, feel bitter about failure, resentful about anger at failure, etc. 3) The interface can exaggerate and distort states. The intensity factor will cause us to exaggerate some primary states so that it creates “dragon” states. Generally speaking, when we bring a negative state of thoughtfeeling to bear on another primary state, we turn our psychic energies against ourselves. We attack our own mind, emotions, and body. This occurs when we feel anger about our anger, love the hatred of X, fear our fear, hesitate to hesitate (i.e. talk non-fluently) which thereby creates stuttering (Johnson, 1989, p. 453), feel sad about sadness (depression); mistrust mistrust (if accurate at the primary level), enjoy complaining, -198-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 11

Levels of States

resent and shame self for being a fallible being, feel ashamed of embarrassment. 4) The interface can negate a state. Some meta-states actually negate the content emotions and thoughts at the lower level. In doubting my doubt, I usually feel more sure. In procrastinating about my procrastination, I take action and put off the putting off. I figure I will do that later. In mistrust of mistrust I begin to trust again (if I find the mistrust distorted and inaccurate at the primary level). This occurs with resisting resistance, feeling ashamed about shame, becoming timid about courage, accepting our sadness, etc. 5) The interface can interrupt states. Sometimes the state (thoughts feelings-neurology) we bring to bear on another state so jars and shifts the first state that it totally interrupts it. In this way we can stop deleterious responses, deframe "programs," arrest the psycho-logic of something nonproductive, and put a stop order on an unuseful semantic reaction. This occurs when we are humorous and ludicrous about seriousness, anxious about calmness, calm about our anxiety, intentionally panic, timid about our courage, etc. 6) The interface can create confusion. Some interfaces create the interruption or reduction by generating confusion as various thoughtsfeelings collide and "fuse" "with" each other in ways that we do not comprehend. This happens when we are ridiculous about being serious, hesitate about taking courage, become respectful about insults, big-hearted and magnanimous about jealousy, etc. Such confusion can then destabilize an old program as it loosens up the old frames and beliefs to thereby make the installation of a new belief possible. 7) The interface can create paradox. Some meta-states create what we call a “paradox” as it shifts an experience to a higher and different level. This offers lots of possibilities for transformation. It explains powerful techniques as "paradoxical intention" Watzalawick (1984): "Kant recognized that every error of this kind [map/territory confusion error] consists in our taking the way we determine, divide, or deduce concepts for qualities of the things in and of themselves." (p. 215)

Bateson (1972) defined “paradox” as a contradiction in conclusions that one correctly argued from consistent premises, i.e. the be spontaneous now paradox; "Never say never." "Never and always are two words one should -199-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 11

Levels of States

always remember never to use." "I'm absolutely certain that nothing is absolutely certain." Or, Raymond M. Smallya's (1980) book title, "This Book Needs No Title." This also occurs when we try really hard to relax, become indifferent about caring, feel resentful at being indifferent about caring, decide to stay indecisive, hate that one likes someone, etc. 8) The interface can create “dissociation.” Going meta typically dissociates us from the primary state and so from the more primitive and driving emotions of that level. As we do, we access the higher level and secondary type of “emotions” that typically have less energy in them. This means that when we use the term dissociation, we do so in an accommodated way. We do not literally get out of our bodies, we only do so conceptually. It’s a way of thinking. We do it by qualifying our “emotions” with higher level thoughts, i.e., when we merely witness our emoting. If we dissociate dramatically enough, it causes amnesia (even switching states rapidly and without reference frequently produces amnesia) and other trance phenomena, i.e. distance from pain, witnessing our anxiety, observing old trauma, ecology-checking value of resentment, have the ringing in your ears but tune it down until you don't quite hear it anymore. 9) The interface can create the beginning of a new process. Sometimes the meta-state will get us to initiate a new experience by generating the first steps in creating the strategy or setting us in a new direction. This process allows us to create new emergent expectancies. This occurs when we take the courage to have courage, learn how to learn, become willing to experience willingness, develop unplayful uncertainty, gentle anger, etc. In this, we set higher frames that create response potential as it initiates a new way of framing things. 10) The interface can grab and focus attention to swish the mind to provoke thoughtfulness in a different direction. As such it can arrest attention, overload consciousness, stimulate new thinking, and question axioms, beliefs, reasoning, memory, etc. (hence deframe). This occurs when we feel compassionate softness about anger, appreciation and desire about anger, loving gentleness about anger, resistance toward resistance, curious about the nature and value of a mistake, etc.

-200-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 11

Levels of States

11) The interface can induce trance and trance phenomena. Most people experience abstracting at the third-order and above as very "trancy." And so it should. After all, it invites us to "go inside" to such a degree that a trance-like "inward focus" develops as we become engaged, consciously and unconsciously, in an internal search for meaning. This has led to the development of the Meta-Trance trainings. We especially experience metastating that shifts logical types and sets up double-binds in initiating trance. Experientially track with this: "Rebel against thinking about just how comfortable you can feel if you don't close your eyes before you feel ready to relax deeper than you ever have before, now. I wonder if you're going to fail to succeed at not going into trance at exactly your own speed or whether you won't."

12) The interface can create gestalt states and phenomena. Statesabout-states frequently generate gestalt states that involve a new overall experience in which something new emerges from the process. We cannot explain this new configuration as merely a summation of the parts. In other words, it thereby partakes of a systemic and non-additivity quality. Fritz Perl analyzed “anxiety” as the suppression of excitement. In Gestalt Therapy he would ask, “What excitement are you suppressing?” The suppressing “chokes off” (original meaning of anxiety) some excitement. This also occurs when we worry about what X means. This generates an existential state. Willing to face a fear generates “courage.” An overwhelming commitment to a passion describes yet another way to the gestalt of “courage.” 13) The interface can create humor. The jolt and jar of state-upon-state often results in the gestalt of humor. As you have undoubtedly recognized. This explains a lot of the joy, fun, and laughter that people experience at Meta-State Trainings. Plato defined humor as experiencing something "out of place in time and space without danger." Meta-State structures like feeling a passion for insecurity, being proud of procrastination, etc. can tickle our fancy, delight our consciousness, surprise, amaze, shock, etc. 14) The interface can qualify states and experiences. Since the higher level state sets the frame for the primary experience, it thereby qualifies the lower level experience. In this way, the meta-stating process creates new qualities for our everyday experiences and emotions. It enables us to have joyful learning or anxious learning, it leads one to become an accomplished liar, a devious liar, or a charming liar. It enables us to build gestalts of -201-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 11

Levels of States

seductive negotiation, respectful anger, accepting sadness, ruthless compassion, etc. 15) The interface can solidify a state or a level. Frequently we solidify a state by bringing yet another state upon it. This makes the lower state permanent and more solid. This occurs when we believe or value X, when we take pride in X, when we believe in our belief about something, develop pride of our depression, or jealousy. It occurs when we identify with X in such a way that we make it our identity. 16) The interface can loosen states, frames, and realities. As we can solidify and build up we can also de-stabilize and loosen. This especially occurs when we bring doubt and questioning to a state or experience. “So you believe that?” “Fully?” “No exceptions?” It occurs when we become playful about X. Has this list of interfaces begun to suggest the crucial importance of modeling using meta-levels? In order for us to detect and unpack the strategy of excellence in an expert, we have to be able to recognize the layers of states, “thoughts,” beliefs, values, etc. that go into the mix. Failure to distinguish between primary and meta-level states leave us ignorant about many of the key ingredients that make a program or strategy work. Modeling the Circularity of Logical Levels The interfacing of “logical levels” (actually, psycho-logical layering of the mind) with each other also introduces us to another important facet of human experience, the neuro-semantic system that emerges from the interfacing of the layering. Here we discover the higher level feedback circuits, or circularity of actions, so characteristic of living organisms and especially prominent in human systems. Structurally this means that we begin by abstracting from the lower level and then self-reflexively develop higher order thoughts-feelings about the previous level. As this occurs and habituates, these thoughts-feelings (states) eventually sink down into the lower level experience. When this happens, they begin to influence and in-form (i.e., form inwardly) the lower level. This process brings new qualities to the experience. As this happens, it creates what we commonly refer to as "a self-fulfilling" or "selfreinforcing” loop. Our higher level thoughts-emotions then evolve into more stable formations or mental phenomena which we name and -202-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 11

Levels of States

nominalize as “beliefs,” “values,” attitudes, paradigms, etc. which evoke, magnetize, create, etc. the phenomena to which they are oriented. We have all experienced, at the primary level, thoughts-and-feelings that seemed caused, fated, determined, or controlled. When this happens, we then react and respond with what seems to be without thought. These "signal reactions" and "semantic reactions" describe the end-result of metalevels having coalesced into the primary level. This comes out in language when we use Cause-Effect structures. “She makes me so angry.” “His tone of voice just grates on my nerves.” “I hate it when he rolls his eyes like that.” “I always get depressed when it’s cloudy and rainy.”

Yet we do not have to remain stuck in that kind of lack of control world. As our consciousness develops and evolves, we develop awareness of our thoughts-feelings. Then our consciousness of abstracting gives us an awareness of ourselves as actors. We reflexively become aware of other options, potentials, choices, etc. We develop a new and higher feeling, the "feeling" of having "free will." To make this meta-feeling grow even stronger we can make different choices. For example, if we set an even higher frame that we are choosing beings, we outframe ourselves with a feeling of freedom to choose. As a result of this gestalt we become less reactive and much more thoughtful and reflective. This describes the structure of proactivity. We extend our ability to anticipate consequences and to make more "free" choices. The circularity of this process manifests the system quality of emergence. The idea of emergence speaks about the non-addictive character of the new emerging traits and qualities that "come into existence" as we move up the levels. We no longer have the case of merely adding things together. We rather have the experience of qualities multiplying, dividing, reversing, etc. The new qualities sometimes emerge as so much more than the sum of the parts. New gestalts and configurations arise that we cannot explain in addictive terms. As an interactive system operates and new qualities, characteristics, properties, etc. emerge, they do so as an "organized effect" of the system itself. The "constancy of temperature" that emerges from the furnacethermostat in-a-house-as-a-whole illustrates this. This "transcendental" -203-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 11

Levels of States

quality also "disappears" the minute the mechanism-as-a-whole stops. In this, the emergent quality has no existence apart from its organization within the system. In General Semantics and Systems Theory, this dynamic constancy of internal organization goes under the terminology of "invariance under transformation." The second-order invariance (dynamic stability) arises by the variance in the system at the primary level. In this the Meta-States Model provides a way to model systems and the systemic processes and structures that we find in complex human experiences. As such, it allows us to begin to see how the components, elements, and variables within the system interact and what affects what. Thinking systemically in this way eventually tunes our consciousness to developing a sense of the leverage points in a system. A “negative” feedback system produces the emergent quality of equilibrium, or stability, in a system. By way of contrast, a "positive" feedback system typically creates an out-of-control, runaway system. We can see this very clearly in a panic attack. First a person experiences fear about some object at the primary level. Next, at a second-order level, he becomes afraid of that fear, and then afraid of that fear-of-fear, etc. He may even texture it with anger at being so fearful, ashamed and guilty. He may bring a sense of inadequacy to this, or helplessness or resignation. These states then continue to loop inside of this closed loop. Then the more we engage in the fear, the more the system spins out of control.

It is in such an out-of-control, runaway system that people experience what we commonly call a "nervous breakdown." Why? Because the system recursively loops around on itself so that no new input from outside the system can moderate or influence it. The system goes into a runaway mode. Everything the person does to make things better, only makes things worse. Outframing fear with fear only multiplies the fear so that it becomes more and more exaggerated, distorted, and unresponsive to solutions. In such instances, we cannot solve the problem from the kind of thinkingand-feeling that created it. We have to get out of the system to do that or at least open the loops to revisit the outside world.. Why can we not solve it from within? Because the leverage point of the system —what makes it function as it does—does not occur at the primary level. It is a sick and toxic meta-level problem. The reflexiveness of consciousness keeps -204-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 11

Levels of States

bringing negative thoughts-and-feelings back onto itself repeatedly. We have attacked ourselves and the very thinking and feeling that we could use to solve the problem. That is what we need to stop. To step into the solution space we have to move to a second-order level and do something different. There we can paradoxically tell the person to choose to panic even more. This presupposes that as we accept their fear, so can they. It sets an even higher frame. “You ought to do this some more. It’s not enough yet to get you to make the shifts so that you totally control it.” It says by implication, “If you can turn it on, you can turn it off.” Modeling Gestalt Meta-States Consider the aesthetic state of consciousness from which we recognize "beauty." Does beauty exist as a first-order, primary state phenomenon or a higher order abstraction, a meta-state phenomenon? What kind of word do we have in the term "beauty?" We certainly do not have a see-hear-feel (VAK) word. Rather, we have a class word, a nominalization, and therefore a higher order abstraction. Somebody has evaluated the sights, sounds, sensations, smells, etc. of something as “beautiful,” as having "beauty." But what does this mean? Do the mappers mean order, symmetry, a pleasing attraction, their favorite color, or what? What does the state that corresponds to this recognition feel like? General Semanticist, Weinburg (1959, 1993) has described this insightfully: "The abstracting process does not stop . . . We have seen its integrative, summarizing character come into play as we move up the levels of abstraction. Even at this low-order feeling level, it proceeds to 'add up' all these discrete feelings of pleasantness and unpleasantness into one single state or evaluation of the situation-as-a-whole. That is, we find the sceneorganism reaction-as-a-whole evaluated as pleasant or unpleasant. And we either like or dislike it as a whole to the degree we find it pleasant or unpleasant as a whole. This Gestalt-like, structure-forming, summarizing, integrating activity is characteristic of our nervous system in operation and is to be found on all levels of abstraction. And where is beauty all this time? I believe it is a feeling, a higher-order feeling, a resultant of this summarizing activity. It is a feeling generated by response to the structure as a whole. It is a feeling whose precursor is the feeling of the pleasantness of the whole..." (p. 132) "The structure-as-a-whole has characteristics not found in any of the parts and these non-addictive characteristics are perhaps the key ones which 'touch off' the feeling of beauty. But these 'wholeness' characteristics -205-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 11

Levels of States

cannot be pointed to, cannot be directly observed, cannot be discovered by analysis, for analysis, which is a concentration on the elements of a structure, immediately destroys the wholeness characteristics. The perception of structure-as-a-whole is of a higher level of abstraction than is perception of the elements of the structure, and the characteristics of this level, as would be expected, have different characteristics." (p. 133)

We know that beauty lies in the eye of the beholder. We know that "beauty" does not exist "out there" in the world. Animals, infants, and untrained humans do not see and recognize "beauty." They only see colors, sizes, shapes, forms, etc. They hear sounds, rhythms, melodies, tunes, etc. "Beauty" exists at a higher level as the result of a developed and trained consciousness making certain evaluations via certain criteria. So with perceiving triangularity. You can point to angles and three-sided shapes all day, but you cannot point to triangularity. This exists as a concept, an evaluative summation of certain characteristics of individual triangles with differences deleted. When we confuse the two levels, we objectify the abstraction (the nominalization process) and project object-like or sensory characteristics on a level of abstraction above or meta to the objective level. This can lead to various forms of fun, excitement, wonder, and unsanity. Again, Weinburg (1959/ 1993) has written: "Note how the language contributes to the confusion! We talk of the sense of beauty, the implication being that it can be sensed the way we sense colors or shapes." (p. 134)

But no. The sense of any evaluative higher-level abstraction exists as a different kind of sense. We should not confuse it with the lower level sensory sense. In English we have many, many terms that we link with "sense" or "feeling" that confuses logical levels. We take the linguistic environment, "I feel..." which we should reserve for true feelings/sensations of the body and we then stick in a meta-level term (usually a judgment). Hence: I feel dumb... (or stupid) I feel low self-esteem... I feel terrible (horrible, awful) I feel like a king I feel spectacular I feel like I’m at loose ends

I feel neglected... stifled I feel weird I feel judged... I feel that I need closure I feel clever

-206-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 11

Levels of States

These quasi-feelings do not exist as feelings at all. They exist as judgments, evaluations, understandings, beliefs—and they exist at a higher level than primary level kinesthetics. At best, we can only call them meta-feelings. Test this by asking for the speaker's physiological correlate. "Where do you feel this?" Most people will find this almost impossible to answer. They will detect no somatic source of the "sense," because the "sense" exists as a summation or integration of several items. It exists more in their "head" than in their body. Exceptions will occur for those in whom the meta-state has coalesced into the primary state. There the physical sensations of the primary state will stand for, and represent, the meta-state "emotions." Modeling the Gestalt Meta-State of "Time" The same applies to “time.” "Time" does not exist at the primary level. Events do, rhythms do, activities do; but not "time." As we experience these events, rhythms, and activities repeatedly we develop a higher level awareness of them as times of events and so develop a "sense" of duration, a higher-order feeling that results from our summation or abstraction of many individual occurrences. That represents one meta-state of time— "a sense of duration." Then, as we talk about these "times" we can number them, compare them, sequence them. We say, "Time has elapsed," "It took three years to complete the project," "In another two days." But what have we seen come and go? Not "time." But numerous events which we sum up and symbolize by the class term "time." As we use the verbal shorthand, "time" (multiordinal word), we begin to objectify it. We begin to talk about it as if it had physical properties like sensed objects. We say, "time" flows, moves, races, slows down. We talk about wasting "time," saving it, misusing it, etc. In this we use various metaphors about moving things and valued things to frame a concept of “time.” Actually we have reference to times of something occurring somewhere, and not our concept of "time." "Time" arises as a gestalt awareness that holds past, present, and future together into a structure-as-a-whole configuration, as in a time-line. "Time" emerges from our awareness of events, our sense of duration, our summation of development and growth that occurs "over time," and from our abstraction of "time" as a dimension as in the space-time continuum. When we analyze "time" (as we do other higher level abstractions such as beauty, love, happiness) and find the component pieces out of which the -207-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 11

Levels of States

structure-as-a-whole emerges, we do not find "time" in any of the pieces. It seems to vanish with analysis. Figure 11:4

The Phenomenology of the Logical Levels of "Time"

When Bobby Bodenhamer and I (1997) took our discoveries about MetaStates and Neuro-Semantics and applied it to “time,” it led us to finding and formulating many new uses of “time” NLP processes. Yet we barely scratched the surface regarding what’s possible in this area. More recently we came up with a meta-stating Insert Pattern using “time.” Out of that work we developed the following chart in which we designated many (but not all) of the multiordinal levels of "time." At the bottom, in the primary level/state, we have the sequence of events occurring. From that sensorybased referent, we abstract and create numerous kinds of “times” at various meta-levels. -208-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 11

Levels of States

Meta-Stating as Distinguishing Orders of Abstraction When we fail to distinguish between lower-order and higher-order abstractions and fail to recognize the difference in levels, we confuse orders. When we do that, we identify phenomena that exist at different logical levels. This prevents us from making essential distinctions. Consider the term selfishness. At the primary level we discover and experience what Freud called "the pleasure principle." Here we find pleasure pleasurable and pain painful. And so we should. Such describes a healthy functioning of our nervous system. Falling down and scraping skin off our knee hurts. Getting burned by fire hurts. Getting slugged in the face hurts. Tasting and digesting delicious food feels good. Soaking comfortably in a hot tub at just the right temperature feels good. Making love feels exquisite. To feel guilty about enjoying pleasure eventually makes a person neurotic. At the opposite extreme, to feel joy in one's sufferings leads a person to become a martyr or masochist. To enjoy giving pain results in a person becoming a sadist. By contrast, a healthy selfishness involves a caring about one's self, vitality, success, effectiveness, and pleasure in a balanced and appropriate way. An unhealthy selfishness cares only about self to the exclusion of others, or perhaps to their detriment. To call enjoying pleasure "selfishness" (thereby framing it as morally "bad") puts an organism at odds with itself. It also commits a logical level category error. To the person just beginning to learn the skills and art involved in public speaking, we do them harm and damage to say, "Just don't be nervous, don't be tense, don't be afraid." Such meta-statements typically increase the severity of the symptoms. It does it for two reasons. First, it uses the metalevel phenomenon of negation to set a frame that typically makes the primary experience more intense (see the chapter on Negation in SubModalities Going Meta, 2002). Second, it brings a higher level state of rejection, taboo, and judgment against oneself. Conversely, accepting one's feelings of fear, nervousness, feeling uncomfortable, etc. in the moment immediately breaks the vicious cycle. How does it do this? By preventing the unwanted second-order evaluations so that we do not meta-state our primary state with a larger frame of rejection.

-209-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 11

Levels of States

Distinguishing Primary and Meta States Primary level states of consciousness differ significantly from those states that occur at meta-levels. In the following chart, I have set out the most significant contrasts between primary and meta-states. Effectively Distinguishing Primary and Meta-States What questions can we ask to explore states and distinguish primary ones from meta-level ones? Five key questions will serve us well in this elicitation and exploration: 1) Is this mental and/or emotional state appropriate to the stimuli that set it off? Is the response direct to the stimulus or indirect and about our thoughts, feelings, memories, concepts about the stimulus? 2) What is the nature of the “emotions” involved? Are they kinesthetic feelings easily located in the body or are they more conceptual feelings, meta-feelings, and more the feelings of the mind? 3) What is the aboutness of the state? Is the mind-body state about an object or event “out there” in the world or about another state of mindand-body? Is it about an idea, concept, memory, anticipation, etc.? 4) What kind of language is involved here? Is the person using sensory based language that’s empirical and referring to the world “out there” or is the person using more abstract language? Is the person speaking in abstractions, nominalizations, cause-effect, complex equivalence, etc. structures? 5) From what perceptual position is the person speaking? Is the person speaking from first position or some other higher level (second, third, fourth, etc.)? From who’s perspective is he or she speaking?

The difference between primary level experience and meta-level experiences also expresses the differences between Kant's level of sensibility and intelligibility (Appendix A) and Bateson's level of "the world of forces and objects" from the "world of communication, information, and organization" that we previously reviewed. In his last work, Bateson (1983) labeled these two different levels the Pleroma and the Creatura and articulated some of the different "logics" that work in each dimension.

-210-

NLP: Going Meta

Figure 11:5

Chapter 11

Levels of States

Distinctions Between Primary and Meta-Levels

* Simple/Direct First-Level No layers of consciousness Immediate, automatic Synesthesia (V—K) * Primary Kinesthetics (primary emotions) Modality (VAK) & Sub-modality-Driven Kinesthetically Exper. +/Associated Easily Anchored Intense to very intense Strong, primitive, deep Quicker, Shorter Animal More Focused One time learning

* 1st. Position Thought @ world

Complex/Indirect Second/Third Levels, Etc. Several or many layers of consciousness Layer levels/ Mediated by symbols Meta-level synesthesias—the Coalescing of Levels Meta-kinesthetics or "emotions"/ Evaluative Emotions —judgments coded in the soma (body) Affected by Sub-modalities, but not driven Linguistically-Driven, Linguistically-located Less immediate or often not localized Dissociated from primary emotions Chains of Anchors—glued together by and with words Chains connected by multiple anchors Less intense: more thoughtful, "mindful" Weaker, less primitive, more modified by cognition Lasts Longer, more enduring, stable Human: dependent upon symbol-using capacities Multiple-focuses simultaneously One time learning very infrequent Repetition generally needed to drive in & install 2nd., 3rd. or other multiple Positions consciousness expanded & transcendental Thoughtfulness/ Mindfulness, Thought @ Thought

* Object: External In world

Object: Internal In mind-emotions

* Sensory-Based Linguistics Empirical Qualities

Evaluative Based Linguistics Emergent Qualities/properties: Having no lower-order counterparts Highly projective Once Coalesced — begins to operate as a Primary State with a seamless logical-level synesthesia

Somewhat projective

* Thresholds Has natural limits Sensory-based nature

The Lack of Thresholds Higher levels & states can get one to push beyond natural primary level limits of pleasures

-211-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 11

Levels of States

Description Versus Evaluation These distinctions between the logical levels of states has not entirely been missing in traditional NLP. Previously, NLP has distinguished these realms linguistically by talking about the critical importance for a professional communicator to separate sensory-based, descriptive language, (VAK) from inferential or evaluative-based language. At the first level we describe what we see, hear, and feel at the empirical level (or primary level of experience). At the next level up, we evaluate those sights, sounds, and sensations in terms of our meanings and values (a meta-level state). Making these distinctions has led NLP to distinguish between somatic sensations in the body (kinesthetics) and evaluative-judgments about those kinesthetics, or "emotions." Kinesthetics apart from evaluation about them do not mean anything except simply the heart beating at a certain rate, muscles relaxing or tightening, glands secreting, lungs expanding, etc. Here we have sensations of many different degrees of intensity and quality (the representational distinctions of our kinesthetics). Andreas (1985) in his edited book, Using Your Brain For A Change, wrote: “Evaluative meta-feelings ABOUT other perceptions or representations, also called emotions, feelings, or visceral kinesthetics which are usually represented in the chest and/or abdomen or along the mid-line of the torso. These feelings are not direct sensations/perceptions, but are representations derived from other sensations/perceptions.” (p. 163)

Only when we add cognitive evaluations to our sensations do we give birth to our meta-kinesthetics, meta-feelings, or “emotions.” When we evaluate them as "good" or "bad," "negative" or "positive," "scary" or "exciting," "desired" or "undesired," etc. do they become emotions proper. We then code our thoughts-feelings about our sensations in language and this shifts us from primary sensations or feelings (actual body sensations, kinesthetics, internal visceral experiences) to secondary level sensations (or emotions made up of part cognition and part feeling). From there we can even move up another level to a third level of sensations, or abstract emotions, about emotions. So the genesis and character of states differ according to their level of abstraction. Animals, who have no symbol-using capacity (only signal capacity), do not and cannot experience the kind of second-order feelings and emotions that we do. For animals, the sounds, grunts, etc. function as signals of their -212-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 11

Levels of States

state. The noise, sight, or movement indicates itself—it does not function as a symbol for something else. Bateson (1972) described these as "mood signs" in contrast to formal symbolic language. John Grinder (1987) has identified three things that distinguish us as a species from other specifies: 1) our ability to dissociate and “go meta” (from which we can then create negation), 2) syntax, and 3) humor (pp. 282-296).

Consider the vertical continuum that moves up logical levels from sensations (feelings) to emotions, and onto higher level abstract emotions. At each level the very nature and quality of "emotions" differs. At the primary level we experience our kinesthetic sensations as direct, immediate, intense, unmediated by language, dynamic, etc. Here our “emotions” seem very primitive and even primordial. Later, as we put words to the unspeakable neurological level, we experience the primary emotions: fear, anger, joy, comfort, relaxation, lust, sadness, disgust, etc. [Actually, these also involve a meta-level, but because they coalesce so early in our experience—they function as primary level phenomena.] When we move from the primary level to the first meta-level, we have a reduction in the intensity of the kinesthetic components of our "emotions." The means that our "emotions" experience a tempering effect by our cognitions (i.e. reason, understanding, values, beliefs, concepts, etc.). Here also we feel those pseudo-feelings (judgments that we call “feelings,” e.g. “I feel weird”). As we move up additional levels, each meta-level reduces more and more of the kinesthetic components until it feels very weak indeed. Korzybski described this distinction in terms of thalamic and cortical functions. What significance does all of this have for us? First, moving up meta-levels gives our emotions more and more of an "intellectual" feel. They become less “dynamic,” less kinesthetic, and more layered and conceptual. This process also makes sensory-based anchors less and less effective. Earlier I spoke about the difficulty of anchoring meta-level experiences using primary-level anchors. There I mentioned that numerous individuals have found NLP “lacking and unsubstantiated” because they tried to anchor a

-213-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 11

Levels of States

meta-state experience using a kinesthetic anchor. This explains why. Metalevel phenomena need to be anchored by a meta-level mechanism. Dilts (1983) designated the anchors that work at meta-levels (Learning II level) as context markers. "Learning II involve the change in behavioral content (conditioned responses) in response to varying contexts. In other words, Learning II is the form of behavior [in contradistinction to the content]. The anchors that stimulate a change in the state of consciousness (the form of processing) in an individual are called context markers." (Part III, p. 51)

What does this mean? It means that when we work with a meta-level experience, we do not anchor a state as much as a context. Robert Dilts said that the phrase, "think of a time you felt really fatigued" will typically enable you to anchor a state. By way of contrast, consider what the following words elicit and anchor. "Have you ever stayed up all night writing a required paper that you were not invested in?” These words will more likely "indicate the state indirectly by anchoring a context in which the desired state would most likely occur" (Part III, p. 53 emphasis added). (Dilts adopted this language from Bateson (1972, 289). Robert continued: "Another consideration is the difference between anchors for behavioral content (Learning I condition) and those anchoring Learning II states. This would determine the difference between an individual's response to: 'Think of the color of your bedroom,' or 'Think of what it's like to be in deep meditation.'" (Part III, p. 53)

The first question in this quote moves us to access visual representations of something that exists outside of us, namely, the bedroom wall. Therefore it will elicit the state associated with that stimulus. The second question invites us to move up several meta-levels to awareness of self in altered state. It thereby invites us to anchor a context. In another attempt to distinguish between the primary level (Learning I level) and the meta-state level, Dilts ended Roots of NLP with this incredible statement. "It is important for the programmer to be able to make the distinction between the classes of behavior that constitute a state (Learning II processes) and the programs that make up that state (Learning I). There tend to be different schedules of reinforcement for a behavior that is subsumed under another one." (Part III, p. 88)

-214-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 11

Levels of States

Then quoting from Steps to an Ecology of Mind, Robert used an example from Gregory Bateson (1972) in the following reference: "...You can reinforce a rat (positively or negatively) when he investigates a particular strange object, and he will appropriately learn to approach it or avoid it [primary level learning]. But the very purpose of exploration is to get information about which objects should be approached and avoided [a meta-level learning]. The discovery that a given object is dangerous is therefore a success in the business of getting information. The success will not discourage the rat from future exploration of strange objects." (p. 282, brackets added)

This led Robert Dilts (1983) to draw the following conclusions about how primary state experiences and behaviors differ from those that arise from a meta-level construction. "The more acute behaviors, such as bad habits, compulsions, and phobias tend to constitute content behaviors and are fairly easily dealt with by employing simple anchoring techniques of deprogramming and program substitution. Behavior such as chronic depression, psychosis, or neurosis will probably require state-altering techniques, such as interruption, exaggeration or the various verbal and non-verbal tracking techniques." (Part III, p. 88)

This suggests another significance with regard to working with meta-level structures, namely, we can expect more complexity, layeredness, embeddedness, and therefore a longer time element. Dilts (1990) said that he found it usually took a longer period of time when he worked with the meta-level nature of beliefs. He noted that this took longer, not because it "should take a long time and be complicated," but because sometimes things have a layered nature to them so that it takes more time to uncover the true structure of things (p. 70). Preparing to Model Our ability to abstract from abstractions enables us to build systems of “logical levels.” Our consciousness generates a self-reflexive consciousness that conceptually moves us to meta-positions to think-about-thinking, learn-about-learning, feel-about-feelings, and access states-about-states. Doing so moves us into a "system of consciousness" that functions recursively so that information at any and all levels can feed back to previous levels and effect system changes.

-215-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 11

Levels of States

No wonder human consciousness and experience can develop in such convoluted, complex, layered, and tangled ways! No wonder Korzybski put his finger on the confusion of levels ("identification" of levels) as one of the central sources of unsanity. Failing to distinguish map and territory at any level leaves us without a way to orient ourselves toward human phenomena that involves multiple levels. Conversely, recognizing levels, distinguishing between levels, using multiordinal language, and having the ability to move to meta-levels for evaluating our evaluations (running an ecology check) gives us the ability to manage our logical levels effectively and to jump logical levels in order to soar into wild and wonderful semantic states of resourcefulness. This gives us increased ability to detect, track, and model meta-level phenomena—which basically means all of the truly human conceptual states of consciousness. Without the ability to take meta-levels into account in our strategy analysis, detection, design, installation, etc., we severely limit our modeling abilities. And that, in turn, will hinder our ability to model and engineer excellence.

