Outlaw Thinking: Part 2

November 8, 2020 by Joseph Riggio Leave a Comment

“Here’s to the crazy ones, the misfits, the rebels, the troublemakers, the round pegs in square holes.” – Steve Jobs

That’s a nice summation in a neatly wrapped up, memorable quote of “Outlaw Thinking.”

What it isn’t is a good description of what I mean by “Outlaw Thinking.”

Outlaw Thinking is about two things that the interplay between them, disruption and adaptability.

In the world of business a disruptive paradigm upsets and replaces what came before it, usually with the intention or actuality of making a system more effective and efficient, improving performance, and thereby increasing the results achieved within it. Usually in the world of business this translates into more market share and profit.

When we apply this same concept of outlaw thinking to our personal lives the same two functions of disruption and adaptability come together. The distinction within the personal sphere, when you apply outlaw thinking, is that it allows you to see past the cultural norms, impositions and installations that shape so many people’s worldview.

When you can see beyond the cultural norms that are familiar and contain you, new perspectives become available to you, and new opportunities become open for you … in your relationships, in your work, in your health and mental well being.

You become more free to decide and act outside of what is considered “proper” according to the accepted socio-cultural agreements, thereby creating a new, more authentic, and freeing worldview.

When you think and act outside of the “proper” worldview that you had been sharing with others, there are usually repercussions and push back from those who had counted on you to go along.

Yet, almost always those who have realized that installing and operating from an outlaw thinking worldview have come to realize how worth it making the investment and shift had been for them.

The key begins with upgrading your mind so you can elevate your performance, and this will not be the familiar way you probably think about thinking today, nor will it be comfortable initially to let go of that familiarity.

Most people have a worldview that is dramatically shaped by the cultural norms they’ve been exposed to that’s generally one dimensional. This leads to thinking linearly about cause and effect, i.e.: “this happened because that happened,” as though the Universe unfolds in a straight continuous, unbroken line. Philosophers call this deterministic thinking.

I call linear, cause and effect thinking, “First Order Thinking” in the model I’ve been developing, “Cognitive Maturity.” Current research suggests that 80% of the population falls into this first order of thinking.

10% of the population have not fully mastered even First Order Thinking, leaving 10% that operate beyond First Order Thinking. I’ve developed descriptions of two further orders of thinking in the Cognitive Maturity model.

Second Order Thinking takes into account a teleological consideration, where the present is organized in relation to the desired future outcome, independent of and transcending historical limitations.

Third Order Thinking adds the recursive aspect of being able to recognize the effect of the actions you take in the systems you operate in relation to as having the consequence of changing you as well as bringing about outcomes outside of yourself.

Here’s a short list of these three levels of Cognitive Maturity:

1st Order Cognitive Maturity: Linear Tactical Cognition
Recognizing That You Are Thinking About Achieving A Specific Outcome And The Specific Action You Plan On Taking To Create The Outcome
2nd Order Cognitive Maturity: Consequential Strategic Cognition
Thinking About And Recognizing That The Action You Are About To Take Has Consequences And Factoring Them Into Your Decision-Making Process
3rd Order Cognitive Maturity: Cybernetic Systemic Cognition
Knowing Achieving Your Outcome Happens Within A System That Contains You, And That The Action You Take Will Have An Effect On You As Well As On Whatever Or Whomever Is Also Effected By It In The System

What I’m talking about here is called developmental modeling, and the folks who do this work, developmentalists. I think of myself as a neurocognitive developmentalist in terms of the models I’ve designed and specifically in relation to the body of work I’m engaged in that I’m calling “Cognitive Maturity.”

One of the major developmental researchers suggests ten total levels of potential development that she’s demarcated. Within her model, that she’s been studying and refining for more than twenty years, there are four levels above what she refers to as the “conventional” and what I’m calling First Order Thinking.

The developmental model continues beyond “conventional” to postconventional levels, and I’ve broken these down into Second and Third Order Thinking as I’ve described above. In her model, two of the postconventional levels, 7 & 8, would fit into my Second Order Thinking level, and the last two, 9 & 10, would fit into my Third Order Thinking.

Here’s what she says about the postconventional levels 7 – 10:

“Stage 7, the Individualistic stage, represents the first of several postconventional stages. To grow beyond Conscientious, Stage 6, a person must become more inner-directed and more tolerant of themselves and others. The self-established standards of the previous stage must become more contextualized and flexible. Persons at the Individualistic stage become aware of contradictions, such as the conflict between their need for autonomy and their need for emotional connection. They are willing to live with emotional and cognitive complexities that may not be resolvable, and they become more psychologically minded. The Autonomous Stage, Stage 8, and the subsequent Stage 9, Integrated, describe about 10% of the U.S. adult population. Autonomous individuals are able to accept conflict as part of the human condition. They tolerate contradictions and ambiguities well and demonstrate cognitive sophistication. The Autonomous person respects the autonomy of others and values close personal relationships. Self-fulfillment and self-expression gain increasing importance in this person’s life. High social ideals of justice are also typical of this stage.

— The Postconventional Personality: Assessing, Researching, and Theorizing Higher Development by Angela H. Pfaffenberger, Paul W. Marko, et al.
https://a.co/b1ERrw0

Then the postconventional levels, 9 & 10, are further described in her model as following after what she called Stage 8:

“She emphasized a cognitive shift that takes place at the Autonomous level, Stage 8, describing it as the embracing of systemic and dialectical modes of reasoning. Such individuals can hold multiple viewpoints and are interested in how knowledge is arrived at. In the language of the post-Piagetians such as Richards and Commons (1990) this constitutes a postformal way of reasoning. Individuals are aware of subjectivity in the construction of reality, accepting interpretation as the basis for the creation of meaning. Cook-Greuter constructed two postautonomous stages to replace Loevinger’s final Stage 9, and suggested that about 1% of the population reach this level of development. The ninth stage in her system is called Construct-aware. At this level, individuals become conscious of how language shapes the perception of reality. Language is experienced as a form of cultural conditioning that people usually remain unaware of throughout their lives. According to Cook-Greuter (1999) individuals can subsequently progress to an understanding that their egos are actually constructed from memory and maintained through an ongoing internal dialogue. As their self-awareness increases, they become interested in alternative ways of knowing. Transpersonal episodes, such as peak experiences, become increasingly common and people become drawn to meditation, alternate ways of knowing, and the witnessing of the internal process. At this stage, the individual experiences conflict between ordinary consensual reality and transpersonal awareness. This may be evident in the ego’s ownership and evaluation of transpersonal episodes, or in seeming paradoxes such as attachment to nonattachment. Only at Stage 10, the Unitive stage, can individuals sustain an ongoing openness to experience that is fluid and without struggle. They are now able to make use of transpersonal experiences free from ego clinging. Individuals have been tested who are found to be functioning at the Unitive stage, ranging upward from 26 years of age (S. Cook-Greuter, personal communication, December 3, 2003).”

