Oct 27 2019

Distinctions of NLP, The Generative Imprint Model & the MythoSelf Process

Orientations to Living The Good Life …

Digging Into The Distinctions:

There is a clear distinction between the MythoSelf Process, which was founded on the technology or NLP as applied in the unique work of Roye Fraser’s “Generative Imprint” model, and NLP as a standalone model of work. Since the early 1990s as the MythoSelf Process model was originally emerging it has been significantly further developed and transformed into something less like either NLP or the Generative Imprint models than it appeared to be at first.

The most obvious distinction, and the one I’ll focus on here, is in regard to the differences between a subjective and inter-subjective model of work.

NLP speaks directly to the subjective, but wants to ignore the inter-subjective for the most part. It does this by representation and representational processing at the core of individual experience, wholly within the individual and their capacities as an individual.

The Generative Imprint model also starts with fundamental assumptions that are largely subjective in nature, which include an assumption about the assault on the essential subjective experience of the individual in relation to their interactions with others, something Roye Fraser referred to as “sensitizing imprints.”

In both, the NLP and the Generative Imprint models, we can identify a primary assumption that the individual can take control of their experience uniquely and solely in terms of the subjective nature of reality.

Distinctions of The NLP Model:

NLP proposes that the experience of reality is held in the sensorial representations experienced and manipulated by the individual, referred to as modalities, including the sub-distinctions of those representations, referred to within the NLP model as submodalites. The modalities address by NLP are the five sensory channels of perception, sight, sound, feeling (which they refer to as kinesthetics), taste and smell. Access to the modalities held by and being manipulated by the individual that form their subjective experience, and knowledge of what “reality” is for them, can happen by observing their non-verbal expressions such as eye movement patterns or body movements, including breathing patterns. The modalities that are present for an individual are also observable in their language use and the patterns of linguistic expressions they employ.

NLP places a large emphasis on language and its internal structure, and also the way language creates results and outcomes in the world, for the language user and those they interact with as well. An example of this is how language can be wellformed or ill-formed, meaning internally consistent and in alignment with the external reality being represented by the language used.

A specific case might be the distinction within the NLP model of associated or disassociated representation in language, “When I went to the party …” versus “When you go to a party …” when the individual is expressing their own experience of going to a party. If the individual knows they are referencing their own experience, and use the dissociated form to describe it we might say within the NLP model that they expressing their experience in an ill-formed way.

A component of NLP is also their use of hypnotic protocols, including direct “conversational” hypnosis based on the patterns of Milton Erickson, or what has become known as Ericksonian hypnosis. NLP also uses metaphor as another kind of hypnotic protocol, where hypnosis refers to an altered perception of reality that creates the possibility for hypersensitivity to suggestion.

Another particular aspect of NLP is that as one of the co-developers of the model, John Grinder puts it, the model is primarily epistemological, meaning it is about how we know what we know about our assumptions about reality. NLP seeks to access and modify the internal organization of the way we hold and process subjective experience epistemologically, via the tools and techniques described above, as well as others beyond the scope or necessity of what I’m presenting here and now.

Distinctions of The Generative Imprint Model:

The Generative Imprint model uses all of the above mentioned components of NLP and has some additional, unique ways to approach accessing and modifying individual subjective experience. There are two aspects of the Generative Imprint model that stand out in this regard, the attention to and use of idiomatic expressions and idiosyncratic behaviors. These two aspects of attention and use within the Generative Imprint model are aimed at capturing the unique ways in which an individual represents, holds and relates to their personal experience and conceptions of reality.

Using the technology of NLP and some of the unique ways developed by Roye Fraser to get the subjective representation of reality, the Generative Imprint model aims at getting to the personal “iconic, symbolic representation” of being alive and well that Roye referred to as the “generative imprint.” This is a specific wholeform internal configuration of sensory representations in all of the sensory modalities of sight, sound, feeling, taste and smell, although the individual may or may not be simultaneously aware of the entire wholeform configuration.