-216-

Chapter 12

SYSTEMIC NLP The Meta-Layering of Consciousness “At every one of these levels, the creative purpose of a higher level directs the working of the lower levels. The body uses lower processes for its higher ends so that there is what one brain scientist calls a reorientation of purpose from level to level. ... The brain, by means of consciousness, monitors its own activities.” Holland, The Brain of Robert Frost (p. 93)

W

hen “Mind” reflects back onto itself, all kinds of new, strange, wild, and weird things begin to happen. In the previous chapter we noticed this in the interfacing effects that the Meta-States Model maps out. The dozen-plus interfacing effects of state-upon-state speaks about the source of this unpredictable wildness. Yet, as we also noticed, this describes the unique specialness of human consciousness. You can always count on a human brain getting in one more thought about whatever it has just thought. This allows us always to ask one more question to directionalize the brain in yet another direction. No wonder then that we often find the process of tracking down where a brain goes in the strategy process difficult and complex! No wonder we can experience the decomposing of a strategy to be, at times, overwhelming. Yet in our map-making—we always and inevitably have thoughts about thoughts, feelings about thoughts, kinesthetic sensations about thoughts, etc. Meta-cognition always plays a role in human states of consciousness.

-217-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 12

Systemic NLP

In the previous chapter, I primarily focused on the meta-states and gestalt states that emerge from this process of self-reflexive thinking. Here I want to shift to another aspect of these states-about-states and more specifically describe their systemic nature. This will take us to taking a more extensive view of the layered nature of meta-states, and of the role that feedback and feed forward loops play. What does this have to do with modeling? A lot! And that will become apparent as we proceed. Feedback Loops Governing Feedback Loops Consider for a moment how “Mind” goes out to the world. As we first encounter the world, or the world of energy manifestations encounters us, our very nervous system receives impressions, stimuli, and impacts. To these we respond. We respond by abstracting, as Korzybski described in his Levels of Abstractions. And as we abstract, we create a neurological map of the world. From that map, we create another neurological map, and so on until we abstract to create linguistic maps and then conceptual maps. Writing in the field of the neuro-sciences and artificial intelligence (AI), William Powers developed a model of “mind” in the early 1970s. In his book, Behavior: The Control of Perception (1973) he described how after the initial impressions, we act on the world to control our perceptions. Did that line throw you? It threw me when I first read Powers. It’s counterintuitive to how we typically think about the relationships of perceptions and the world. Since this seems backward to how we commonly think, stay with this idea for a few moments. We act on the world in terms of our behaviors (mental, emotional, actions, etc.) to control our perceptions. Powers, and then later, William Glasser (1983, Control Theory), argued that once we have developed our internal model of the world, we then act, or behave, in order to get the world to fit our perceptions. The higher level structure (our mental paradigm) coalesces into our neurology thereby bringing into our basic neurological processes (i.e., seeing, hearing, sensing, etc.) the concepts we mapped. This begins our projections. Or, to use system language, we feed forward our ideas through our physiological expressions.

-218-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 12

Systemic NLP

Consider how this works with regard to language use and skill. When we learn “a language,” we learn an entire system of sounds (phonology) and meanings (semantics). We learn how to take the sounds and punctuate them into words and sentences that convey meaning. Once we learn a language, we cannot not hear it. The sounds now “make sense.” Contrast that to listening to a speaker or watching a movie in a language that you don’t know. You can’t “hear” the words. The sounds all blur together. You don’t know how to punctuate the stream of noise. Yet in learning a new language, we learn to hear something more than, and other than, the sounds. We learn to hear the structure, or language formats, of the language. This lets us in on the secret, the meanings being conveyed. With a language that we do not know, we actually cannot hear the linguistic and phonological distinctions. It’s a secret to us. If we “had ears to hear” we could make sense of the language that’s foreign to us. It’s those trained “ears” that makes the difference. And the “ears” is one of the places where the knowledge of the language gets stored. Metaphorically, the language gets into our ears. We can hear it. Recognize it. Know it. Then the sounds enable us to mentally see, kinesthetically sense, and emotionally experience the world that the words construct and reveal. When we know a language system, we can “project” that system and use it as a template for the noises and spell-marks that encode the system. Glasser translated Powers’ theory of mind into more popular terms as he invented his model of “Control Theory.” He describes how all of us have an internal Picture Gallery which makes up our Quality World. Against that Picture Gallery we try to make things live up to it. We do that because it comprises our mental paradigm of reality. It operates as our reality strategy and we sense it as the very fabric of what is real. To propose anything else seems to be proposing what is unreal. This impulse drives our actions. We act to receive continual validation of our fabric of reality. Glasser describes this process using the picture metaphor of a set of scales. On one side of the scale we have the inside awareness of our Quality Album regarding how we want things, how we expect things to be, how things “ought” to be, etc. This makes up our constructed reality—except that most people don’t know it’s constructed. Typically we think it’s real.

-219-

NLP: Going Meta

Figure 12:1

Chapter 12

Systemic NLP

The Scales of our Emotions

On the other side of the scale we have our current representations from the outside, what we call our “experiences.” These perceptions register and reveal what we are getting. This level of mapping is also constructed, but seems and feels so much more direct that we typically think it is real also. “I only believe what I can see.” But since we see “in our brain” and not through our eyes, what we see (and hear, etc.) exists as a construct. This explains why you do not see everything upside down even though the images come into the eyeball and get turned upside down. This explains why you do not see a hole in the middle of every picture—your brain fills in the gap left by the optical nerve at the back of the eye. Now when the scales between our conceptual map and our perceptual map balance out pretty evenly, we don’t register anything. There’s little difference to be registered. It neither goes up or down. It’s neither positive or negative. At most we feel contented, “okay,” or “normal.” We have few emotional terms that describe that position in between positive and negative. When, however, we get more than we expected, then the scale tips up on the receiving side and we feel good, perhaps even great. This shows up in the “positive” emotions: joyful, delight, happy, pleased, ecstatic, loving, compassionate, etc. Of course, when the scale tips the other way, so that the receiving from the world is way down and we are not receiving what we want, what we expect, what we believe in, etc., we feel terrible. It’s misery time. Now all of the negative emotions rush in. We feel upset, stressed, frustrated, angry, afraid, distressed, confused, sad, depressed, helpless, hopeless, despairing, etc.

-220-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 12

Systemic NLP

What we call “emotions” simply register or measure the difference between what we want and what we expect, between what we perceive we are receiving from the world and what our mental pictures and maps of the world say that we want to receive or “should” receive. The motion that shows up in our body, somatically, is a function of the evaluations that we make as we compare our Map with our Experience. Change either map or experience and our emotions change. Our internal information (stored in the form of expectations, wants, desires, beliefs, values, etc.) goes out to encounter the world in terms of our behaviors (i.e. actions, gestures, emotional responses, psychosomatic actions, habits, etc.). We act on the world, by means of our behaviors, to control our internal information. The information that comes back to us from this interaction then feeds back into our stored information—allowing us to update our maps if we are open to doing such. At least it does this in a healthy, open, and flexible person. For the closed, rigid, and static person, the returning information that feeds back feels like insults, attacks, messages of “being bad,” etc. they take the “err” messages as a personal message. They personalize. The others use it as a signal to update their maps or to employ different actions. The returning information that feeds back becomes the next layered set of understandings, representations, and meanings that qualify and set the frame for our internal mapping—our meta-states. Figure 12:2

Meta-Level Feedback Loops

-221-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 12

Systemic NLP

Feedback, feed forward, loops, emergent properties, etc. reflect the newer ideas from the field of systems theory and application, and cybernetics. A most compelling development of this occurs in Norman Holland’s work on reading and interpreting literature. In his work, The Brain of Robert Frost: A Cognitive Approach to Literature (1988), he quotes numerous works from the fields of computers, artificial intelligence, cybernetics, and cognitive psychology in order to describe this process. At the level of everyday experience, it seems that we move through the world acting on the world. We grab at mom’s face. We reach out to shake hands. We listen to a speech. We act on the world using behaviors in an attempt to adjust to what we find and in an attempt to get what we want (our perceptions, model of the world). Then, through acting, we get some feedback. The rock doesn’t move, the person gives us the Snicker’s bar, the report gets handed to the boss, etc. Sequentially, after that we represent the feedback via internal images, sounds, sensations, smells, etc. Then if we are open, we use it to adjust our internal understandings and wants. This adjusts our internal and governing Model of the World. If the feedback fits with our expectations, we feel good, positive, contented, joyful. If the feedback doesn’t even come close to meeting what we want, we feel activated and energized to do something about it. At the experiential level the activation registers as our “negative” emotions (i.e., bad, negative, sad, angry, fearful, frustrated, etc.). These emotional responses reflect our internal judgment as we evaluate and compare the difference between what we want (desire, expect) and what we get. We experience this difference as the somatic activation which we commonly call our “emotions.” The difference we “sense” and recognize inside our “mind” triggers a plus or minus response. It triggers the positive or negative emotions, the sense of Yes for affirmation or No for dis-confirmation to what’s happening. Thereafter our emotions govern the system moving us to act more on the world or on our mental map or to quit acting (when we obtain our wants). Where do your emotions come from? From the evaluative and relational difference between our cognitive expectations (wants, desires, understandings) and our cognitive recognition of reality.

-222-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 12

Systemic NLP

What do our emotions mean? They signify validating and disconfirming messages about the fulfillment of our values, beliefs, and perceptions.

In this way, this Cognitive Model of Mind explains why our emotions seem to run the show and control things. A feedback loop refers to the information processing that occurs within and throughout a system. In this case, the feedback occurs in our mind-body system as our organism (body) relates to the world of events within various environmental contexts and receives responses in return. This expresses a set of relationships that go far beyond mere Stimulus—Response mapping. As a circular and systemic set of interactions, this model begins with our behavior. As natural scientists, we put out into the world (by means of our behaviors) various hypothesis, ideas, concepts, and understandings. We hold representations and beliefs about what lies out there, how things work out there, what things mean out there, etc. So we feed forward our ideas. Holland relates this to how we read literature. As we read, we develop ideas (hypotheses) about the author’s meanings. As we format such meanings, we put it out there as we read to see if the text will confirm or disconfirm our expectations. Figure 12:3

System Feedback Loops

-223-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 12

Systemic NLP

Then we go about testing those hypothesis or mental models. We do this by acting. We do something. Then, if we’re smart, we notice the responses we get (the feedback). Did our action produce the effect that we wanted? Did it fail to elicit the response we wanted? The feedback then loops back so that we can discern differences, make comparisons (evaluations), adjust our maps, and test our new hypothesis. NLP has described all of this using George Miller’s TOTE model. The TOTE model, in turn, provides us a description of human consciousness and response from a flow chart perspective of testing, operating, testing, exiting (TOTE) in response to our Desired Outcomes. Using the Meta-States Model, we describe this as consciousness reflecting back onto the previous products of consciousness (thoughts, emotions, behaviors). We embed our primary state within a higher frame of reference, a higher state—fear of failure, excitement about learning, curiosity about experimenting, etc. Each feedback loop brings back the results of our mental-emotional experiments and allows us to establish a higher frame of reference about the first response. This becomes a higher learning, an abstraction at a higher logical level. As such, it sets a new frame. It creates a new state-about-astate which we recognize as a meta-state. It now becomes the highest hypothesis about the world. As our thoughts-and-feelings reflect back onto previous thoughts-andemotions, our self-reflexive consciousness generates new emergent properties, experiences, and “entities.” Our sense of our executive self emerges. New gestalt configurations arise from this system of thoughts and emotions in interaction with the events of the world. Holland speaks about the highest feedback loops as yet another description of “identity,” that is, our sense of “I” or “self.” He speaks about other high level feedback loops that we could name (nominalize) as “values,” “beliefs,” “understandings,” etc. And given the general meta-level principle of Bateson that higher levels always govern, modulate, and organize lower levels, the higher feedback loops always and inevitably govern the lower feedback loops.

-224-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 12

Systemic NLP

This systemic model enables us to take effective action. It allows us to run our self-reflexive system of layered thoughts about thoughts more effectively by constantly stepping aside to check its “ecology,” and so quality control the system. Does it serve you well? Does it enhance your life? Does it empower you as a person?

If not, run another feedback loop to a higher level and establish a new outframing level. This describes the power and elegance of knowing how the meta-levels of our mind works. Feedback Loops In Modeling Holland begins with the idea that “human experimental psychology takes as its proper goal modeling what the mind knows and how it knows” (p. 9, italics added). He dives into the task of exploring how we create, interpret, and transfer knowledge in the process of reading literature. To do this he launches out on a massive task. He does this by touching upon the current state of knowledge in the neuro-sciences about the brain, using Chomsky’s work about language (p. 9), Lakoff and Johnson’s work about language and metaphor (p. 112ff), Minsky’s introduction of the term “frame” (p. 10), systems theory involving feedback systems, Bateson on cybernetics, schools of literature, psychoanalysis and cognitive psychology, the TOTE model of Miller, et al. (p. 88), and William Powers’ hierarchical model of mind of a loop controlling a loop (p. 94). Holland applies all of this to the expertise of creating and interpreting literature. That, of course, brings him to the subject of how language works in interaction with human consciousness itself. In understanding literature, “the brain of Robert Frost” stands for every person’s brain in understanding language, creating language, and interpreting language. In the end he creates a model very much like the Meta-States Model. He writes as if he had read Meta-States. “As we change our ‘set’ [expectational set], we bring to bear on our world different expectations. We therefore change the hypotheses we test against our world. The general principle is: We prepare for stimuli and actively search our environment for them.” (p. 76) “It is a fundamental principle of today’s neuroscience that the brain operates by means of feedbacks and, specifically, a hierarchy of feedbacks.” (p. 178)

-225-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 12

Systemic NLP

Holland postulates the X of stimuli in the world to which we respond. As we then act upon that stimulus, we develop a perception about things. With this internal perception we then compare it with what we expected (our internalized Model of the World). Next we act upon the stimulus and experience more feedback. This loops back for more comparisons. In this, we see his use of the TOTE model. “There is the feeding back of the output (my behavior) through its consequences to something I perceive, a sensory input. This is what gives feedback its name. ... There is the comparison between what I perceive and the standard I set, between what I want to see and what I in fact see.” (p. 77) “Brain scientists continue to confirm the general idea of a central organizing principle (i.e. ‘identity’) that guides feedbacks towards ends that satisfy that identity. ... At every one of these levels, the creative purpose [the intentionality] of a higher level directs the working of lower levels...” (p. 93) “In general, a higher loop controls a lower one by setting its standard. ... The higher processes in [the] brain that seeks themes or recognizes characters govern the lower processes...” (pp. 95-96)

This leads to his meta-level model of consciousness in “reading and writing literature.” The Identity Level governs and directs a Comparison Level that governs a lower Comparison that governs the person as he or she perceives and acts. “Feedback controlling feedback” (p. 99) illustrates a hierarchy of feedback loops. Holland labels the highest levels in a hierarchy of feedback loops “identity.” “All levels ultimately serve identity, yet at every level feedback operates. Identity is the top-down agency that applies hypotheses. I put trials of meaning and context and syntax out into the text, and the text rewards my good hypotheses and defeats my poor ones, until I arrive at a total reading.” (p. 110) “The idea of identity governing a hierarchy of feedbacks offers us a manageable picture, a working hypothesis against which to hear claims about reading and writing and Robert Frost and brains. With this picture I can visualize how ‘subjectivity’ enters the literary process alongside ‘objectivity.’ I can realize the relation between fixed cultural codes and the mutable canons we learn in school for reading poems. I can imagine how feelings guide our cognitive responses or how the physical text relates to the emotional experience we have. The picture of an identity governing a hierarchy of feedbacks lets me pose such questions and at least begin to answer them.” (p. 111)

-226-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 12

Systemic NLP

Modeling Complexity Whenever we seek to create a model of human excellence that has layered levels within, layers that have coalesced so that it all seems to be of one mind, we have to tease out the levels, sequences, and self-reflexivity. In doing this, we constantly process back to the questions, “Which comes first? Which representations layer what other thoughts-and-emotions? What idea, thought, feeling, state, etc. references another?” Frequently, the indeterminancy of the looping itself speaks about a set of actions, representations, thoughts, emotions, etc. that have gone on for so long that we can no longer specify what began the process. We see an everyday painful example of this in couples arguing about “who started the fight!” Sue nags at Rick to get with some of the tasks around the house that he usually does. She does this to help motivate him. But he resists this nagging by stubbornly dragging his feet. When she sees him not acting but dragging his feet, she attempts to motivate him by getting more on his case (she amplifies her “nagging”). Then, to her incessant not-leaving-him-alone and treating him like a-child-who-needs-to-be-told, he procrastinates even more firmly. He adopts an attitude of refusing to be “controlled.” When she sees that he’s doing this on purpose just to hurt her feelings (her mindreading about his “stubborn refusal”), she really lets him have a piece of her mind. When she does that he... And so it goes! Here we have a systemic process involving two people with each responding to the other’s responses, each viewing the other’s actions (or non-actions) as causing their emotions and responses, and each caught in an escalating and looping system without an exit. The same type of vicious cycle process can occur in a single individual around different values, beliefs, intentions, expectations, understandings, wants, memories, etc. The same dynamics occur in business. It might begin with a manager or a business owner who feels that “It is my business,” or that “I am in charge here!” This attitude as a frame then manifests itself in a “bossy” communication style. He “tells” his employees what to do and how to do it. The employees view this way of talking and running the business as “treating us as children,” “not trusting us,” “disrespectful,” etc. With that frame of mind, they drag their feet and show their dissatisfaction by doing the least possible. Seeing that just confirms the manager’s frame. “I knew -227-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 12

Systemic NLP

it! Didn’t I tell you?” The manager’s belief that they are “lazy, not selfmotivated, hiding things, trying to get by with murder, etc.” becomes stronger and more ingrained. So he redoubles his efforts and style by increasing his control, “really getting on their case” when he finds even the most minute mistake. Because, after all, he knows what that really means! Seeing all of this just confirms what the employees have felt all along. “The criticism is unfair and the treatment is harsh; it’s not safe to talk to him. So why try?” And round and round it goes, spiraling into more negativity, defensive positions, and closed systems. Systemic Modeling From the outside, and without systems understanding, systems seem complex, layered, and next to impossible to model. How do they work? How do we model a system, especially an ever-changing, dynamic, always becoming system? Joseph O’Connor and Ian McDermott (1997) have written a book that combines system thinking and NLP to simplify our way of thinking about the complexity of systems. In doing so, they have identified numerous principles that apply to modeling, and especially to meta-level modeling. They argue in The Art of Systems Thinking that we should embrace complexity. “Once we embrace the complexity we have created, and find the simplicity on the other side, we no longer need to be victims.”

Systems thinking enables us to not only solve problems, but to think about the thinking that created a problem in the first place (p. xv). This explains the meta-state interface of paradox (mentioned in the previous chapter). “When you feel anxious before a challenge. Trying to combat anxiety by denying it usually has little effect. Paradoxically, admitting it, feeling it fully and then focusing on something else will stop it.” (p. xviii)

The principle that explains this involves the very functioning of a system as a non-linear process. “... systems function as a whole, so they have properties above and beyond the properties of the parts that comprise them. These are known as emergent properties— they ‘emerge’ from the system...” (p. 6) “Our hopes, fears, and beliefs about the future help to create the very future we anticipate... Anticipate an enjoyable day with pleasure, look forward to all the interesting things you will do, let it loom large and

-228-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 12

Systemic NLP

colourful in your mind. ... Feedforward creates self-fulfilling prophecies.” (p. 48) “We need to be scientists of our mental models. ... experiments that fail are the most valuable, because they show something has been overlooked—there is something to be learned.” (p. 77)

Another systems principle concerns the mechanism of self-reference itself. Self-reference changes the kind of thinking that we need to engage in when we deal with systems which involve processes that go around in circles. At such times, Aristotelian linear thinking becomes ineffective for understanding and predicting. When we work with systems, we have to shift from linear thinking to thinking non-linearly, that is, in terms of circles, cycles, feedback loops, etc. “Whenever there is self-reference, applying linear thinking within that frame of reference creates a paradox with no way out. The frame of reference is confused with the items in that frame. ... These sorts of paradoxes in communication can drive you crazy, unless you can take what is called a meta position. ... A meta-position is a systems view.” (pp. 101-102)

When O’Connor and McDermott apply systems thinking to learning itself, they speak of learning as a “system.” This involves becoming aware of the effects of my actions, experiencing myself as an active participant, and using the feedback from actions to adjust my internal mental map, enrich it, give it more detail and distinctions, and test that out (p. 118). Learning from experience enables us to become better communicators (p. 123). “Curiosity is a state that goes beyond mental models—it questions them. When you are curious, driven to find out why and how something works (or does not work), then your mental models will be more flexible, more responsive to feedback.” (p. 141)

The principle that governs this means that we have to step outside of a system in order to develop the perspective, skills, and ability to change it. We need a meta-frame of reference. But if we have a meta-frame that forbids us to step outside of a system (a meta-rule that would essentially say, “Do not go meta!”), then that very rule makes a great many things within the system un-discussable. Such a frame keeps the system looping around itself in such a manner as to make it closed to new inputs.

-229-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 12

Systemic NLP

What stops a situation or experience with this kind of structure from changing? The meta-rule that forbids getting outside for a different kind of perspective. O’Connor and McDermott noted: “Once you are outside the system, you have a chance to change it.” (p. 152)

Few NLP books have even addressed the subject of self-reference and recursion. But this book takes these system processes straight on. “It always takes longer than you think, even when you take this into account.” Hofstadter’s Law

Of course, that statement meta-states impatience about the speed of the process of change to create that frame of reference. “Self-reference means a distinction is applied to itself, for example, ‘There is no need to be confused by your confusion!’ This may jolt you out of a stuck state, because it lifts you out of confusion into thinking about how you can deal with confusion—which is a shift to a higher level.” “Recursion is applying self-reference like a spiral staircase to bring you to higher and higher levels. You continually circle back to the same point, but at a higher level. Recursions can be endless, like looking at yourself in a mirror looking at yourself....” (pp. 100-101)

Using Meta-Cognitive Models for Modeling In 1995, Janet Metacalfe and Aurthur Shimamura edited a book entitled, Metacognition: Knowing About Knowing. In the years and decades to come, this MIT book may very well become one of the classic books presenting formal research for the Meta-States Model. The works of numerous authors in this groundbreaking work all relate to the new domain known as Meta-Cognition. Metacalfe and Shimamura have gathered together the most current researchers in this field and have rigorously presented the current state of knowledge. Most of the book addresses the meta-cognition processes and techniques that we typically use (or can learn to use) in order to remember. This includes such memory meta-cognitive devices and processes for our everyday experiences of self-monitoring our memory, meta-level beliefs about self-efficacy in remembering, “memory’s knowledge of its own knowledge,” meta-cognitive development in adulthood, etc. As research literature, this work has contributions about the neuropsychology of meta-230-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 12

Systemic NLP

cognition, the role of meta-cognition in problem solving, and even a chapter on how we should view eyewitness research from a meta-cognitive perspective. Yet the best contribution of the work, in my opinion, and the one that has the most relevance to modeling is the opening chapter by Thomas Nelson and Louis Narsens entitled, Why Investigate Metacognition? Quoting Kuhn (1962) on paradigms and crises in “normal science,” Miller, Galanter, and Pribram (1960) from their foundational work on the TOTE model, and even Bateson (1972) on systems thinking and control processes... they generated a model that bears an extremely close similarity to the Meta-States Model (see Figure 12:5). Figure 12:5

Meta-Cognition Model

“Nelson and Naren’s (1990) formulation of a meta-level/ object-level theoretical mechanism consisting of two structures (meta-level and objectlevel) and two relations in terms of the direction of the flow of information between the two levels. (Note: The meta-level contains an imperfect model of the object-level.)” (p. 11) In explanation of this model, the authors’ note about “control” asserts: “... the meta-level modifies the object-level, but not vice versa. The information flowing from the meta-level to the object-level either changes the state of the object-level process or changes the object-level process itself.”

Conversely, they write that... -231-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 12

Systemic NLP

“... the meta-level is informed by the object-level. This changes the state of the meta-level’s model of the situation.” (p. 12)

Does this not sound like another description of the Meta-States Model? Does it sound uncanningly familiar? They continue as they describe introspection of introspection. This refers to when we pay attention to, and examine (introspect), our introspecting in order to take into account its characteristics and “systematic deviations” (distortions). When we do this, it provides us a way to methodologically improve our introspecting (p. 18). Quoting William James (1890) on his famous description of “the tip of the tongue” phenomenon, they speak about the feeling of knowing. This refers to the state wherein we know that we know something and feel that it lies at the tip of our tongue, and yet we cannot quite say it. We feel that we are just about to articulate what we know, yet it has not yet emerged. We have a sense and belief that we can retrieve a piece of information. We have a sense of awareness of having knowledge, yet we also have a sense of a gap that prevents us from getting to it (pp. 47-48). If someone prompts us with choices while we experience the “tip of the tongue” phenomenon, we know what does not fit the gap without knowing the key word or phrase to fit that gap. Or consider the meta-level structure of uncritical adoption of ideas, suggestions, and beliefs. Researchers have called in question that older adults don’t remember as well as younger adults. They suggest more of a problem with meta-cognitive strategies used and toxic beliefs: “Uncritical adaption of the stereotype of decline could lead individuals to believe their memory has declined, irrespective of any age-related changes in actual frequency of memory success or failures. Moreover, beliefs of inevitable memory decline may make incidents of forgetting more salient, and bias older adults to attribute memory failures to agerelated loss of effective functioning.” (p. 240) “High self-efficacy beliefs limit the experience of concurrent negative affect (depression and anxiety),whereas low self-efficacy beliefs led to increased levels of performance anxiety in the testing situation.” (p. 241)

Preparing to Model In modeling human subjective states of excellence (or pathology) we have to move away from the simplistic linear flow-chart of neuro-linguistic responses. We have to move to the place where we can take into account the feedback loops and feed forward loops, -232-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 12

Systemic NLP

and the feedback loops that emerge which then govern other feedback loops. With the field of Meta-Cognition we can now utilize many of the newer system models that have arisen to take into account the cycles of interactions over time. The TOTE model anticipated this further development with its embedded TOTEs inside of other TOTEs. The original NLP strategy model originally anticipated this new enrichment with its meta response step in the linear process. Bandler and Grinder anticipated it with their constant emphasis on utilizing a metaposition, creating meta-parts, and doing exercises with a metaperson. With all of this in mind, we are ready to move to Part III where we will integrate the meta-level structures of the Meta-States Model into modeling,

-233-

PART III

ADVANCED MODELING USING META-LEVELS Using the Self-Reflexive Consciousness of Meta-Levels for Making Explicit the Structure of Experience

-234-

Chapter 13

INTEGRATING META-LEVELS WITH STRATEGIES

A

lthough Dilts, Bandler, Grinder, and DeLozier (1980) put a meta response step in the original model on strategies, they offered it as only another step in a basically linear strategy format. Consequently, modeling and training in working with strategies in NLP has tended to treat subjective human experiences as primarily a linear process. An unfortunate consequence of this was the downplaying of systems and systemic thinking. Implicitly, this has presupposed that consciousness only goes out. The model neglects how consciousness also reflects back onto itself, goes up to higher logical levels, etc. As we go meta into “logical” levels, we can track consciousness as it makes recursive moves to meta-positions which then builds new layers and complications in the structure of subjective experiences. This reflexivity creates subjective state-about-a-state structures and conceptual states. It enables people to make meta-moves backwards and forwards in “time,” to reverse internal psycho-logic, to inverse (e.g., Cartesian logical moves), and to engage in other forms of psycho-logics. The Meta-Move As Part of “The Spirit of NLP” Actually, treating subjectivity linearly goes against many of the presuppositions in NLP about systems, systemic thinking, feedback, feedforward, logical levels, loops, simultaneous representations, etc. Yet we all -235-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 13

Integrating Strategies and Levels

find the old habit of thinking linearly (i.e. Aristotelian cause-effect thinking and either-or thinking) ready to reassert itself when we explore or attempt to model such multi-layered states as creativity, resilience, forgiveness, beliefs, etc. We treat such as if they do not contain many logical levels within them. As a result, we have made no clear cut distinctions between primary and meta-level phenomena (Chapter 9). When we do not make these distinctions, we attempt to use the powerful technologies that work wonders at the primary level on meta-level structures. Yet as a result, we often ended up disappointed as we discovered that the nature, quality, and character of properties at various meta-levels differ. Many of the so-called "failures" in NLP by practitioners, as well as by researchers, working with the NLP model, have arisen precisely from this. For example, individuals have attempted to kinesthetically anchor a metalevel construct (like self-esteem). Or they have attempted to track eyeaccessing cues with an experience involving multiple levels and found inconsistencies with the basic NLP model. Dilts (1990) noted this problem when he worked with the multi-level nature of beliefs. He used the metaphor of a belief molecule involving collapsed synesthesias to explain this phenomenon (p. 30). In this work, I have suggested yet another approach. Namely, the integrating of logical levels into the strategy model in order to create a meta-level strategy model. Figure 13:1

Diagraming the Meta-Level Step

-236-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 13

Integrating Strategies and Levels

Meta As A Step In The Strategy Model In the context of strategy notation, elicitation, and explanation, Dilts, et al. (1980) wrote: "A meta response is defined as a response about the step before it, rather than a continuation or reversal of the representation. These responses are more abstracted and disassociated from the representations preceding them. Getting feelings about the image (feeling that something may have been left out of the picture, for instance) that the individual had made of what it would look like to be swimming, rather than indirect response to the content of that image, would constitute a meta response in our example. ...We will notate the meta response modifier as an arrow between the steps with "m" beneath it, " m"." (p. 90, italics added) "Both of these show that there are two responses to the verbal proposal of the behavior. The final kinesthetic response is about the conflict of the two responses preceding it." (1980: 95)

In this manner, they diagramed a meta-response to indicate that a person moved to a higher logical level. They incorporated this in the Strategy Model as a linear step in the strategy. Later, they wrote out a strategy (in linear format) for a person who said the following. "I know that I should do it...and I really feel that it's the right thing to do, but at the same time I keep looking at all the times I've tried before and haven't been able to... it's really a struggle."

In unpacking the strategy and notating it, the developers came up with two versions for notating this strategy. Both comprise a linear and sequential formula and do not incorporate meta-levels at all. Enhancing The Strategy Model With Meta-Levels In Figure 13:2, I have incorporated and diagramed the idea of meta-levels of the higher levels of abstraction using Meta-States notation. This provides a different way to diagram meta-structures inasmuch as it takes into account the presence of “logical” levels in our thinking-and-emoting. This model departs from a strict horizontal, linear, and sequential process of the Strategy model. It does so by adding the vertical levels and the holistic processes of a dynamic state involving feedback and feed-forward. To read this notation, begin at the bottom with the primary state and move up and then horizontal. In NLP: Volume I, we find a similar discussion about meta-responses regarding a creativity strategy. Here a business executive began his strategy by looking externally at the significant components in the situation (V c). -237-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 13

Integrating Strategies and Levels

"He would then begin to talk to himself about the object or components (Ad); how they operate together; asking what kind of resources may be required for the situation... As he talks he gets a feeling about each of the verbalizations (Ki)..." (pp. 109-110, italics added)

Several problems arise when we use linear and sequential strategy notational language to handle aspects of human subjectivity which involve, and operate at, meta-levels. For one thing, it confuses logical levels. It first ignores the logical levels involved in the structure. Then it attempts to map such by flattening it out into a linear structure. This creates what Korzybski would term a “false-to-fact correspondence.” It confuses the primary sensory-based neurological level (where primary states operate) with the secondary, and any other evaluative levels of abstraction where language operates. Because these represent not only different logical levels, but different "worlds" of existence, and different levels of abstractions, we need a metalevel model in order to map out these distinctions and levels. When we do not map out different logical levels, we fail to see and encode the systemic nature of thoughts-and-emotions as they layer thought upon thought and generate higher conceptual states. Figure 13:2

Diagraming with Meta-State Notation

Diagraming With Logical Levels in Strategy Format Imagine trying to write out the strategy formula sequentially for the following. "Sometimes I get really upset when John doesn't come through with what he said he would do, and I feel like yelling at him. But then I feel really bad for the ugly angry thoughts I entertain. I feel like I'm a really bad mother. I wonder if I can parent at all. So then I start to feel guilty. But with the counseling I've had, I then feel ashamed that I've fallen back into -238-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 13

Integrating Strategies and Levels

the old guilt habit, and know that I'm going to be stuck in this dysfunctional way for the rest of my life. Then feeling depressed about that, I go to the kitchen and eat."