— The Postconventional Personality: Assessing, Researching, and Theorizing Higher Development by Angela H. Pfaffenberger, Paul W. Marko, et al.
https://a.co/6RcNDGc

From these descriptions, if we follow Cook-Grueter’s developmental modeling, only 1% of the population ever reach levels 9 or 10 as they are detailed here by her, with this being the focus of the work I’m aiming at with my clients:

The ninth stage in her system is called Construct-aware. At this level, individuals become conscious of how language shapes the perception of reality. Language is experienced as a form of cultural conditioning that people usually remain unaware of throughout their lives. According to Cook-Greuter (1999) individuals can subsequently progress to an understanding that their egos are actually constructed from memory and maintained through an ongoing internal dialogue.

And it continues …

As their self-awareness increases, they become interested in alternative ways of knowing. Transpersonal episodes, such as peak experiences, become increasingly common and people become drawn to meditation, alternate ways of knowing, and the witnessing of the internal process. At this stage, the individual experiences conflict between ordinary consensual reality and transpersonal awareness. This may be evident in the ego’s ownership and evaluation of transpersonal episodes, or in seeming paradoxes such as attachment to nonattachment.

The model I began designing almost thirty years ago, the MythoSelf Process was specifically designed to raise the level of awareness of the clients I work with to achieve this 9th level of cognitive maturation. This is virtually unheard of, even by the developmentalists who I’ve studied for the past twenty plus years.

The developmentalists tend to believe and operate from two “certainties” … 1) the levels must be progressed though sequentially, and 2) you cannot therefore jump levels, you must progress sequentially. Everything I’ve done in the past twenty years suggests that it is indeed possible to attain a level 9/Third Order Thinking awareness regardless of the level of cognitive maturity you are operating from today.

That’s now become my mission, to make this kind of advance in cognitive maturity to the higher postconventional levels of awareness, available to as many people as I can, who get the value in making the personal investments required to attain it, and to reap the rewards that accrue when it has been attained.

I’ll be back again with a bit more in Part Three … if you’re ready to take the next steps in exploring how you can make this kind of leap yourself have a look here now:

Mastering Cognitive Maturity

Best,

Joseph Riggio, Ph.D.
Architect & Designer of the MythoSelf Process and SomaSemantics

Developer of A.C.T. | Adaptive Cognitive Training and the Cognitive Maturity Model

P.S.: If you’re interested in working with me in one of my small coaching groups or 1:1, there’s no need to wait any longer, reach out to me directly at: joseph@josephriggio.com, and we’ll come back to you about how to find out more about taking the next steps to do that …

Seeing Wholeness

December 17, 2018 by Joseph Riggio 3 Comments

The Key To Transformational Embodiment

About 30 years ago I began searching for the universal ”skeleton key” to transformational change.

By the mid-1990s I had come to the conclusion that the ”key” to transformational change was part of what I began calling the somatic ground of being … embodiment … the foundation of ontological experience and awareness. This led to an approach using somatic interventions to instigate ontological transformation. I remember sitting in the “Hypnotorium” with Roye at the front doing something with someone, a piece of profound transformational hypnosis. This is very different from what many think of as hypnosis, i.e.: “You are getting sleepy … your eyes are getting heavy, tired, and they want to close … just let them close, NOW … going deeper into a deep, deep sense of relaxation … let yourself float down, even deeper, still …” and then some suggestions about stopping smoking or losing weight, or some other habit interruption and reframing. It’s also obviously very different from stage hypnosis, (same script followed by), ”Now you will follow my suggestions … when I snap my fingers you will open your eyes, and when I mention the word “hypnosis” you will cluck like a chicken …” No, not anything like that at all. Transformational hypnosis was … is … the art of shifting the ontological awareness you operate from about reality, what is real and how it is organized, and most importantly your place in relation to it.

Within the art of transformational hypnosis there is an intention not to change symptoms or behavior at the surface, but the structure of your perception at a deep and essential level, all the way down to the core of your sense of identity.

Now the way I was learning about how Roye worked was presented in what he referred to as “wholeform” … never truly broken down into steps to follow, but instead presented as a complete piece of work. Someone would come in and present a life issue they were facing and within … a significant choice in a relationship maybe, or the need and desire to make a major change in their profession or lifestyle, it might be they were dealing with a major loss and were struggling with processing it fully, and as often it would have been someone who was simply stuck and yearning for a breakthrough to an imagined future that infuriatingly continued to elude them. Roye would refer to whatever it was that the person presented as the ”presenting problem” and point out that it was simply the lens to a solution. The trick of course was to be able to elicit and discern the solution that had been obfuscated by the presenting problem and remained unavailable to the one presenting it. So I would come, a couple or a few times a month, or even weekly, to sit in the Hypnotorium with Roye to learn the secrets of the deep art of transformational hypnosis. I have to admit that for months the entirety of it eluded me and all I could gather from what he was doing at the front of the room was bits and pieces of technique. Maybe I would pick up a way of leading someone into an altered state with some bit of language. Or, I’d notice that Roye would alter his posture to be more like the person he was working with, and yet with all these bits and pieces I was gathering my skill remained mostly limited to working at best at the surface of things.

Then it happened …

I think maybe I was tired, or frustrated, but I’d given up trying to “get it” and I just sat there as Roye was doing a piece of work with someone and I saw the whole thing! This wasn’t the process he was using, or what he was doing, it was what he was noticing about the person in front of him. They are the whole thing! This is where the magic happens. I got that absolutely in that instant, as fleeting as it was and as difficult to recapture. By trying to “get it” … looking and listening for what it was, I remained unable to get the “whole thing” … the entirety of what happens moment to moment as you are with someone.

The “whole thing” is the entirety of how someone is organized in any given moment AND how they change moment to moment in an endlessly choreographed dance of dynamic movement.

This way of seeing became the essence of the work I do and teach in MythoSelf Process and Soma-Semantics models. I proposed we have a fundamental, ontological state of being that is innate to us, because of the deep integration between the somatic and semantic structure of wholeform experience that treats the body-mind as an integrated singularity. This state of being always emerges in wholeform as a singularity all at once.

The wholeform ontological structure contains the entirety of the way we are within our bodies, how we use them, move within them and move through them, and the language forms that arise to inform us and others via the descriptions of the subjective experience we are having as we do.

One of the primary teaching distinctions of the MythoSelf Process and Soma-Semantics is the art of Seeing Wholeness. Yet Seeing Wholeness remains elusive, as it did for me for months of my early training with Roye, only becoming apparent in that first instance as a wholeform experience of undifferentiated wholeness that was the true essence of the person I saw for the first time that day.

Seeing The Wholeform Of Wholeness:

To see wholeness you cannot be looking for the pieces or the parts, as wholeness only exists in the wholeform. This is what makes it so hard for folks to learn … the letting go of trying to see what they cannot yet discern for themselves.

For most people to learn to see wholeness you must allow yourself to see it through the eyes of someone who can already see it, and see what they are seeing, not what you are looking for yourself.