When the generative imprint is elicited and accessed there are also specific idiomatic and idiosyncratic forms that emerge in simultaneity with the wholeform iconic, symbolic representation. The effect of accessing the generative imprint is an acknowledgement of being alive in relation to an orientation towards possibility and a pervasive sense of wellbeing.

For the individual who experiences this work the affect is very powerful for them in resetting themselves ontologically. In this way Roye’s Generative Imprint model differs from the NLP model, in that it’s ontologically organized, and seeks to shift the individual’s relationship to the quality of their experience of being. In my opinion this is a fundamental distinction, and the most significant distinction between the NLP and Generative Imprint models.

Distinctions of The MythoSelf Process Model:

A specific distinction of the MythoSelf Process model is that sense of being at one’s best, and the directionality it generates, is accessed somatically though the elicitation and identification of a very precise micro-muscular configuration, and the sensorial form that arises from that configuration as it’s held in narrative form.

The MythoSelf model shares many of the aspects found in both the NLP and Generative Imprint models. The original MythoSelf Process model, at the time referred to as the Mythogenic Self Process, was a unique presentation and delivery of the Generative Imprint model, with an emphasis on functionality or praxis. The intention of the Mythogenic Self Process was to align the individual who experienced the Process to gain access to the way of being that becomes possible using the technology of the Generative Imprint model in the application of living their lives. The effect of experiencing the Process was an instantaneous dropping away of all worry or concern and an accompanying sense of compelling directionality about a positively organized future.

While the original descriptions of the MythoSelf Process model stated it was also an ontologically organized model, due to the orientation to shifting the sense of how the individual experienced their way of being, and how that reoriented them towards a new sensational way of living their life, later descriptions began to recognize the more aesthetic orientation of the model. The Process is primarily organized aesthetically, integrating the sensorial experience of delight in discovering unique micro-muscular movement patterns that are somatically held, and aligning them with the unique personal semantic configuration of the individual’s autobiographical narrative.

What makes the MythoSelf Process unique is that it places the individual directly in the stream of the human narrative where assumptions about reality are formed, and then provides the tools to subjectively examine the inter-subjective assumptions held there. Experiencing the Process moves the assumptions about reality outside of the medium of language, and places them in the domain of direct sensorial experience. Then the model continues beyond that, seeking to integrate the personal, subjective narrative with the interpersonal, inter-subjective narrative, which largely holds these assumptions about reality in place in the social context.

Of course, beyond the social narrative, there are also tradition and ritual, and other cultural artifacts, e.g.: art, that hold the assumptions about reality intact socially, until they change. The totality of the impact of the subjective and inter-subjective assumptions about reality on the individual are held within the context of the MythoSelf Process model to be the basis of their ontological awareness, or what we could more commonly, or familiarly, call their consciousness. Within the MythoSelf Process model the individual’s sense of ontological awareness, or consciousness, is held to be a specific aesthetic orientation towards how they know themselves to be alive and well.

In it’s most current form, the MythoSelf Process model gives rise to a very powerful sense of well-being, or being at one’s best, and a strong orientation to a positively held future, as in the Generative Imprint model. The Process provides this access to the subjective and inter-subjective assumptions about reality in relation to the ontological, aesthetic orientation that is the foundation of the MythoSelf Process model.

A specific distinction of the MythoSelf Process model is that sense of being at one’s best, and the directionality it generates, is accessed somatically though the elicitation and identification of a very precise micro-muscular configuration, and the sensorial form that arises from that configuration as it’s held in narrative form.

Accessing The Narrative Form Within The MythoSelf Process Model:

Therefore the authoring process, while essentially subjective, cannot leave behind the inter-subjective artifacts assimilated and incorporated as function of being and living as a human among other humans in the unique and specific, place and time, of their being.

The narrative form that becomes a specific distinction of experiencing the MythoSelf Process is autobiographical in nature, but continues into the future where one’s life is presumed known, but hasn’t happened yet. This projection of possibility and directionality that forms the structure of the future oriented autobiographical narrative that arises from experiencing the Process is referred to as one’s Life Story, or the “story of your life” within the model. The sensation of a known future that just hasn’t happened yet, held in autobiographical narrative form, is a particular application of personal adumbration.