Figure 13:3

A Linear Strategy Diagram

Although we can track down all the sequences of representational steps, and can even identify all the mind-body states of consciousness thereby elicited, when we engage in that kind of modeling, it does not reveal the layering and embeddedness of consciousness which the experience contains. That kind of modeling flattens out and confuses the numerous logical levels within the experience. The woman began with an anger state. Then to that state she went into the state of self-judgment ("bad" for ugly angry thoughts, "bad mother," questions parenting ability). That was her frame about the anger. About her self-judgment state, she then felt guilty. And about the guilt state about her self-judgment state about her anger state she accessed a state of shame. And about the shame state she went into depressed state. To all of those other thoughts-and-emotions she felt helpless and hopeless. That was her frame. To track and analyze this multi-layered state wherein self-reflexive consciousness keeps recursively looping back onto itself we use the MetaStates Model. It provides a way for us to sort out levels of one’s mental frames of meaning. This enables us to understand the kind and quality of states she brings to bear on her other states.

-239-

NLP: Going Meta

Figure 13:4

Chapter 13

Integrating Strategies and Levels

Diagraming with Meta-State Notation

Notational Symbols for Diagraming a Strategy with Logical Levels Over the years of developing and working with the Meta-States Model, I have eventually combined numerous pieces of the NLP Strategy language (VAK, RS steps and distinctions, Meta-Programs, etc.) with state language (internal representation plus physiology operating as a dynamic system) as well as “logical” levels to generate a more complete notional system. This has allowed the Meta-States Model to generate a diagraming model for representing in a more pictorial and non-propositional way the complexity and layeredness of meta-level phenomena. To begin with, we initiate this notational system with the idea of a "state" which we symbolize and notate as a circle, an oval, or an ellipse. This symbolizes the mind-body, neuro-linguistic state and portrays it as a dynamic (not static) "place," or "space," or mood or "emotion" that one experiences. True enough, even the term “state” offers to create problems for us if we are not careful. As a nominalization, we could easily mistake it for the idea of something “static.” Yet a neuro-linguistic state is not static. It is fluid and dynamic and always in process. I suppose we could denominalize it and use a present participle like “stating.” Yet that’s seems only to add to the confusion. I prefer to use state with the disclaimer that -240-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 13

Integrating Strategies and Levels

it does not refer to a static experience, but a dynamic one. Using an unending and ongoing circle suggests that a mind-body state exists as a place or mood within which a person lives and which involves many dynamic variables. The horizontal line or arrow indicates the movement and direction of consciousness. Mind-body consciousness seeks to find out what lies out there beyond the nervous system. It references the territory out there. As mind embraces, perceives and represents the energy manifestations, we experience the representational level of consciousness. Here we internally see, hear, feel, smell, and taste by creating a facsimile of the world—a mental model. Our thoughts and emotions have external referents. We entertain thoughts and feelings about things. The rectangle box represents what’s “on our mind,” the VAK movie that we play on our mental screen. The internal “sense” that we see, hear, feel, smell, taste, and so re-experience the sensory world is a phenomenon of the mind. On the inside it seems like we are playing a cinema of sights, sounds, sensations, etc. Next, the upward line or arrow goes up. Indicating self-reflexive consciousness, as it makes a meta-move to a higher conceptual position, we experience thoughts-emotions about a previous product of consciousness (other thoughts, emotions, or concepts). The circle or ellipse above that bottom or lower level circle designates the meta-state, the state about a state. The downward arrow and the @ sign [which I’m converting to signify the word about] indicates the state to which it refers. The P.I. encodes the basic NLP presupposition that behind and within every state, we can either discover, find, designate, or create positive intentions. The P.I. stands for the area of intentionality of the state. This incorporates the basic reframing principle that differentiates between a person and his or her behavior. More often than not, the person experiencing the state will not have conscious awareness of all of his/her intentions and so this will lie outside of conscious awareness. Pictorially, I like to think of this as a double-stranded fiber that moves out with an upside, attention, and an underside, intention. Consciously, our thoughts-and-emotions move out in attention to represent and embrace things. But underneath that conscious attention we have intentions -241-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 13

Integrating Strategies and Levels

(designs, agendas, purposes, etc.). Psychologist Rollo May (1969) noted that when we analyze “will” using the tools of psychoanalytic thought we can decompose the elements into two components, attention and intention. Access to any state involves the "royal roads" of mind and body. Mind involves internal representations, the VAK sensory modalities along with language. Since language exists as a meta-level phenomena, we typically encode beliefs, values, paradigms, decisions, etc. linguistically. Body (physiology) involves all of the inherent physiological-neurological factors involved in this holistic mind-body, neuro-linguistic phenomena that we call our subjective "experience." Given this holistic nature of our states, the circles and circles-about-circles designate state-dependency. The neuro-psychological sciences have clearly shown that learning, memory, perception, communication, behavior, etc. function in a state-dependent way. This means that we produce various behaviors, emotions, responses, etc. from the context of our states of consciousness. Liked or disliked, these productions indicate the state out of which we live, the model of the world that drives that state, and the intended outcome of that experience. Figure 13:5

The following diagram has the terms "before words" and "beyond words." We locate these prior to and after the human abstraction levels. Picking up on Korzybski's "unspeakable" level, this adds another facet to this model. -242-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 13

Integrating Strategies and Levels

This occurs in our neurology where our sense receptors receive the energy manifestations beyond our skin, but do not register them in any way that we can talk about. This "before words" level involves the sensory-based awarenesses within our body and also the pre-sensory based awarenesses. Going up the scale of abstraction, we say words about words, and then evaluative words about those words until we run out of words. When we finally get to the place "beyond words" we enter into a dimension that transcends human languages and symbols. Here ideas, conceptualizations, and abstractions race past our abilities of articulation. Even our use of "meta-words" (Yeager, 1985). As we move into higher and higher levels of meta-states, our thoughts-feelings (mind-body) experience change. We transcend even human languaging. Meta-meta-meta-etc. states such as these represent the highest transcendental meta-states (what Andreas & Andreas, 1994, call "core" states). Depression as a Meta-Level Phenomenon How does this use and incorporation of meta-levels help with modeling? One of the chief values for incorporating logical levels into modeling arises from the different kind of subjective phenomena that arise at different levels. Out of any and every level arises various "states"—mind-body states of consciousness involving cognitions, "thoughts," representational systems, language, etc. and physiology, movement, neurology, etc. Yet different kinds of states arise, states that radically differ. On the primary level of thoughts-and-feelings about something "out there" in the territory arises primary states. Like "primary" emotions, we typically experience these states in direct and less complicated ways. We fear that object or that person. We feel angry at losing a job or receiving an insult. We rejoice with feelings of delight over a raise. We long for and/or lust after our loved one. We feel sad and grieve at the loss of that loved one. We can detect primary states in ourselves and others not only by their directness and simplicity, but also their neurological intensity. Fear, anger, excitement, joy, lust, disgust, etc., all tend to have strong and immediate correlates in bodily arousal. We "feel" them kinesthetically in very definite areas of the body. The kinesthetic components show up in our breathing, posture, movement, muscle tension, blood pressure, heart pulse, biochemistry, etc. We find our neurology much more powerfully activated and involved in primary states. -243-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 13

Integrating Strategies and Levels

When we move out of the primary states, and up into a meta-level, things become more complicated, more layered, less definite, and less kinesthetic (typically). At meta-levels, we have thoughts-and-feelings about our primary states which makes everything more convoluted and complex. With regard to sad and depressive feelings, feeling sad and grieving over a loss (whether of a person, thing, job, concept, etc.) works for our health and healing. Our "grief work" enables us to adjust to the reality of the loss, detach our emotional investment, and "come to terms" with the loss so that we can move on to the next stage in life as we re-invest our energies. Yet we can get stuck in that sadness due to the kinds of maps that we construct about it. If we enjoy-our-sadness for whatever reason (e.g. secondary benefits, fulfillment of expectations, etc.) we may find it hard to release the sadness. Enjoying sadness may, in fact, describe a martyr-like state or victim-like state. Or we could believe-in-our-sadness and grief and loss—believing that we "must" feel sad for five years, for "the rest of our lives," or whatever other content our belief supplies. The most unuseful meta-state surrounding sadness, however, may consist of feeling sad-about-our-sadness. For here, sad-about-sad means that we have turned our psychic energy (our mental-emotional, psychological, neurological energies) against the very process of healing—sadness. This generates what we call "clinical depression." How does this work? In sadness and grief we take cognizance of a loss. We represent something as no longer available, no longer ours, no longer possible, no longer a part of our world. We have "lost" the desired and coveted items—a person, a relating to that person, a task, a skill, a status, a resource, etc. This loss may occur in the concrete level as when we no longer have someone to hug, some task to do and get paid for, etc. Or it may occur on a conceptual level—I can no longer think of myself as mother, wife, husband, friend, teacher, successful, etc. Or it may occur on an imaginary level as when a couple experiences a child born dead. In addition to their concrete losses and conceptual losses, they may have intensely and vividly imagined the child's first birthday party, taking him or her to kindergarten, etc. Now the loss of those hopes feels as much of a loss as if they had actually had those experiences. In this process of recognizing and feeling the loss, by grieving we detach and let go, and part of that process usually involves "pushing away" and -244-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 13

Integrating Strategies and Levels

"pushing down" our energies (i.e. hopes, desires, emotions, wants, etc.). We withdraw. We get off by ourselves. We disengage in the regular pleasures of life for awhile as we do the mental-emotional work of redefining ourselves, our life, our purpose and then regroup. So if we have a natural "pushing down" and withdrawing in grief and sadness—when we feel grief and sad about our sadness, we push down and withdraw from our own psychic energies. And to do that does not help things at all! We thereby turn our psychic energies against ourselves. "Depression" often results from this. This is not the only way we can create clinical depression. We can become angry at ourselves as Freud noted (anger turned inward). We can become angry and non-accepting of loss. We can believe that we are helpless and hopeless. We can frame ourselves as inadequate and defective. Modeling “Depression” Using Meta-Levels The authors of NLP: Volume I offered the following description of a depressive person in their discussion of design factors and the problem of accessing resources. They specifically address the kind of a response that some people make to certain stimuli: "Some depressives will have a polarity response to qualitative (interpretive / judgmental) words but not to sensory specific description. For instance, if you ask them if they ever had a good, positive or happy experience, they will have a polarity response. If, on the other hand, you ask them if they can think of a time when they could see clearly, were breathing fully and regularly in their stomach, etc., no such polarity response occurs." (p. 203)

Notice how this describes a person making a meta-move to certain stimuli. "To qualitative (interpretative/judgmental) words" (meta-levels) they polarize. But they do not make that kind of a response "to sensory specific" description words (primary level). What distinguishes these two kinds of words? Their logical levels. Sensory specific descriptions operate at the empirical primary level while qualitative words exist and operate at a metalevel of abstraction. Offer the depressive person a word at that level which so mismatches their reality and the generalizations that they have abstracted, and they will polarize to it.

-245-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 13

Integrating Strategies and Levels

Figure 13:6

Overall Presentation of Modeling II In the process of effective modeling, we have two domains to address —the modeling state (for the modeler) and the modeling process (for the content of expertise). The modeling state model includes such facets as accessing an appropriate enhancing state that allows the modeler to operate at his or her best. This entails accessing those supporting beliefs, presuppositions, values, and motivations for modeling. It also involves numerous skills that arise from the basic NLP model: eye accessing cues, linguistic markers, detection and elicitation skills, unpacking and designing skills, utilization and installation skills. The modeling process includes tracking “mind” via the representational steps and responses, the process description and the mind-body states that one accesses along the way, the sorting meta-programs, the contexts and frames within which the sensory responses operate, the intentional outcomes that drive or motivate the expert (or person being modeled), the expert’s supporting beliefs, values, motivations, the gestalts that arise from the systemic processes at work, etc. Systemic NLP: Modeling Using Meta-Levels As a summary Figure 13:8 offers a systemic portrait of NLP. As a system of interactions between many variables, this diagram explains the inadequacy of linear causation and the importance of mapping “causational” processes in terms of multiple interactive pieces. -246-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 13

Integrating Strategies and Levels

How do all of these meta-levels of frames and frames-of-frames interact with one another? Each functions as another variable in the total mindbody of our neuro-linguistic system. Therefore the way they relate, combine, and interact plays a tremendous role in understanding and therefore modeling subjective experience. Figure 13:7 The Modeler

The Strategy

To read this figure, begin reading from the bottom—at the sensory-based, descriptive level of life, the primary level. Here we experience the primary emotions of fear/anger, love/hate, attraction/aversion, tension/relaxation, joy/sadness. Here we represent the world using our VAK representational systems and language. Here consciousness goes out to the world—to the Pleroma. We think about things “out there.” Moving up the meta-levels, we access the result of previous representations and constructions. We move to the understandings, mappings, generalizations, etc. that we have created about various concepts: environment, people, self, relationships, causation, space-time, responsibility, values, proof, reality, etc. Each meta-level provides a context or frame that then organizes our mental world. Here we think about other thoughts, feelings, and internal experiences. These frames also govern, -247-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 13

Integrating Strategies and Levels

modulate, and “drive” the Primary Level experience (P-L)—creating our meta-programs, states, etc. The process of using the NLP model to model subjective experience involves “tracking where consciousness and neurology goes”—the sequences of the micro and macro “behaviors” that generate the experience. What does using meta-levels in this modeling mean? It means that we can now take into account the existence, effect, and dynamics that occur above the primary state experience. This means that we can now reckon with such mapping processes as— How we make evaluations and decisions about things. The standards (criteria) which we use to value as we make evaluations and decisions. This includes both the contextual or environmental criteria—the standards that we bring to bear in any given context and those personal criteria that we bring to bear universally and about self. The beliefs that we bring to bear about such concepts as causation, motivation, time-space, etc., and then the beliefs-about-beliefs or convictions. The beliefs about evidence or proof that comprises our understanding of “what is real,” and how they “prove” that to ourselves and others. The domains of understanding or background knowledge that we reference,

All of these meta-levels operate as the perceptual and cognitive domains that we reference and to which we travel in “making sense” and constructing reality. Previously, from Transformational Grammar, NLP referred to this as a Transderivational Search (TDS). Yet in using the depth metaphor, the TDS sent our minds to go down inside to find our referents. With meta-levels, we change the orientational metaphor. We speak about going in and up to our highest frames-of-reference that set the frame and establish our conceptual contexts. These meta-levels also operate not only sequentially, but simultaneously. This makes this whole system (the mind-body organism system of being a living person) complex. Each meta-level here actually operates as an attractor (theme, orientation) or frame-of-reference for the person. It sets the frame of his or her orientation in life — and functions as a canopy of consciousness in that it -248-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 13

Integrating Strategies and Levels

creates and solidifies the frame to create the person’s meta-programs (perceptual and cognitive sorting patterns). These meta-frames operate as the reference systems and domains— by which we reference such mental things as values, beliefs, understandings, decisions, categories, concepts, ideas, etc. This describes where “history” goes when we store it inside—the experiences we have as we move through “time” becomes our internal representational history—to which we make our internal travels (transderivational searches). It answers the question: “What are you referencing when you think that? Or feel that?” Figure 13:8

Advance Modeling using Meta-Levels

Beginning to Model When we integrate “logical” or meta levels into the Strategies Model we give birth to a fuller and more extensive model for modeling. We create a meta-levels strategy model. This leads us into incorporating logical levels into our strategy work thereby

-249-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 13

Integrating Strategies and Levels

enabling us to take the next step in our ongoing study of the structure of subjectivity. By so incorporating logical levels into the NLP Model we code the system factors that play such a crucial role in human consciousness and experience. In doing so, we enrich the possibilities of the model for tracking where brains-bodies go in response to stimuli—even the internal stimuli of previous responses. This provides us with some additional tools and diagrams for understanding the structure of subjectivity, especially those experiences that involve layered levels of consciousness on consciousness.

-250-

Chapter 14

ELICITATION Unpacking Multiple Layers

G

iven the vertical structure of “logical levels,” the art of unpacking self-reflexive consciousness as it generates multiple layers of states and awarenesses begins by learning to detect “logical” or meta levels in language and neurology. This involves cultivating the most valuable skill in working with meta-levels. In the third chapter of NLP: Volume I, the authors described the skill of elicitation in terms of moving oneself into a state of uptime, an intense sensory awareness. Next comes utilizing what they called the 4-tuple notation scheme (expanded by Dilts, 1983, to a 6-tuple) to track the sequential steps. After that they described unpacking a strategy via representational system predicates and neurological accessing cues (cues for eye movements, gestures, breathing patterns, and tone and tempo). As we now move into incorporating meta-levels, we add some additional strategy elicitation skills to these. Unpacking Meta-Levels of Language There are cues and clues in language. Our languaging tells on us when we move from one level to another. So, to increase awareness about when we move up into the realm of meta-levels and logical types, we need increased awareness of the language of meta-levels. I originally mentioned the existence of meta-level linguistic cues when I wrote the first book on metastates. In the glossary of Meta-States I simply mentioned a few kinds of -251-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 14

Elicitation and Meta-Levels

words that were clues. Since then the list has expanded and has become part of our certification training. In what follows you will find numerous linguistic expressions of meta-levels and meta-states. I offer these as suggestions for how to tune your awareness into the presence of metalevels. Use these linguistic cues to train your linguistic sense of this domain. In doing this, you will then develop your ability to move into conversational meta-stating. The Linguistics of Meta-Levels 1) State-about-state syntax. A meta-level construction results when we have one mind-body state that has reference to a lower or a primary level. Generally, a primary state refers to something beyond and outside of one's self. "I fear John." "I dislike that job." "I hate it when they talk that way." Its aboutness goes out, horizontally, to the world outside. By contrast, a meta-level experience or meta-state refers to a level-about-a-level, a classabout-a-member, or a state-about-a-state: "I fear my fear." "I feel calm about my anger." To catch these, listen for the juxtaposition of two states—for one state referencing another. Sometimes these will occur as in the previous examples, “I enjoy my curiosity.” Sometimes the juxtaposition may occur in a reverse format: “Whenever I feel upset like this, I really hate it and wonder if there’s something wrong with me.” Since "states" typically show up in language coded as nominalizations about "emotions"— listen for words that refer to specific emotions (joy, anger, fear, relaxation, etc.) that qualify another emotion. Hence, joyful grieving, depressing fear, dreadful anticipation, delightful learning, graceful acceptance. 2) Meta words. Many words imply (or can imply in some contexts) a meta position. These include: of, about, regarding, that, beyond, concerning, transcend, at, etc. "I feel upset about my stress..." "Well, regarding my grief about my dad's death, I feel..." "When you step back and wonder what would have happened if..." Pentony (1981) quoting Watzlawick who quotes Ellis who quotes Epictetus: "'It is not the things themselves which trouble us, but the opinions that we have about those things.' The word about in this quotation reminds us that

-252-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 14

Elicitation and Meta-Levels

any opinion (or view, attribution of meaning) is meta to the object of this opinion or view, and therefore of the next higher logical level."

Currently I have no exhaustive list of meta-words or phrases. Yet every week I find yet additional terms that fall into this area. Some of the ones that I really love to use include: Above and beyond this, I want you to think about... Now in terms of this idea, you can probably realize that... In light of what we’ve been discussing, how do you feel...

3) Self-words. Generally speaking, the word "self" with a hyphen indicates a meta-state or meta-level experience: self-confidence, self-esteem, selfcelebration, self-contempt, self-analysis, self-conscious, etc. Exceptions do occur (i.e., self-hypnosis, self-awareness, etc.). 4) Classification Words. Whenever we hear classification kind of words (groups, levels, degrees, etc.) or statements that describe, or presuppose, levels of classifications—we probably have a rare and unprecedented opportunity to pull back the structural curtain on the fabric of subjective reality before us to discover hidden meta-states. Here the "class" words inherent in multiordinal words provide us another pathway to this realm. This show up in such nominalizations as "men," "women," "time," "bowlers," etc. We can test classification words as we do nominalizations: “Can you put the class term in a wheelbarrow?” “Can you see, hear, or feel it?” The second test is to see if it fits the phrase, “An ongoing X.” If it does, it’s a nominalization. 5) Quotations and Narratives. Did you catch the meta-leveling above in (2)? A sneaky way that Bandler and Grinder often worked with meta-levels (without using this terminology of course) involved layering consciousness through the use of "quotes." They would tell a story, open up a narrative, and within that description put another quote of a quote. Such layering of various thoughts-representations-emotions (states) would create larger and larger levels of frames and contexts (each inducing or accessing various states). In a construction of nested loops or nested stories, we typically find levels meta to each other. In Trainers Training, we make this explicit as we describe how a presenter can open up a presentation with a quote or narrative story, and then open up another and another, etc. When one -253-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 14

Elicitation and Meta-Levels

eventually gets to the middle of the presentation—one simply inserts a strong propositional point such as a theme, idea, task, or skill. Imagine “becoming more resourceful than you have ever been before now...” Having set up the layering of nested stories or ideas, consciously or unconsciously people typically begin to feel a need for closure. In doing this, a presenter stimulates a particular kind of response potential, namely, that of hearing something direct and specific. This explains the power that emerges when the presenter clearly, succinctly, without confusion, and with closure, suddenly presents a learning, skill, or state. This becomes, as it were, the center of the mental-emotional swirling. Then, upon delivering the heart of the message, the presenter could then consistently and methodically begin “back out” of the loops, closing them one by one. By design, this layering of consciousness creates expectation and anticipation and then satisfies the tension. This kind of eloquence of presentation simultaneously meta-states the entire audience. In traditional NLP training regarding nested loops, a person receives a diagrammatic chart similar to Figure 14:1. This chart aims to portray the idea of setting up nested loops by opening up an idea, state, or story. Then later, on the way back out of the maze of states, the presenter would close the loops. We have several dynamics and principles operating within the idea of the nested loop structure. First we have the idea of state induction and the directionalizing of consciousness. That is, when someone brings something up, whether an idea, thesis, story, or metaphor, it invites our brains-andneurology to go somewhere. We represent the ideas and it puts us in state. Each loop evokes another state or direction: confusion, curiosity, motivation, insight, wonder, etc. The structure also contains the principle of anchoring. In eliciting and amplifying these states and internal experiences, the presenter anchors them with gestures, words, tones, volumes, etc. If the presenter does this systemically and methodically, it can generate a clean and discrete anchor for a loop. As such, this provides the speaker with a way to more effectively manage the learning and installing experience of the presentation.

-254-

NLP: Going Meta

Figure 14:1

Chapter 14

Elicitation and Meta-Levels

Nested Loops

he structure also contains the principle of anchoring. In eliciting and As the -255-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 14

Elicitation and Meta-Levels

As the speaker comes to the end of the speech or training session, he or she begins to “close the loops” by finishing the stories, ideas, etc. This brings an end to the mental and emotional tension that the speaker had “opened.” By closing the states or loops opened in a reverse fashion, it supposedly puts the mind in a spin so that it takes a person to the center point. For me there are a lot of questions about whether “opening and closing loops” actually works this way. The structure works with the meta-program continuum from chaos to closure. You will find that meta-program in the book, Figuring Out People, (#37. Closure/ Non-Closure). This relates to how much chaos, complexity, ambiguity, and confusion a person can tolerate and how much closure one has to have. The more closure one needs, the more the mind-and-emotions will crave and hunger for closure. The more a person can tolerate ambiguity (a meta-state), the less effect this process will have. We have a slightly different way to think about these nested loops using meta-levels. Here, as we view the process in terms of logical types, we obtain a different kind of structure and understanding (Figure 14:2). To think about it in terms of levels and meta-levels, begin by considering the central message or learning (whether an insight, state, skill, etc.) as the primary state or experience. What you as a presenter will present, or you as a listener will receive, at the heart and core of the experience is a kinesthetically powerful learning. Everything else is set-up. Everything else works to facilitate the reception of that core. So to do that, we build up “nested loops” as preparatory experiences, states, stories, etc. that builds response potential. We use all of the other “loops” to heighten the tension and build it up. All of the “loops” then operate in a meta-position to the heart of this mental-and-emotional whirlwind. All of the “loops” function as about the central experience or learning. We bring them to bear on the central state. All of the other states and experiences function as meta-levels to empower and intensify them. In the example, we open up with accessing thoughts-and-feelings of enthusiasm about an exercise. Then we bring wanton motivation about the exercise. Then we bring preparatory understandings about it, then desire to use it. We get people pumped up for it. We get them to the place where -256-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 14

Elicitation and Meta-Levels

they want to scream, “Okay, enough is enough! I’m ready. I’ll do it! Just tell me!” "So you want to learn to 'Manage Your Mind' more effectively? Does that mean you feel tired of your mind managing you, and that you feel ready to expend the energy and effort to learn some truly powerful tools for running your own brain? ... More powerful tools than you can even imagine? ... Well, good! Because if you already have that kind of awareness and commitment, to do that, then I think you'll really have a lot of fun in the learning process of getting your mind to mind you..."

Figure 14:2a

Figure 14:2b

Nested Loops as Meta-Levels

Nested Loops as Meta-Levels

-257-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 14

Figure 14:2c

Nested Loops as Meta-Levels

Figure 14:2d

Nested Loops as Meta-Levels

Elicitation and Meta-Levels

6) Logical Level Shifts. Some words, terms, and phrases shift us from one level of consciousness to a higher level. Consider the following sentence: "I know that she means well, but I feel really hurt by what she did."

Here, the word "but" negates the previous words. It negates the idea of the first phrase, "She means well." The speaker now shifts the focus of the listener to "she hurt me." The statement does not say, "She does not mean well," yet we often hear it as conveying or implying that very meaning. How does it do that? It does so by shifting our awareness to a higher logical level. When we so experience the "but" as shifting us from the lower level of awareness and emotion to a higher state, then it allows that higher level to -258-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 14

Elicitation and Meta-Levels

drive, organize, and control the lower state. Conceptually then, the hurt she evoked in me governs and controls our thinking and emoting over her good intentions. By contrast, notice the effect of "and" in the same sentence. "I know that she means well, and I feel really hurt by what she did."

Figure 14:3

Meta-Stating And and But

This statement organizes and structures the thoughts-emotions of the listener to stay on the same logical level. This has an additive effect (adding this state to that state) which in NLP frequently has the effect of collapsing the two states together. 7) Adjectives that Qualify States. When a word qualifies a state or experience from a higher level it "brings another level to bear upon it." In doing this, we apply the higher level to the lower level. We include the lower as we transcend to a higher level. This enables us to see the lower level in terms of the higher level. When this happens, structurally we have a meta-level format. Again, notice that in the following list we generally have two "emotional" words (class words) with one modifying the other. Gladly embrace Tolerable anxiety Unacceptable grief Unconscious thinking Deliberate inhibition Forgetting to deliberately inhibit

Bitterly criticize Sharing hesitantly Stubbornly insistent Helpless defeatism Ferocious resolve Ferocious attachment

This gives us another hiding place for meta-states. They hide in adjectives. This provides an extremely powerful way to meta-state conversationally. -259-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 14

Elicitation and Meta-Levels

By using adjectives in our everyday speech, we invite people to “make sense” of our words and ideas by outframing one level with a higher level. This activates the reflexive mind of our listeners so that they bring whatever idea, state, experience, etc. to bear on the subject. “You really have the ability to get in touch with your anger! [Validation and acceptance of anger] And I’m wondering if you fully know what it would feel like if you could then express that valuable anger respectfully so that the person could truly hear and receive the message that you want him or her to receive?”

Notice the meta-stating effect of the -ly terms. “Fully” brings the idea of full, fullness, and completeness to bear upon “knowing.” “Truly” brings the ideas of true and real to bear upon “hearing.” “Respectfully” brings respect and honor to bear upon the angering. Of course, fully knowing that will only truly empower you to powerfully recognize meta-states more easily, will it not? 8) Pseudo-feeling terms. We call many things "emotions" or "feelings" which are not "emotions" or "feelings" at all. (We discussed this under “Gestalting of Meta-States,” Chapter 11.) Instead of having a somatized, body sensation, we rather have a judgment. This allows us to create such pseudo-feeling words and terms by using a syntactic environment like "I feel..." Then, to that structure we add some judgment. Usually this indicates a meta-level. By it we have moved up to a conceptual or semantic state encoded primarily by language. Oddly enough, if you ask the question of that meta-feeling, "And how do you feel about that?" you will usually get a real feeling with kinesthetic qualities in response. It will take you back down to the primary level. I feel like a king / royal I feel alienated I feel spectacular I feel helpless I feel like I need closure I feel dumb He felt like he was being born again I feel useless She felt horrified that she might learn something new!

To flush out a pseudo-feeling, inquire about where in the body a person feels the declared feeling. "Where do you feel dumb?" "Where do you feel this 'low self-esteem?" "How low do you feel it— as low as in your knee, down to your ankle?"

-260-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 14

Elicitation and Meta-Levels

9) Multiordinal Terms. As mentioned earlier, these words and terms operate as "class" words indicating an entire class of significance and so carry different meanings on different levels of abstractions. They grow out of nominalizations. This means that their specific meanings will vary depending upon context and level. Korzybski (1933/ 1994) wrote, "If we reflect upon our languages, we find that at best they must be considered only as maps. A word is not the object it represents, and languages exhibit also this peculiar self-reflexiveness... this selfreflexiveness of languages introduces serious complexities, which can only be solved by the theory of multiordinality..." (p. 58)

A way to test for whether a term operates in a multiordinal way consists of checking whether we can apply it to itself. This tests for self-reflexivity. Do you love John? Do you love loving John? Do you love loving love?

Do you have a prejudice? Suppose you had a prejudice against that prejudice?

By way of contrast, this test will not work on non-multiordinal words. He spit at her. Did he spit at his spitting at her? I like that chair. Do you chair that chair?

10) Presupposing a state-on-a-state or level upon a level. In such presuppositions, the logical level occurs structurally in a hidden and nonobvious way. Thus: "It must feel really hard to have to pretend that you can please her since you know that you never have and probably never will."

This statement paces the person's primary state of difficulty, "I appreciate your overall difficulty" (P-S). It also identifies that structurally, the person had brought another state, "pretending" to bear upon his primary state of "pleasing," which in turn, generated the overall gestalt of placating. "It sounds like you have already come to the realization that your anxiety about your masculinity takes you nowhere useful."

To the person's primary state of representing a concept, "masculinity," he had suffered the emotion of anxiety about it, and then the realization of the fruitlessness of anxietying about it. "It seems that you'd like to say or do X, but to do so would make you selfish or mean."

-261-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 14

Elicitation and Meta-Levels

To whatever primary experience (X), this person classifies that experience in the class of items that he identifies as "selfish" or "mean." To this we can then presuppose another level by simply asking, "Does this way of thinking really help you manage these areas of conflict or does it prevent you from speaking authentically and forthrightly to this person? And, by the way, if you can't express yourself honestly—doesn't that contain some meanness and selfishness?" "What would you feel if you could pretend to do X, thinking it meant you knew how to protect your personal boundaries, and then forgot about your pretending?" "I can appreciate how fearful it would feel to X on the one hand, and yet on the other hand, it could feel exciting..."