This of course is a kind of trick you must learn for yourself, i.e.: to see through the eyes of another. What you’re noticing for is the entirety of whatever you are present to, not the parts of the entirety. Of course the entirety includes you, since you are present as well. Wholeness always includes whatever happens between you and what you are noticing, and it is there that the magic of the wholeform experience becomes most present … in the space between. To put this another way, I always feel the wholeform experience before I can see it, but once I can feel it I can’t help but to see it as well. What we call adumbration in the MythoSelf Process and Soma-Semantics training forms the basis for seeing wholeness … the ability to foresee what is emerging as it emerges, or even a microsecond or so before it is apparent in any ordinary sense of being able to see it. As crazy making as this seems to see wholeness you must allow yourself to feel it coming before it’s there within yourself. Then you must allow yourself to stop looking for anything and just notice for everything, because when you are tracking for wholeness everything changes all at once. When you are noticing for wholeness you do not only notice that someone has moved an arm or a leg, or that they smiled or frowned, or that their voice changed in someway such as increasing or decreasing in volume or pitch. You notice for the way they are now entirely different AND they moved an arm or a leg, or that they smiled or frowned, or that their voice changed in someway such as increasing or decreasing in volume or pitch. By getting caught by the arm or a leg moving, or that they smiled or frowned, or that their voice changed in someway such as increasing or decreasing in volume or pitch, you lose the sense of the wholeform, and you lose any ability to see wholeness.

Wholeness flows.

Wholeness doesn’t exist in any moment and it does in every moment. It is the ability to see the grand pattern of change and transformation, and to notice for how that pattern organizes itself in alignment with some future, teleological wholeform possibility. Using the information that is present by tracking the Soma-Semantic (whole)form you can then assist whomever you are working with to align themselves with that wholeform possibility as the possibility of choice. This then becomes the trajectory along which they propel themselves into their chosen future.

NOTE FOR MYTHOSELF PROCESS FACILITATORS AND TRAINERS:

When you can do this you are doing the MythoSelf Process, and only when you are doing this, doing anything else is something, but not the MythoSelf Process.

Merry Christmas 2018!

Joseph Riggio, Ph.D., Parsippany, NJ Architect & Designer of the MythoSelf Process,a SomaSemantics and Generative Flow

SENSING TIME

September 1, 2017 by Joseph Riggio 1 Comment

Just like seeing or hearing TIME is a sense.

I was in a brief exchange with James Tsakalos, an NLP Trainer, colleague and FB friend of mine, about setting time frames in training events.

Fundamentally it was about when we begin and end training days with groups. I mentioned that I almost always begin the first day at 10:00 or 11:00, while I think James likes to start early. typically around 8:00.

My reasoning for this is that for most folks who work they typically begin their day earlier rather than later, say 8:00 – 9:00 versus 10:00 to 11:00, and starting at a different time signals very clearly “THIS is NOT THAT.”

The same can be said for other aspects of timing during the day, e.g.: ending times, or breaks … I usually break for 90 minutes for lunch, not 30 or 60 minutes. Again in part for the distinction that it makes versus many people’s standard routine, as well as because it gives them longer to integrate and incorporate the material we covered in the morning.

Also my lunch is ordinarily set at 1:00 PM/13:00, and it’s interesting how much that can shake people up who are habituated to an earlier time for lunch.

A Sense of Time

Most folks don’t think of TIME as a sense, but when you begin to you also get that time is a sense just like seeing or hearing, touch, taste or smell.

I also count vestibulation (balance) and proprioception (spatial & movement awareness) as senses. So in my world as a neuro-cognitive scientist there are eight senses I address that we use to discern data about the world we live in, move through, manipulate and experience. FWIW I don’t limit my list to just eight, I only keep these eight in the forefront of my awareness and in the loop when I’m discussing senses and sensation.

First a little background to where I’m going …

Way back when … I started my movement into consulting, coaching and training as a hypnotist and then I studied and became an NLP trainer. NLPers (those folks who are NLP practitioners) break down the five senses into what the call representational modalities, i.e.: visual (seeing), auditory (hearing), kinesthetic (feeling), olfactory (smelling), gustatory (tasting), shortened into the acronym VAK-O/G. Then they are trained to calibrate what representational modality that someone is accessing according to the VAK-O/G.

NLPers track the VAK-O/G representations that someone is using in a number of ways, but the most common are eye accessing (noticing where locationaly relative to the individual moving their eyes they rotate their gaze to, e.g.: upper left, lower right), language predicates, e.g.: “I see” … “It’s crystal clear to me.” … “You sound funny.” … “I’m feeling excited.” …, and in a more subtle and sophiticated approach by where in their body they are breathing from and the rate of their breathing, e.g.: upper chest, rapid breathing is associated with visual accessing verus lower belly, slow breathing with kinesthetic accessing.

Ideally NLPers want to cross calibrate and confirm their assessment of which representational modality a person is accessing by having two or more of these kinds of signals simultaneously happening, e.g.: they look up to their left (a visual access), while they say, “I observed you were moving a lot when I looked across the room.” and they say it quickly for them indicating a more rapid rate of breathing and expression associated with visual accessing.

Now, a bit later on in the development of NLP, let’s call it ten years to make it simple, one of the co-developers, Richard Bandler, began putting a lot of attention on what he called “submodalities” – or, more refined distinctions of the representational modalities. For instance if we use the visual representational modality (sight/seeing), we could speak to the distinctions of location … where is the image, what is the posititonal angle of the image (relative to the individual accessing it), how far away or close is the image … then there would be other things we could notice for as well, e.g.: size, color, brightness …

Okay, so as a NLPer I learned to calibrate and track for representational modality accessing and the finer aspects of sumbmodality distinctions. BUT, as a NLPer I was only introduced to these within the traditional five senses covered by the VAK-O/G list.

More Than The Traditional Five Senses

As I continued working with people, learning and studying I realized that I had to include both vestibulation (the vestibular process of the sensation of balance) and proprioception too (the awareness of spatial perception, our bodies in space relative to other objects, movement of our own body and other objects relative to one another, and the location and movement of our body relative to ourselves, e.g.: posture, limb articulation, etc. This radically changed how I worked with clients and over time how I perceived and experienced myself, and the world around me.

Then at some point I became aware of TIME as a sense like the traditional five senses, and vestibulation or proprioception. This was a powerful moment of awareness for me. To give some credit where it’s due I had some introduction to time as sense of sorts from other sources as well. NLPers also have an awareness of time, and they have a process they use called the “timeline” that indicated how people experience and position themselves relative to time. The NLP book that addresses the “timeline proccess,” “Timeline Therapry and the Basis of Personality” by Tad James and Wyatt Woodsmall. So I’d already had some influences vis-a-vis my discoveries about time with clients.

Time was a topic that the great American anthropologist E.T. Hall explored in his book, “The Dance of Time” and I’m a great fan and virtual student of his work. His work covered many “silent languages” as he referred to the non-verbal and cultural aspects of communication, perception and awareness in his many books. The more I learned about “silent languages” the more I became intrigued with how we perceive, think, process and act outside of the normally referred to ways that are what I’ll call fully conscious for now. In other words, some of what we do is available to use as a consciously aware experience we’re having or have had, and some of what we do is utterly outside of our conscious awareness and happens silently or invisibly as E.T. Hall might refer to it.

Time for most folks is outside of their conscious awarenss, except as they track it by the clock in modern life. Yet, internally we have incredibly sophisticated ways to track time that are organized primarily around the rising and falling processes of our internal physiology and its chemistry.

The Finer Distinctions Of Time … And Other Things Too

So as I continued my exploration of time I began to realize that time also has submodality distinctions, i.e.: finer ways of thinking about time than “it passes” or that it is a particular time based on the agreed to conventions of time … “clock time.” One of the things that both NLPers and E.T. Hall point out is that time “moves” differently for differnt people in different contexts and depending on what they are experiencing.