Another specific distinction of the MythoSelf Process is that it address the inter-subjective quality of authoring the autobiographical narrative that is one’s own life story. There is a recognition that the subjective and the inter-subjective aspects of consciousness cannot be separated or fragmented, because we all are formed and exist in relation to a cultural/social context. Much of this context is shared and embodied in language and it’s form, as they arise temporally and spatially in the here and now of the individual’s subjective experience.

Therefore the authoring process, while essentially subjective, cannot leave behind the inter-subjective artifacts assimilated and incorporated as function of being and living as a human among other humans in the unique and specific, place and time, of their being.

The Experience Of Aesthetic Phenomenography As Expansion:

In part what the MythoSelf Process model seeks to impart is a fully realized conscious awareness of the phenomenographic assumptions about reality that are present for the individual, and to expand the conceptual space they can and do access as a result of that burgeoning awareness.

Accessing and authoring one’s own Life Story shifts the phenomenological and phenomenographic awareness for the individual experiencing the Process. There is an explicit, specific awareness of consciousness that becomes possible and present as a function of what happens when the specific micro-muscular configuration of being at one’s best is accessed and organized. The subjective and inter-subjective phenomenological experience then becomes embodied as a result of experiencing the Process with someone trained to facilitate it.

When one becomes aware of their own embodied phenomenological experience, as somatic response and allows themselves to acknowledge the impact and relationship of their body-based responses to sensorial data, the hold on them of linguistic and cultural artifacts loosens so they can examine them with some degree of perspective. This naturally repositions them both ontologically and aesthetically in relation to their subjective and inter-subjective assumptions about reality. It is the aspect of awareness of the inter-subjective phenomenological assumptions that makes the model phenomenographic as well as phenomenological.

In part what the MythoSelf Process model seeks to impart is a fully realized conscious awareness of the phenomenographic assumptions about reality that are present for the individual, and to expand the conceptual space they can and do access as a result of that burgeoning awareness.

This expansion of conceptual space gives them more room to play with the assumptions they make about their Life Story, and especially how they choose to adumbrate what is possible, and even likely, for them in their future.   As the individual becomes more familiar with accessing their own state of perfection, the specific soma-semantic configuration of how they are at their best, they become more capable and interested in authoring their own Life Story. As a function of authoring their Life Story, the individual who has experienced and assimilated the work of the MythoSelf Process begins to author themselves, by taking control of how they shape their future before they arrive in it … an adumbrative act that is aesthetically organized.

The idea of becoming aethetically phenomenologically and phenomenographically organized as the preferential lens of one’s own being, at the subjective and inter-subjective level, and from that authoring the self narrative that is one’s own autobiographical life story is the fundamental distinction of the MythoSelf Process.

The experience of the MythoSelf Process with a trained facilitator is essentially an aesthetically organized, phenomenographic exploration and resetting of one’s life as they know themselves, others and the world they share, to be in the here and now … expanding the breadth, depth and range of the conceptual space of being and becoming they are able to occupy and play in … and from that, how they may choose to author their own future, on their own and in relation to others.

Joseph Riggio, Ph.D.
Architect & Designer of the MythoSelf Process and Soma-Semantics

P.S. – I love reading and responding to your comments, and I’d especially love to hear what you think about my descriptions and distinctions of the models in this particular post …

Apr 01 2019

Mythogenic Mastery

mythogenesis

noun

mytho·genesis | ˌmithə+ variants: or less commonly mythogeny mə̇ˈthäjənē plural mythogeneses also mythogenies

Definition of mythogenesis

1: formation or production of myths

2: the tendency to make myths or to give mythical status to something (as a tradition or belief)

[From: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mythogenesis]

It’s interesting that when you Google “mythogenesis” Google asks you, “Did you mean pathogenic?” — potentially leading you away to a definition of something that means ‘causing disease’.

It’s also interesting to me that more people probably know what pathogenic means than mythogenic.