11) Meta-State or Meta-Level Questions. Ask questions that presuppose eliciting meta-states that enable the person to access more resourcefulness, gain awareness of logical levels, etc. "How important do you think it to take this understanding into consideration as you engage in ...? " Here we have three-levels: (Importance of) (Understanding) some primary experience. "What does all of this lead to?" (Cause-Effect awareness of) (future representations) about primary state experience. “What question could I ask you that you would really enjoy answering?” “When you get that outcome in just the way you want it, what will that give you that you find even more valuable and important to you?”

12) Up-Lapping (overtly or covertly). Dilts (1983) presented a covert form of meta-level eliciting by means of what he termed "overlapping" as we overlap from one representational system to another. Here, inasmuch as we move from one level up to another level, I have designated this as uplapping. Dilts wrote: "Overlapping is the process of accessing seemingly diverse 6-tuples that are unrelated except one or two shared components. The effect of the overlapping tends to reinforce the shared components and increase their amount of signal. This technique is particularly useful for indirect or covert work. An example of this tactic would be to mention instances of reading very late at night, or instance of being sick as a child, or taking a nap after work. A probable point of overlap in these experiences is the act of lying in bed in a passive or weary state of mind. Experiences such as your first date, awaiting the dessert at a restaurant, or the night before your birthday as a child would share a component of anticipation." (1983, Part III, pp. 53-54)

-262-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 14

Elicitation and Meta-Levels

Here he describes eliciting three states or references and letting the auditor hear and draw his or her own conclusions by generalizing (going up a logical level) about similarities in the referents. As they discover or create the meta-level commonalities within the referents, they "up-lap" over from each one up to the same conclusion. This induces them into a trance-like state or a meta-level state of anticipation. Languaging the Elicitation (Conversational Meta-Stating) Use the following exercises to cultivate your skill in handling language that presupposes self-reflexivity which incorporates multi-levels. By constructing meta-level statements so that you build them up gives a more ingrained sense of how the linguistic structures work. In turn, it alerts you to such structures as you hear people talk or as you read. On a sheet of blank paper, design ten to twenty questions that you could use in your work, business, or personal relationships whereby you could elicit some useful and powerfully positive meta-states in others. "How much joy did you get from doing that unpleasant task knowing that it means you obtained a victory over your moods?"

Once you have your questions in hand, then conversationally meta-state someone with them by imagining, fully and completely, speaking these statements to that person. Now pick out the most powerful five sentences that you can use in your work to conversationally move someone to a useful meta-level to make sense of your talk. One fun way to practice this involves writing meta-level statements that pronounce a blessing or benediction upon someone. For example: "May you thoroughly enjoy your discoveries as your curiosity explores freshly with anticipation so that it activates your memory in new and delightful ways making you more creative and insightful than ever before, now!" "I trust that you will find yourself enraptured in an ecstatic kind of joy about your new learnings as you read and discover either afresh or anew more powerful and impactful ways to apply all of your NLP learnings, knowing that you will begin to surprise yourself in applying your more refined skills in ways that make life more enjoyable."

For a meta-state invocation, try this one: "Now as you begin to learn with an excited anticipation of the curious and wonder-filled things you might find in this model, may you ferociously enjoy your learning and find yourself appreciating your skill for -263-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 14

Elicitation and Meta-Levels

implementing just those things that would truly enhance and ennoble your life! And you can do this with a growing sense of appreciation for your creativity as you enjoy watching yourself with confidence and wondering excitedly how much this will improve your flexibility and resourcefulness."

I once spoke the following to a young man I had as a client who had a "hot temper." He also tended to respond by polarizing to almost anything anybody said to him (especially authority figures). To make matters worse, he would do it in a know-it-all way conveying an arrogant superiority to heighten any listener’s inferiority. Needless to say, he didn't have a friend in the world, couldn't keep a job, had no girlfriend—and to top all of that, he just couldn't figure out why. In working with him about his anger, I generated the following meta-level conversation piece. "Jim, I have puzzled for several days... and I don't know the answer to a question, and don't know if you know the answer to this question, or even if you could find the answer if you really tried... but it has been bothering me. Well, anyway, I've been wondering about what would happen if you had the absolute ability to be un-insultable ... and I know that’s impossible, but just if you did have that ability simply because your own sense of your innate dignity felt so secure that it gave you the freedom to always turn down an invitation to take insult no matter how much insult someone tried in vain to offer you... I'm just wondering how that would affect your everyday experience in driving in traffic, at work, and at home...."

Elicitation Questions (Identifying Kantian Categories) Flushing out hidden layers of thoughts-and-feelings about other thoughts and feelings moves us into a domain of some high level conceptualizations. After all, as we continue to abstract from previous abstractions—we move into an increasingly more "abstract" realm of consciousness. Here we move into those arenas most uniquely human where we raise existential issues about personhood, self, origin, destiny, being, purpose, meaning, etc. Not only do meta-levels move NLP more fully into the area that humanistic psychology has occupied (Maslow, Carl Rogers, Assagioli, etc.), but also into the domain of philosophy. Because one level upon another level generates semantic and conceptual states of consciousness, we experience the Kantian categories.

-264-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 14

Elicitation and Meta-Levels

Kantian categories refer to those categories that Immanuel Kant (1787) asserted exist inside human beings a priori (prior to our experiences in the world) and therefore apart from our abstracting from the world. Much of his formulation corresponds to Noam Chomsky's (1956) work and argumentation of language as an a priori category—that the "rules" of grammar, for how language works, comes innately wired in the human brain and not learned via environment. These higher-level abstractions arise in human consciousness as emergent properties of the meta-system of consciousness. Dilts (1983) noted this: "In NLP, notions of self and volition are also considered emergent properties. Choices and decisions are constantly being made about all aspects of behavior. It is only when one is aware of the process that he/she claims to be in 'control' of them." (p. 12)

Without getting into the philosophical debate whether these categories exist a priori, or whether we create them via our abstracting, I offer the following list of words taken first from Kant, and then others, that describe many of these high level human conceptualizations that make up a great deal of our semantic "reality." I do not believe that the source of such categories (internal or external) matters. I prefer to give more importance to the fact that we all experience such concepts and conceptual states. Time-Space Past/Future Masculinity/Femininity Self-esteem/ self-concept Emotionality Relationships Meaning of life Human destiny/purpose

Figure 14:4

Justice/ Fairness Materialism Cause (causation) Intellectuality Other people Motivation Consequences

Meta-Stating Self

-265-

Race Self Culture Control Values Morality Responsibility

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 14

Elicitation and Meta-Levels

In primary state experiences, we think about such things. We process the abstraction of "time," and have time-awareness, we think about "causation" by asking what causes what, what made this or that happen, we think about masculinity or femininity, etc. As we so process and create representations of these abstractions, we go into various semantic states. We do this by attributing meaning to these abstractions. Then later, as we develop thoughts-feelings about these Kantian "realities" (with our representing and abstracting), we develop even higher structured states. These thoughts-feelings of beliefs, conceptualizations, understandings, etc. about other beliefs, conceptualizations describe even more abstract abstractions. In this way we not only develop the "causeeffect" abstraction, but we develop thoughts-feelings about cause-effect and the cause-effect world. How do you feel about causation? What thoughts and ideas do you entertain about those feelings? Then with these metaabstractions we induce ourselves into even higher and more layered metastates. Usually we do not even notice this process. Our ability to think about our thoughts operates so quickly, naturally, and inevitably that we make these logical level leaps without missing a beat. These processes also occur without notice because these meta-levels involve weak kinesthetic components. It seems like (feels like) all of these processes occur more “in the mind,” than in the body. Because as we code and represent these thoughts-feelings about other thoughts-feelings primarily in language, this shifts us from primary sensations or feelings (actual body sensations, kinesthetics, internal visceral experiences) to secondary sensations or emotions (made up of part cognition and part feeling), and then onto thirdlevel sensations, or abstract emotions or mental judgments about the emotions. So the genesis and character of states differ according to their level of abstraction. Most animals, having little to no symbol-using capacity (only signal capacity) do not have second-order feelings and emotions. Only the more intelligent animals seem capable of making one meta-jump. Teasing Out Meta-Structures and Frames All meta-levels in our mind are made up of the same “stuff” that we have at the primary level. We use our see-hear-feel representations and words to build up meanings at the meta-levels, the matrices of our mind. The following set of questions in various categories offers lots of ways to -266-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 14

Elicitation and Meta-Levels

explore and elicit the higher level structures. As you use these, remember the different categories are not different things— they are just other ways of expressing the same thing, the meta-frame. This means that we can view a “meaning” as a belief, a value, an identity, an understanding, etc. Every frame has every one of these categories within it. Confused? This is precisely what confuses most of us about the higher levels of our minds. When we nominalize these categories, “Beliefs,” “Values,” etc. they mis-cue our minds-bodies and we begin to think of them as “things.” They are not. All of these words are but expressions of various mental processes—the framings that we do which create our neuro-semantic reality. 1. Meanings: the “ideas” that we keep holding in mind (to hold in mind). What does this mean to you? What else does it mean to you? How much meaning does it hold for you?

2. Beliefs: the “ideas” that we affirm, validate, and confirm. What do you believe about that? How much do you value that belief? Do you have any beliefs about that belief? How have you confirmed that belief? How strong is that confirmation?

3. Values: “ideas” that you value, treat as important and significant. How is that important to you? What do you believe about that value? Why is that important or valuable to you?

4. Identity: the “ideas” we build up about our “self,” the ideas we use in self-defining. Does this affect your self-definition or identity? How does it affect the way you think about yourself? What does this say about how you perceive yourself? 5. Aboutness: the “ideas” we have about other ideas. What do you think about that? What do you feel about that? What comes to mind when you entertain that thought? 6. Principles: the “ideas” that we treat as guidelines, laws, settled conclusions. What principles do you hold about that? I understand _________what about that? How does this idea work? -267-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 14

Elicitation and Meta-Levels

7. Decisions: the “ideas” that we separate and “cut off” (cision) from other ideas or choices so that we say Yes to some and No to others. What decisions drive this? So what will you do? How would you complete the phrase, “I will _________” what? Or, if you use, “I choose ___________.”? Or, “I feel ___________.” ? 8. Intentions: the “ideas” you have about motive, intent, desire, wants. What is your purpose in this? What is your intent in this? What do you get from that? And when you get that as you want it, what will that get for you? Why is that valuable to you? 9. Outcome: the “ideas” we have about goals, outcomes, desired ends. How do you want to see this turn out? What do you want from this? What consequences do you hope will come from this? 10. Understandings: the “ideas” you have that “stand under” you as mental support for your world. What do you understand about that? What knowledge do you have about this? 11. Expectations: the “ideas” we have about what we anticipate will happen. So what are you expecting? Where did you learn to expect that? 12. Paradigms, Models, Schemas: the “ideas” that come together as more complex mappings about things. What paradigm (model, schema) drives and informs this? What paradigm are you relying on in your understandings?

13. Metaphors, Non-Linguistic Symbols: the “ideas” that take form symbolic or non-linguistic ways. What is this like? If this was a color, what color would it be? If this was an animal? What would this sound like if you put it to music? If you made up a poem or story about this, what would you say?

A Neuro-Semantic Exercise To elicit these high level abstractions from someone we essentially "chunk them up" the scale of specificity/abstraction (James and Woodsmall, 1988, -268-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 14

Elicitation and Meta-Levels

p. 194, Hall and Bodenhamer, 1997b, Appendix E). We can do this by using meta-questions: "How do you feel about that?" Recycling this question over and over enables us to move a person to higher and higher meta-levels. It will move one up to his or her own idiosyncratic “logical levels.” I have found this effective in counseling, business consulting, and workshop training. To elicit from a person the meta-levels within their own logical level system, we only need to inquire about the meaning the person gives to a meaning (meaning @ meaning). This flushes out semantic realities and introduces the realm of Neuro-Semantics. To play with this, simply pick one of the Kantian categories, or any belief, value, understanding and then explore meta-level questions about it. "What do you believe about that belief?" "What do you feel about it?" "What does it say about you or about your future?"

To do it on the category of "self," ask, "What do you believe (know, hope) about yourself?" "And how do you feel about that?" To do it on the category of emotions or even more specifically negative emotional states, "How do you feel, think, or perceive about your negative states?" In Meta-State trainings, I invite participants to pick a Kantian category that they "have a problem with." Many pick such things as: "relationships," "time," "confrontation," "death," "responsibility." Yet regardless of what they pick, this instruction presupposes and flushes out, their meta logical level of negativity against and about that category. And, knowing about meta-levels, we know that that very frame itself creates and gives them the “problems" they have with that conceptual category. Then, in exercise groups, they move each other to higher levels via resourceful meta-questioning. "How do you feel about those thoughts-andfeelings about that?" Next, to create a wonderful and powerful shift, they ask/induce the following. "If you didn't have this difficulty with this conceptual category at all ... as you imagine living, thinking, feeling, acting, moving through the world without that difficulty, describe what your experience would then seem and feel like to you ... we know this isn't real, so just pretend you have made that shift, and just begin to describe it fully..."

-269-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 14

Elicitation and Meta-Levels

Therapeutic Elicitation of Logical Levels A Sentence Stem Completion Exercise We humans cannot turn off our self-reflexive consciousness. Just try it if you doubt that. What thoughts-feelings just raced through your consciousness about turning it off? We always and inevitably create concepts and states about whatever we think and feel. This explains why we can so easily get tangled up in our own thoughts-and-feelings about other thoughts and feelings and create a real meta-muddle. "You think too much!" someone may charge. Yet the problem does not actually arise from thinking too much. The problem involves failing to track our thinking and failing to run Quality Control checks on our thinking. Reflexive thinking can tie a person up in knots and initiate a non-existing looping that goes around and around with thoughts about thoughts about thoughts when we lack consciousness of the reflexivity. The problem can then be exasperated if once we get caught up in a loop with no exit, if we jump a level to become afraid of it, angry at it, self-depreciating because of it, etc. Outframing with negative emotions only solidifies and locks in the recursive looping. Without tracking the logical levels that our consciousness "jumps in single bounds," we can easily confuse levels. This leads to category errors of logical levels. To discover more specifically how you may create morbid meta-states, and turn your psychic energy against yourself, use the following questions to evoke a list of responses. In workshops, I have participants write a single question at the top of a blank sheet of paper and then generate five to ten responses as rapidly as possible without judging or evaluating what they wrote or their spelling. (If you judge your response, "What a stupid thing to think!" you have just brought thoughts-and-feelings of "stupidity" to bear on your first thought!) What I have tabooed in my life consists of... What I feel intolerant about includes ... The states I do not allow myself to experience... The states I forbid in myself and/or others... The wishes I not allow into my awareness... The impulses I condemn as not acceptable... What I fear about X (any negative emotion) is... (For X substitute: disgust, hate, fear, anger, embarrassment, shame, guilt, religious feelings, awe, optimism, hope, love, sexuality, revenge, feeling grand and glorious, etc.) -270-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 14

Elicitation and Meta-Levels

Eliciting Self-Expectancies What do you expect of yourself? Expectancies about our states set up selffulfilling prophecies so that, "As we expect—so we create and get!" I offer you the following sentence stems as a way whereby you can begin to identify the self-fulfilling prophecies that may, even now, continue to govern your life apart from your awareness. Such self-fulfilling prophecies will work at meta-levels as attractors in a self-organizing system. That describes their danger. To each of the sentence stems generate five to ten statements as rapidly as you can. Again, use a blank sheet of paper for each one: When disappointments occur, I can expect to think-feel ... When someone rejects me, I can expect to think-and-feel ... When someone criticizes me... When I recognize a character flaw in myself... When I feel angry... When I feel afraid... When I feel grief, loss, sad... When I feel guilty... When I feel weak or vulnerable... When I recognize I've made a mistake... When I feel disappointed in myself...

Structurally, self-expectancies identify a cognitive-emotive system containing logical levels. It specifically identifies the unique and idiosyncratic structure that governs an individual's life. As you elicit such structures, especially keep an eye open for spirals of characteristics. This refers to how a characteristic way of responding can habituate so well that we then indiscriminately apply it. It then begins to create a spiraling of characteristics: negativity, victimhood, discounting, self-contempting, etc. This describes the looping effect we can get into in our meta-level strategies. We hate our anger and then judge ourselves negatively for that hatred, etc. Recognizing Belief Molecules & Molecules-of-Molecules In Changing Belief Systems With NLP, Robert Dilts (1990) introduced the idea of a belief synesthesia. He noted that in a strategy, we have a sequence of representational systems, but that in a synesthesia we have these representations "all grouped together," and they "feed off each other" (p. 29). Illustrating this with a "failure" synesthesia, Robert elicited the structure by sorting out the representations and orienting them to their proper accessing cues. He asked the person to "go into this state and just -271-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 14

Elicitation and Meta-Levels

take the feelings, and put your eyes down to the right and then take the sounds and put them down to the left..." (p. 30). This process enables us to both elicit and unpack the meta-level strategy simultaneously. It does so because it allows us to track "where the brain goes" both horizontally and linearly and vertically as the strategy frequently will jump up a logical level as the person entertains thoughts about some thoughts or feelings about some feeling, etc. Robert did this by asking some questions that presupposed a higher logical level, "If you have a bad feeling (K-), how do you know it is 'bad?'" (p. 32). This meta-question elicits the higher frames we use for definition and description. To answer that question we have to move up a level from the K to our evaluative judgments about it. While Robert only talked about belief molecules, he could have just as well talked about molecules-about-molecules. If he had, he would have introduced logical levels into that model. Simply by asking any meta-level question, we elicit the higher frame and flush out the frame by implication. After we have pulled apart the molecule of a belief with all of its VAK representations and meta-levels, we can ask, "Now just step back for a moment and look at all of these pieces of that belief, and as you do, you might want to bring to it some newer and better learning that you can apply to this that will make it more useful for you."

Since any message-about-a-message (using any modality, primary or meta) outframes, by moving up a level, this enables us to elicit increasingly more information about it while simultaneously changing, altering, re-designing, and installing something else. Preparing to Model While we will continue to elicit meta-strategies using the sensorybased representational systems and the neurological accessing cues, as we move up logical levels, we increasingly use the metarepresentational systems of language and symbols about symbols. This necessitates learning to tune our eyes and ears to see and hear meta-levels as we work with people who present their subjective experiences. Now how much of a total sense of proficiency and confidence would you like to develop about your ability to go meta in your own thoughts-feelings and in working conversationally with others?

-272-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 14

Elicitation and Meta-Levels

And, just suppose you did that in the spirit of fun and playfulness... How would that enrich your learnings?

-273-

Chapter 15

UTILIZATION Using Meta-Levels for Maximizing Resourcefulness

U

tilizing Strategies refers to the actual and practiced use of the strategies that we detect and unpack. This describes what we do with a model once we have elicited it or developed it. Dilts et al. (1980) identified and emphasized three NLP skills as inherent in utilization: pacing, flexibility, and anchoring. Pacing We use pacing when we match another person's style of thinking, representation systems, sequence of representations, neurological and linguistic forms, etc. We do this to connect with the person using his or her model of the world and strategy for a particular experience. Matching another’s subjective reality in this way typically initiates or evokes in that person a felt sense of rapport—connection, understanding, trust. Flexibility We use flexibility when we vary our own responses in the process of working with a strategy, whether our own or another's. We do this in order to continually adjust our movements toward a desired outcome that we have targeted. When we notice that a response does not work, we shift and produce another response. We vary our behaviors. This intentional flexibility enables us to use ongoing feedback in a purposeful way in service of our outcome.

-274-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 15

Utilization and Meta-Levels

Anchoring We use anchoring when we connect a stimulus to some response (a thought, feeling, sensory representation, state). In doing this, anchoring provides us with a “technology” whereby we can move experience around in a person’s time and space dimensions. Described as a user friendly version of classical Pavlovian conditioning, anchoring enables us to manage experiences in a multitude of symbolic systems. In their seminal work of NLP: Volume I the NLP co-developers primarily stressed anchoring as the process for accessing and reaccessing representations, and for then moving experiences from a resourceful strategy in order to install them into another strategy. They used anchoring as well to create new reference experiences. With these strategy skills for modeling, they applied such to the domains of education, business, sales, advertizing, recruiting, medicine, law, and psychotherapy. Now with the model of fluid logical levels of meta-states, how do we advance the field of modeling using meta-levels and the going meta process? How will the meta-levels play out in the process of utilization?

We will, of course, continue to utilize the NLP processes and skills of pacing, flexibility, and anchoring. In fact, as we move to meta-level structures, we will need even more ability and skill in these powerful processes. Incorporating meta-level structures into our model of modeling necessitates that we expand and enrich these foundational skills. After all, we now have more variables and complexity to address. Taking meta-levels into account further exemplifies the importance of the basic NLP communication guideline, namely, "The response you get from a person or group indicates the meaning of your communication to that person (or group) regardless of what you intended (your meaning.)" This NLP communicational presupposition means that if someone does not interpret my communication in the way I intend and want, then assuming responsibility for this result, I will vary my 2behavior. I will continue to vary my behavioral responses until I find a way to get my intended message across to the other party.

-275-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 15

Utilization and Meta-Levels

Feedback, in this model, lets us know when, and to what degree, our responses work in eliciting our desired responses. This lets us know when to continue and when to change our behavior. In this way, our ability to make refined sensory distinctions becomes a most valuable resource in working with people and their strategies. Corrective feedback describes how we actually live out and use the TOTE model in our everyday behaviors. In saying this I refer to the concept behind the TOTE model of Miller, Galanter, and Pribram (1960). Namely, the realization that our behavioral programs operate by fixing a goal (or desired outcome) and then constantly varying our responses in an effort to achieve that goal, as we keep an eye on that goal. We first set a desired outcome, then we test to see if we already have it or not. If not, then we operate. We act to change something in order to move closer to our goal. Then we test again. We check our present experience with our desired objective. Does it yet match or not? If it does, we have achieved our objective. So we exit the behavioral program. We have nothing else to do. If it does not match, we keep operating or acting. We keep adjusting the variables of our actions and responses. In this ongoing process of seeking to achieve our objectives—our ability to receive corrective feedback completely governs our ability to continually grow, evolve, and improve. Without such feedback, we lack the necessary information to know how we are doing. Feedback empowers us to keep adjusting, correcting, honing, improving. Utilization Skills Utilization, as a modeling process, speaks about applying and using strategies. So what unique utilization skills do we need as we take this next step in strategy work? What skills become especially important in negotiating meta-levels? As a summary, I have detailed the following utilization skills that become critically important in using and implementing this model. 1) The Skill of Meta-Thinking and Meta-Languaging While NLP has longed described and talked about "going meta," it has typically done so in very limited and general ways. As we now make metamoves in modeling, we need to make this a skill as important as the other utilization skills (i.e. pacing and leading, detecting linguistic accessing cues, -276-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 15

Utilization and Meta-Levels

detecting neurological accessing cues, anchoring, etc.). We also need to specify some of the processes involved in “going meta,” namely, thinking, languaging, and conceptualizing at meta-levels. To put some flesh and blood on this, consider the following example. This story appeared first in NLP: Volume I. "A person in one of our workshops had taken beginning French a total of five times over a number of years, failing the tests each time. He was not a poor student and did well in his other classes. He kept taking French because he needed a foreign language to graduate, and he figured that surely, because he had taken it so many times before, he would eventually pass the class. Besides, his ability to use it outside the classroom keep improving, and certainly this was an indicator that he was learning. Utilizing the process of transderivational search, we discovered that at the beginning of each of his tests, when he was handed the test sheet, an extremely negative 4-tuple would be anchored with, a memory of his first French teacher, whom he despised. This would, of course, short circuit his strategies for recall. As he grew anxious at the thought of failing the test again, the two negative experiences would form a two point loop, each anchoring the other. The effect snowballed such that he could not adequately complete the test. Because this had happened at every test, it also became a selffulfilling prophecy. Every time he studied for or took a French test an internal dialogue would be triggered that said something like, 'Oh no, what if I fail this test... I probably will". Because this kind of dialogue and his negative feelings were solidly anchored to the test context he was continually blocked from accessing his usually effective resource strategy.

Ai, Vi, Ki, 0 Negative 4-tuple of first French Teacher

KiAnxiousness about test

His condition was resolved by integrating the negative 4-tuple and the dialogue with other resource experiences, and by giving him a well conditioned anchor for relaxation and for eliciting his recall strategy." (pp. 156-157)

While this linear strategy works fine, it fails to take into consideration the meta-levels of conceptual and semantic states that this young man had created for himself and therefore experienced in the context of learning -277-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 15

Utilization and Meta-Levels

French. It fails to identify his idiosyncratic “logical levels” (his psychologics) that put him into a "self-fulfilling prophecy" mess. Did you detect the meta-levels via the description? If you did not, then give yourself the opportunity to practice your "going meta" skills right now. Go back and reread the passage to search for the meta-levels inherent in the description. As you do, especially pay attention to the meta-language patterns and linguistic markers in the description identified in the previous chapter. The key line that caught my attention began, "As he grew anxious at the thought of failing the test again." What did he think-and-feel about at this point in the process? An idea. "The thought of..." Here he moved to a meta-level of consciousness and reflexively experienced thoughts-andfeelings about his previous thoughts-feelings. Here the word "at" linguistically marked his jump to a higher level of awareness in his mind. Figure 15:1

A Meta-Level Strategy for Classroom Failure

As the young man made that meta-move (conceptually), it generated a semantic construction for him which, in turn, "short circuited" his strategies of recall. In the end, it created a "self-fulfilling prophecy"—another linguistic marker. These words presuppose a reflexivity which feeds back onto itself and sets up a loop. It presupposes that he was feed forwarding some idea and/or emotion into the experience. In this case, it sets up a closed-loop and caused him to generate a “No Exit” program. Finally, notice the phraseology of "anxiousness about the test." Here the term -278-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 15

Utilization and Meta-Levels

"about" functions as a meta-level marker. To diagram this experience using NLP modeling that incorporates meta-levels, we have: To verbally describe the modeling of how this young man would go to his French class and get himself into such a state and meta-state (and a real meta-muddle) goes as follows. 1) He enters the classroom. Then when "he was handed the test sheet" the test itself would trigger, or set off, an internal transderivational search (TDS) to another time and place in his personal history. The trigger would evoke in him a conceptual state of “time,” specifically in “past” “time” (his first meta-state). 2) Then as he would go into that memory (his second meta-state) he would think of a former teacher. Doing this would induce him into another conceptual reality, this one coded by the word "teacher" or "first French teacher." Then to this concept he entertained a VAK set of representations (T-F) representing his reactive state to that teacher. He would experience a state of despising (the third meta-state). 3) Then, thinking about that, he would move to other conceptual thoughts, this time to the more generalized concept of "failing a test again." To those thoughts he would then feel anxious. Having "gone meta" in this way, these higher level frames-of-reference generated for him a dark and negative perceptual filter. As it did, he would bring that consciousness into the present, and to the test context, to use these meta-level cognitions-and-feelings to contaminate his current situation. Doing this “projection” of his limiting belief (a toxic thought or thought virus) then blocked him from his more developed resources.

This models the meta-levels and structural loops that ran his program for the emotional behavior of test anxiety which would lead to his failure in taking the test. So knowing how he did this, what could we now suggest, or do, to assist this young man? What would you do? 1) One NLP solution incorporating meta-levels would consist of inviting him to awareness of his meta-moves. Here, understanding how we do something, how we create or run a particular pattern provides insight and sometimes is sufficient in itself to resolve things. This doesn’t explain why, but it does offer an explanation of how. And sometimes (but not always) understanding how we continue to create difficulties for ourselves in the now enables us to choose to stop doing that. “Oh! That’s what I’m doing that messes things up!” We can also then run an ecology check on the habitual way we have learned to run our brain. -279-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 15

Utilization and Meta-Levels

"So as you now recognize how you have 'gone meta' to your thoughts of that teacher and how you generated despising thoughts-and-feelings toward that teacher—just how well has this move served you? Would you say that this has enhanced your learning strategy? Has it given you more of a sense of empowerment in the educational context?"

This is another meta-move. These meta-questions invite the person to conceptually move above the process and to evaluate its overall usefulness. What results can we expect from this? Frequently, it invites a person to dissociate from feeling attached to his or her mental behavior and to associate into a stronger desire to succeed. “Oh, that’s what I do! And it doesn’t work. I think I’ll choose to do something different!”

It can also increase a person’s motivation. “That really does not work! In fact, that sucks! No more!” (This saying “No!” to the structure disconfirms it, thereby creating room and space for another program.)

2) Another solution (or perhaps the next step) might entail inviting a counter meta-move. "Now given all of your negative, despising thoughts-and-feelings, what could you possibly appreciate about that teacher? Did that teacher have even one redeemable quality that you could appreciate?"

In asking these meta-questions, we invite the person to engage in an exploration of exceptions to the old frames. This essentially encourages one to generate a counter-example to the despising of the teacher and to move into appreciating other facets of the teacher. What results can we expect from this? Typically it tempers a person’s perception, expands it, and possibly deframes the rigidity and narrowness of the old perception. [Did you recognize that response as the Counter-Example Mind-Line? Again, we typically use this meta-move to help the person open up space for new solutions by helping them deframe and loosen up the old frames.]

3) Another solution would involve reframing "anxiety of failing" as an old unuseful anchor, as “stress,” as “anticipation,” or as “excitement about finally succeeding.” "As you consider those feelings of anxiety toward the thought of test taking, I wonder what it would feel like inside if you considered those feelings as indicating an anticipation of the unknown, and maybe even allowed them to become excitement of finally breaking through a -280-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 15

Utilization and Meta-Levels

challenge to succeed... and as you notice your shallow but fast breathing, and body tension, this indicates that anticipation..."

Such reframing (what was first called the “Sleight of Mouth” patterns) as Mind-Lines (Hall and Bodenhamer, 1997/2005) offers a new and different way to frame an event or piece of behavior. Cognitive framing works as a meta-move inasmuch as it takes a primary level experience or event and sets it in some frame-of-reference. The frame itself exists at a meta-level to the sensory-based data of what happened, when, by whom, etc. When we engage in reframing, we set a new frame-of-reference around the same data and essentially say, “Not that, but this.” “It doesn’t mean X, it means Y.” “Don’t put it in the cognitive category or domain of knowledge of X, put it in this other domain and look at it from that point of view.” 4) We may invite another stepping out of the frame to make an even higher meta-move. "And if you fully accept the anxiety of test taking, so that you relax about that anxiety, taking a deep breath and inviting all of that anxiety to come fully and comfortably into your awarenesses ... breathing it in and then out... welcoming it and embracing it so that you can learn from it, you can begin to enjoy this process as you realize that you can take charge of these processes..."

In Meta-States we describe this move as outframing. It leaves the structure of the experience the same and simply moves above all of the frames to set an even larger frame or context. When we do this, we outframe. Doing this gives us the ability to transform everything in one fell swoop. After all, higher frames always govern and organize lower frames. In the Mind-Lines Model we updated and put them into a logical level format. As we did, we discovered that the majority of the conversational reframing formats, the old “Sleight of Mouth” patterns, operate as outframing moves. 2) The Meta-Stating Skill Another crucial skill here involves meta-stating as illustrated by some of the previous solutions in the example. Given the model of logical or metalevels of states of consciousness, as we learn how we meta-state ourselves into such painful states in the first place, we now have insight into how we can stop it. We can also learn how to meta-state our metastates—outframing them. -281-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 15

Utilization and Meta-Levels

In Dragon Slaying (1996/2000) I used the metaphor of slaying, taming, or transforming a “dragon” by meta-stating the toxic dragon state. This refers to bringing a new and more resourceful state to bear on the dragon metastate. Key resourceful states that I typically use in so meta-stating include appreciation, acceptance, calmness, ecology checking, evaluating our evaluations, joy, playfulness, etc. An overall pattern for self-management of negative emotions entails the following steps: 1) Identify a problematic emotional state. Identify an emotional state with which you have difficulties handling, controlling, or managing: anger, fear, disgust, sexual, religious, etc.