We’ve probably all experienced a time when we were with people we enjoyed being with and the sensation was that time just flew by and our experience with them was over in what seemed an instant. If you’ve ever been in a bureaucratic or institutional loop where you need to get something done, e.g.: renew your driver’s license or get a copy of your birth certificate, you might have experienced time moving much more slowly than the clock indicates, looking up after an hour and realizing it was actually only five minutes. Now if you love someone and you’re waiting to see them again multiple that by 10, and if you’re a five year old waiting for your birthday to arrive or Christmas maybe, multiple that by 100 (then of course when your birthday comes the party only lasts 1.5 seconds)!

But time does more than this … it also organizes our lives syntactically according to the rules of computation, e.g.: this happens before that and after this. Time therefore becomes the tableau upon which we write our lives in part, since we experience our lives syntactically, or happening in a sequence or events that occur according to the movemnt of time. The brilliant theoretical physicist and cosmologist, Stephen Hawking, wrote about time and space in his popular non-fiction book for lay folks (i.e.: those of us who aren’t theoretical physicists or cosmologists), “A Brief History of Time” where he lays out the relationship of time and space syntactically for the entire universe and everything in it as well.

This realization that time and space are singular leads to a secondary realization that the perception of time and space are also singular, meaning that for humans time and proprioception are singular as well. I’d argue that we also experiene balance as a function of time and space, making the actual human perceptual singularity the interwoven realtionality of time, proprioception and vestibulation. This is more than a little relavant with regard to action and outcomes too.

The Teleological Factor

Now to make things just a little more complex, I need to address the fact that I’m a “teleologist” by inclination. By that I mean that I think in terms of the future pulling us toward it versus the past pushing us forward.

So rather than being an artifact of our history we are artifacts of our futures … i.e.: we experience ourselves in relation to what has happened, just not yet. This is the teleological equation, and is built on the beliefs and expectations we hold about what will happen when we act or not. So we don’t act based on what we’ve experienced, but rather what we expect we will act upon and experience.

So this brings me around to my next point …

TIME IS A CONTEXT.

When I’m training I consider the context as important as the content I’m delivering. And I mean that literally. I organize the context as carefully, and often more carefully, than the content I deliver.

My shifting the relationship people in my training have, by doing something as simple as changing the start time to what might be “normally” expected, say 9:00 AM to 10:00 AM, it shifts the sense of where the participants are from “this” is like any other day, to “THIS” is NOT like any other day, “THIS DAY” is special in someway.

Now they reorganize their expectations to allow for something special to happen, making it that much more likely that something special will happen. There are many reasons that this can happen, but the simplest expectation is that because they are now experiencing themselves in relation to what’s happening as extraordinary compared to their normal day. When someone expects something out of the ordinary they begin to notice for it, even when it was something that was there all along. Even when what they are noticing for might have been missed or taken for granted before.

Also, one shift leads to another, when I shift the time frame that’s typical or normally expected, the relationship to time that someone hold shifts … like when they are on vacation and move through their day differently than when they are at work. So now we can use the presumption that when someone’s relationship with time has shifted and their hold on “normal” time is looser, and I can help them move through time differently.

For example, if there is something they want to attain or achieve that they perceive as far off in the future, when their sense of time is loosened we can shift it to bring it closer (remember my teleological premise of the future pulling us forward towards it … when that future is closer the pull tends to be stronger).

We gain another shift as well. When the pull of the future is stronger, because we’ve slid it closer in time, we also tend to become more adept at noticing for what will allow us to realize what we intend more effectively and efficiently. In some ways we shift the signal to noise ratio of what’s important to notice versus random data in the system that’s unimportant to us in regard to getting out outcome. This also allows us to adust and adapt more rapidly, and therefore we expend less energy and time getting to where we’re going.

So this simple thing of doing something outside of the expected, like starting an hour or so later than people are used to starting their day, becomes a vital contextual advantage to helping them make the shifts they need to so they can both succeed in getting their outcomes and geting them with less effort and time invested.

TRANSFORMATIONAL THINKING

There’s a big difference between shifting what someone thinks about and how someone thinks. To make big shifts in life it’s important to shift the way you think, NOT just what you think about, or how you think about it (whatever the “it” may be … money, relationships, health, fitness, security …).

The most significant thing that helps shift the way you think is shifting the way you experience the context you how whatever you’re thinking about within. Part of the premise I work from is that all thinking is both embodied and situated, i.e.: it occurs in and is shaped by the context it occurs within.

Now if we shift the context we will shift what is experienced within that context, since everything is experienced within the context it occurs within and is shaped by that context. Taking that a step further we can also presume, whether it’s true or not, that it’s possible that everything we expect to experience within a context is shaped by that context as well. Since we act upon and experience what we expect, how the context affects what we expect it also affects what we act upon and experience.

When you accept these presumptions of how context shapes experience you begin to recognize the the significance of shaping the context … hence the importance of shaping time as contextual frame and using it to help shape the way we think, and not just what we think about …

I’ve been describing it…
TIME IS A TOOL FOR TRANSFORMATION.

Joseph Riggio, Ph.D.
Architect & Designer of the MythoSelf Process and SomaSemantics

P.S. – I’d love to hear what you think too … leave me a comment below …

NOTE: Join the extended conversation in my FB group: GNAU Nation at: https://www.facebook.com/groups/GNAUNATION/

My comments on Social Ontology

March 18, 2017 by Joseph Riggio Leave a Comment

[NOTE: Copied from http://blognostra.blogspot.in/2005/08/re-sv-mythoself-tm-my-comments-on.html … reposted here in full. Response on mythoself-tm@yahoogroups.com in response to the Social Ontology blog at www.blognostra.blogspot.com – simultaneously posted in both forums. – JSR]

Robert,

Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player, that struts and frets his hour upon the stage, and then is heard no more;

I must admit I don’t “get it” … a lot of words and little point. You the “master” of “simplicity” taking so many words to say so little. I appreciate that Najma loved it so it of course may just be me, but with absolute honesty I don’t get it … at least in relation to Social Ontology … or even the ordinary construction of logical connections.

First, as always with you, I accept that this is ultimately a trance-lation from Swedish into Swenglish … (pronounced either ‘swing-lish’ or ‘sweng-lish’ if you prefer, for those who want to know). I also accept that Najma may speak Swenglish better than I, and that may make a difference. Yet, the connection to Social Ontology, even with these exceptions escapes me.

I want to “get it” … I really do … I read and re-read what I perceive to be your rambling statements … some of which I really liked … individually … and still I must make great leaps of faith to make them connect … faith I have in droves … faith in this connections that are at best so tenuous … I don’t lack … I simply refuse to expend.