However, I’d like to take us beyond definitions and into experience for a few moments … to explore “myth making” as a way of approaching self awareness, self understanding and self mastery.

For years I’ve been on about mastery versus transformation. Many programs of the kind that I myself lead promise transformation. They suggest you need to be different than you are today, so that you can get/have what you don’t today. Yet, this seems to me self defeating, because whatever you think you may want that you don’t currently think you have is predicated on who you are today, and not who you will become when you have whatever it is you’re seeking. Therefore you may find that when you arrive … have whatever it is that you’re seeking … you feel no more satisfied than you were before you had it, because getting it changes you.

Years ago, around the early 1990s I had done some research and realized that people really want the feeling of satisfaction, and they want it to linger and not just as a transient experience.

So I designed a model I called the Satisfaction Cycle®.

This model was predicated on the idea that who you are in this moment right now hold all the keys to your potential through all time, and furthermore that you have immediate access to realizing that full potential instantaneously.

The only requirement …

You must remove that which limits you from experiencing yourself fully as whole and complete … right now.

Yet, most people have been trained to see themselves as only having the potential to be whole and complete in the future. This creates the endless desire for self-improvement, that some folks like to call self-growth or personal development.

Now I’m not against personal development as an idea. In fact I like the idea of improving, but I think of it as refinement, not necessity. To my way of thinking you express the fullness of being you are now seeking to experience by attending to the fullness of being that you already posses, and then you can’t help but to experience personal development.

You see, just attending to something fully and with rigorous focus refines it. I should probably make it clear here that when I use the word “attending” I mean “doing something” not “contemplating” … even if you first contemplate you must take action to complete the process of fully attending, putting the contemplation to rest.

Coming To Rest

Everyone ultimately wants to come to rest within themselves.

This doesn’t mean stopping your action or activity, it means being a peace within yourself, giving up the relentless sense of chasing something that you think you need or want, but don’t yet have.

Coming to rest means realizing this moment is complete unto itself, and stepping fully into it to experience it completely.

The paradox of coming to rest means that you begin have more time and energy available to do things you haven’t yet done, and you do them without any undue urgency or, sense of threat or overwhelm. You begin moving through the world from a position of self-mastery.

Others can’t help but to notice when you possess self-mastery.

Self-mastery expresses itself as an air of calm and control beyond the chaos of the moment. Regardless of the urgency of the moment, whey you possess self-mastery you aren’t urgent. Think of the surgeon who makes critical life and death decisions in seconds, and retains a calm deliberate certainty in the moment about the choices they make. Or, the naval fighter pilot who’s plane hurdles through space faster than the speed of sound, and calmly and deliberately controls their craft with the certainty required to land it safely on the rolling deck of an aircraft carrier in the middle of an ocean deep in the darkness of night.

I remember a story that I was told from when I was too young to remember. My grandmother, my father’s mother, who I spent a great deal of time with, was watching over me and I spiked a very high fever. My then young unmarried uncle, told me he was very concerned and felt like I needed to be taken to the doctor or the emergency room. My grandmother instead told him not to worry that the fever would break and I’d be fine. She repeatedly bathed me in cool water and then rubbed alcohol on my feverish body, three times … four times … until as she predicted, the fever broke and I “slept like the dead” according to the way my uncle tells it.

When I woke the next morning it was as though I had never had a fever, and as usual ran about leaving a wake of minor destruction in my path. Never though did my grandmother’s composure waver. Whenever she was engaged in a task of any kind she possessed and evidenced an air of self-mastery always as I remember her, even in those moments of lucidity that had become sporadic into her 103 year when she finally passed peacefully one night during her sleep.

When you possess self-mastery in the simplest moments you can extend it to the most chaotic moments. I like to think of this as keeping your head about you when all those around you are losing theirs. However, I find most people only look to access mastery of this kind when they are already in crisis, failing to seek it, practice it, and experience it in the mundane moments of their life when they more easily access it to make it a habit and pattern of being they recognize for themselves.

Stop And Smell The Roses

Mastery and mythogenesis meet where you experience your own autobiographical narratives.