2) Check permission. Go inside, quiet yourself and say in a quiet and calming voice (one that you experience as strong and compellingly comfortable), "I give myself permission to feel X..." After saying such, notice your internal responses by observing any VAK representations or languaging that may occur in response to the permission. If any objections arise, identify them.

3) Give yourself permission. Give yourself permission congruently with a resourceful voice reframing the objections. "I give myself permission to feel this fear knowing that it indicates a signal of danger and I welcome it in order to check out the danger, whether it accurately represents a danger or not..." Here incorporate the objections so that they become corrective feedback that you address.

4) Meta-state the emotion with some powerful resources. Identify powerful resourceful frames like acceptance, appreciation, calmness, thoughtfulness, etc. and then meta-state the emotion with these. "And notice what happens when you fully and completely look upon this anger with appreciation... that you can get angry at things that violate your values, and you can do so calmly and respectfully..."

5) Check the ecology and add reframes as needed. "Suppose you always took a deep breath and accessed a state of calmness and clarity about your anger... knowing that it gives you more choice... do you feel fully aligned with this? Would any part of you object?”

6) Future pace. "As you imagine yourself moving into tomorrow with an honest acceptance of your anger, an acceptance that allows you to feel calm about your anger so that you maintain presence of mind in an angry situation... appreciate the value of this in your interactions."

-282-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 15

Utilization and Meta-Levels

3) Recognizing the Driving/Organizing Influence of Meta-Levels This conceptual understanding of levels and how they interact in a system of inter-relational connections opens our eyes to understanding the gestalts and overall configurations that arise from taking a meta-position. By moving to a higher logical level and then bringing resources, at that level, to bear on the lower levels outframes the lower with the higher. As an illustration, suppose a person grew up in a home where a little boy made the following learnings about his home, himself, his parents, etc. 1) "Life is painful." "I suffered a bad childhood; nothing went right; I felt lots of pain, abuse, yelling, etc." Such thoughts will undoubtedly induce him into a distressful state full of pain and hurt. 2) "I'm not good at anything!" This would lead a state of incompetence, ineffectiveness, powerlessness. Suppose now that little boy adds those two states together. What a painful cognitive semantic state that would create! Now he has a complex state of stressful incompetence—not a very resourceful place to live. 3) "You can't trust people." "Mom doesn't behave trustworthy; dad doesn't deserve trust; other people violate my trust as well.” Now, the little guy adds that one to the others leading him into a distrustful state in addition to the distressful incompetence thoughts-and-feelings. 4) "Life sucks!" (A technical term for a cognitive judgment of disgust about the way things have gone for him.) Together these combine to create a very unresourceful place to live from. Four negative states.

Figure 15:2

The Structure of Trauma and Emotional Pain

-283-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 15

Utilization and Meta-Levels

Now because human consciousness will inevitably "go meta" to those learnings and develop other thoughts-and-feelings about these learnings—suppose that as that young boy grows, he draws the following unresourceful conclusion. It is here stated as a cause-effect belief about experiences and the future. "If you had a bad childhood, it will plague you for the rest of your life and determine your future!"

This means that at a meta-level, this new message (since it stands above the others as a message about the other messages), does not merely add to the other states, it multiplies the other states with this new level of pain. As a meta-state of belief, meaning, value, this higher level state of “expecting more pain” and "I will always-be-a-victim" will govern the lower level states. If the boy really believes it, then that belief sets as his frame of reference and frame of meaning. Then, as his canopy of consciousness, it will filter out and negate contrary learnings at the primary state level. Send this guy to a Dale Carnegie Course, let him experience a positive relationship with a friend, let him read a book about effective coping, etc., and his higher frame will blow out and completely negate these new learnings. His old frames will organize his experiences in accordance with his references. To any good experiences, the young adult will think, Figure 15:3

Bateson’s Multiplying of States and Frames

"Yes, that positive thinking stuff works—for other people." "Yes, I do find Jan a good friend—but if she really knew me, she'd give up on me like everybody else has." “Yes, using people’s names, making them feel good,

-284-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 15

Utilization and Meta-Levels

etc. does bring some nice responses, but none of it is real. Everybody is just faking.” Messages, understandings, perceptions, beliefs, meanings, values, etc., that have become meta-level frames now dominate, control, and organize our thinking-and-feeling. That represents the bad news. Now for the goodnews. We can meta-state our meta-state. Suppose we take a learning like the following and put it at a meta-level to the other learnings. Suppose we outframe with it. "All of these old learnings arose as the learnings of a child who thought by using lots of cognitive distortions, misbeliefs, and erroneous understandings— appropriate learnings for a child's mind of that age. But now I know better than to so personalize. It certainly made sense at five or fourteen, and helped me to survive then, but no longer has any usefulness."

This new meta-level thinking-and-feeling will induce a state of awareness and recognition by which we can then discount the earlier learnings. Structurally, it can also discount our former discounting (Figure 15:5). And as it does, it provides us a new meta-perception that empowers us to reclassify, re-index, and re-categorize the old pain. It sets a new frame that empowers and liberates. Figure 15:4

Multiplication at a yet Higher Level

-285-

NLP: Going Meta

Figure 15:5

Chapter 15

Utilization and Meta-Levels

The Power of Discounting Discounting

Here we meta-state ourselves in such a way that the higher level message reorganizes the lower level to create a new and more productive relationship. This raises a very important re-directionalizing question. "What meta-perception, understanding, belief, meaning, etc., has functioned in my mind as a negative meta-state filtering out useful solutions?" "What meta-perception, understanding, belief, meaning, etc., could I bring to bear on my meta-states that would shift everything and give me a new lease on life?"

Stepping aside to evaluate not only our states, but also our meta-states enables us to ask, "Does this program (or state) help me and make things better? Does it enhance my life? Does it make me resourceful?" These meta-questions have just put us at a level meta to our meta-states. Running the ecology check in this way on our meta-states provides us with the ability to change things at a higher logical level. As it does it lets those higher resources have pervasive effects as it ripples downward through the system. This puts us at a state of meta-choice, nullifying our victimhood, so that we can choose how and upon what to "set our mind." Whatever we believe about an object, person, or event does not make it real—at least externally real. It only makes it internally and subjectively real—to us. As it takes on an internal reality, our belief communicates to our nervous system to real-ize (actualize or manifest) itself in our body, emotions, and behaviors. We should therefore ask a question of even more -286-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 15

Utilization and Meta-Levels

importance than whether our belief is true. We should ask, "Does this thought, awareness, belief, etc., serve me in a productive and enhancing way? Does it make me resourceful?" Most of us want to do "change work" by changing the content of our old states. We inherited this from traditional psychology that focuses precisely on content rather than structure. We want to go through each and every learning, belief, or understanding, and challenge it in order to shift each primary state. And that can work. Given enough time and effort and new learnings, people can come to make enough shifts and changes so that they can then draw a new meta-learning level conclusion, thereby inducing a new meta-state. Most psychological practice to this very day, in fact, focuses on bringing about change in precisely this way. Frequently, however, that approach will not and cannot work. Why not? If a person has a higher level frame-of-reference forbidding, preventing, and contradicting the changes at the primary level, it will govern. This probably explains 95% of all resistances, failures, and difficulties in traditional therapy. However, we have another way to transform human personality. We have a higher way. Meta-States, as a model, offers a way to slay, tame, or transform the old dragon states. Rather than fighting at the primary state level and slaying or transforming each and every dragon thought, emotion, idea, or physiology that arises, we can move to the level above and beyond and from there meta-state the whole gestalt. Then we can slay, tame, or transform the meta-state dragon from above in one fell swoop—in one decisive outframing move. Bodenhamer, having now utilized this additional technique that such Meta-Therapy processes have enabled him to cut to the chase in half the time with therapeutic problems. Doing things in this way means that we can allow the old ideas to stay intact without fearing them. We do not have to change them directly in order to generate transformative thoughts, feelings, and behaviors. Nor do we need to fear them from getting re-activated. Why not? Because we can de-toxify the old poison at the meta-level by building an even higher frame that transforms the lower states and makes them irrelevant. We can re-classify them. As we outframe them, we classify them in a new and higher level context. Doing this enables us to index the old dragons which puts the old dragons in iron cages that contain and reduce their energy. -287-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 15

Utilization and Meta-Levels

"Yes, at five years of age I thought-felt that." (Non-emotional observation) "How silly that I drew that conclusion, but I did. I guess I made those understandings with a five-year old's brain." (Appreciation of our younger self) "Yes, I did find life difficult at ten. That accurately represented my perceptions back then." (Validation of old beliefs as demonstrating competence at that level at that time.) “And I no longer have to run those old programs, I can now construct new models of the world seeing and hearing myself live with self-validation and appreciation as I move on to more fun and productive things.”

These meta-level frames-of-references empower us to look back at our foolish beliefs and silly ideas and laugh. And the very process of taking ourselves less seriously (a meta-stating process), enables us to respond more resourcefully. By looking back on our concepts of our former selves, and more humorously appreciating our fallible minds, emotions, and responses empowers us to accept ourselves as fallible human beings. Indexing the events, thoughts, experiences, perceptions, feelings, etc., of previous events to their time-space coordinates sends more truthful messages to our brain about today. It locks away previous hurts to where they belong, namely, in the "past." We can also index some new truths of our story—truths that we have not yet "storied" ourselves with. For instance: "And I survived!" (Recognition and celebration of having successfully made it!) "And I lived through that hell and refuse to give in to that abuse, hurt, ugliness, etc.!" (Appreciation of self for this accomplishment) "Therefore I view myself as resilient, a survivor, assertive, etc." (More empowering self-states and self-definitions)

Obviously these new understandings reframe things. They put new framesof-references around things so that we can think differently, so that we can attribute new meanings, and thereby induce new and more empowering states. This illustrates the magic of NLP as well as the magic of MetaStates. Utilization Patterns With this description of what we can do at meta-levels, and how we can outframe any and every neuro-semantic conceptual state by going meta, I -288-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 15

Utilization and Meta-Levels

have here included numerous patterns of meta-level or meta-stating processes. Some of these build on previously developed patterns that exist in NLP. Others invent new and different ways for going meta. In what follows, you will find these patterns summarized and presented in outline form. From 1997 to 1999, we found, invented, and developed nearly one hundred meta-level patterns (see The Magic of Meta-States). You can also find a fuller development of these patterns in The Secrets of Personal Mastery (2000). The Meta Transformation Process (An Outframing Pattern) In this pattern, we move to our highest meta-levels and meta-states as we find or create those transcendental states (the "Core" states). This was originally adapted from Andreases' (1991) work with Core Transformation. 1) Identify a response. Identify a resource that you do not like but which you would like more options with. This could be a behavior, emotion, habit, or response.

2) Inquire about its positive intentions. Move to a meta-level by inquiring about the positive intent of the undesired response. "As you engage in this behavior (emotion, habit, response), what do you seek to accomplish that you value or deem important?"

3) Recursively reiterate the exploration. Continue exploring and discovering the positive intent of each meta-level. "And what will that do for you that is of value and importance? What is even more significant about obtaining this?” Doing this will get the positive intention of the previous intention.

4) Get to the edge of the Person’s Model of the World. Keep repeating this meta-level exploration until the person can generate no higher meta-purpose or outcome but begins to loop. At this point, the person will have generated his or her highest transcendental states. Highest states that we commonly seek to experience include beingness, inner peace, love, okayness, oneness, wholeness, etc.

5) Fully access the highest state. Access the highest or most transcending meta-state and give the person more of a chance with it by using the as if frame. "As you imagine yourself fully and completely, even now, experiencing this transcending state ... you can allow yourself to step into it and experience it fully..."

6) Hold the highest state in mind and use it. -289-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 15

Utilization and Meta-Levels

While accessing and holding the highest meta-state in mind, bring it back down through the other levels letting it refresh, rejuvenate, and empower those levels of awareness. "If you had this resourceful state fully and completely, how does that transform this next level for you?" “And when you have this highest and the next highest fully and completely, notice the effect of these states on the next level...”

7) Future Pace. Create a bright future using the highest levels as you bring them down through the levels and states and then to the problem state. Notice how refreshing all of these meta-levels change and transform the primary level state that had been problematic. “And how would you feel about taking all of these metaresources with you into tomorrow, then next week, and into the rest of your life?”

Einstein’s Pattern for Creativity and Problem-Solving This pattern moves you up through the meta-levels to a level that outframes an entire conflict and problem and thereby finds an “agreement” frame between the conflictual parts. (Adapted from Robert Dilts, 1984). 1) Identify problem or difficulty. 2) View the problem by meta-stating with the perceptual positions. Fully acknowledge and experience all of the perceptual positions about the problem so that you obtain rich "double descriptions" of the situation. As you do, identify the meta-levels, i.e., the awarenesses about awarenesses which create the overall meta-state incongruency. Check for the levels of beliefs and values about various conceptual realities: namely, your thoughts-feelings about self, time, cause, purpose, etc.

3) Identify the limiting beliefs. Search until you identify the limiting beliefs in those frames. These will involve beliefs that create antagonism between different states.

4) Flush out the frames-by-implication. Move to a meta-level to these limiting beliefs in order to examine the limiting presuppositions at work. Access a meta-state of clear-minded evaluation of evaluations in order to run a high quality evaluation of the experience.

5) Identify the positive intentions behind each state in conflict. What do you seek to accomplish in generating this state that is of value to you? How does this serve you?

6) Reiterate the question to find the positive intention of the positive intention.

-290-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 15

Utilization and Meta-Levels

By seeking to accomplish these positive values, what does that do for you?

7) Outframe. Synthesize the parts or states from a higher meta-position. Have the two combine and become one. Let them merge to unite all the wisdom in the different states and experiences.

Spinning Icons Pattern This meta-level process intentionally leads a person from problem states to desired states. It does so by inviting a person to move up logical levels, rather than horizontally toward the desired outcome. In doing this, the pattern creates a context that invites a person to generate new generalizations. Zink and Munshaw viewed it as a way to construct and synthesize new enhancing generalizations that go far beyond mere propositional language. This pattern was originally adapted from Zink and Munshaw (NLP World, Nov. 1996). 1) Access two primary states. Access a present problem state and a desired outcome state. Describe each fully to access them and anchor them to make them stand out.

2) Translate each primary state into an abstract symbol. Go meta to each of the states and generate an iconic image, cartoon, symbol, etc. that you can use to stand for the state. Let some picture, movie, sound, or representation emerge in your awareness that represents the state.

3) Let the Symbols change places until a unified Symbol emerges. This time move to a meta-position above the two iconic images or symbols of the previous step. From here notice their modalities (VAK) and the particular distinctive features of the sights, sounds, and sensations. As you do, gently allow these two images to slowly exchange locations. First put the desired outcome image in the place of the present state, and the present state image in the place of the desired outcome state. As you do, begin to imagine the exchange moving faster and faster until they move so fast that they blend together. Do this until a synthesis of the two emerge ... as the two spin round and round ... and merge into a new and higher image.

4) Move meta again, let a Story emerge about the unified image. Tell a meta-story about the synthesis that emerges from this exchange. This can take the form of a proverb, poem, story, motto, koan, etc. about the synthesis. Allow yourself to let this higher level summary emerge without any concern about what comes out.

5) Future pace and integrate. -291-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 15

Utilization and Meta-Levels

As you integrate this higher symbol into your life, future pace this synthesis into your life. Imagine yourself moving out into your world taking this with you as you do and notice how that will change the way you think, feel, and act.

The Mystery Theater 3000 Pattern This pattern represents an outframing meta-level pattern with humor. It operates in a very similar fashion to the V-K Dissociation Pattern. It differs from that pattern in that it sets a humor meta-frame as exemplified in the Mystery Theater 3000 television show and movie. If you have not seen either version, Mystery Theater 3000 takes place in a future century where a space traveler, Bob, is joined by his two robot friends to watch old “B” rated movies. As they do, they joke, tease, and utter the most ridiculous and outlandish things about the old 1950s movies. 1) Identify a B-rated Movie that you have had enough of. Identify a personal "B" rated movie of your own. Identify one that you frequently play in your head which induces unresourceful and unpleasant states that you just don’t need anymore. Once you have targeted the Brated movie, set it aside while you do the next pieces of preparation.

2) Select your zany co-critics. Identify some zany Movie Critics that you would like to watch as they watch your B-rated movie. Who can you imagine watching this internal movie that would do so using silly and ridiculous humor? Who could you imagine watching and commenting that would crack you up? (Bob and his two robots from Mystery Theater 3000, Abbot and Costello, Elvis, Bugs Bunny, Mr. Spock, the Three Stooges, Robin Williams, Jim Carey, etc.).

3) Enjoy watching the old Movie. Now sit back in your internal movie theater and watch the Movie Critics interact humorously as they laugh and tease ridiculously about that old Brated movie. Hear them making wise cracks, intermingling current politics, sitcoms, slang, etc. into the process.

4) Test. Think about the old B-rated Movie now. What happens?

Psychosynthesis This represents a meta-level pattern that entails a meta-move to a higher perspective in order to find a balancing position of perspective. Doing this will allow you to integrate polarity choices. It will shift you from a rigid Aristotelian Either-Or choice to a more systemic and integrative meta-state

-292-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 15

Utilization and Meta-Levels

of Both-And. This was originally adapted from the work of Roberto Assagioli in Psycho-Synthesis (1965). 1) Identify a negative emotional state. Identify a state of pain, distress, or suffering (negative emotional state).

2) Locate the state along a value continuum line. Describe the essence of that state as reflecting a value. If you were to put that state on a value continuum (a continuum reflecting some value, i.e., caring, relaxing, protecting, wanting justice, peace-making, etc.) name that continuum. Doing this allows you to specify a continuum on which you can encode two polar extremes. At the poles, you can see how the experience could involve too-little and too-much of the value. For example, with laziness as a “negative” state, we could put it on the value continuum of “relaxation.” We could then think about laziness as involving too much relaxation. Doing this will enable you to identify your virtuous traits in terms of suffering from something under-done or over-done. Hostility and reactivity may involve too much justice seeking. Caretaking and codependency may involve too much caring, loving too much, taking on too much responsibility, etc.

3) Identify the higher level values. Go meta and identify your current meta-states about the value. What do you now think-and-feel about this experience or state? What do you think-and-feel about its extremes? Do you like, appreciate, respect, etc. too much justice seeking? Do you dislike, despise, find contemptful, etc. too little justice seeking? This will enable you to identify the higher level frames in which the meta-state occurs.

4) Identify the gestalt that emerges. Identify the gestalt of thoughts-feelings that arise from the total configuration of this old meta-level or meta-state experience. For example, care-taking behavior from caring too much about caring; angerprone and rageful from caring too much about justice seeking, etc. Gestalt states and experiences involve a non-additive quality. As a system property, they involve “more than the sum of the parts.”

5) Identify a new resource. What resource would temper, modulate, and balance the meta-state? When you have specified this resource, then meta-state the old meta-state with it. Bring it to bear upon the previous meta-state. For example, bring moderation to bear upon justice seeking or apply acceptance of imperfection to it.

6) Future Pace.

-293-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 15

Utilization and Meta-Levels

Future pace this new gestalt imagining those times, places, and persons who you would like to have this choice and where you can feel this new way.

Interpersonal Meta-Stating Pattern If we create meta-state structures by bringing one state in relationship to another, then we engage in inter-personal meta-stating every day and with everybody we relate to. After all, we inevitably and inescapably bring various states (thoughts-and-emotions and physiology) to everybody we encounter. This represents a meta-level pattern for consciously meta-stating inter-personally so that we more intentionally shape the meta-level structures that we build between ourselves and others. 1) Meta-state your inter-personal awareness. Step back from a relationship and detect the states along with all of the thoughts, ideas, emotions, physiology, etc. that you typically bring to bear when you meet X? (some specific person). What state do you access in relationship to the other person? What state of the other person do you like or dislike, accept or reject, feel comfortable with or feel anxious about? Perhaps you criticize the person’s fear, or reject his negative emotions, or disapprove of her angers, or accept his negativity, or love her energy, etc.

2) Quality Control your meta-stating of others. Step back to run an “ecology check” on what you have identified. What do I communicate (as a gestalt experience) when I interface my state with this person’s state? What arises from the configuration of our interaction? As we generate fearfulness when we fear-our-fear, so also when we send the interpersonal message, I-fear-your-fear. This communicates spirit of dread and says, "You are fragile," etc.

3) Design engineer a meta-level resource. Intentionally construct a meta-level interface that would give rise to a new inter-personal configuration. Run an ecology check on how it would fit or not fit into the relationship with the other person. For example, suppose I bring acceptance to bear on her anger? Suppose I bring appreciation to his laziness?

4) Meta-state the person with this productive resource. Appreciation of your fear. Acceptance of your rejection. Patient awareness of your sadness. Welcoming firmness about the other’s areas of responsibility.

5) Future pace and install.

-294-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 15

Utilization and Meta-Levels

The Miracle Over-Night Adjustment Pattern This meta-level pattern uses “The Miracle Question” that de Shazar developed for use in Brief Psychotherapy. This process operates as it invites a person to conceptually step out of an old problem frame and then to step into a solution frame. Here you can either use the Miracle Question or the “As If” frame as the contextual environment for facilitating this process. You can use this pattern to adjust yourself to conceptual categories or any idea that gives you problems. It also provides a way to step out of “the kind of thinking” that created the problem and into a new kind of thinking space. 1) Identify a conceptual problem. What idea or concept creates limitations and reactivity that you do not need? Think about some conceptual category that you do not like, that “rattles your cage,” and that “pushes your buttons.” You may want to make a list of ideas, words, and beliefs about a given area in which you have difficulty. I do not like the idea or word .... cause, time, relationships, justice, power, dependency, independence, manipulation... The category that really rattles me is... What prevents me from getting on the highway of life and living in a vital, happy, and ferocious way is — What holds me back is —

2) Identify your beliefs about your beliefs. What do you believe about that problem? What do you understand about this? What meanings do you give to this? As you elicit this information, identify the meta-level structure that makes up this experience.

3) Map the Meta-frames. Go meta to the meta-level structure of your problematic experience. Continue to do this all the way up until you flush out the entire embedded frames within frames system.

4) Quality Control the old frames. As you step back, check the ecology of your whole system of embedded beliefs and frames. Does this kind of thinking-feeling about this idea, experience, person, event, etc. help you? Does it make things go better for you? Does it empower you to experience more resourcefulness? Do you like thinking and/or feeling this way? Are you ready to end this and step away from it? Have you had enough of that?

5) Imagine the opposite. Good. Now give yourself a chance to step out of that way of thinking and operating and give yourself a chance to imagine something very different. Close your eyes and imagine as fully as you desire that night has come and you are lying on your bed and ready to go to sleep. Now as you do, -295-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 15

Utilization and Meta-Levels

take a few moments and curiously imagine that a miracle will happen tonight so that in the morning, when you awaken, you will wake up thinking-and-feeling in an absolutely new and different way... Just stay with that thought for a moment. We know it’s not true, but if it were... Imagine ... fully what that would be like.

6) Prepare for the transition. In just a moment I want you to wake up from this night of the Miracle, this night when some unknown magic occurred, and to move over to this other chair and to just open your eyes and ears fully in the imagination that you have awakened in the day after the miracle. And you know that with miracles, you can’t explain them, and that it’s not even important to explain them. That’s why we call them miracles. But you can enjoy it, can you not? And you can let the power and impact of the miracle effect you deeply, can you not?

6) Shift to the Miracle Space. Now with that in mind, I want you to open your eyes and when you’re ready, move to this chair—the chair that represents the day after the miracle. Now tell me, how are things different? How do you know? If a miracle had happened, what would totally convince you of it? How would someone close to you know that something marvelous has happened to you?

7) Describe the Day of the Miracle fully. As you describe this day after the miracle, what would you be believing about yourself, others, this event, that idea, etc. that would support this new way of being? Show me how you would be breathing, sitting, holding your neck and shoulders. What would be the look on your face that would indicate the day after the miracle?

8) Future pace. Business Application of this Pattern: 1) Describe a problem state that you see or have at work. Get a validation on. "So this describes the problem that you currently feel within your work?" Yes.

2) Explore the thoughts-feelings about this problem. "How do you think the people in your business or organization think-andfeel about this problem?" Get full description from the person about his or her beliefs about the person’s representations of this problem. Sketch out the meta-level structures that run and govern this problem.

3) Validate its lack of usefulness. "That doesn't really sound like that helps things, does it? Ask this several times to have the person run an ecology check about his or her beliefs and understandings about the problem. -296-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 15

Utilization and Meta-Levels

4) Use the pretend frame that presupposes a miracle. Close your eyes and imagine that a miracle will occur tonight and that as you sleep, in ways unknown to you, something wonderful and mysterious and yet marvelous will happen to you. Something will shift your thoughts-and-feelings about these former problems at work and will do so in such a way that will put you into a powerful and positive solution state. And I wonder just what you will be thinking and feeling when that happens ... because miracles are ... wondrous and marvelous things... Beyond description ... and yet so impactful, if you know what I mean.

5) Prepare for the transition. Now in just a moment I want you to wake up from this night of the Miracle, this night when some unknown magic occurred, and to move over to this other chair and to just open your eyes and ears fully in the imagination that this you have awakened in the day after the miracle. And you know that with miracles, you can’t explain them, and that it’s not even important to explain them. That’s why we call them miracles. But you can enjoy it, can you not? And you can let the power and impact of the miracle effect you deeply, can you not?

6) Move to the Miracle Space. Now with that in mind, I want you to open your eyes and when you’re ready, move to this chair— the chair that represents the day after the miracle. Now tell me, how are things different? How do you know? If a miracle had happened, what would totally convince you of it? How would someone close to you know that something marvelous has happened to you?

7) Describe the Day of the Miracle fully. As you describe this day after the miracle, what would you be believing about yourself, others, this event, that idea, etc. that would support this new way of being? Show me how you would be breathing, sitting, holding your neck and shoulders. What would be the look on your face that would indicate the day after the miracle?

8) Associate fully into the solution space and future pace. The Pleasure and Meta-Pleasuring Pattern This meta-level process pattern distinguishes primary level pleasures and meta-level pleasures. The higher level pleasures are what we more often call “joy” and “happiness” (i.e., pleasure of pleasure). This moves us to a conceptual level and to conceptual pleasures. Here you will find addictions (both positive and negative), motivation states, obsessions, compulsions, fetishes, etc. Here also we will discover a person’s meta-level structure for obsessive-compulsive behaviors. 1) Make a list of Pleasures. -297-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 15

Utilization and Meta-Levels

What makes you happy? Make a list. Identify all the things that "make you happy." Include in this list anything that provides you a sense of enjoyment, happiness, thrill, pleasure. Make sure that every item consists of some sensory-based (see, hear, feel, taste, touch, smell) pleasure. If you can’t video-tape it, it’s not sensory-based.

2) Pick a Pleasure. Focus on one item that you really like. Test this one for sensory-based qualities. "Can you see, hear, feel, smell or taste it?" This makes sure that you have a primary level pleasure to work with. Make sure that you have a sensory-based pleasure, not an evaluative based pleasure.

3) Generate three to seven first-level responses. With the primary level pleasure that you really like, generate as many answers as you can to the question, "What positive meaning of value and significance do you give to this pleasure?" "How does this pleasure delight you and make you feel happy?" Diagram this by drawing a circle to designate your primary state pleasure with each answer as a "state" of meaning and feeling about that pleasure as a meta-level concept over it. Make a horizontal list of meta-state conceptual pleasures for the primary pleasure. For example, for hiking the person may have said health, solitude, enjoyment of nature, relaxation. Get the first line of meta-level meanings first. Take care to not let synonyms confuse you to move prematurely to a higher level. When you ask, “And what does a warm bath mean to you?” expect to receive lots of synonyms of pleasure. When the person says, “Enjoyment,” you do not have a higher level response. Nor when the person says, “It makes me feel clean all over.” That’s just another way of describing a warm bath. Ask, “And when you feel clean all over, what does that mean to you?” If he or she says, “Cleanliness,” then you may have a higher level conceptual pleasure.

4) Identify the higher levels of the meta-pleasures. Take one of the first higher-level pleasurable meanings and move all the way up. Continue to ask the same meta-level question: What positive meaning or value do you give to this pleasure? What does this positive meaning mean to you? This will keep taking us up to the frames that outframe each conceptual pleasure. You know that you are getting to the top when the person begins to loop around between a few high level values. Listen also for absolute and edge of the map type of words. “It’s just oneness.” “There’s nothing else.” As you move up the levels, sketch out the full Enjoyment/Happiness Structure with all of its meta-levels that drive, organize and inform the primary pleasure. -298-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 15

Utilization and Meta-Levels

5) Witness the Structure of your Meta-Pleasures. Sit back for a moment and fully notice all of the meanings, beliefs, frames, and states that drive your pleasure. Now let yourself know fully why that pleasure "holds so much meaning for you."

6) Explore and test the meta-level structure. Now suppose, just for the sake of conversation, we took away one line of your meta-states about this pleasure, say this line (hold hand over diagram). How would that effect you? How much would that reduce your enjoyment of that pleasure? Continue until you find the meta-state structure that most powerfully drives the primary pleasure.

7) Use the higher pleasure levels to enrich the primary state. Step into your highest meta-pleasure state and fully access this highest frame of reference. Step in here completely and just be there now in a way that delights and pleasures you. And when you feel this fully, I wonder what other everyday sensory-based activities you might now want to creatively imagine experiencing while feeling this ... because you can ... And suppose you imagine fully operating from this state when you are at work, with loved, ones, etc. Are there any other everyday activities that you would like to connect with these pleasures of mind?

8) Future Pace. Imagine having this pleasure at more ready access in everyday life. Is this ecological for you?

The De-Pleasuring Pattern As an alternative pattern, you can also use this process for reducing the pleasure in something that may have become over-loaded with pleasure— to your detriment. If you start with a sensory-based primary level pleasure that you do not want to function as having that much pleasure because it creates too much obsession or compulsion, and if you want to reduce its level of pleasure, then you can use the following version of the same pattern. 1) Identify the disliked pleasure. You could choose a wide range of activities that have become too pleasurable to you, too addictive: i.e., smoking, over-eating, drinking, etc.

2) Identify the meta-state levels of meanings that drive it. What positive meaning of value and significance do you give to this pleasure?

-299-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 15

Utilization and Meta-Levels

Draw a circle designating your primary level pleasure with each answer as a "state" of meaning and feeling about that pleasure.

3) Map out the first level meta-pleasures. Identity the first level of meta-state pleasures by repeating the same questions as in the previous step. Access and specify the higher-level pleasurable meanings that you have given to the primary level pleasure. What positive meaning do you give to this pleasure? What does this positive meaning of value and significance mean to you? Sketch out the full structure of these meta-level frames that govern the experience and make it compulsive with pleasure.

4) Calmly witness to Quality Control the Structure. Sit back and quietly observe the meta-level structures that contain all of the meanings, beliefs and states that drive your pleasure. To what extent does this now provide you insight as to why and how this pleasure has come to "hold so much meaning" for you?

5) Experiment with de-pleasuring. If you took away this line of meta-states pleasures about that pleasure, how much would that reduce your enjoyment? How many of the meanings do you need to take away before it begins to exist as just whatever it "is" at the primary level (i.e., eating, drinking, etc.)?

6) Connect your ability to meta-pleasure yourself to new activities. Step into your highest meta-pleasure states and fully access them. We do not want to take away your ability to have and experience these highest steps, so now contact your creative part and invite it to begin to identify other behaviors that you can use and engage in that will allow you to experience this meta-level meaning... Imagine fully stepping into this state and experiencing it fully — and realizing fully that you can do so without needing to engage in that behavior. And just let your conscious or unconscious mind discover how else you can obtain these highest pleasures.