It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
– William Shakespeare

But, maybe, just maybe there is one ‘saving grace’ … the “bridge is just a bridge” part … maybe there you could have pulled it out of the fire of ill-formedness and illogic … you didn’t but …

Let me get to my more immediate point … (and then one more beyond that if you’ll allow me … of course I’ll be writing it, but only you can choose or not to read it) … (BTW is it helpful for me to segregate my comments aside by placing them aside in brackets … in this case indicated by parenthesis) … (I expect if you choose to reply you may go line by line, or paragraph by paragraph and delineate your response in that way … so I want to set it up so that you might use my structure of presentation to make an adequate analysis and rebuttal … let me know if this works for you.) …

My immediate point is that what you write about in your “Comments on Social Ontology” have little to do with Social Ontology. I do recognize that you are disturbed when I elucidate a point with what you consider to be extravagant language, when you believe I could use simple words that would suffice just as well. In part (have spent considerable time in Denmark) this may be an issue of speaking a language based in Old Norse and using lots of “imports” … like German, English and French words … where words are not presently available in the native tongue. Svenska (Swedish for those of us speaking English) is a language that originated in Northern Germany and was imported into Sweden becoming what is sometimes called Old Norse before continuing its evolution into modern Swedish. Discounting “new” compound words that are actually words created to express an idea by combining two or more simple words – similar to the German tradition of compounding words – the language is “vocabulary poor” compared to a language like English, English being one of the worlds richest languages in terms of vocabulary.

Now being “poor” in terms of vocabulary (or “rich” as the case may be) has it pros and cons (as do most things with alternates, or options attached to them – i.e.: a “this/that” framework or framing structure … the essential basis of choice and the decision-making process that follows from it). [Do you notice the cognitive linking and logical chaining? … Do you perceive it’s enhanced by the choice to use bracketing to segment out distinct tangential but separate ideas? … Do you notice that even though I’ve wandered greatly in my response to you, somehow the ideas seem to flow and remain connected? … Have you been able to track how exactly, with precision and specificity I manage this “trick” of presentation? … just curious …]

Nothing can come of nothing.
– William Shakespeare

So back to Swenglish … the pro proposition of a “vocabulary poor” language is that you must use the limited vocabulary to express even the most complex ideas … and sometimes the words themselves don’t actually exist to do this … SO THE CONCEPT MUST BE MADE BY INFERENCE … i.e.: the listener/reader must generate the meaning from the words expressed for themselves. This is an interesting form that generates a specific cognitive approach. The sender and the receiver in the communication “assume” active participation, that the “message” won’t be contained completely in the content of the “expression” of the message, but in the “interpretation” of the message. This particular cognitive structuring regarding communication creates a kind of “short-hand” in communication and leads to a preference for directness, simplicity and brevity. For an insight into the expression of this cognitive structure look at the design ethos of Scandinavia (hear I reference the swath of land ranging from Norway in the west and Finland in the east, all at a latitude north of Germany for all intents and purposes). The Scandinavian design ethos is also one of simplicity, purity that emphasizes clean lines, little decorative extravagance and very direct (some would not hesitate to say “elegant” – myself included) solutions. What you may find “missing” is the “playfulness” and “joy” found in more “extravagant” design – which lead us to …

The con proposition in a “vocabulary poor” language (Swedish compared to English in this particular case) is that somethings are in fact inferred and not expressed. The speaker/writer “intends” a message BUT it is up to the listener/reader to extract it. It is ultimately imprecise in terms of expressing more abstract considerations. Compare the art of Scandinavia pre-WWII with the art now being generated when a large majority of Scandinavians are learning to speak a second language (most typically German or English) and expanding the range of their vocabulary richness. If you want what I’d consider to be the most obvious representation of the Scandinavian ethos that arises from the cognitive structure I’m pointing to follow the “humor.” In most of Scandinavia humor is based in sarcasm. This is itself based in cynicism and irony which of course would work well within the structures I’ve indicated are most present in the cognitive structure driven by a “vocabulary poor” language. By example I give you the comparison between Existentialist philosophers Kierkegaard and Sartre (French being a much more “vocabulary rich” language in comparison to Swedish). It leads to a particular kind of purity in thought, but with little extravagance … what someone raised in a “vocabulary rich” language and the associated cognitive structure might perceive as morose.

Those of you familiar with Edmund Sapir and Benjamin Lee Whorf and their propositions regarding the influence of language (specifically the specifically the “native” and “crib” languages of an individual) will understand the significance that the native language of a speaker may have on their cognitive structure and the preferences associated with it (the theory that Sapir and Whorf developed is known as the “Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis” by linguists and cognitive scientists). I am a “believer” in the premise of their propositions regarding the influence of language on the development AND APPLICATION of the cognitive structure of an individual. For those of you who want and/or prefer it more simply … the language you use (as a native speaker) will directly influence the way in which you think. In fact this idea would more accurately along begin to represent what I’m driving at then all of what you’ve written Robert. To say it succinctly and directly I’ll actually put it to Edmund Sapir in his own words:

“Human beings do not live in the objective world alone, nor alone in the world of social activity as ordinarily understood, but are very much at the mercy of the particular language which has become the medium of expression for their society. It is quite an illusion to imagine that one adjusts to reality essentially without the use of language and that language is merely an incidental means of solving specific problems of communication or reflection. The fact of the matter is that the ‘real world’ is to a large extent unconsciously built upon the language habits of the group. No two languages are ever sufficiently similar to be considered as representing the same social reality. The worlds in which different societies live are distinct worlds, not merely the same world with different labels attached… We see and hear and otherwise experience very largely as we do because the language habits of our community predispose certain choices of interpretation.” (Sapir, 1958 [1929], p. 69)

This is the whole point of what I’m driving at … it’s called Social Ontology … and the creation of a social reality, while what you write about is almost virtually all about a subjective reality (vs. the the inter-subjective position I write about). You are an individualist while I myself more and more find myself becoming a collectivist with a strong individualist consideration. Your entire post is about how an “individual” perceives the world apart from others and then acts upon this perception for all intent and purpose ignoring the impact and influence they have both upon and most importantly from others. That in fact a bridge is only a bridge because we say so … other wise it’s just a structure spanning some gap made of something. When does a fallen tree become a “bridge” or is the answer never? This is my point is unpacking the structure of the structure of how we get to thinking what we think. The fact that the Universe may be infinite is only significant in relation to something else … attached to the cognitive consideration of how space and our relationship with impacts and interacts with our decision-making process for arguments sake. Yet you present this a a poetic “Truth” … when what I am striving for and emphasizing in my work around Social Reality is the presentation of the distinctions between “Truth” (upper-case “T” to indicate some ultimate, inviolate, metaphysical Truth) vs. “truth” (lower-case “t” to indicate something believed to be so by an individual or group based on some empirical evidence they agree to share). The same applies to the distinctions I’m making regarding “Reality” and “reality.”

So while I don’t object to your writing I object to you referring to it as “Comments on Social Reality” and by inference associating that back to what I’ve written about … and the inclusive inferences in what you’ve written about that writing.

The ultimate expression of what I’d like to see is that you express what you are expressing in a way that is intelligible to those who are reading it with regard to the subject you suggest it is in reference to, in this case Social Ontology. And to use your own criteria of “simplicity” as the measure of worth and validity to do so with the extensive suggestion of inference. Do so directly. Say what you mean and want others to “get” from what you are offering. Do this if only within the overall structure of what you say otherwise. BUT … DAMN IT … DO IT!!!