For the most part the world will impose certain narrative on you … stories about who your people were/are, stories about the place you come from, stories about how you look and how that fits the current fads of appearance and beauty, stories about how you should be and what’s important or not … it goes on and on.

For instance, one of the great narratives shared and told in many places refers to the story of education … either you’re one of the smart kids or you’re not one of them. This of course has less to do with being intelligent than it does with conforming to demands to do it they way you are told. In many measures of intelligence in education creativity becomes a detriment. Yet, the label of being a smart kid, or not, puts an indelible mark on many people before they have any sense of personal choice about it.

Another common narrative has to do with what “side of the tracks” you come from … was your family wealthy or not, are you the right kind of person, do you practice the ‘right’ religion, do you have the ‘right’ skin color, do you speak the ‘right’ language and pronounce it in the ‘right’ way, are your people from the ‘right’ place, do you were the ‘right’ clothes, to you eat the ‘right’ foods, to you practice the ‘right’ traditions … and on it goes, and the narrative builds about whether or not you are the ‘right’ kind of person.

The Hermenutic Option: Despite the impositions of the narratives imposed upon you, you always have a choice about how you interpret them … you get to set the meaning.

Trying to “fix” the meaning of the narratives that have been imposed upon them, beyond their initial control, keeps a lot of people chasing a dream about who they could be or should be … but in their own minds (and maybe by dint of cultural interpretation too) ain’t.

Many folks are lost in trying to manifest a life that matches some narrative that they don’t own … one that ain’t their own.

You always get to choose your own myth, the story you are living into, and the way that shapes how you interpret the narratives of your life, as long as you want it and make that choice.

Choosing your own myth frees you. Your myth is always bigger than any of the narratives it contains.

You really have no choice as to whether or not you’ll be living into a myth, if you’re very clever you only really get to choose the myth itself.

By the time you were seven or so, a myth was present for you … and you’ve either be A) living into it unthinkingly, B) resisting it desperately, or C) revising it and choosing one for yourself.

The book of your life was begun by others, but you don’t need to remain in that story.

Whenever you choose you get to take over the authorship of your own life, and begin scripting a new life if you so desire it.

The moment you take over the myth-makers role in your own life you immediately begin reshaping the entirety of the story that’s been told so far. You don’t need to rewrite your past stories …

The very act of deciding who you are now in this moment, and who you are becoming, imposes a new meaning on who you have been.

This simple act of taking control of your own story, shaping the narrative that’s being told, transports you into the beginning of possessing self-mastery.

Keeping it simple, you cannot possess self-mastery if you don’t possess your own story.

In many old fairy tales the hero’s/heroine’s heart is removed and keep in a box by some evil witch or sorcerer and to become whole, often even to live and prevent their own untimely death, the hero/heroine must discover where their heart is hidden and reclaim it for themselves.

The heart at the center of your being that you are seeking is your myth.

Once you’ve discovered your myth, the essential story of who you are, have always been and are becoming, everything about you will begin to coalesce and reform to accept this as the centering and guiding essence of your being. You’ll feel this happening within yourself, and you’ll see the manifestation of it without as well all around you. As you continue others will also begin to notice it and will respond to it in spoken and unspoken ways.

You will be known for your acts, but you will know yourself more because of the myth you are making, and the master you’ve become.

It is of little value to master all about you, if you have left the mastery of yourself behind.

Just some thoughts to ponder as a new dawn approaches …

Joseph Riggio, Ph.D.

Somewhere on the East Coast of the United States at 05:32 AM EDT

Sep 01 2017

SENSING TIME

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/

Mar 18 2017

My comments on Social Ontology

[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.

Sep 21 2015

Freedom is just another word …

… and Freeing Your Mind is where to start!

When I think about “freedom” I think about something that goes beyond place and time.

For instance most folks think of freedom as:

The ability to do what they want, when they want, where they want, whenever they want … or something like that from my observations.

But, that presupposes something that is very typically missing more often than not … the fundamental ability to have a choice in the first place.

Ah, but there’s the rub …

To begin with to have a choice you must first be free of preconceived notions and knee-jerk responses, and so few of us are even a little bit free of those bits of installed mind programs.