7) Set meta-boundaries on the old meanings. Coming back down to the primary level and noticing the sensory-based qualities of this pleasure, I would like to invite you to move up one metalevel and outframe it with containing words and referents. “This is just food. It is only fuel for my body that provides me energy. I refuse to allow it to mean comfort, love, fulfillment, prosperity, status, etc.” “I will only give it so much meaning and no more.” Continue to reframe the meaning of the primary pleasure until you can future pace it and it feels as just what it is.

-300-

Preparing to Model With linear strategies for modeling human experiences (i.e., S—>R, TOTE, the NLP Strategy Model) we have conceptual models for studying, understanding, and modeling subjective experiences. As we now incorporate meta-levels into our modeling, we have a process for utilizing the self-reflexivity that we find in human consciousness and experiences. We have now put Meta-States to several uses: recognizing the presence of meta-levels, using those levels to deframe, reframe, and outframe, and installing even higher levels. Using meta-levels enables us to work with, and model, the layeredness and embeddness that occurs in human consciousness and experiences. Meta-States enrich our understanding of frames and contexts, and of contexts of contexts. It informs us of the pervasiveness of using meta-frames for establishing higher level meanings and neurosemantic states. It provides insight about reframing and outframing as tools for totally changing life's meta-structures in one fell swoop.

-301-

Chapter 16

DESIGN Design Engineering Meta-Level States "By human engineering I mean the science and art of directing the energies and capacities of human beings to the advancement of human weal. (p. 1). Production is essentially a task for engineers; it essentially depends upon the discovery and the application of natural laws, including the laws of human nature. Human Engineering will embody the theory and practice—the science and art—of all engineering branches united by a common aim—the understanding and welfare of mankind. (p.6-7). The task of engineering science is not only to know, but to know how.” (p. 11) Alfred Korzybski (1921)

W

e now turn our attention to design engineering using meta-levels. Designing a strategy, or engineering a plan which allows us to engage in effective action in the world and peak performance describes the heart of NLP and Neuro-Semantics. In such design engineering, we aim to create the kind of internal mapping and modeling that allows us to achieve our desired outcomes efficiently, quickly, and solidly. As the quotation at the heading of this chapter indicates, this was the passion of Korzybski. No surprise then that the NLP co-originators included a chapter on Design in their work on this subject (NLP: Volume I, 1980). There they underscored several components of design: "In our experience we have found that the maximum effectiveness in design is achieved by making the fewest possible assumptions about contextual constraints" (p. 192)

-302-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 16

Design and Meta-Levels

They described design in terms of making strategies operate in ways that are faster (more streamlined), better (fitting well-formedness conditions), and more flexible (therefore able to adjust to external constraints). They applied the NLP criteria for well-formed outcomes to strategy designs: Contextualized Loaded with resources Positive description of outcome Ecology check of outcome (outcome of outcome) Full representation of the sensory systems, and Sufficient external checks to prevent looping

As we now use meta-levels in our modeling, we will continue to utilize these facets of design work. Taking designing and modeling into account meta-levels will additionally take us into the domain of systems and systemic processes. Here our human engineering needs to take into account the importance of language, symbolic systems of representation, and the systemic nature of how state-upon-state interfaces. Building Empowering Meta-Level Constructions The following process describes how we can access and build positive and empowering meta-level experiences and states. As a meta-stating process, it offers a generic overview of how we can design engineer meta-level experiences that will work ecologically for us. We can hereby custom-make those most appropriate for ourselves—a kind of "human engineering" to use Korzybski's 1921 phrase. Having specified numerous meta-level patterns in the previous chapter, the following provides a general model for most meta-stating processes. 1. Identify a positive and empowering meta-level resource. Identify a resource that you would like to apply to your primary states and experiences. You can accomplish this by making a meta-move to a higher level. As you step back thoughtfully consider what resources you would like to operate from, at a higher logical level, that you would like as an inherent part of your "model of the world" for moving through the world. These differ from primary states (pleasure and joy, contentment, boldness, sensory awareness, confidence, etc.), inasmuch as they refer to states-aboutstates. Do you want joy about learning? Joy about patience? Patience about frustration? Presence of mind about stress?

-303-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 16

Design and Meta-Levels

2. Design the meta-state with well-formedness conditions. Use the NLP well-formed conditions to design desired outcomes as you customize the meta-state that will serve you in useful and appropriate ways. This includes stating positively what you want in this experience in vivid sensory-based detail. It involves using process terms (actions, verbs) that you chunk down into small enough sizes so that it provides instructions as to the specific actions. Doing this enables you to package the process in terms of steps and/or stages which provides you evidence of what it will look, sound, and feel like, and what you will say to yourself so that you will know when you obtain it. Apply these well-formed qualities to the state that you want to apply to another state. What does this joy look like, sound like, feel like? Throughout I have emphasized that thoughts create and induce states. This reflects a basic cognitive-behavioral and NLP presupposition about human functioning. I have packaged this insight in terms of the two “royal roads” to a state of consciousness, namely, internal representations and physiology. And certainly, while "thoughts" do indeed generate states, at the same time every "thought" that passes through consciousness does not put us into state. Why not? How can we explain this? Apparently the quality and intensity of our "thoughts" make the difference as to whether the thought will induce a state or not. This means that if we think in un-energized ways, dissociatedly, analytically, doubtfully, etc., our thoughts have such a deenergized form that they will not induce state. Thinking such thoughts sets a frame (a meta-level structure) so that we stay in a witnessing and observing position to them. Consequently, we will experience such thoughts as lacking the "juice" to elicit a state. If thought does not automatically put us into a full-fledged neuro-linguistic state, then we need to explore a critical question about neuro-linguistic processes. Namely, What kind of thoughts will induce, elicit, and/or create a state? What kind of a vital, and energized thought will, energize and empower us? What well-designed conditions govern such thoughts? What thoughts operate as an induction to state?

To energize thoughts, we first need to start with whatever content that we want to energize. Upon locating that thought, we can then endow the -304-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 16

Design and Meta-Levels

thought with the following conditions. By doing this we increase “the juice factor” which, in turn, empowers the thought with sufficient “energy” to elicit a neuro-linguistic state. Make it vivid. Encode the representation with richness in detail; explicitness of detail make things more graphic and so heightens our intensity. Bandler describes this as “sensorama land.” Test for vividness by asking, Are you drooling yet? Make it full and complete so that you feel it as compelling. Do you feel the attraction? Does it create a compulsion in you? Endow it with rich meanings and significance so that it feels personally valuable and important to you. Who goes into state over something trivial and insignificant? Use the power of repetition to directionalize your brain. Repeat the see, hear, feel representation until you reach the point where your mind quickly and automatically goes to it. Do you thoughts-andemotions swish to it? Repetition enables us to directionalize our brains. Crank up your passions for the idea so that you come to really and totally desire it. Since the throttle lies in your passion, imagine it with passion. Language it in compelling words that give a coherence to the experience. What words would “juice it” up for you? Act on it. Connect it to your physiology and neurology via some current and immediate action. 3. Sequence the state and the meta-state layers using linguistics that are compelling. Because we primarily drive our meta-states by means of our linguistics rather than our sensory-based representations, we need to effectively use our meta-representational system to create empowering and compelling linguistics. Doing so will "glue" the meta-levels together. As we move up through meta-levels, we need language and other symbolic systems. The abstractness of the meta-levels means that moving into conceptual and semantic states necessitates the meta-representational systems. Since language has a special power for gluing representations together, as we utilize our knowledge of language to build cause-effect statements, complex equivalent statements, nominalizations, etc. we can construct "just the right words" to give coherence to our meta-states. These Meta-Model distinctions give us meta-state language and so construct -305-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 16

Design and Meta-Levels

inductions that pull on our neurology and induce us into the desired state. For example, in building curiosity about criticism or failure: "Whenever I get a response that I don't want, I immediately wonder curiously to myself in a most playful tone of voice, 'I wonder what model of the world this person operates from?' and then I feel playful about wanting to find out what this response means and how I can pace it."

Use Milton Model languaging patterns as well. These offer a great resource for linguistic constructions at meta-levels. Use these to write out a metastate induction. The following offers an example of an induction for handling criticism. "The sound of unpleasant words directed toward me evokes the sense of mud thrown against a plexiglass. Smack! There it goes again. Interesting! A sign of unresourcefulness. And thank God, it's not mine. It didn't come out of my mind or my mouth—so the nastiness or ugliness doesn't belong to me. Now let me respond thoughtfully and humanly to this person in a not-so-resourceful state."

4. Eliminate incongruencies in the meta-state. Check for internal objections to the meta-state by noticing internal acceptance/rejection of the state. Go inside and ask, "Do I have permission to feel comfortable about anger?" Then check for ecology. "Would playfulness about learning serve me well?"

Eliminate any incongruency you find. Use the basic process of Six-Step Reframing and use every internal objection to build up the necessary frames to complete the permission and make it empowering. This means taking the objection and building it back into the instructions and frames. Viewing "objections" as providing wonderful feedback information about our own internal "programs" allows us to utilize the objections. This gives us the ability to preframe resources and responses into the meta-state. If you get, for example, the following objection, "the anger will grow and get out of control," when you "accept anger," then you can attach a qualifying meaning to your acceptance. "I give myself permission to accept my anger knowing that what I face and welcome can no longer control me, but puts me in charge of deciding how to handle the situation." 5. Sequence the stages and rehearse the entire process. Sequence the set of primary states that build the strategy for the meta-state. Then rehearse the pieces of the meta-state individually, and then together as an efficient sequence of "mind" steps. -306-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 16

Design and Meta-Levels

"When I think about my innermost Self apart from all of my thoughts, feelings, talk, behavior, and apart from my history and experiences, I realize that I can value and appreciate my Self as a human being—as one made by love and for love so that I can enjoy myself, others, and the world... as I move through this magical experience called life."

This process of rehearsing shows another difference between primary states and meta-states. The layered consciousness and complexity of linguistics and sequencing of states calls for abundant rehearsal for the meta-state to cohere. Access your creative part/dream part to create, invent, and to dream a dream of this new process—beginning and growing. 6. Step into the meta-state and experience it fully. Allow your consciousness to expand as you notice how the meta-state drives your lower (primary) states in new and different ways. "And now as I step into the experience of stubbornness, I can allow myself to become even more stubborn about never rolling over and giving up because I can set my mind firmly and resolutely to live resourcefully no matter what storms of life blow my way. I am totally stubborn about bouncing back and gaining ever new levels of resourcefulness."

7. Future pace the meta-state. Future pace to the specific environments you desire and imagine the state vividly as you associate in those contexts. Doing this has the effect of installing the meta-state. It does so because it provides instructions about how to use the new meta-level resources in the future in specific contexts. 8. Symbolize the meta-state. As you now allow yourself to relax, and access a light trance state, you can let your conscious mind provide you with some symbol of your meta-state. This may consist of a picture, word, sound, diagram, proverb, koan, riddle, etc. and you may also feel surprised by what comes to mind, or you may feel, 'Oh, of course! I've known that all along!'" And once you get a symbol of this whole gestalt of your meta-level experience—you can imagine choosing where you want to store it inside you for ready access as you move through life. The Meta-Representation System for Meta-Levels From the beginning, NLP clearly distinguished language as a metarepresentational system which stands in contradistinction to the sensory representations. "Language is a symbolic representation of our sensory -307-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 16

Design and Meta-Levels

representations" (Dilts, 1983: 16). Bandler and Grinder (1977) even devoted a chapter in Patterns, Vol. II to this titled, "Language—Secondary Experience." "Language is of a different logical level of experience—any portion of the 4-tuple may be translated into a language representation but not vice versa. Specifically, the language system, a digital system, includes the possibility of expressing negation and tense while analogue systems of communication do not have these possibilities." (p. 18)

The meta-representational system of language encodes and drives our transcendental power of self-reflexive consciousness. By language, we create abstractions about what we see, hear, and feel. When we construct non-enhancing abstractions we can trouble ourselves with overgeneralizations, deletions of important distinctions, and distortions that limit us. This typically gives rise to "dragon states" as we have described inasmuch as they create neuro-semantic pain. "Pain" at this level refers to painful meanings, to ideas that trouble and disturb us, that put us into an antagonistic relationship to things. This could refer to ideas about one’s self. "You are a worthless S.O.B. who won't amount to anything!" To linguistically map out such self-contempt fleshes out the significance of what we mean by a "dragon" state. [By the way, the term "Dragon" is only a symbol and not real. After the first edition of Dragon Slaying (1996), numerous reviewers reacted to the title as if dragons were an endangered species, and that I had something against them. Actually, I also fully enjoy and appreciate the mythologies of good dragons, fun dragons, protective dragons, magic dragons, etc. I thought about using another metaphor, that of "demon" states, but I did not want to give the impression that I believe in literal demon-possession. Ah, the limitations of language!]

Precisely because we create and maintain our meta-states by our languaged abstractions, when we bring the questions of the Meta-Model to bear upon them, our dragon states typically cannot endure its ungluing effect. To pull apart a meta-level construction that maladaptively functions inside us like a fire-breathing and destructive dragon, we only need to de-nominalize the frozen actions. So using the Meta-Model questions enables us to take consciousness back to the map where we can more accurately and resourcefully map the referents and our understandings. Consider the following neuro-linguistic constructions. How would you denominalize the nonsense within these Dragon-like entities? -308-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 16

Design and Meta-Levels

"I am a failure." "I don't get half the breaks others get and never will because I grew up in a dysfunctional home" (victimization). "Nothing ever goes right for me; I'm damaged goods" (depression).

Dragon-slaying and taming, at this level, begins when we look for, and identify, the hidden verbs and processes that lurk inside the nominalized expressions. Recognizing that some long lost map-maker has frozen some toxic way of thinking and feeling into ill-formed words enables us to hold back from the terms. This allows us that moment of silence so that we don’t have to become reactive to such words as “failure,” “good for nothing,” “dysfunctional home,” “damaged goods.” And, both knowing and feeling the map-territory distinction, we can then move in and meta-model the unspecified nouns, verbs, adjectives, and adverbs. We can do this until we recover and operationalize the process in see-hear-feel terms (sensorybased referents). Levels Analysis in Designing Earlier in chapter eleven, we examined more than a dozen different possible effects that can emerge from one level interfacing with another level. By recognizing these interfacing patterns we can now use this knowledge in how, and what, we engineer as we design state-upon-state structures and in modeling meta-level processes. How? By beginning with a series of exploratory questions. By asking such questions, we can richly expand our choices with regard to designing and constructing a wide-variety of human experiences. What do I want to accomplish by bringing one state to bear on another state? Do I want to amplify an experience, reduce it, interrupt it, negate it, create paradox, or what? What systemic gestalt do I want to evoke in this arrangement?

Strategically thinking through the effect of level-upon-level enables us to check the ecological value of a meta-level strategy. Notice this kind of thinking in Dilts' (1983) statement. Here he uses representative government to illustrate feedback between similar logical types at different logical levels that thereby results in a meta-complementary relationship. "An interesting example of this is when one individual tells another to control him. By directing the other person to control him, the individual is guiding or controlling the behavior of the other on a meta-level. In a -309-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 16

Design and Meta-Levels

representative government, for instance, a group of people (the citizens) are given the ability, to a certain degree, to govern and control the group of people who govern and control them through the feedback system created by the voting process." (p. 57)

This works wonders in personal relationships. Take, for example, someone with the habit of thinking, feeling, speaking, and behaving in a telling, ordering, commanding, and top-sergeant style. They seem bossy. Typically, we experience them as trying to control things. Figure 16:1

State @ State Interfacing

Effects of State Upon State Can reduce painfully intense states Can intensify states Can exaggerate and distort states Can negate a state Can interrupt a state Can create confusion Can create paradox Can create dissociation Can create trance Can create the beginning of a new process Can grab and focus attention to swish the brain Can create gestalt states and phenomena Can create humor Can qualify a state

At the primary level, the telling person behaves as if in a state of directness, forthrightness, command mode, and "controlling." Now just suppose you can count on them operating from that state most of the time. If you expect it of them (even if you do not like their style), then you can count on them operating in this way. They are dependable in producing such responses, are they not? By recalling the self-expectancy exercise that we did earlier (Chapter 13), you will realize that this simply functions as one of this person's meta-states or meta-programs. So meta-state them by "telling" them to "order" you to do whatever they typically order.

-310-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 16

Design and Meta-Levels

"Tom, I don't know if I should go to the store, give me an order about what to do."

Now to add strength to this, spring it on them just before it comes out of their mouth. Commanding them to command you in this way will typically shock and generate humor—if you do it in a good spirit and with good will. (Of course, you do have to do it congruently and pleasantly.) If you do this good-heartedly and with a spirit of lightness, it will raise their consciousness about relational patterns and frequently invite the commanding to discontinue (although you may have to do it repeatedly to help them break the habit). In design work, the process of moving to a meta-level and setting a frame about various objects, events, representations, etc. describes the experience of operating at a level where we can classify reality. Watzlawick (1967) has described this in the following way: "The Theory of Logical Types permits us to conceptualize this more rigorously. As we have seen, classes are exhaustive collections of entities (the members) which have specific characteristics common to all of them. But membership in a given class is very rarely exclusive. One and the same entity can usually be conceived as a member of different classes. Since classes are not themselves tangible objects, but concepts and therefore constructs of our minds, the assignment of an object to a given class is learned or is the outcome of choice, and is by no means an ultimate, immutable truth. ... A red wood cube can be seen as a member of the class of all red objects, of the class of cubes, of the class of wooden objects, of the class of children's toys, etc."

This offers some explanation about the transformational power of reframing. What do we do when we reframe? In reframing we change (conceptually) the class membership of an object from one class to another. We re-categorize. And in re-categorizing, we thereby change the "reality" (the meta-level reality) of the event. We set a new frame of reference that creates the conceptual context for understanding. Reframing operates as a process whereby we change neuro-semantic "reality." We transform how we define, conceptualize, and define an event. And since meaning operates as a function of context (and context-ofcontext), altering a classification transforms the way we experience life itself. It brings a new world into being for us.

-311-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 16

Design and Meta-Levels

This corresponds beautifully to the work of Lakoff and Johnson (1980), Lakoff (1987), and Langacker (1987, 1991) in the development of Cognitive Linguistics. In moving on from the Transformational/ Generative Grammar tradition of Chomsky, they have postulated a new model based on the representational nature of thought, embodied, and governed by prototypical categorization. For them, human grammar works in a way that corresponds to how we understand language, namely, that our representations occur within cognitive domains (or categories) which also occur within higher level domains, etc. Designing at Meta-Levels Bateson and Bateson (1987) noted that consciousness itself functions as a higher logical level phenomenon "because consciousness means that you know that you know" (p. 100). In this context, they noted that as we consciously design or model a phenomenon, we must take into consideration its logical level. "Consciousness is by definition a next-level up phenomenon. Obviously, if you try to model a phenomenon of higher logical type at too low a level, you will get something that looks like pathology." (p. 105) "Throughout Creatura the logical types are important, but the confusion of logical types also plays a part in the syntax. I suspect that confusions and contradictions of logical type limited to linguistic communication function differently from those that spill out into other types of communication, and this is why the double binds that create pathology always involve non-linguistic and contextual elements." (p. 189)

To avoid such unwanted pathologies then, we must constantly ask questions about levels and meta-levels. "At what level does this idea, belief, emotion, etc. operate?" "About what does this thought-emotion have reference?" "What logical levels lie up and outside of consciousness that I may not have taken into account?" “What level have I assumed or presupposed above this level?”

In this way we can learn to track consciousness up logical levels and thereby distinguish primary consciousness from meta-consciousness. Designing "Designer States and Experiences" As we move up logical levels we systemically generate gestalt states. These larger level states of consciousness emerge as an over-all configuration of numerous parts and variables in human embodied consciousness. As a result, this leads to another insight about meta-states. -312-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 16

Design and Meta-Levels

Namely, we have many ways to get to meta-states. In systems language, meta-states have an equilfinity about them. Consider, as an example, the gestalt meta-state of "courage." We have many ways to construct this meta-level experience and in these various constructions, it all depends on the specific state-on-states that we put together. "Courage" does not exist as a primary state. It rather exists at a meta-level as a meta-level construction. When we develop boldness about our hopes/dreams plus a commitment to face the fears that may arise in that process, then the courage gestalt arises. Yet courage may also emerge from other configurations as well. It may emerge as outrageousness about hopes/dreams plus not-caring about embarrassment in presence of others. Structurally, we have numerous ways to get to "courage." So in terms of human engineering, we can design courage in any of the following ways. Risky danger Joyous excitement of fear (or in spite of fear) Boldness to take risks in reaching an objective Overwhelming sense of one's desired outcome or value Not-caring a fig for what others say or think while moving forward Rejecting concern about embarrassment as irrelevant

Recognizing the presence of equilfinity in meta-level phenomena, and that as a system of interactive parts, meta-states emerge in many and numerous ways. We can now playfully engage accessing and applying various variables to discover what new kinds of human experiences we can create. Continuing with the meta-level construct of courage we can now play around in discovering what other states we can bring to bear on this metastate. I offer the following for your playful exploration. Try them on. Of course, if you suffer from hesitant courage, you may not find yourself able to do that. (In the following, the first parenthesis ( ) identifies a higher level state that outframes the lower state.)

Figure 16:2

Courage

(Noble) courage (Outrageous) courage (Ferocious) courage (Clever) courage (Lustful) courage or (Courageous) lust (Silly) courage (Worrisome) courage ! (blows out, doesn't compute) (Gentle) courage (Sweet) courage -313-

(Hesitant) courage (Humorous) courage (Ambitious) courage (Soft-hearted) courage (Sinful) courage (Dignified) courage (Stale, dull) courage (Wise) courage

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 16

(Delightful) courage (Dishonest) courage (Authentic) courage (Easy) Courage (Revengeful) courage (Impatient) courage (Fearful) courage (Miserable) courage

Design and Meta-Levels

(Embracing) courage (Loving) courage (Reverent) courage (Bumbling) courage (Rigid) courage (Angry) courage (Innocent) courage (Resolute) courage

The "Self" States and Meta-States If the quality of emergence applies to meta-states and gestalt states, it most powerfully applies to the "self" states (self-esteem, self-confidence, selfefficacy, self-trust, self-hatred, self-contempt, self-awareness, etc.). Linguistically, "self" is a multiordinal word based on a previous nominalization. This means that on each and every level, it carries a different meaning. If you have read Bateson (1972), you might recall that he said that "self" or “I” exists as "the biggest nominalization of them all." If these terms exist as nominalizations, then what verbs and processes will we discover when we de-nominalize them? At a most fundamental level, our immune system makes distinctions between self and non-self in order to fight off alien and foreign elements in the body. "Self," at this level, enables us to maintain the integrity of the organism and its holistic functioning. Here it recognizes “me” as an organism and “not me” components. Above that level, we have "selves" which we refer to our awareness of our body, our social relations, our expression of our various powers: thinking (intelligence), emoting (our emotional self), speaking, behaving, etc. Our competence and skill in such abilities leads to our feelings of confidence in exercising our powers (self-confidence), our trust in ourselves to process information and to take effective action leads to our evaluation of our self as sufficient and effective (self-efficacy). Our appraisal of worth, respect, and dignity leads us to experience what we call "self-esteem," etc. So although we exist as one self, and do not have "parts" in any elementalistic way, we do experience facets and parts of our "self" as we linguistically sort out and distinguish the variety of ways that we function. So via our functions, powers, expressions, etc. every thought, emotion, behavior, etc. can operate as a part of our self. Without question this makes our languaging of these domains difficult. Our ideas (concepts, constructs) -314-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 16

Design and Meta-Levels

of "self" do not occur on the primary level, but at a meta-level. This conceptual state involves awarenesses (T-F) about many facets that we designate as our "self." These facets of "self" include our competence, worth and value, dignity and respect, effectiveness and efficacy, our social relationships, our body, morality (sense of conscience), mortality, etc. We have many sub-selves within our highest self (sub-classes of “self” within “self”). Then, above and beyond all these individual facets of "self," comes our overall evaluation of self—our "sense" of self as a person. The word "self" functions multiordinally. So we can find some "self" words that simply refer to a primary state (i.e. "self-hypnosis" refers to hypnosis, "self-aware" refers to awareness). Yet whenever we use "self-aware" reflexively, it can mean awareness about our "self." Many other "self" words refer to meta-states: self-concept, self-acceptance, self-esteem, selfconfidence, self-image, self-actualization, self-defensiveness, self-contempt, etc. As we move up the levels of abstraction, we can ask the self-reflexive question, "Who does the observing of that self who performs on the stage at the primary state level?" My own self? What self? Which exists as my “real” self—the actor or the observer? And who now observes my observer self? We can continue so this goes on without end in an infinite regress of selves. Figure 16:3 Installing our many "Selves" at Different Levels

-315-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 16

Design and Meta-Levels

Bois (1967) described the multiordinality of "self" in the following way: Self1 exists at the Primary State level as the actor, doer, experiencer. Self2 functions as the observer of the lower level self—at a Meta-State level. Self3 then operates as the director of Self2 and Self1. Self4 functions as the theorizer about the other lower-level selves. Each of these selves exists as "real" as the others—at their respective levels (p. 274). This describes how the various conceptual layers of self arise in a selfreflexive system. At the primary state level, I have thoughts-and-feelings about various objects, events, people, and ideas in the world. Out of that primary experience as an actor I speak and behave—self as actor or experiencer, Self1. As I do, I develop thoughts-and-feelings about myself in that experience. This represents a meta-level consciousness. At the same time, it generates another facet of self—self as an observer of self. I (as Self2) now have consciousness of Self1. Figure 16:4

The Multi-Ordinality of Self

Think about experiencing some state, whether pleasant or unpleasant. Notice how you experience various thoughts-feelings about that thing. As you observe that self in your memory, you have adopted a meta-position to yourself. How does Self2 function with regard to Self1? In other words, what qualities and styles does your Self2 use and bring to bear on Self1? Accepting or rejecting? Validating or discounting? Judging or perceiving? Now suppose we ask the following non-referencing questions. (These operate as non-referencing when we forget that we use such language -316-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 16

Design and Meta-Levels

accommodatively and not literally.) Notice also how easily we can create incredible meta-muddles by asking such questions! Who observes the self who performed at the primary level? (The answer of course is you.) “The real you?” “The true self?” “Does this mean that the observer self (self2) exists as more real than self1, the actor self?” “Shall we describe the previous self as less unreal?” No. For who now thinks-and-feels and observes the observer self?

This infinite regress arises in the nature of self-reflexivity because we can always entertain thoughts-and-feelings about previous thoughts-andfeelings, states about states. In describing this, I have identified our selfreflexive consciousness, although I have not explained it. Actually, in this way, we create and experience a new self (conceptual level of self) every time we step back from ourselves to talk about the last level of self that we just conceived. Hence, self3 becomes a director of self2, and so on as selfn theorizes about the director self about the observer self about the experiencer self. I have not theorized or explained this process here, in part, because a far more important set of questions than those questions regarding ontology exist. Namely, Have you installed the ability of self2—selfn to observe and direct and theorize with "eyes of appreciation," "eyes of acceptance," "eyes of value and dignity," etc.? When you go meta to any languaged conception of yourself —how do you treat that self? Do you do so with love, respect, kindness, value, dignity, etc.?

The meta-state of self-esteeming does precisely this. Then we can see and direct our self from a state of value and celebration. If at the level of self 2—n I can catch myself contempting, despising, rejecting, hating, blaming, disgusting, etc., toward self1 —the experiencing self, then I can decide to stop it! I can catch this non-enhancing and non-ecological thinking-feeling style. This represents the challenge we all face once we start thinkingfeeling at meta-levels. If we do not respond in a kind and gentle way at the meta-levels toward our primary selves, we essentially turn our psychic energies against ourselves. This then puts us at odds with our self and we begin experiencing a living hell.

-317-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 16

Design and Meta-Levels

Actually, the terms Self1, Self2, Self3, etc. operate as a shorthand version for "I operating at level one," "I operating at level two," etc. All of these socalled selves function as our "personality" in its holistic and layered complexity. We live our lives experiencing multi-levels and dimensions of abstractions simultaneously with the higher level selves driving and determining the lower levels. At those higher levels we have attitudes, well-established habits, manners, tastes, preferences that have accumulated over the years and from which we have created various abstractions, learnings, beliefs, etc. Self2 functions as our primary experience of Self in the sense of self as observer, director, producer, script-writer, etc. Born of awareness, self2 represents our basic "sense of self." It includes our judgments, assessments, evaluations, etc. about our self in its many facets. So this generates those basic meta-states of self-esteem, self-confidence, self-integrity, etc. Via Self2 we think, perceive, feel, judge and operate on the world. This self governs and directs Self1. Via this observing-directing Self, we move through life looking for, scanning, attracting, and becoming what we expect in our Self2. This self semantically welcomes what we have already decided in advance represents our values and meanings and rejects what we in advance have decided as threatening, unassimilable, toxic, etc. Self 2 functions in such a way as to make neuro-semantically "real" our selffulfilling prophecies about our self1. [If I should theorize about Self, and attempt to explain what I think "it" (our phenomenological experience) is (ontologically), I would probably follow the line of argument and reasoning that Bateson (1972) used when he described “mind” as an emergent quality within the whole system. In other words, self and mind would not be conceptualized as existing as an entity, thing, or homunculus "inside" of us at all. We would not portray it as the "ghost in the machine." We would rather see it as a functioning of self-reflexive consciousness itself. This was the approach I took in Languaging (1996).]

Grinder and DeLozier (1987) speak about this very thing as they described the never-ending process of moving to a meta-position with self-reflexive consciousness. “Each logical level shift in representation increases the scope of what is covered in the representations at the cost of detail. Now notice that in moving to a meta-position he has entered a distinguished set of states—reflexive first attention—the organism is entertaining -318-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 16

Design and Meta-Levels

representations which include a representation of the representer, ... or do they? Strictly speaking when Kesey sees himself standing on the corner, the implied position of the representer is physically above and behind the image of Kesey on the corner. Here is the difficulty. Suppose we move Kesey up a logical level—to a position, say, where he represents a Kesey on the corner and one above and behind the one on the corner. At this point we have Kesey entertaining representations which are complete for the first meta-position move, in the sense that they include a representation of the representer for meta-position move one —this is accomplished however at the cost of creating a second meta-position whose physical location is implied by the new class of representations (but not represented). Thus no matter how many meta-position moves we use, this difficulty will recursively arise. Consequently, we may deduce the Incompleteness Theorem: There exists no pure reflexive first-attention state in humans such that for any particular moment in time, t1, all the neurological activities of the organism are represented. In particular such reflexive first-attention states will fail to include a representation of the representer of that class of representations in the representations although they may include the representations of the previous representer (the representer at time, t i-j, where j>0). (pp. 105-106)

Engineering Our Ability to Conversationally Speak Logical Levels In NLP, when a person understands internal representations and frames-ofreference, and can elegantly work with various reframing models, that person can then move on to the most elegant expression of all—conversational reframing. Traditionally the NLP Model that covers the structure and format of conversational reframing has been called the “Sleight of Mouth” Patterns. It was based on the metaphor of the magician’s Sleight of Hand. Bodenhamer and I (1997) have applied the structure of meta-levels to that model and created the Mind-Lines Model of word magic. We designed the Mind-Lines Model to describe seven directions in which we can send a person’s mind and thinking. Then, from those seven kinds of framing (reframing, deframing, pre-framing, post-framing, outframing, analogous framing, and counter-framing) we specified twenty-six different kinds of lines for changing minds. At the heart of this model of conversational reframing is the speaking of new frames-of-references in everyday conversations. -319-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 16

Design and Meta-Levels

The word magic of the model occurs due to the fact that in understanding how we all have to internally represent words as we seek to "make sense" of them, we thereby shift and alter our internal representations. This leads to a change of mind, a new way of thinking, a different point of view, and an alteration in how we frame things. Of course, this describes a high level of expertise with language and with understanding both the structure of its magic and the secrets of its magic. When you operate at this level, you have truly begun to master the domain of NLP and Neuro-Semantics. In doing this, you have at the same time learned the basics about going meta conversationally. This means you have learned how to make meta-level moves in the way you talk. It means you have begun to engage in conversational meta-stating. Now to truly master this domain, and to know consciously what we’re doing, we have to understand about primary levels of representations and about meta-levels of frames. We have to stay alert to how both levels can induce various neuro-linguistic states. The next step involves developing a level of competence in working with logical levels. Then true mastery comes when we can track those logical levels in an ongoing conversation so that we can always stay one step ahead of the other person’s jumping logical levels. But how do we speak these higher frames-of-references conversationally? How do we language ourselves, and others, so that the re-languaging works resourcefully to create new and more enhancing realities as people listen, "make sense," and then experience the magic of reframing?