I understand as well as any “staking out a position” … and I understand as well as any staking out that position by standing on the shoulders of giants who’ve come before. I’ve stated well and full that my work, the entire body of my work rests on the enormous foundation of the work I learned with Roye Fraser and most especially his work called the Generative Imprint™ and the Function Mode™ models. Stating anything less would be at the least crude/rude and at the most plagiarism (the most deadly of sins amongst academics and scholars …). However, it is also essential to note that my work resides on a foundation supported and enhanced by the work of Grinder and Bandler called Neurolinguistic Programming or NLP – and my position in regard to these developers is one of ultimate respect, even when I am in disagreement with them. Their work “allows” for my work to exist in the way that it does. Could I have reproduced this work independently … possibly … would I have, unlikely. So to dismantle this work without regard for how it finds its way so deeply into my own is not just disrespectful but duplicitous and deceitful in the extreme … as would be the disregard, dis-acknowledgement or dismantling of the work of so, so many others … including but in no way limited to Joseph Campbell, Sigmund Freud, Edward Hall, Clare Graves, Konrad Lorenz, John Searle … and on and on and on …

Nothing is so common-place as to wish to be remarkable.
– William Shakespeare

So let’s move on, shall we … towards an end to this particular rebuttal and reframe. The comments you make have little to nothing to do with Social Ontology and in fact are more poetry than exposition (when the perfect word is available it would be sacrilegious not to glory in its use …don’t you think). The comments you make if they are explanatory or pragmatic in any way are more about the nature of individual perception and expression, or as Bandler and Grinder exposed us to about thirty years ago – subjective experience. This is so much more the domain of phenomenology (as I have clearly expressed on my blog at: http://blognostra.blogspot.com in the earlier postings positioning my take on Social Ontology) then on anything resembling the inquiry I am making into inter-subjective experience (under the rubric, Social Ontology). Further I am taking a particular tack as I move on towards the inclusion and impact of language and specifically communication in the structure and form of Social Ontology as it relates to the construction of social reality.

What I am intending to unpack and make explicit (I personally much prefer the languaging of David Bohm here, “unfolding”) is the nature of the impact and influence of the social constructs of reality on the individual – who often perceive themselves as having their “own” experience when I propose they are most clearly not.

What I am proposing is that the individual, regardless of whom they may be, is having a social experience – even when they are alone. That all of the experience of the “individual” is in fact a social experience and it is perceived individually. So to unfold that point further … the individual has a social experience through an individual perception, or an inter-subjective experience that is perceived subjectively. This is a defining point in my argument (argument as in philosophical argument or proposition put forth in discourse).

The significance I am further bringing to this argument is one of application, that the inter-subjective experience of the individual is the basis of the reality they experience act upon (as well as from). That the inter-subjective experience is the basis of all action and behavior and that this action and behavior is premised in the inter-subjective frame that they reside within. Then further that this frame is constructed in part, albeit in large part, by the structuring of the shared communication of those who participate in it; and in some unique and specific cases most especially by their shared agreements.

[Now a quick aside – how are your comments in any way related to that discussion and argument? … Back to our main program …]

These agreements are largely, if not wholly (Don’cha ya’ just love that ambiguity?) contained in language. This gives rise to the latest direction I’ve taken which is to point towards the impact and influence others who “get” this level of Social Ontology and the structuring of social reality can have on those who don’t “get” that this is the basis of their reality and decision-making process. This is called alternately propaganda, persuasion and influence to name the most prevalent forms of the application. When it’s applied in a mass communication medium it can and does shift the basis of culture and the collective decision-making process engaged in by the individuals who populate that culture (and/or society). This is the realm of Politics (upper-case “P” vs. lower-case “p” which would alternatively apply to the interactions among individuals at a level below that of the “society-at-large” or in the modern sense “Government”).

So my intention is to “set my people free” … what’s yours???

Not wine … men intoxicate themselves; Not vice … men entice themselves.
– William Shakespeare

Best regards … until we meat again,

Joseph Riggio

Architect and Designer of the MythoSelf™ Process
http://www.mythoself.com

“Kick ass, take names” – Matt Furey (http://www.mattfurey.com)

On 12/8/05 05:43, “Robert” <robert@svensknlp.nu> wrote:

Reality, ongoing and working with and without constructing or not within any boundary.
It’s just made up, right in your mind anyway, right?

I was reminded about Milton Erickson in his ways he pursued I guess so many altered states and tested along his journey ways to shift between.
What he found or what he did with that skill and knowledge isn’t for me to say since I never met him.

There are some nice passages in the books about him some about reality and what it is and how to expand on that.

I was reminded earlier this week, that people are often very judgemental about new things, either it be a particular methodology or a particular view or whatever they judge it’s never about exploring new avenues.

The beach is filled with sand, each sand particle is in itself made up by even smaller stuff and in that smaller stuff there is even smaller stuff and then “again” you know and you guessed even smaller stuff!
If I didn’t know better, I bet it would end up empty?

And you guessed right, it does!

It becomes so empty in fact it’s so large it is called space. In relation to that space the sand particle seems large even as a universe some say. Which btw is infinite, that’s how large and small the universe is, it is contained in one single word, infinite, and that if you ask me is pretty neat.
Instead of using complex math describing the universe, we simply accept it is, infinite.

Then some people tries to describe the universe, and many get mad doing so since the universe is so big, remember I did say “infinite” and those scientist cant contain the whole universe in their heads at all. It gets to big, since the brain isn’t infinite but the imagination absolutely is.

Reality is such subtle thing, I worked with realties my whole life, my own and others, its many ways to slice an apple, the description started with NLP gave humanity a way to cut down the apples and oranges to a more down to earth examples where the descriptions could be better describing the reality ongoing and in NLP they named it “a model”.
They found out, its turtles all the way down, and then again another turtle all the way down, an infinite way to say, how big is the universe really?

Infinite of course!

If there is one thing that is clear, sound and felt as it is the one thing, maybe it isn’t and then again maybe it is not that, maybe I should look elsewhere?
Epistemology, the study of how we map cognitively the minds processes and adjusted with the NLP applications by mapping that with the NLP models have brought us truly Jedi Mind powers where we can sway and opinion with just a gesture and a smile and a word…as easy anchored and fired away.

Then a few Jedi’s said, this isn’t the way, we want power, and more of it.
They are known as powerful wizards and never explain what they do and wink and say, come here and become one of power since it is all unconscious ruled and controlled.
They even use waste powers as hypnosis in ways people never before have seen.

Then there was this voice in the crowd, what about just explaining what is going on, take away all the mystery and just plainly explain what it is?
The first night an attempt on his life was made. That power he wielded shined so brightly and was feared by the power wielders as the mightiest power of all and they all missed it.

Truth is what it is, reality for some and a misconception for others, but again, into the unknown we cast our self, and I just never really got it, how can it be unknown if we know it is unknown?
It is as so many argue it is in relation to what is known, the boundary, a string of ideas where your mind just knows this is this, and nothing else it can be, unless you learn NLP or such systems to create a diversion so your mind can hide contemplating that a bridge is a bridge and then it isn’t a bridge but stones and then even other materials in that and then…even more.

Then a few wise men said, just accept it, it is a bridge, then move on to the other side.

The other side?

Yea, while your thinking about the bridge and its reality, this side is crashing down into the sea…so..move it..