From the very beginning, maybe even in the womb, we are being programmed with what to like or dislike, what is good or bad, what to desire or reject … and on and on. Yet we think the things we choose are our preferences most of the time, and not just pre-conditioned responses.

If only that were true …

I’m not here to tell you that your full of it … but I am here to tell you that you are full of pre-conceived notions and knee-jerk responses you think are choices and preferences. Heck, even the way you just responded to reading that last sentence probably falls into the category of pre-conceived notions and knee-jerk response.

Your “brain” ain’t your “mind” … at least not in the way I use those terms.

An easy analogy to use in making my point would be the distinction between “hardware” and “software” in a computing system.

The “hardware” part is analogous to the brain part in humans, the wetware that runs the “software” part.

This would include things like the brain and the central nervous system, and also things like the sense organs and the parts that comprise them as well, e.g.: your eyes, ears, nose, tongue and skin.

When thinking about the wetware connected to and part of the brain system as I’m using that terminology here the “hardware” mechanisms that provide the input and throughput for the compound senses like balance and proprioception are also part and parcel of what I’m referring to as wetware.

Then you have the “software” that runs on the “hardware,” which in the case of the human brain may be a configuration of the “hardware” itself.

The particular patterns of connections in the brain may be what comprise the programs we run, like the plugboards in early computers . In order to run an instruction set on these early computers wires would have to be physically rerouted to the appropriate connections on a plugboard with dozens or hundreds of fixed, pre-programmed microcircuits (see the image attached to this post above – Programming the ENIAC – Columbia University).

When the plugboard had the wires connected in a particular pattern the particular instruction set associated with that pattern would run, and only that instruction set. If you wanted to run a different calculation, based on a different instruction set, you would have to physically remove the wires from the plugs that linked the pre-programmed microcircuits in the existing order they were in to do it. Then you would have to re-route the wiring to the new configuration that provided the instruction set you now intended to run.

In many ways the human brain seems to be organized much like the early computers were with their pre-programmed microcircuits. Except in the case of the humans the preprogrammed microcircuits are the distinct patterns of neuron firing across the synapses that comprise the wetware of the brain.

The patterns of neural firing in the human brain are preprogrammed by virtue of familiarity. In the cognitive sciences we say that synapses that fire together wire together, meaning that the pattern of use determines the ease of recreating that pattern again.

The more a particular synaptic pattern fires the more it becomes myelinized. Myelin is the fatty sheathing that surrounds healthy nerves and facilitates the transmission of nervous impulses along their pathways. The better a nerve is myelinized the more easily, efficiently and effectively it seems that impulses are able to flow through it.

Nerves also seem to become more myelinized through repetitive use, i.e.: the more a particular pattern is used the more it becomes grooved in as the preferred pathway taken in response to a particular stimulus or category of stimuli. This allows us to build very rapid responses to common action scenarios when exposed to familiar stimuli or a category of stimuli, for example:

There is a particular way you tie your shoes, right lace over left lace first, or visa-versa. Doing it any other way feels unfamiliar and awkward. Yet, tying your shoe laces the way it’s been programmed is so familiar and comfortable it has likely become second nature, and you can probably do it at a pre-conscious level, while attending to something else on a more conscious level.

Your choices aren’t only limited to the way you tie your shoes … and we’re not in Kansas anymore!

So following the logic of the pre-programmed brain patterns we can begin to discuss, “What is the mind?”

In some ways I think it would be fair to consider the “mind” the patterns of neural connections in the “wetware” that we use in thinking consciously, pre-consciously, sub-consciously and trans-consciously.

These patters of wetware connections at one level are what thought is as we understand it today. However, there seems to be more to mind though than just the wetware connections, because we retain an ability to override the preferred patterns grooved into the wetware and do creative, impulsive, spontaneous and original things.

This ability to create unique responses is grounded in the brain (or the total configuration of the wetware in the body-at-large), and at the same time it exceeds the patterns previously organized in the wetware configuration and familiar within it.