The answer to this lies in recognizing the structure of logical levels and especially how meta-levels interface with each other. It lies in how a particular outframing move generates (or can generate) various gestalt experiences. With these realizations, we can then shift experiences linguistically. To play with this concept and illustrate it, I will use the state of courage again. First, let's analyze the mind-body state of courage. Access a time when you felt outright courage, simple and pure. What representations informed this state? What beliefs and values? What physiology did you adopt ... do you adopt to experience courage?

-320-

NLP: Going Meta

Figure 16:5

Chapter 16

Design and Meta-Levels

Meta-stating Willingness to Risk

As you do that, you will discover that courage is not a primary state, it is a meta-state. Doesn’t that prove true for you? In the primary state you may have fear (or apprehension, doubt, unsureness), but your state about that fear involves "willingness to risk," "openness to face the fear," "commitment to a promise anyway," etc. In other words, while you first accessed a state of fear about something out there in the world, in spite of that fear state, other thoughts-and-feelings about the significance, meaning, or importance of that fear state arise. It is these thoughts-and-feelings which modulate the fear state and put it into a new and different perspective. Linguistically Speaking Meta-Levels Linguistically, we can express this meta-level phenomenon of courage as ("willingness to risk) fearful event" or ("risking) fear." Here I have used parenthesis ( ) to indicate when a higher logical level state classifies and qualifies the lower level. When we express these words, we express a multiple layered phenomenon containing two levels. So with the words, "bold fear" (another form that "courage" can take). Do you have the boldness about your hopes/dreams plus a commitment to face whatever fears may arise as you implement the steps and states needed to make that dream come true? Then it is very likely that courage will emerge from that mixture. Courage, in this particular subjective structure, consists of "bold and committed actions in the face of fear." Now, just for the fun of it, let's turn this into a blessing. This will provide us one conversational form for using logical levels. "May you, with committed boldness, look every fear in the eye without wavering!" -321-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 16

Design and Meta-Levels

Yet "courage" may also arise from other configurations. "Do you yet (feel a downright outrageousness) about your hopes and dreams so much so that you (just don't care) about embarrassment in the presence of others anymore?"

Linguistically, each encoding of the word about signals a logical level. First, a state of outrageousness in thought-and-emotion about your desired outcomes. When you bring to bear the thoughts-and-emotions and physiology involved in outrageousness to a hope, a dream, a desired outcome, you generate a gestalt. Now you have—"not caring what others think about me," or "I don't give much attention to embarrassment." Of course, if you do not have that much courage yet, then "I think you could just (allow yourself) to (begin to develop the courage) to have courage." Analyzing that in terms of meta-levels, the statement conversationally metastates us in such a way that, if you accept the words, you will have started to step into the courage process. Do you like that? To conversationally meta-state yourself or others, and speak logical levels, so that your listener can begin to create a meta-level structure whereby he or she will access resources at a higher level and let those resources modulate a great many lower level processes, then take an idea, representation, thought, emotion, state and bring it to bear upon another state in such a way that it becomes about that lower state. Linguistically, I have bracket the first state ( ) in the following statements so that you can notice how these logical levels show up as adjectives and qualifying phrases. The arrow indicates the gestalt state that occurs. I have left some open to give you a chance to fill them in. Figure 16:6 (Joyous excitement) of fear courage (Boldness to) risk courage (Noble) courage courage qualified with thoughtfulness, dignity, respect. (Hesitant) courage feeling insecure in one's courage, courage ready to become something else! (Outrageous) courage courage that could become fool-hardy, stupid, dangerous. (Humorous) courage a light-hearted courage. (Ferocious) courage a more serious, intentional, near fanatical courage. (Ambitious) courage an intense state of courage, intent on fulfilling desires. (Clever) courage an intelligent courage that can use its wits. (Sinful) courage courage that can become unethical in pursing its desires. -322-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 16

(Lustful) courage (Worrisome) courage (Delightful) courage (Revengeful) courage (Impatient) courage (Fearful) courage

Design and Meta-Levels

(Silly) courage (Gentle) courage (Authentic) courage (Bubbling) courage (Angry) courage (Miserable) courage

As you get the hang of this, you will find yourself quite able to design metalevel statements that you can use in business, therapy, and personal relationships. These allow you to not only enable your friends, associates, and loved ones to access enhancing states, but also meta-states thereby allowing them to use their resources reflexively. As you do, expect your communications to function more hypnotically. Meta-stating has a hypnotic effect as it sends people inside to make meaning of words. They have to rise up in their mind to higher levels that are more abstract and this facilitates a more global perspective. At times it generates more objectivity, more transcendence, more perspective. As you tune your ears to these meta-level statements, you will even hear unenhancing meta-states as people talk. Use your linguistic awareness to catch toxic trances sent your way so that you do not have to buy into that hypnosis, or be recruited for that Game. "I felt a sickening panic." "It was an uncomfortable feeling about feeling so annoyed." "I really dislike it when I feel attacked." "I just have this inability to explain my deeper feelings." "I don't know my own feelings." "She felt horrible about her mistakes." "My thoughts raced with self-accusation questions about my failings." "I feel so nervous about worrying about that again!" "My sense of joy seems so impervious anymore." "He has a rude joy." "Well, I think his anxiety laughable." "I think I'm going to have a boring anxiety." "I wish he would develop an unselfish narcissism." "I'm terrified today that I'll have no ideas in the meeting." "I'm depressed about the loss of my masculinity." "Just the way he talked, it was (disgustingly) fascinating." "Well, may be you could just (forget) your shyness."

With this growing skill for hearing the magic of language inductions, you will discover that you are able to say new and wonderful things. "So just how much do you (love) to hate her?" A very different question from, "How -323-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 16

Design and Meta-Levels

much do you hate her?" To someone who says that they feel ashamed of their sexuality, you might say, "I wonder what you would do if you (fully allowed yourself) to (anticipate) (enjoying) your sexuality?" Or to someone reacting to their self-observations, "(Just) (observe) your observations for a moment ...ever so gently. Let's see what they will bring to you." To the person who says, "I loath myself!" you might respond. "Well, I used to do that, but then I (decided) to (loath) my self-loathing and that took me to the place that I shifted into self-appreciating.” That will send the brain in a different direction, will it not? To the one (fearful of) making a mistake and who thereby acts rigid and uptight in living, we can conversationally comment. "That’s interesting, because you know, I just feel (curious, and full of wonder, and sometimes just downright fascinated) about mistakes... I have learned so many things from mistakes that now I just love them for their information value. So sometimes I even try to make a few good mistakes everyday..." Preparing to Model Designing meta-level constructions come easy, naturally, and inevitably because we cannot not entertain thoughts-and-feelings about whatever thought-and-feeling we experienced. Self-reflexive consciousness always jumps logical levels and creates meta-level phenomena and states. Yet we do not always recognize this. NLP began with Korzybski's map/territory distinction. As an engineer seeking to design structures for better science and sanity, he discovered that when we confuse logical levels and identify map and territory, we create confusion and disorientation. Bandler and Grinder (1977) noted this in Patterns: "...most of the clients who come to us as therapists are there because they have, in the first place, mistaken the map (language) for the territory (experience)" (p. 19)

Taking such levels into consideration now empowers us to re-design the structure of our subjective experiences so that we build metalevel experiences that will serve us well. Now we can engineer human expertise into our everyday experiences.

-324-

Chapter 17

INSTALLATION Installing Meta-Level States

W

e can talk about resourceful states and meta-states all day, and to no avail, if we do not know how to effectively install them. If we do not know how to get them to become a part of our automatic programming within our neuro-linguistics, then modeling experiences of expertise using meta-levels will not make that much of a difference. The importance of installation, I think, is obvious. Just how do we get ideas, beliefs, values, thinking patterns, procedures, etc. so much into a person’s mental mapping and processing, that it becomes a well integrated and automatic program? How do we over-ride or deframe old programming to make space for the new programming? In installing strategies, the NLP co-originators described two basic ways for installing a strategy sequence: 1. By anchoring representations and inserting them into the steps of a strategy. 2. By having a person rehearse the sequence until it becomes an automatic part of his or her behavior.

In the first process, we can anchor specific content (a representation, state, understanding) into a sequence, or we can anchor a needed form of a representation (its structure in terms of specific representational distinctions or “sub-modalities”) to achieve an outcome.

-325-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 17

Installation and Meta-Levels

In content anchoring, we essentially assist someone in swishing their brain to needed awarenesses or states at a certain point in their information processing. They may need a new visual representation. They may need a new auditory line to say to themselves to keep themselves aware of some important value, etc. So we access it and anchor it. Installing a strategy can sometimes occur as simply as "talking a person through his or her strategy." As such, we simply talk about appropriate resources. This invites the person to construct the pictures, sounds, feelings, and words in the mind and to map that process out in a way that they feel they could simply step into it. If in this process, we anchor the steps and stages of the internal representations with our language and tonality and perhaps in space with our gestures, we even more fully manage the installation of the program. Conversationally describing a process in this way directionalizes the listener's brain-and-neurology so that it develops the strategy sequence and gives them a new orientation. Installation can sometimes be that easy. It happens all the time. People talk about something, whether in terms of one, two, three steps of a procedure or by telling a detailed story of doing something, and if we’re in a highly receptive, open, and fascinated state— the talk can enable us to install it as a way of thinking, feeling, acting, or responding. This becomes especially true in highly suggestible states of intense emotion, whether love and admiration, respect and awe, fear and confusion, relaxation, tiredness, frustration, excitement, etc. Given this, what lets us know that we have actually installed a strategy? A strategy has been completely installed when we can evoke that strategy as an intact unit of response to a cue. This means that each step automatically ties into the next and does so to appropriate context markers (some stimuli) in a given environment. As such, it eventually operates as an unconscious TOTE. That is, as a synesthesia pattern which enables us to achieve personal excellence with the strategy. In the second process, installing by rehearsal involves practicing each representational step in a strategy until it becomes available to us "as a spontaneous intact program. This process essentially involves the development of self-established anchors for strategy sequences." (1980: 231). Such rehearsal does not have to take the form of step-by-step instructions, we can even use the form of a game to do this. -326-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 17

Installation and Meta-Levels

With this brief review of the installation process, we now raise some new questions. How do we install strategy patterns involving meta or logical levels? What new or different distinctions should we attend to when we include meta-levels? Besides anchoring and rehearsing, what other installation processes can we add to our repertoire?

The Installing of Higher Levels How does the installation process occur when we work with structures that involve one or more higher levels? What distinctions or skills do we need when we use anchoring to plug in resources, to swish the brain in new and more enhancing directions, and to create synesthesia patterns that entail the presence of meta-levels? As we rehearse the sequence pattern until it becomes an intact unit, how will meta-levels affect or influence this?

Meta-Symbolism The key difference in working with logical and meta-levels occurs in how much more we have to rely upon the meta-representational systems. Earlier we noted that the representational systems and their distinctions in the sensory-based systems (VAK) drive states and strategies on the primary level. And because we can use sensory-based words, language also works at the primary level. But when we go meta, we have to also use a meta-representational system. In order to move to a higher logical level, we need self-reflexive symbols by which we can represent ideas, concepts, and other mental phenomena at those meta-levels. There the sensory-based representations and language will typically have less direct usefulness. Although even there, we can learn to use them as metaphors so that what seems sensory-based actually stands for and refers to something else—something more abstract and conceptual. Generally, at the meta-levels we need more abstract symbols. We need symbols of classes as well as classes-of-classes. Here the metarepresentational systems of evaluative language, symbols, metaphors, mathematics, music, poetry, narrative, etc. become increasingly more valuable and useful. Words as “secondary experience” operate as anchors by triggering sensory and language representations. As they do, they also elicit corresponding states of consciousness. So sequencing representations by using verbal -327-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 17

Installation and Meta-Levels

anchors, as in giving instructions, offering explanations, telling a story, or providing strategic information, provides a way that we can install the metalevel structures which comprise layered thoughts-and-feelings upon other thoughts-and-feelings (i.e. meta-states and gestalt states). In Meta-States, we have metaphorically described the meta-representational system of language or other symbolic systems as the glue by which we glue together the meta-level states and experiences. Several authors have noted and commented on what they described as the reductionistic power of the Meta-Model. In their perspective, the Meta-Model only reduces experience. It breaks apart generalizations and takes things “back to the experience out of which it was mapped.” It is true enough that we can use the Meta-Model to do precisely that. Yet it does not only reduce linguistic structures by pulling them apart. I noted this in Communication Magic (2001) that the Meta-Model contains meta questions. Meta-questions take a person up to construct new generalizations. Here, however, I want to highlight the deframing, de-constructing, and pulling apart power of the Meta-Model. Using it to challenge the illformedness in map-making gives us the ability to unglue linguistic and semantic constructions that we may find non-enhancing. So rather than moving a person to make more deletions, generalizations, and distortions in their constructions of meanings, we can use the Meta-Model to bring down old constructions from meta-level structures. We can pull apart the old construction and reduce the component pieces to its primary level ingredients. In this way, we can pull apart our old maps. We can return (so to speak) to "the experience" out of which we made the map that no longer works for us. In doing this, we experience the rare and unprecedented opportunity to re-map things. This describes part of the magic of this domain. Nominalizing and Storytelling Some linguistic-semantic maps indicating a higher logical level show up as nominalizations. Take the single word failure as used in the sentence, "I feel like such a failure." The use of this word suggests some primary level sensory-based referent. Yet we cannot see failure, hear failure, feel failure, or smell failure. We cannot put it in a wheelbarrow (the nominalization test). Accordingly, it lacks empirical features. Somebody has turned some -328-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 17

Installation and Meta-Levels

process of "failing (an unspecified verb) to reach some objective" (also pretty vague) into a noun, and reified it (turned it into a Thing) as if it existed as something tangible. As we meta-model such terms, we obtain specifics that bring it down to the primary level of experience. "At what did you fail?" "According to what standard did you fail?" "How final or complete do you evaluate this failing?" "When did you fail?" "Does anything stop you from attempting to reach that goal again?" "Do you need to readjust some of your criteria in that desired outcome?" "Do you have a well-formed outcome?"

We began with an over-generalized map, coded in a single word—”failure.” That, in itself, makes the term even more dangerous. We also find it coded in a false-to-fact distorted form (a frozen noun rather than a living, breathing, moving verb). We then move in and meta-modeled it. Now as we do, we essentially unglue the old constructions (the old strategy of representational sequences) that created the non-sense in the first place. In this way, our denominalizing interrupts the old strategy and sets up a new understanding which will begin to prevent it from operating in the old way. The Meta-Model enables us to denominalize nominalizations. This has the effect of interrupting old meta-level strategies, and as such, opens up a new conceptual space in our mind. This enables us to then create new strategies for handling experiences when we fail to obtain an outcome during a given attempt. All of this occurs on the level of language use and lies in our languaging habits. I don’t remember when I first learned that "failure" does not exist in the world “out there” (Pleroma) and that I did not need to keep it as a word in the world of my mind (Creatura), but I do know that I have personally not tormented myself with that term for more than a decade. Nor do I ever engage in the unsanity of saying perverse things like “I fear the possibility of failure,” "I am a failure," “what if we end up failures?” Such terms immediately strike me as toxic and as mapping a non-referent. "I am a failure" illustrates the next higher meta-level. To say, "Failure follows me everywhere I go!" nominalizes the process of "not-reaching my -329-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 17

Installation and Meta-Levels

goals" and turns it into a thing that now seems "real" (reified). But at least I have only moved up one logical level. Figure 17:1

Meta-stating self as Failure

When I take my thoughts-and-feelings about my concept of my "self" as a person, existing in time, and then nominalize that "self" using the words "I am..." I abstract my map about "self" to another level. Then I identify "self" with certain actions or behaviors and created an equation between the two. This makes it a complex equivalence in the Meta-Model. In doing this, I create and install a meta-level construction sure to make life miserable. How does such unsanity get solidly installed inside one's mind-body so that it roars inside like a Dragon meta-state? It arises through the creation and adoption of these words and ideas. It becomes solidified through constant repeating of the words, "I am a failure." Then by using these words as a narrative it formulates a story-frame. This storying of one self with these meta-constructions glue it together. And since we tell our story to other people, we create social contexts where this narrative gets further anchored and solidified. On the surface, it seems difficult to believe that such simple words could carry such poison, or have such a toxic effect upon and in our neurology. Yet it does. How subtle these logical meta-levels! How quickly and unsanely we can jump logical levels at a single bound of non-sense! Observing how easily and naturally we freeze processes and distort them into toxic pseudo-nouns (the nominalization process) reveals how we unconsciously create and install meta-level constructions in our everyday lives. No one has to go to school to learn to do this. We all do it—and we learn to do such very early in life. When we do, we jump logical levels. -330-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 17

Installation and Meta-Levels

We construct a concept of an idea (i.e., self, time, cause, masculinity, femininity, destiny, etc.) and then—faster than a speeding bullet—we construct a concept-about-that-concept. We build mental frames and embed them within frames and so build up the matrix of our mind. If we despise and contempt our self, we step into a meta-construction of self-contempt (self-hatred). If we then "realize that this is my reality" (a belief state about the self-contempt), we thereby install it so that we begin to operate out of that state as our frame of reference. This initiates the statedependent learning, memory, perception, communication, behavior of the neuro-semantic experience and so the spiraling loop begins. It creates a neuro-semantic “reality” that works to our detriment. Trance Installing The reductionistic nature and power of the Meta-Model pulls linguisticsemantic constructions apart, de-frames them, and brings higher levels down to the primary level of experience. Conversely, when we use (rather than challenge) the Meta-Model distinctions along with the distinctions in the Milton Model, we move up the levels of abstraction. Doing this mindfully enables us to install new and better frame constructions. This means that as we work with meta-levels we inevitably access and use a form of hypnosis or what we call trance. After all, where do we send our minds when we "go up" the scale from specificity to greater levels of abstraction? We go inward and up to our highest frames of meaning, memory, imagination, etc. We go inward to our constructed frames-ofreferences—“things” that only exist in our mind. We take our thoughtsand-feelings and then go meta to them to apply them to other thoughts-andfeelings. In Meta-States trainings I frequently invite participates to access a state wherein they learned, really learned and learned in a way that they found enjoyable and effective. I give everybody a few minutes to "go inside." This allows each person to search within ... through their personal referents, or to use their imagination to construct an experience of effective learning. Once participants are in an intense learning state, I ask them to access a state of joy and delight about their learning state. “Go inside, access a state comprised of all of the thoughts-and-feelings of joyfulness, fully and completely, and as you hold that joy constant, I want

-331-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 17

Installation and Meta-Levels

you to apply that joy to the learning state so that you experience a total delight in learning. Yes, that’s right. And we call this ‘Joyful Learning.’ Now I want you to appreciate this joy that you feel of your learning state because it’s such a powerful resource ... And when you’re ready, you can feel outrageous about that appreciation of that joy of that learning as you let yourself just turn loose with it... and you can become absolutely wild and wooly in your outrageousness about appreciating so fully and completely your total joy of learning... Then, become courageous about the outrageousness of your appreciation of your joyfulness of learning...”

I continue, yet I know that above the third level most people will just let go, trance out and enjoy the process. The constructions they layer on other concepts, and the meanings upon these meanings, etc. feel increasingly difficult to track—at least consciously. This allows us to just experience the words and to create or find meaningful referents on the inside. This portrays the trance-like nature of going meta. When we move up logical levels, in our mind, we do so conceptually. And that takes us inward and into a highly focused state of awareness— as we hallucinate constructs, ideas, principles, beliefs, values, etc. There is a tranc(e)-itional nature of meta-levels. Check it out for yourself. If you examine the NLP models that have been around for some time which contain one or more levels, you will notice as well how moving up logical levels to higher levels of abstraction involves a hypnotic process. It does so because it causes a person to turn inward with intense concentration which, in turn, effects neurology at autonomic levels. Some of the kinds of models and processes that I’m thinking about that involve this kind of hypnotic meta-stating at meta-levels include such NLP stables as the ecology check, the phobia cure, six-step reframing, time-lines, metaphor, etc. And some of these patterns can be used as processes for installation. Installing through Checking Ecology Where do you go when you ask meta-level questions that explore the health and wholeness of an entire mind-body system? Does this state, belief, decision, part, meaning, etc. enhance my life or not? Does this way of thinking create resources or limitations for me? Does this state empower or disempower?

-332-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 17

Installation and Meta-Levels

To answer such questions, we have to move to a meta-position of evaluation of a lower level evaluation. This moves us upward to construct a frame-ofreference by which we evaluate lower level constructions. That’s obvious. What’s not so obvious is that by asking such questions we install “ecology” as a frame. Then the idea, belief, value, understanding, and decision of “quality controlling” what we’re doing becomes an intimate part of how we think and feel. Do that often enough and with sufficient examples and “ecology” does not only become a frame, but a frame of mind and so one of our basic life orientations. The V-K Dissociation Pattern When we put one of our B-rated movies up on a screen and take a spectator's viewpoint to the old distasteful movie file from our memory banks, we also make a meta-move. We move to a higher level of observation. From this position we can think about the old information with more objectivity, resourcefulness, and thoughtfulness. This, in turn, enables us to "think comfortably about painful things" (comfort about pain). One of the first things this does is that it constructs a meta-level resource, of witnessing my thoughts, thinking about old distressful experiences with comfort and a sense of distance. We go meta one more time when we imagine floating out of our bodies in the theater so that we gently float back and up to the projection booth. From there we feel our hands on the plexiglass window and see the back of our head in the audience of the movie theater watching the old black-andwhite flick of that unpleasant movie. This moves us first to the meta-state of "observing our memories," or observing our comfort of observing a painful memory. This not only describes a trance state, but it begins to create and install another meta-frame. We build a new way to deal with old terrifying and disturbing thoughts. We don’t deny or repress, we reframe it so that we can look at the information and bring it to some closure in our mind. Installing by Reframing That’s one way to reframe. There are several others. A more blunt and direct way involves reframing by shifting horizontally from one meaning to another. We shift from an X meaning to a Y meaning. "This behavior doesn't mean this X, it means this Y."

-333-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 17

Installation and Meta-Levels

Your sixteen year old lying on the couch watching TV doesn't mean, "He is lazy." It means, "He has developed the ability to really relax." To make a picture of this horizontal shift, imagine a speaker gesturing to the first meaning with her right hand to a place in space out in front and to the second meaning with the left hand immediately to the left along the same plane. “Not this, that!” When we create a new frame-of-reference in this way, we transform the meaning or significance of an event, behavior, or word. Another form of reframe actually involves out-framing. Here we move to a higher logical level. To see that, imagine the speaker now gesturing the first meaning with the right hand: “You can see it as this X.” But she doesn’t stop there. She then moves her left hand above the right hand as if gesturing a higher frame, one that outframes the X. “Or you can see it as this larger and more expansive meaning.” Here, above the current frame, we set a new frame-of-reference and so a new context. We set a context that changes the meaning of the lower level events. "Yes, at this level he lazes around in front of the TV, seeking to avoid taking on challenges, but that is because [jump to a higher level] he wore himself out in the soccer practice yesterday."

Which direction (horizontal and sequential or vertical and meta) did the reframe take our mind? To find "the frame" of some statements, thoughts, feelings—we have to "go meta" to look at the higher level understandings and beliefs (meanings, presuppositions). There we will find the frame that drives the lower level frame. Six-Step Reframing When the NLP Six-Step Reframing model first appeared it was hailed as revolutionary and wonderful. Bandler .actually thought of it as more of a way by which to sneak in hypnosis to traditional therapists. Yet, structurally it is essentially a meta-stating pattern. In the pattern we begin with a so-called "part" of ourselves (a facet of our mind or emotions) that generates some unwanted behavior. It does this by either inhibiting a response that we want to do, or by creating a counter-response that conflicts with it. These responses operate from, and at, a meta-level to us inasmuch as we "inhibit or forbid a response" by "feeling wrong to express ourselves assertively." (Figure 17:2). -334-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 17

Installation and Meta-Levels

We then engage in a process that searches for (or creates) the part's positive intention. Yet in doing this, we move to a meta-level to the part. Naming that "part" identifies the state or construct of thoughts-feelings that drive the lower level behavior. In searching for a positive intention, we set and install that as a frame—we were seeking to do something of value. But did it work? Does it still work? No? Then would you like to find a way to do something that works? All of that, of course, installs those healing ideas. Then we get our creative "part" involved and commission it to come up with three or more ways of achieving the positive intention. Whether we know or don’t know what it comes up with or not doesn’t matter. We only care about installing that orientation. That’s why it’s called “unconscious” reframing. We don’t have to know the particular solutions, we only need to go through the process that assumes that we are becoming organized in the way we move through the world. We ask the creative part to speak to the behavior part, first sharing its positive intentions and then in receiving better solutions. This meta-stating a state or situation with positive intentions, creativity, solution orientation, new and better choices, etc. installs these frames through the ritual. When we use such processes to “go inside,” by definition, we experience a transition (trance) from the waking uptime state to the internal state. As we go in searching for our higher frames of memory, meaning, imagination, etc., we experience the meta-levels as thoughts and emotions that are typically outside of awareness (or "unconscious"). Regarding intention, we frequently do not really know what we want or what we’re seeking to accomplish by what we do. Yet some part of us seems to run the behavior; and now we feel at war with this facet of ourselves. As we explore its positive intention, we set out to discover what it seeks that has value and significance to us. If this doesn’t find it, it will create it. Frequently, we find that this “part” of us doesn’t know. Perhaps we have forgotten. Perhaps we were just reacting and really didn’t have much of a purpose. Establishing non-verbal "yes" and "no" signals is part of the ritual in SixStep Reframing. It provides some things to focus on while the installation of the higher frames goes on. -335-

NLP: Going Meta

Figure 17:2

Chapter 17

Installation and Meta-Levels

Six-Step Reframing in Terms of Meta-Levels

Regarding accessing the meta-level of thinking and feeling creative about the problem, by setting a frame that the solution does not have to be conscious, but can be “unconscious,” we let the person off the hook for solving things. They enter a more resourceful state of looking for and anticipating when and where the new response will pop out. If that frame of mind wasn’t there before, this ritual will install it. Frame-by-implication suggests that we begin to trust ourselves, trust our highest mind to forever come up with creative alternatives since it has positive intentions. “Think of three other ways as good as, or better than, this old way of accomplishing this.”

In setting this new higher frame, we install within ourselves a higher level permission to begin generating several new behavioral choices, in other words, to change. After that, we future pace the new choices using the "symptoms," and other signals, of our "unconscious mind." This, by the way, demonstrates how meta-levels always drive and modulate lower levels and can do so without our primary level mind awareness. When we finally run an “ecology check” we activate, install, or set an even higher frame, that of quality controlling our lives. Asking the question -336-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 17

Installation and Meta-Levels

invites us to step up to that way of thinking and feeling and so initiates a concern for “ecology.” To summarize, the Six-Step Reframing pattern reformulated by using meta-levels goes as follows: 1) Identify a behavior that you want to produce. Identify a behavior that you want yet when you attempt to do it, something seems to stop you. Or, identify a behavior that you produce that you wish you did not. Think of a behavior that you want to stop, but something stops you from stopping. We here recognize that some “part" of us generates the unwanted behavior (by inhibiting the response or creating a counter-response that conflicts with it). We recognize that it operates at a meta-level to our primary level behavior.

2) Identify that “part.” What can we call this "part" of you? What does this "part" do for you of value or significance? What does it positively intend to accomplish? Search for its positive intention. Doing such will move you to a position meta to the unconscious meta-part.

3) Establish a search for higher positive intentions. “Will the part that runs this behavior communicate your highest positive intention in consciousness?” If you get a sense of "yes," value and confirm it. If you get a sense of "No," assume that it has positive intentions anyway. When you ask, "Are you willing to believe it serves some positive value?" You have brought a state of positive affirmation and belief to bear on your unconscious mind and above that, a willingness to believe state.

4) Access and apply a Creative State to the problem. Access your creative part and ask it to communicate with the unconscious part so that every time your creative part gets an idea, the behavioral part gets a sense of "yes." In bringing your creative "part" to bear on the positive intentional state and the behavioral part, you meta-state it with these constructions.

5) Future pace the new choices. Take each of the new choices, or the “yes” feeling that there is a new choice, and imagine the times and places where you will need to let the behavior part take responsibility for producing those ideas that the creative part comes up with that you find "as good as or better than" its present choice.

6) Run a final ecology check. This will activate a “floater” ecology check state (or a higher frame of reference) over all of the other meta-states making sure that the process will work holistically so that it serves you well.

-337-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 17

Installation and Meta-Levels

Installing in Time “Time” as such does not exist in the world. It’s another product of the mind, another concept. We create it. It’s a human construct about events. We create “time” as we represent events that have occurred, those that are now occurring, and those that will. This awareness gives us our basic sense of “time” as a concept and mental category and so as a semantic state. When we are “in” time (the In-Time meta-program), we are in a primary state and caught up in the moment, and so entertaining no ideas about “time.” To experience “time” we have to step out of the event or experience and into the idea of origin, progress, destiny, movement, etc. This creates the NLP meta-program of “Through Time”—something that would be better expressed as Out of Time or Beyond Time. We have no awareness of time when we are “in” the moment or experience. “Time” is not sensory-based. We have to rise up in our minds to construct "time.” When we do rise up and create our sense of “time,” we typically use a picture or icon to encode the idea, rather than propositional language. Typically we use objects and constructions from everyday life such as a line, a circle, a spiral, a boomerang, filing cabinets, a rolodex, etc. This provide metaphorical ways to think about time. Time-Line structures such as these enable us to move about (conceptually) using different representations about "time." None of these are real in an external sense. They only have internal reality, neuro-semantic reality. “Time” exists as a conceptual meta-state (See Appendix E; also Time-Lining, 1997). In Time-Lining processes, we essentially establish a few basic orientations to our ideas of “time” that install a new way of being in the world. Namely, we use the time-line to go back to “the past” to recode our memories of previous events. We do this so that our memories will serve us rather than impoverish and limit. We go into “the future” to encode goals, outcomes, and directions. Moving back and forth, checking things out, recoding, quality controlling things, etc. installs in us a sense that it’s our brain and how we encode things is our mapping and that the map is not the territory. Installing by Metaphor and Story If we use a story, narrative, or metaphor, we essentially bring a story (and the set of representations it entails) to bear upon some state. This generates a meta-level structure in which the one set of representations stand in a -338-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 17

Installation and Meta-Levels

meta-position to the thinking-feeling state. Interestingly enough, the very term meta-phor (meta: over, above, about and phorein: to bear) literally speaks of bringing something to bear upon, over, or about something else. We say that a metaphor involves speaking about one thing in terms of another. This obviously describes a higher logical level formatting, structuring, and framing. In terms of installation, this allows us to use stories, metaphors, narratives, non-propositional language, etc. to install meta-level formats, does it not? In Narrative Therapy (White and Epston, 1990), the therapist inquires about the stories that have formed and in-formed our thinking and feeling. "What stories have you heard or told yourself about yourself, your life, your destiny, others, etc?" "Who has storied you?" "What kind of stories have you received or installed (tragedies, comedies, mysteries, adventures, etc.)?" To take a story or narrative and use it as an over-arching structure frames things using meta-level phenomenon. Propositional Linguistics and Non-Linguistic Symbolic Systems Not all "language" involves words and sentences. In mathematics we have a symbolic system of formulas, diagrams, and algebraic formats that operate with few words. When we invite people to create an icon (a visual image) that symbolizes a high level concept (i.e., a pair of scales in a balance for the concept of justice), we invite them to use and/or create non-linguistic symbols. In this way we can use non-linguistic symbols to move up logical levels. The symbol stands for something about a languaged representation at a lower level. Similarly, when we shift out of prose and propositional language forms and into non-literal, figurative, and a poetic kind of language, we move into a different kind of symbol system. Here proverbs, psalms, poetry, story, myth, fairytale, etc. can enable us to move up logical levels without the limitations that certain evaluative words carry. Languaging in these ways enable us to install new strategy sequences involving logical levels. Stories and metaphors especially facilitate this process. To listen to a story invites us to create representations in sensorybased and evaluative terms and then tie the sequences together using plot and narrative. When a character reflects on the meaning of his or her actions or those of others, this invites the reader to take a meta-position to the actions and to bring various states to bear on those actions. -339-

NLP: Going Meta

Chapter 17

Installation and Meta-Levels

Stories enable us to use themes, plots, and motifs as higher level constructions to outframe the specific happenings. If you channel surf your television channels and happen upon a guy shooting another guy, a scene of cars racing through a city, a couple kissing—what do these story events mean? Does it not all depend upon what kind of story the producer and director have created? Of course it does. Shall we view these actions from a drama frame, melo-drama, comedy, sit-com, mystery, spoof, documentary, news, info-commercial, etc.? The kind of story frames the events at a higher level. So with our lives. What liefmotiff have you received or invented for yourself that sets the frame for your everyday actions? Do you live life as a tragedy, adventure drama, comedy, theater of the absurd, science fiction, cartoon, epic conquest and journey, heroic, etc.? Preparing to Model As a neuro-linguistic class of life and as meta creatures, we actually have no trouble getting meta-level structures installed. Going meta and directionalizing our brains and neurology to jump logical levels to think-about-our-thinking and feel-about-our-feelings happens all the time. To take charge of this process, so that we can work more methodologically and systematically with our self-reflexive consciousness, gives us the ability to install the strategies and metastrategies that make us much more resourceful.