Fear is a great ruler of men.
Take away fear and the bridge even if it collapses only offers us the chance of swimming or learning to swim.
Which some would argue and rightly so that seems a tad late to do so.

I saw Dr Phil doing his “get real” workshops where he scare people and even before they end up in the workshop since they are confronting the fears about things like the bridges that collapses even before they do?

That’s the beauty of our minds we can in advance know what things are to be before we even are doing the activity at all!
Doing that into the level of a model where your model is as accurate as the reality it’s applied to is a rare ability, some might argue it is about then creating the reality in your head and I think they are right.
Is the model the reality it is applied to or is the model just a description of what is currently believed to be reality?
It seems it will be a tiny difference, subtle but that level of interaction between our senses and the thing out there as described very well using the epistemology and any further attempt to explain such difference will be just further models about what is infinite.

Then when we can just plainly sit down, eat an apple and look at the waves bathing us into the serenity of life.
Take a sand particle, identify with it in such a way it’s a whole reality of the universe being infinite, and that is just a model about the universe and how you as an observer affects it.

Consciousness allow us great things, what are you going to do today?

Let’s move along, the bridge is closing down.

Where do you want to go?

If there is no fear, life then unfolds, rightly so some would argue.

Infinite

Your best

/Robert
www.riggiomodel.biz <http://www.riggiomodel.biz/>
Kicking asses anywhere and bruising egos all over the world and still sitting there enjoying life.
(Also known as a green small guy by some)
Hey, somehow Lucas got his ideas, why not small green guys from outer space?
Space, a 5 year mission to explore.

Reinventing Reality …

February 23, 2016 by Joseph Riggio 10 Comments

**Why Sir Issac Newton Had To “INVENT” Calculus … (and why his reason should matter to you)**

“If you can’t tell if it’s reality you’re dealing with, you can’t possibly expect take action to create the results you want.” – Joseph Riggio, Ph.D. author of “The State of Pefection: Unleashing Your Hidden Code To Mastery”

For decades I’ve been on about the alignment between our perceptions of reality (all I believe we ever have with regard to our sense of reality and our ability to act in the world as we know and experience it) and …

What’s beyond beyond our subjective, or constructed, experience .. the manifest and extant data in the environment … “objective, empirical evidence” … what we must accept as true even when we don’t agree with it or like it … as we know it to be through our own empirical, sensory perceptual experience.

BUT … this is no ordinary or easy task … i.e.: arriving at an empirical experience of reality that simultaneously allows for what cannot be known except by one’s own subjective, empirical perception and understanding.

AND, I beleive it is what Newton solved in creating “the Calculus.”
Give me a minute or two more and I’ll explain why I believe that … and what it means to you too.

Newton’s “Fluxional” Calculus:

Okay, to begin with we can’t really know if it was actually Issac Newton or Gottfied Leibniz who actually invented modern Calculus (the term was in use long before either of these 17th century genius, but referred to mathematics in general before it was formalized in the approach that we simply refer to as “calculus” today).

And … I don’t really care either …

The reason I want to focus on Newton is because his path to “the Calculus” was more general and applicable, and less theoretcial and sweeping philosophically than Leibniz’s approach.

Leibniz believed that “the Calculus” was a metaphysical explanation of change, i.e.: beyond the material realm, but nonetheless fascinating as a method to explore what was not possible to capture in the physical plane of existence, his was the “Infinitesimal Calculus” the sought to explore infinitesimal events as they were held as concepts of thought.

Newton on the other hand saw Calculus as a general explanation of change, and in specific a way to mathematically understand, capture and describe the motion of objects … especially when dealing with the magnitude of the motion of the objects in question.

Another reason is that I love the way Newton referred to what we know think of as formalization of the Calculus he developed; “Fluxional Calculus” … it just appeals to me.

However, the deep distinction in Newton’s calculus was that he tried to avoid infinitesimals, i.e.: that which could not be grasped empirically, but defaulting to a strictly rigorous epiricism. His was a task of explaining “the indisputable fact of motion” by accepting that as objects moved they were transiting a path that was continuous and not made up of infinitesimally small increments of movement.

This is a distinction between the empiricism of the analog in motion and the imaginal of the digial points that a moving object occupys in some unique, divided and separate instant from all other instants it occupies along the path it transits.

&nspb;

Why Newton HAD To Invent Calculus”

It’s claimed that Newton “HAD” to invent the Calculus to gain acceptance of his theory of gravity with the Royal Academy of Science in England … and there’s some truth to that, but it wasn’t the only reason he began or became obsessed with the path that led to his Fluxional Calculus.

Newton HAD to invent calculus to give him a way to describe the world that had become empirically obvious and undeniable to him … a world filled with motion and change that was constant, continuous, inevitable and unbroken or indissolvable into discreet and distinct separate elements or moments in space or time.

One of the most fascinating things about Newton’s (and Leibniz’s) calculus, that described motion and change, to me was that it demanded the creation of an entire new system of mathematical representation for the elements and concepts that it was addressing and workign with as a “tautology” … a closed, self-contained, way of considering reality as we know it, with it own set of self-referencing, self-organizing principals, rules and language.

So Why Should You Care About Any Of This???

The reason to care about this is simple … because your life depends on it!

Okay … Okay … maybe I’m being a little melodramatic for effect.

BUT, let’s say that the quality of your life, and the experiences you have, do actually depend on it … i.e.: your ability to describe reality beyond yourself, or your solipsistic, singular way of knowing.

To put it another way … YOU NEED TO HAVE MULTIPLE POINTS OF VIEW TO MAKE SENSE OF ANYTHING BEYOND A WILD HALLUCINATION OF WHAT YOU THINK IS “OUT THERE” IN THE WORLD BEYOND YOURSELF … that thing we call “reality.”

You see your own personal experience of anything is “non-falsifiable” as your experience. Your experience is what it is absolutely, undeniably and indisputedly … just like an object in motion is an object in motion.

However, to make sense of your experience in relation to the world beyond yourself … the experience others are having – of themselves, of you, of the world you are experiencing in simultaneity … or, the events that are occuring that are beyond your ability to contain personally … just about any event that includes more than just you yourself experiencing just you yourself … you must have a way to “triangulate” and navigate your experience in reference to what is beyond just you.

(I recommend you slow down … go back … and re-read that paragraph a few more times. It’s both essential to what I’m offering you here, and also critical if you want the value of what I’m offering you here as well.)