Every time you respond as you have “without thinking” you are NOT expressing freedom or choice, you are expressing a pre-conceived notion or knee-jerk response grooved into the patterns in your wetware … like a pattern in the way the wires are configured in the plugboard of the ENIAC at any given time. In this way you are literally only capable of running the particular instruction set associated with that configuration in response to the presenting stimulus – you aren’t “thinking” you’re just following the actions associated with that instruction set.

Have a choice, or being free, requires you have options when acting in relation to any presenting stimulus.

So freedom isn’t being able to do what you want, when you want, where you want, whenever you want … unless you have a choice about doing it at all!

“FREEDOM” is a Mind Game … but you have to first take control of your brain to have access to your mind.

This is something I learned early on in my NLP days … to use a quote from Richard Bandler, one of the co-developers of NLP:

Brains aren’t designed to get results; they go in directions. If you know how the brain works you can set your own directions. If you don’t, then someone else will. – Richard Bandler (http://www.azquotes.com/quote/703363)

In Richard’s book, Using Your Brain For a Change: Neuro-Linguistic Programming says he’s going to give the reader “a manual for running the brain” and in my opinion gets at least part of the way there in his descriptions, instructions and examples.

One of the things that’s interesting to me about “Using Your Brain For a Change” is that Richard never really talks about the hardware as wetware as I have above. Instead of getting into the whole discussion about neural patterns as they operate at a physical level Richard spends all his time discussing our representations of reality, i.e.: how the patterns we make about the world and ourselves are organized.

In particular the discussion of how we organize our representations of reality in this book by Richard Bandler are focused on what he refers to as “submodalities” … unique distinctions about the elements of perception that determine how we make sense of what we perceive and what meaning we attach to those perceptions.

The submodalities of perception are organized into configurations, i.e.: “submodality configurations” that are more significant than any individual submodality standing apart from the pattern of the configuration as a whole.

Submodality configurations are comprised of two aspects that are equally important:

The Semantics of Submodalities: these are the way in which the particular submodality of perception is present in the representation of reality as it is known to you, e.g.: the unique color of someone’s eyes as you recall it and where you “see” that image in your mind’s eye, as well as the brightness, angle of view, distance from you and the way you hold the totality of the representation in regard to the visual image … as a photograph or video for instance.

The Syntax of Submodalities: this is the order or sequence in which the submodality configuration that forms your perception of reality is represented and attended to by you, e.g.: you can notice first the visual submodalities and then the auditory submodalities, or you might notice them in wholeform all at the same time as you would were they occurring in real time, and you might also notice the unique pattern of the submodality in stages as well, first noticing the color, then the brightness, then the angle and so on … and by virtue of the order or sequence the submodality configuration take on a logic unique to the syntax you use.

What Richard explores and examines in his work is both the semantics and syntax of “subjective experience” and how we can alter that for ourselves.

There is a powerful perceptual logic in the semantics and syntax of submodalities, and what’s unique to this logic to me is that it is non-linguistic, and therefore can be held and experienced in wholeform, i.e.: beyond the limits of language.

While language is always digital, with one element … a word, a sentence, a paragraph … distinct from the one before it and the one after, indeed from all other words, sentences and paragraphs, and by it’s very nature needing to be experienced separately from them, life occurs in wholeform, i.e.: all at a time, simultaneously.

Language is also always ordered sequentially and linearly, once more separating it from the experience of life, where many things can and do happen in simultaneity.

Submodalities are a kind of a bridge between the direct sensory experience of wholeform life as it happens and our processing of our conscious experience of life as what happened. They (submodalities) are magical, like the Old Norse runes, they are the elements from which we can conjure our subjective experience as we see fit.

“I, master of the runes conceal here runes of power. Incessantly plagued by maleficence, doomed to insidious death is he who breaks this monument. I prophesy destruction.” – Björketorp Runestone, 6th C. Sweden

Or one more, suggesting a runic use benevolently capable of giving life to the dead …

I know a twelfth one if I see,
up in a tree,
a dangling corpse in a noose,
I can so carve and colour the runes,
that the man walks
And talks with me.