-340-

Epilogue Having "Gone Meta”

W

here have we been, where did we start, and where are we going? We began by taking NLP itself as a model and identifying the going meta beginnings within it. We have now extended the magic within “going meta” with the Meta-States model. That has allowed us, in this work, to explore a model for tracking and working with the complexity of our neuro-linguistic system of thoughts-and-emotions about other thoughts-and-emotions. Whew. But where now? Where do we go now with this? On to modeling, that’s where! We can now more fully track the process by which we construct our meanings and our "reality" strategies not only linearly, but also non-linearly. Now, when we find glorious and empowering constructions that enable some people to navigate life effectively and create wonderful products—we can model the process more fully and accurately. Meta-levels work in such a way that lack of awareness of levels and confusion of levels makes us their victim and/or the victim of anyone who uses them against us. Bateson (1972) and associates explored this in their ground-breaking studies in schizophrenia and the double-bind theory. Pentony (1981) similarly described the action of a leader who, knowingly or not, imposes a pathological kind of paradox on a group when he says, "I'm not going to give you any directions tonight about how we will operate, I'm going to turn you lose to discover that on your own." "But such a message is a direction! If the members accept it, they place themselves in a paradoxical situation somewhat comparable to that of a hypnotic subject. They are precluded from perceiving subsequent directions from the leader as directions emanating from him." (p. 134).

So to accept a meta-communication which inherently involves selfcontradictions precludes us from understanding the communicational and -341-

NLP: Going Meta

Epilogue

Having Gone Meta

relational system. And that, in turn, makes it increasingly difficult to cope with the various contradictions and conflicts that will arise. It creates a kind of unawareness, even amnesia, to the higher level messages. This illustrates powerfully our need for what Korzybski called a—consciousness of abstracting at higher levels. Only this produces sanity and true science in the long run. This also means that we no longer have to live as a victim to our own reflexivity. We can get out of recursive loops! We do not have to be afraid of “thinking too much.” To whatever set of thoughts-and-feelings we generate, we can always go meta again and evaluate the value or appropriateness of that self-reflexiveness. In doing this, we can stop any vicious cycle from looping over and over into itself, thereby driving ourselves crazy. This now gives us the ability to run quality controls on the emergent products of our self-reflexive consciousness to make sure it works to our benefit. This means that we can enjoy, appreciate, and expect some of the emergent qualities of our mind-body system without getting lost in a maze of philosophical paradoxical questions: self, consciousness, mind, etc. Humberto R. Maturana uses the term autopoisesis to refer to the selforganization and self-organizing processes of living systems. We can now look and evaluate our own autopoisesis. Maturana also (Steier, 1991) speaks about the danger of forgetting the role of reflexivity in human thinking, abstracting, and theorizing. He speaks about the importance of using our self-reflexivity to operate ethically in our scientific work. "I consider that the greatest spiritual danger that a person faces in his/her life is to believe that s/he is the owner of a truth, or the legitimate defender of some principle, or the possessor of some transcendental knowledge, or the rightful owner of some entity, or the deserving merit or of some distinction, and so forth. I consider also that the greatest gift that science offers to us is the possibility to learn to live free from any fanaticism, and if we want to, to learn how to remain always responsible for our actions through recursive reflections on our circumstances." (p. 51)

For me, all of this powerfully confirms the constructivist phenomenology that explains how we humans operate as teleological beings. Alfred Adler -342-

NLP: Going Meta

Epilogue

Having Gone Meta

knew that people move through life with an orientation to desired ends and end-states (teleology). He built this drive toward the future into his model of psychology (Individual or Adlerian Psychology). He described us as teleological in how we build ideas about self, destiny, purpose, etc. and then feed-forward such ideas so that our future images come to powerfully effect our behaviors and emotions today. This directionality of consciousness explains, in part, our passion for "the future.” It also explains the power of the Well-formed Desired Outcome Pattern. Intentionality drives our feedforwarding processes. In so formulating his psychological model, Adler was years ahead of his time in terms of thinking so systemically. Our self-referencing processes pervade all of our experiences, from our thoughts-and-feelings, to our sense of self, future, destiny, perception, etc. It also governs "the hermeneutic circle" or spiral that phenomenology speaks about. Today this understanding is showing up in the cognitive models for interpreting literature (Holland, 1988) and in various models of “mind” and for programming of Artificial Intelligence. Given the self-reflexivity in thinking and speaking, Bois (1973) described thinking itself as a multi-level affair. He suggested that awareness of this can save us from confusing levels as well as enable us to recognize threedimensional thought when it comes our way. "Consciousness of abstracting brings about an awareness of the fact that thinking is a multilevel affair: our statements may travel close to the ground of first-order experience or they may soar to the stratosphere of almost limitless generalizations. Thought traffic is more like air traffic than like ground traffic. If two theories go in opposite directions, or at an angle with each other, they do not have to come into collision; they may well be at different levels of abstraction and can pursue their courses without interference with each other. “Paradoxes, contradictions, and dilemmas are often plain delusions because we take our thinking as movement on a flat surface. In any book on classical logic the opposition of statements or propositions is described in terms of contradictories, contraries, subcontraries, and subalterns, which implies a comparison on a level of abstraction that is assumed to be one and the same for all of them." (p. 76)

Where will all of this take us? Recently we have used the NLP and NeuroSemantic modeling tools using meta-levels to revolutionize the so-called “sub-modality” model (Sub-Modalities Going Meta, 2005, The Secrets of Personal Mastery (2000), and The Structure of Personality (2001), etc. -343-

In the current research journal (The E-Journal of Neuro-Semantics) we have applied such modeling with meta-levels to selling excellence, creating wealth and financial independence, negotiation, business excellence, health, fitness, weight loss and management, politics, cultural phenomena, etc. Others have applied the Meta-States Model in various fields of study— personality, exercise, law, emotions (Seven Steps to Emotional Intelligence (2000, Merlevede and Bridoux), Hypnotic Language (2000, Burton and Bodenhamer), etc. So as you find yourself recognizing and utilizing meta-levels as you model excellence (and even pathology) in whatever field your passions take you to—may you find yourself becoming increasingly more skilled and resourceful in detecting, unpacking, working with, designing, and installing human strategies.

-344-

Appendix A

When Levels Coalesce

When we move to higher levels, our consciousness at such levels organizes, governs, controls, and “drives,” the lower levels. The higher frame inevitably sets the frame for whatever occurs below it. Yet an interesting phenomenon occurs when we repeatedly experience a particular meta-level or state. The conceptual move to the higher level habituates so that it functionally coalesces into the lower. When this happens, the concepts, thoughts-and-feelings, and neurology of that higher level merges into the lower level it references and they become a holistic unit. Then we no longer consciously experience a separation of the levels. They seem the same. As in horizontal synesthesias (V—K, A—K, etc.) that fuse representations, this gives us a metalevel synesthesia. When states coalesce we can no longer tell that the higher level awareness relates to or about the lower level. In this way we lose awareness of the state's aboutness. When a higher state coalesces into the primary state, the primary state takes on the qualities and properties of the meta-state. Joy about learning transforms into simply, joyful learning. A belief in an understanding ("What I believe about women is...") collapses into "belief in." Convinced about a belief about an understanding transforms into "a strong belief." As such coalescing occurs, we lose our sense of the separation of levels and "aboutness," all of the thoughts-and-feelings involved at whatever level merge and seem to relate to the primary "aboutness." In "joyful learning" we experience, what previously existed as our joyous at titude about learning, as joy about the c ontent of our learning.

-345-

Appendix B

Immanuel Kant’s Logical Levels

In 1787 Immanuel Kant wrote Critique of Pure Reason and established three logical levels of knowledge or ideas. He distinguished between the level of Sensibilia, the lowest level where we experience phenomena, Intelligibilia where we experience "understanding," "pure knowledge," the conceptual categories and the noumena; and finally Transcendentia where we experience transcendental ideas, categories, "reason," etc.

The Transcendental Cosmological Ideas (beginning, infinite series of causes, the ideal, etc.) Categories extended to the Unconditioned by reason Reason ... The Unconditioned The Intelligibilia Concepts, Categories, Judgments relating to the Area of Sensibility Pure Knowledge (not seen, heard, but "thought") The non-sensible, intelligible world Arena of the Intellectual Intuition A Prior Categories or Modes of Knowledge The Noumena The character as thing in itself (sich an ding) The Sensibilia Appearances in Time and Space Images, Forms, Impression, Intuition Synthetic Knowledge (Imagination, apprehension, associations, reproduction) Leading to Synthetic Judgment Empirical Knowledge ("objective") Sensible Intuition Sensible magnitude of Phenomena as Presented to our Senses The Character of a thing in the field of Appearance Reality

Things in Themselves

-346-

BIBLIOGRAPHY Bandler, Richard and Grinder, John. (1975). The Structure of Magic, Vol. I: A Book about Language and Therapy. Palo Alto CA: Science & Behavior Books.

Bodenhamer, Bobby G.; Hall, L. Michael. (1997). Time-Lining: Patterns for Adventuring in Time. Wales, United Kingdom: Anglo-American Books. Bois, J. Samuel. (1973). The Art of Awareness: Textbook on General Semantics and Epistemics. Debuque, IO: Wm. C. Brown Co.

Bandler, Richard and Grinder, John. (1976). The Structure of Magic, Volume II. Palo Alto, CA: Science & Behavior Books.

Bolstad, Richard. (1996). "Preframing." Anchor Point.

Bandler, Richard and Grinder, John. (1979). Frogs into Princes: NeuroLinguistic Programming. UT: Real People Press.

Bourland, David D. Jr. and Johnston, Paul Dennithorne. (1991). To Be or Not: An E-Prime Anthology. San Francisco, CA: International Society for General Semantics.

Bandler, Richard and Grinder, John. (1982). Reframing: Neuro-Linguistic Programming and the Transformation of Meaning. Ut: Real People Press.

Bourland, David. D. Jr., Johnston, Paul Dennithorne; and Klein, Jeremy. (1994). More E-Prime: To Be or Not II. Concord, CA: International Society for General Semantics.

Bandler, Richard. (1985). Magic in Action. Moab, UT: Real People Press. Bandler, Richard. (1985). Using Your Brain for a Change: Editors: Connirae & Steve Andreas. UT: Real People Press.

Cameron-Bandler, Leslie; Gordon, David; Lebeau, Michael. (1985). The Emprint Method: A Guide to Reproducing Competence. Moab, UT: Real People Press.

Bateson, Gregory. (1979). Mind and Nature: A Necessary Unity. New York: Bantan.

Dilts, Robert; Grinder, John; Bandler, Richard; DeLozier, Judith. (1980). Neuro-Linguistic Programming, Volume I: The Study of the Structure of Subjective Experience. Cupertino, Ca.: Meta Publications.

Bateson, Gregory. (1972). Steps to an Ecology of Mind. New York: Ballatine. Bateson, Gregory; Bateson, Mary Catherine (1987). Angels Fears: Toward an Epistemology of the Sacred. NY: Macmillan Publishing Co.

Dilts, Robert. (1983). Applications of Neuro-Lingu istic Programming. Cupertino, CA: Meta Publications.

Berman, Sandford I. (Ed.) (1989). Logic and general semantics: Writings of Oliver L. Reiser and others. San Francisco: International Society for General Semantics.

Dilts, Robert B. (1983). Roots of NeuroLinguistic Programming. Cupertino, CA: Meta Publications.

-347-

Dilts, Robert (1990). Changing Belief Systems with NLP. Cupertino, CA: Meta Publications.

Hall, L. Michael; Bodenhamer, Bobby G. (19972000). Mind-Lines: Lines for Changing Minds. 4th edition. Clifton, CO: Neuro-Semantics Publications.

Dilts, R.B.; Dilts, R.W.; Epstein, Todd. (1991). Tools for Dreamers: Strategies for Creativity and the Structure of Innovation. Cupertino, CA: Meta Publications.

Hall, L. Michael. (1998). Secrets of Magic: Communicational Excellence for the 21st. Century. Wales, United Kingdom: Anglo-American Books.

Dilts, Robert B.; Epstein, Todd A. (1995). Dynamic Learning. Capitola, CA: Meta Publications.

Hall, L. Michael; Bodenhamer, Bob; Bolstad, Richard; Hamblett, Margott. (2001). The Structure of Personality: Modeling Personality using NLP and Neuro-Semantics. Wales, UK: Crown House Publications.

Donaldson, Rodney E. (Ed.) (1991). A Sacred Unity: Further Steps to an Ecology of Mind. NY: Cornelia & Michael Bessie Book, HarperCollins.

Holland, Norman N. (1995). The Brain of Robert Frost: A Cognitive Approach to Literature. London: Routledge.

Grinder, John; and DeLozier, Judith. (1987). Turtles All the Way Down: Prerequisites to Personal Genius. Scotts Valley, CA: Grinder & Associates.

Korzybski, Alfred. (1941/1994). Science and Sanity: An Introduction to Non-Aristotelian Systems and General Semantics, (4th. ed., 5th. ed.). Lakeville, CN: International Non-Aristotelian Library Publishing Co.

Hall, L. Michael. (1995). Meta-States: Managing the Higher Levels of the Mind. Grand Jct. CO: Neuro-Semantics Publications.

Kostere, Kim; Malatesta, Linda. (1990). Maps, Models, and the Structure of Re a li ty: NLP T ech nol og y in Psych o th erapy. Portland, OR: Metamorphous Press.

Hall, L. Michael. (1996). Languaging: The Linguistics of Psychotherapy. Grand Jct. CO: E.T. Publications. Hall, L. Michael. (1996). Dragon Slaying: Dragons to Princes. Grand Jct. CO: Neuro-Semantics Publications.

Lefebvre, Vladimir A. (1971). The Structure of Awareness: Toward a Symbolic Language of Human Reflexion. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Hall, L. Michael. (1996). The Spirit of NLP: The Process, Meaning, and Criteria for Mastering NLP. Wales, United Kingdom: Anglo-American Books.

Lefebvre, Vladimir A. (1972). A Formal Method of Investigating Reflective Process. General Systems: Yearbook of the Society for the Advancement of General Systems Theory, 17. Ann Arbor, MI: The Society.

Hall, L. Michael; Bodenhamer, Bobby G. (1997). Figuring Out People: Design Engineering with Meta-Programs. Wales, United Kingdom: AngloAmerican Books.

Mahoney, Michael J. (1991). Human change processes: The scientific foundations of psychotherapy. NY: BasicBooks. -348-

May, Rollo. (1969). Love and Will. NY: W. W. Norton & Co.

Workshop Audio-Tapes, Sept. 13-16, 1991. Boulder, CO: NLP Comprehensive.

McClendon, Terrence L. (1989). The Wild Days: NLP 1972-1981. Cupertino, CA: Meta Publications.

Seligman, Martin, E. P. (1975). Helpl ess ness: On Depression, Development, and Death. San Francisco: Freeman.

Metacalfe, Janet; Shimamura, Arthur P. (1995, Eds.). Metacognition: Knowing About Knowing. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Seligman, Martin, E.P. (1991). Learned Optimism. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

Miller, George. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity to process information. Psychological review: 63:81-97.

Siegle, Robert. (1986). The Politics of Reflexivity: Narrative and the Constitutive Poetics of Culture. Baltimore: John Hopkins University. Steier, Frederick. (Ed.) (1991). Research and Reflexivity. Newburg Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Miller, George A; Galanter, Eugene; and Pribram, Karl H. (1960). Plans and the Structure of Behavior. NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston Co.

Tolman, Edward C. (1948). "Cognitive maps in rats and men," Psychological Review, 55, pages 189-208.

O’Connor, Joseph; McDermott, Ian. (1997). The art of systems thinking: Essential skills for creativity and problem solving. London: Thorsons, Imprint of HarperCollins Publishers.

Watlzwick, Paul; Beavin, Janet H.; and Jackson, Don D. (1967). Pragmatics of Human Communications: A Study of Interactional Patterns, Pathologies, and Paradoxes. NY: W.W. Norton.

Osherson, Daniel N., Smith, Edward E. (Eds.) (1992). Thinking: An Invitation to Cognitive Science, Vol. 3 Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Weinberg, Harry L. (1959/1993). Levels of Knowing and Existence: Studies in General Semantics. Englewood, NJ: Institute of General Semantics.

Overdurf, John; Silverthorn, Julie. (1996). "Beyond Words: Languaging Change Through the Quantum Field." Audio-tapes. PA: Neuro-Energetics.

White, Michael and Epston, David. (1990). Narrative Means to Therapeutic Ends. New York: Norton.

Pentony, Patrick. (1981). Models of Influence in Psychotherapy. NY: The Free Press.

Whitehead, A. N., and Russell, B. (1910). Principia Mathematica. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Russell, Bertrand. (1960). Our Knowledge of the External World. NY: Mentor Book Edition, New American Library.

Woodsmall, Wyatt. (1990). “How To Select a Modeling Training.” Paper. NLP Practitioner Trainer Manuel.

Schmidt, Gerry; Ewing, Lara. (1991). "NLP In Business." NLP Training

Woodsmall, Wyatt. (1996). "What Is Wrong with Logical Levels," IANLP -349-

Conference, Austin, Texas, April 26, 1996. Zink, Nelson. (1993). "Going Meta: Logical Levels, The Structure of Dissociation." Anchor Point. July, 1993, pp. 12-15. Zink, Nelson (1994). "Levels of Learning." Anchor Point. Oct. 1994, pp. 9-11.

-350-

L. Michael Hall, Ph.D. L. Michael Hall is a visionary leader in the field of NLP and NeuroSemantics having been a modeler of human excellence for 30 years. Searching out areas of human expertise, he continues to model the structure of that experience and then turn that information into models, patterns, training manuals, and books. With his several businesses, Michael is also an entrepreneur and an international trainer. His doctorate is in the Cognitive-Behavioral sciences from Union Institute University. For two decades he worked as a psychotherapist in Colorado. When he found NLP in 1986, he studied and worked with Richard Bandler. Later when studying and modeling resilience, he developed the Meta-States Model (1994) that launched the field of Neuro-Semantics. He co-created the International Society of Neuro-Semantics (ISNS) with Dr. Bob Bodenhamer. Learning the structure of writing, he began writing and has written more than 60 books, many best sellers in the field of NLP. Applying NLP to coaching, he created the Meta-Coach System. This was co-developed with Michelle Duval (2003-2007). He co-founded the MetaCoach Foundation (2003), created the Self-Actualization Quadrants (2004) and launched the new Human Potential Movement (2005) which is now one of the Professional Tracks of Neuro-Semantics. In terms of creativity, Dr. Hall has created a dozen major models in the field of NLP and Neuro-Semantics, hundreds of patterns, and including the serial books, more than 75 books. He has created a board game for learning Meta-Programs, the Neuro-Semantic and Meta-Coach communities. He has also co-created the NLP Leadership Summit. Contact Information: P.O. Box 8 Clifton, Colorado 81520 USA (1-970) 523-7877 Website: www.neurosemantics.com

-351-

Books by L. Michael Hall, Ph.D. NLP and Neuro-Semantics: 1) Meta-States: Mastering the Higher Levels of Mind (1995/ 2012). 2) Dragon Slaying: Dragons to Princes (1996 / 2000). 3) The Spirit of NLP: The Process, Meaning and Criteria for Mastering NLP (1996). 4) Languaging: The Linguistics of Psychotherapy (1996, spiral). 5) Becoming More Ferocious as a Presenter (1996, spiral book). 6) Patterns For Renewing the Mind (with Bodenhamer, 1997 /2006). 7) Time-Lining: Advance Time-Line Processes (with Bodenhamer, 1997). 8) NLP: Going Meta—Advance Modeling Using Meta-Levels (1997/ 2001). 9) Figuring Out People: Reading People Using Meta-Programs (with Bodenhamer, 1997, 2005). 10) SourceBook of Magic, Volume I (with Barbara Belnap, 1997). 11) Mind-Lines: Lines For Changing Minds (with Bodenhamer, 1997/ 2005). 12) Communication Magic (2001). Originally, The Secrets of Magic (1998). 13) Meta-State Magic: Meta-State Journal (1997-1999). 14) When Sub-Modalities Go Meta (with Bodenhamer, 1999, 2005). Originally, The Structure of Excellence. 15) Instant Relaxation (with Lederer, 1999). 16) User’s Manual of the Brain: Volume I (with Bodenhamer, 1999). 17) The Structure of Personality: Modeling Personality Using NLP and Neuro-Semantics (with Bodenhamer, Bolstad, and Harmblett, 2001). 18) The Secrets of Personal Mastery (2000). 19) Winning the Inner Game (2007), originally Frame Games (2000). 20) Games Fit and Slim People Play (2001). 21) Games for Mastering Fear (with Bodenhamer, 2001). 22) Games Business Experts Play (2001). 23) The Matrix Model: Neuro-Semantics and the Construction of Meaning (2003/2016). 24) User’s Manual of the Brain: Master Practitioner Course, Volume II (2002). 25) MovieMind: Directing Your Mental Cinemas (2002). 26) The Bateson Report (2002, spiral. 27) Make it So! Closing the Knowing-Doing Gap (2002). (Out of Print) 28) Source Book of Magic, Volume II, Neuro-Semantic Patterns (2003). 29) Propulsion Systems (2003, spiral). 30) Games Great Lovers Play (2004). 31) Coaching Conversation, Meta-Coaching, Volume II (with Michelle Duval & Robert Dilts 2004, 2010). 32) Coaching Change, Meta-Coaching, Volume I (with Duval, 2004/ 2015). 33) Unleashed: How to Unleash Potentials for Peak Performances (2007 Vol. III). 34) Self-Actualization Psychology (2008, Volume IV). 35) Achieving Peak Performance (2009, Volume V). 36) Unleashing Leadership: Self-Actualizing Leaders and Companies (2009, Vol VI). 37) The Crucible and the Fires of Change (2010, Volume VII). 38) Inside-Out Wealth (2010). 39) Benchmarking: The Art of Measuring the Unquantifiable (2011, Volume VIII). -352-

40) Innovations in NLP: Volume I (Edited with Shelle Rose Charvet; 2011). 41) Neuro-Semantics: Actualizing Meaning and Performance (2011) 42) Systemic Coaching: Coaching the Whole Person with Meta-Coaching (with Pascal Gambardella, Ph.D., 2012, Volume IX). 43) Group and Team Coaching (2013, Volume X). 44) Executive Coaching: Facilitating Excellence in the C-Suite (2014, Volume XI). 45) Political Coaching: Unleashing Self-Actualizing Politicians. (2015, Volume XII). 46) Collaborative Leadership, with Ian McDermott. (2016). 47) The Field of NLP with John Seymour and Richard Gray (unfinished). 48) The Meta-Coaching System (2015, Volume XIII). 49) Get Real: Unleashing Authenticity (2016, Volume XIV). 50) Inside-Out Persuasion (2017, Volume XV). 51) Creative Solutions (2017, Volume XVI). 52) Executive Thinking: Activating Your Highest Executive Thinking Potentials (2018). 53) NLP Secrets: Untold Stories (2019). 54) Thinking as a Modeler (2019). 55) Thinking Hypnotically to Unleash Potentials (2020). 56) Hypnotic Conversations (2020) 57) Humorous Thinking (2020)

Volume Books Books written in weekly installments to the Neuro-Semantic community (Neurons), to the Meta-Coaches egroup (Morpheus), to the Neuro-Semantic Trainers egroup (Framers). These are now PDF books on the Neuro-Semantic website. Neurons began as the Meta-Reflections in 2008 and each year consists of another book. 1) 2008. 2) 2009. 3) 2010. 4) 2011. 5) 2012. 6) 2013. 7) 2014. 8) 2015. 9) 2016. 10) 2017. 11) 2018. 12) 2019. Morpheus began as the Meta-Coach Reflections in 2009. 2) 2010. 3) 2011. 4) 2012. 5) 2013. 6) 2014. 7) 2015. 8) 2016. 9) 2017. 10) 2018. 11) 2019. Framers is the Trainers’ Reflections which began in 2010. 1) 2010. 2) 2011. 3) 2012. 4) 2013. 5) 2014. 6) 2015. 7) 2016. 8) 2017. 9) 2018. 10) 2019. Other books: 1) Emotions: Sometimes I Have Them/ Sometimes They have Me (1985) 2) Motivation: How to be a Positive Influence in a Negative World (1987) 3) Speak Up, Speak Clear, Speak Kind (1987) 4) Millennial Madness (1992), now Apocalypse Then, Not Now (1996). 5) Over My Dead Body (1996). Order Books from:

NSP: Neuro-Semantic Publications P.O. Box 8 Clifton, CO. 81520—0008 USA (970) 523-7877

-353-

Neuro-Semantics as an Association In 1996 Hall and Bodenhamer registered “Neuro-Semantics” and founded The International Society of Neuro-Semantics (ISNS) as a new approach to teaching, training, and using NLP. The objective was to take NLP, as a model and field, to a higher level in terms of professional ethics and quality. Today Neuro-Semantics is one of the leading disciplines and movements within NLP as it is pioneering many new developments and demonstrating a fresh creativity similar to what characterized NLP when it was new. Dr. Hall is known as a prolific writer, having authored 60 books in the field of NLP, many of them best sellers through Crown House Publishes (Wales, UK) and many of them translated into numerous languages: German, Dutch, Italian, Spanish, Russian, Japanese, Chinese, Arabic, Norwegian, Portuguese, etc. www.neurosemantics.com

The Meta-Coaching System As a complete and comprehensive coaching system, the Meta-Coaching System began in 2001 when L. Michael Hall, Ph.D. modeled four expert coaches. He then applied the Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP) and Neuro-Semantic models to the burgeoning field of Coaching. As a systemic model, the Meta-Coaching System enables a professional Coach to answer the question: How do you know what to do, when to do it, with whom to do it, how to do what you’re doing, and why? When you can think strategically as a Coach, you will be able to recognize where you are with a client and what to do. Having a theoretical model that answers the why are you doing that? question saves your coaching from being a grab-bag of tricks so you don’t have to coach-by-the-seat-of-your-pants. To meet this rigorous criteria, the Meta-Coaching System is based on eight models— models which are based in Cognitive-Behavioral, Developmental, and Self-Actualization psychologies. The design is to give Meta-Coaching a credible scientific basis. Then as a coach you will not fall back on what you “feel like” on a certain day, your “intuitions” (which may be your own unresolved issues), or some trick that you have picked up on a weekend training. Today Meta-Coaching standards are the highest in the field of Coaching as it offers specific behavioral benchmarks for every one of the 50 coaching skills. It also has developed a Benchmarking Intangibles Model for how to generate rigorous benchmarks for any value or skill. The Meta-Coaching System also has an accountability structure to the ethics and standards which governs every licenced Meta-Coach. There are now 16 books detailing the curriculum of Meta-Coaching, and several more in the works. The Meta-Coaching System is inclusive of other systems as Meta-Coaches around the world in 70 countries are often on the board of ICF and many other Coach training programs. Trainings in MetaCoaching occur every year dozens of times in every continent.

-354-

Meta-Coaching Series In the field of Coaching, the Meta-Coaching System is a leading model in framing the process of effective coaching in a highly systematic way. The design is to provide a Professional Coach the ability to know what to do, when to do it, how to do it, with whom to do it, and why to do it. The design also is to establish the field of coaching in the unique psychology for psychologically healthy people who want to change and develop, namely, Self-Actualization Psychology. To achieve that Dr. Hall has committed to writing the models and processes in a series of books that comprise the curriculum of Meta-Coaching.

Volume I: II: III: IV: V: VI: VII: VIII: IX: X: XI: XII: XIII: XIV: XV: XVI:

Meta-Coaching Series Title Model Coaching Change Axes of Change Model Coaching Conversations Facilitation Model Unleashed: Self-Actualization Self-Actualization Quadrants Self-Actualization Psychology Self-Actualization Volcano Achieving Peak Performance Meaning–Performance Axes Unleashing Leadership: Axes of Leadership Self-Actualizing Leaders & Companies The Crucible The Crucible Model Benchmarking Intangibles Benchmarking Model Systemic Meta-Coaching The Matrix Model Group & Team Meta-Coaching Group Trust Spiral Executive Coaching Political Coaching The Meta-Coaching System Get Real: Unleashing Authenticity Inside-Out Persuasion Creative Solutions The Neuro-Semantic Precision Funnel

Meta-Coaching also based on the following Books: Figuring Out People (2006) The Meta-Programs Model Secrets of Personal Mastery (1997) The Meta-States Model Winning the Inner Game (2007) The Meta-States Model The Matrix Model (2003) Neuro-Semantic Systems Model Communication Magic (1999) The Meta-Model of Language

-355-

BACK COVER The field of NLP began as an adventure in modeling experts. The originators asked, “How do the experts communicate, relate, and map the world?” Then they modeled three therapeutic wizards and the adventure began. As an expression of the Cognitive Psychology movement, NLP is an exploration into the very structure of experience. NLP: Modeling Going Meta offers the next step in modeling. It provides a crucial piece to NLP Modeling as it explores the mechanism of reflexivity. Now discover how the higher levels of mind (the “logical levels”) play a role in modeling the structure of experience. In this book, Dr. Hall invites you to transcend the primary states of mere representational steps and rise up to a meta-level of awareness to map out the higher and more complex frames of mind, the meta-states. Now you can factor in the higher levels. In NLP: Modeling Going Meta explores the genius of Korzybski, Bateson, and Dilts on the levels and frames that serves as the foundation of MetaStates and Neuro-Semantics.

-356-