This is the essence of the work I refer to as accessing “The State of Perfection” … a way of moving towards a more rigorous empiricial position that begins by having access to and the ability to sustain multiple points of view …

One point of view that you must gain a handle on is what we can call a “first person point of view” (FP-POV). A FP-POV is the point of view that you have from within yourself, i.e.: your experience of your experience … the point of view that is absolute, undeniable and indisputable.
Another point of view you can have is a “second person point of view” (SP-POV). A SP-POV is one in which you consider what it would be like to experience the experience you’re having if you were another person having the experience of being with you … having your experience.This one’s a little more complex in that you have to hold two points of view simutaneously to get there … the point of view of what it would be like to notice another person having an experience of being with you while you’re having the experience you’re having … AND, the point of view of noticing the experience that other person would be having of being with you.
A third point of view could be one in which you are simply in an observer’s position noticing what there is to notice without referencing it as subjective experience … for example; “My arm is moving” as the pure experience of noticing that your arm is moving in detached way, almost as though it’s not your arm that’s moving … like you would notice someone else’s, anyone else’s arm moving. This would be a third person point of view (TP-POV).What’s significant is that you can extend the TP-POV to experiences that are not externally observable, for example: “I am angry … AND I’m feeling it as a tension in my abdominal area, while my hands and jaw are clenching, and I’m constracting all the muscles along my back from my waist to my next far more than I am usually aware of contracting them … and, I also notice that my field of vision seems to be much narrower and more tightly focused than is usual to me.” without becoming attached to any of that description beyond noticing what’s there … i.e.: not wanting or needing it to be anything other than or different than what it is “as is.”The TP-POV would then become a kind of “empirical” or “epistemlogical” phenomenology … i.e.: an examination of the content of your own experience as though from a position beyond, or outside of yourself, where you are extremely interested in and observant of the data about what you are experiencing without attaching any meaning to it beyond a pure description of what you’re observing about it.

When you can access these multiple points of view, especially a TP-POV … an epistemological phenomenological” point of view … you will be infinitely better at managing your perceptions and actions to direct them to the outcome positions you most want to attain.

This is how you will begin to gather the ability to optimize all your experiences … regardless of the circumstance or situation, on your own and/or with others.

So Why Bring Newton Into This Conversation About Optimal Experience Then???

There are two reasons that the discussion about Newton creating Fluxtional Calculus are important to this conversation …

First, because it clarifies the distinction of subjective and empirical perception. Newton based virtually all of his discoveries and genius on holding a TP-POV that opened up a window to perceiving reality from simultaneous, multiple points of view … a kind of “G-d’s Eye” position, where Newton could and did perceive more of the hidden and elusive nature of reality than is immediately or ordinarily observable.E.g.: that gravity was a universal and constant force, that was changed depending on the factors of mass and distance of the objects exerting and being effected by the force of gravity … or the idea that white light was only a single way of perceiving multiple spectrums or bands of light that were simultaneoulsy present and experienced by the human eye as a single band of light, i.e.: white light, and that white light is unique in that it contains all the other bands of light that humans are capable of perceiving.
Second, because Newton needed to create a separate specical language to describe the unique characteristics of reality that he was observing. Without the Calculus not only was it not possible to share with others what he was empirically observing as he experienced it … but it was impossible to share with them the ability to make similar observations and discoveries for themselves.Yet, with the new “language” of Fluxional Calculus anyone who choose to could use the tautological space created by it to replicate the observations of Newton from all three perceptual positions described above, a FP-POV, SP-POV or TP-POV, and also using this “language” begin to describe observations of their own and share them with others who could also experience them from a FP-POV, SP-POV or TP-POV for themselves including observations that Newton had not made, but opened up the possibility of making using the new form he had created and shared with them.

You Need A SPECIAL LANGUAGE To Describe The Otherwise Indescribable

In my own work, the MythoSelf Process model, I deal with an set of observations about the world that are premised on some special conditions as well …

Starting from a uniquely positive point of view – the “excitatory state” or the neurological condition of the system remaining open to the inclusion of new data, even data that is contridictory, unfamiliar or previously unknown or unaccceptable
Assuming a stance of possibility rather than limitation – the premise that any data, evidence or experience can lead to the next step to be taken toward as desired outcome, and not a limitation that prevents the possibility of achieving the outcome eventually
Using the body as the basis of primary data about what is happening, rather than the distortion of tranforming sensory data into intellectualizations and abstractions – holding an embodied and situated way of experiencing real and imaginal events by attending first and foremost to the sensorial data, i.e.: the experience of seeing, hearing, feeling, tasting and smelling, as well as the body sense of balance and proprioception in an integrated and cumulative way as the singluarity of the felt sense of the experience as well as the individual components that comprise it (the felt sense)
Organizing the totality of experience as containing the singularity of space and time as mythic form – understanding the primary autobiographical narrative that is your own Life Story, i.e.: who you perceive yourself to be in relation to the world-at-large and the cosmos within which that world is situated
Recognizing the “storied nature” of experience and how we tend to experience events in an integrated way happenign simultaneously in terms of all the data that is present along a continuum of time that we later describe in discreet packets of information – e.g.: first this happened and then that, separating the analog nature of actual space-time into a digital representation of space-time
Defaulting to the premise of wholeform learning and communication in that we accept that all experience is wholeform with all events containing all the information present in simultaneity – this presupposes that all of our experiences are also had in simultaneity with all of the data impressing itself on our senses as a singluarity in any given space-time moment, despite our desire to keep things discreet to make sense of them as individual events happening in parallel, i.e.: there is no separation posssible in the events we experience that happen in the same space-time moment
That we can and do create our own experiences, constructing them out of wholeform structures, and then accept our constructions as what is “real” – and, by accepting that our experience is at least in part “made up” by us in wholeform that we also have the ability to choose the form we give to our experience
That the primary mechanism we have for managing the way we construct our experience is somatic, i.e.: body-based, and that our somatic experience gives rise to our stories and the meaning we make of them, i.e.: our semantic experience – knowing that we only know what we know, and know what that (what we know) means, in the form of the stories we tell ourselves and others, and in the stories others tell us
Only be integrating and aligning the somatic and semnatic forms we hold can we arrive at an integrated sense of ourselves and the world-at-large, as well as the cosmos and our place in it – this is the basis for the approach and methodology I use in working with the MythoSelf Process model, i.e.: Soma-Semantics, a way of simulaneously accessing and address the somatic and semantic forms that are the ways we represent reality to ourselves and others

So, fundamentally to do the work I do I had to create a tautology for the model, i.e.: a self-contained, self-referencing, self-organizing system with it’s own set of principals and rules, as well as it’s own language … in much the same way that Newton and Leibniz had to do to form a way to capture and describe the nature of motion and change that is the Calculus.

In my case, the approach and methology of Soma-Semantics, is the form of describing how we capture and describe the nature of subjective experience and change within it. This is the basis for transformational change – the changing of our experince of reality NOT the change of what we do in response to our experience of realty.

Within the application of the MythoSelf Process model from the transformational shift that becomes possible using the approach and methodology of Soma-Semantics, a second possiblity emerges … that of realizing a significant performance breakthrough, which is only possible to the extent that it is when transformational change has happened first, i.e.: a shift in the fundamental perception of reality.

The essential starting point for achieving transformational performance, where transformational change and performance breakthrough intersect, is the State of Perfection the state experience that is established at the start of the application of the MythoSelf Process work. Without this body-based, felt sense of being in the world what follows would not be possible, with it nothing remains impossible …

Yet, once you have accessed and sustain the State of Perfection all things become possible to you.

All the Best,

Joseph Riggio, Ph.D.

Creator of the MythoSelf Process and Soma-Semantics
New Hope, PA

23 February 2016

PS – If you are interested in experiencing the State of Perfection for yourself … click on this link for more:
The State of Perfection

PPS – I will be holding a special one time only 2-hour webcast event, “Accessing & Sustaining The State Of Perfection” on 8 March 2016

Outlaw Thinking: Part 2

Mastering Cognitive Maturity

Seeing Wholeness

The Key To Transformational Embodiment