– Odin

Hávamál, Codex Regius 13 C.

The relationship between Subjective Experience … Freedom … and Choice/Choosing

Until we have access to how we are choosing what we are responding to and how we respond to it, we have little or no choice … and, without the option to choose we have no freedom.

Now here’s a critical distinction … we may not always be able to choose “what is” or the elements we are experiencing in our reality, but we always have options about what we choose to make of what we’re experiencing.

How we make sense of things and what we allow them to mean to us is always in our control … when we are able to access the process we use to make sense of and make meaning from the presenting stimulus of our subjective experience.

In this way, even when we are “objectively wrong” we get to choose our own experiences, and from there what and how we choose to respond to as it appears to us.

Here’s another Richard Bandler quote to tie things together:

The greatest personal limitation is to be found not in the things you want to do and can’t, but in the things you’ve never considered doing. – Richard Bandler (http://www.azquotes.com/quote/703366)

This is the essence of freedom (and mind) as far as I’ve concerned … i.e.: being about to choose what isn’t and hasn’t yet been.

Someone in prison who gets this idea fully can choose “FREEDOM” while doing the time of their sentence. Someone being beaten can choose to make it means something other than the loss of control of their experience.

Regardless, of the circumstance or situation if you can choose what something means to you, you can be free.

One of my favorite scenes of all time is from the 2006 James Bond movie “Casino Royale” with Daniel Craig, playing Bond. He’s being tortured by the criminal mastermind, Le Chiffre, played by the actor Mads Mikklesen. He’s in great pain and likely to be killed imminently in this particular scene:

Bond: I’ve got a little itch … down there. Would you mind? No! No! No! No. To the right. To the right. To the right!

Le Chiffre: You are a funny man, Mr. Bond.

Bond: (Laughing) Yeah! Yes, yes, yes. Now the whole world’s gonna know that you died scratching my balls.

Now that’s having control of one’s “subjective experience” and choosing in the most dire of circumstances!!!

In the end it ain’t what you can or can’t do … or be … it’s the choices you make with what you’ve got.

In the follow up to the scene from “Casino Royale” above Bond is next seen recuperating from his trauma in a hospital accompanied by his paramour in the film, Vesper, played by Eva Green. They are on a lawn and he is clearly weak and debilitated after his ordeal.

Vesper: Hello.

Bond: Hello.

Vesper: You all right? I can’t resist waking you. Every time I do, you look at me as if you haven’t seen me in years.

Bond: It makes me feel reborn.

Vesper: If you’d just been born …wouldn’t you be naked?

Bond: You have me there.

Vesper: You can have me anywhere.

Bond: I can?

Vesper: Yeah. Here, there, anywhere you like.

The scene continues a bit further in the dialogue …

Vesper: You know, James …I just want you to know that if all that was left of you … was your smile and your little finger … you’d still be more of a man than anyone I’ve ever met.

Bond: That’s because you know what I can do with my little finger.

Vesper: I have no idea.

Bond: But you’re aching to find out.

Vesper: You’re not going to let me in there, are you? You’ve got your armor back on. That’s that.

Bond: I have no armor left. You’ve stripped it from me. Whatever is left of me …whatever I am … I’m yours.

There’s something particularly remarkable in these two scenes to me.

There’s something particularly powerful about the nature of having control over one’s self, including the ability to let go … to be fully present to “what is” as well as one’s self and what one wishes to be experiencing in the moment, regardless of what the evidence is that is presenting itself in that moment.

I’d even argue that in terms of mythic form, in this moment captured by these actors, Bond is everyman and Vesper is everywoman … the ideal of the anima/animus as the blended being becoming whole and complete. Wonderful!

The conclusion I reach is that FREEDOM is more a powerful and potent force than PERFORMANCE.

Even though I make much of my living, and devote much of my life’s work to assisting others with mastery in terms of performance, i.e.: linking intention to action in terms of the results and outcomes they achieve, freedom is the real treasure … i.e.: having what you want as you want what you have.

Buona Fortuna & Abundanza,