ABTI | Joseph Riggio International

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 …

Revisiting: Pathways to A High-Ticket Coaching Or Consulting Practice

Or … The Gravesian Way To Making A Great Living As A Coach/Consultant/Trainer …

Graves Business Model Venn Diagram JSR

 

Okay … the idea of the Venn Diagram showing this particular intersection isn’t mine, but the commentary around it is …

Let’s take a closer look together … shall we?

 

[NOTE: I originally wrote this as a post on my blog where I’ve been talking the Graves Model for years. This model identifies what most drives perceptual, decision-making and behavioral responses that people default to generally, all other things being equal. The fundamental point here is that unconscious values drive responses. When you can recognize how your values shape your responses, and the way values shape the responses that others make, you can make choices that serve you more powerfully in your business. It’s not so important to try to master the Graves Model, as to get the underlying values that form business decisions that shape a business’ outcomes.]

Most of the build your coaching business gurus will point you towards what I’m calling out as the Reflective Thinking/Graves Six position where you supposedly make money by pursuing your passion … e.g.: your Million Dollar Message B.S.

BUT … while you can indeed make money by overlapping What You’re Passionate About resides and where What Your Clients Want and Are Willing To Pay Handsomely To Get overlap … there ain’t no guarantee that’s gonna happen …

BECAUSE there’s no guarantee that what you’re passionate about … or your message, life story, insights, calling, whatever … is going to resonate with what customers and clients are willing to pay handsomely for today.

Now if you notice most of these “Gurus” are following the path that most of the  on-line business/marketing gurus will point you toward (and mostly follow themselves) … i.e.: the place where What You’re Good At and What Clients Want and Will Pay Handsomely For overlap. This is the Reactive Thinking/Graves Five position on the diagram, and you can indeed make loads of money when you follow this path to riches.

In other words, the Reflective Thinking/Graves Six Do What You Love Gurus seldom follow their own advice precisely, except when there’s a lucky accident and they are actually at the Integrative Thinking/Graves Seven position (think Oprah Winfrey).

I point to this position in the middle of the diagram where all three circles overlap … (BTW this is where the money you can earn is for all intents and purposes unlimited), so it all comes together for them.

Just to complete the outer positions, 90% of folks who have businesses that are actually jobs are stuck in the Reflexive Thinking/Graves Four position, where What You’re Good At and What You’re Passionate About overlap. (NOTE: This is Michael Gerber of “The E-Myth” fame refers to as the technician’s ‘entrepreneurial spasm’.)

OKAY, SO HERE’S THE “SKINNY” AS I LIKE TO SAY …

YOU HAVE TO DECIDE EXACTLY “WHY” YOU WANT TO RUN A COACHING/CONSULTING/TRAINING BUSINESS!!!

(Or, what you get from your coaching/consulting/training business will not necessarily be what you want or expect to get from it.)

What To Do About It …

(If You Really Want To Build A High-Ticket Practice)

A great majority of folks who are good at what they do, but ain’t making no money, are operating at a Reflexive Thinking/Graves Four position on this diagram. It’s simple and kind of stupid (I’ll explain why later on, give me a minute to get there …)

Most folks who are willing to do what it takes, are at a Reactive Thinking/Graves Five position on the diagram, and are building businesses that make money, sometimes tons of moolah, but they aren’t necessarily that happiest folks on the planet (in fact they are often the most anxious folks on the planet, always waiting for the house of cards they built to implode).

When you leap to the Reflective Thinking/Graves Six position you find that there’s a whole spectrum of success, from what is utter financial failure to super financial success and independent wealth. Yet, these folks are living in a dream expecting to live the dream, i.e.: doing well by doing good, regardless of the fact the reality is that most of the time they are more interested in what they want to do for themselves than helping out the world as a form of service or sacrifice.

Now that ain’t saying that folks who are operating out of the Reflective Thinking/Graves Six value set aren’t doing good work, it’s just that the reality is that most of the time that decision is based on what NLPers (folks trained in NLP/neurolinguistic programming) call Sorting By Self and Internal Reference. In other words they decide what’s most right by their own internal measure and not necessarily what would in fact most serve the world-at-large.

For example a whole lot of these folks drive expensive SUVs and many drive expensive sports cars, that ain’t doing a whole lot for the planet they claim to love, or being particularly respectful of the percentage of resources they use compared to the least privileged folks on the planet. And those in the coaching/consulting industry don’t stay local/buy local/work local either, because they are getting on planes to go to the conventions where their tribe meets up and when they’re not flying to meet their tribe they’re looking to hook up with some tribe in Fiji or Patagonia or the Himalayas on holiday.

Once again, I’m NOT condemning these folks … good on the if they’ve found a way to satisfy their deepest desires and making the dosh they need to pursue them fully. BUT, as I said this is as much a lucky coincidence as it is strategic planning, and even then this is NOT the path to sainthood regardless of how many Salutations to the Sun you’ve done, or how many hours you’ve spent meditating mindfully, or even if you’ve spent two years of your youth in the Peace Corps.

The main point for anyone who’s trying to build a high-ticket practice is to get that if you want to be on the path to success that is strategic, then you’ve really got to look at why you want this and how you expect to pull it off in the real world where no one cares about your intention …

That’s right … NO ONE CARES ABOUT YOUR INTENTION!

ALL FOLKS CARE ABOUT ARE WHAT THEY WANT AND,
HOW YOUR ACTIONS HELP THEM GET THAT … OR NOT!

(NOTE: There is an exception to this as well … when folks believe and expect that you will help them get what they want, even when that doesn’t turn out to be true after the fact.)

So think about it … WHY DO YOU WANT TO BUILD A HIGH-TICKET COACHING, CONSULTING OR TRAINING PRACTICE???

In other words answer these two question for yourself:

1. What do you expect to get from building a high-ticket coaching, consulting or training practice?

2. How will getting this satisfy your deeper desires and values beyond just making money (unless your at Reactive Thinking/Graves Five, just making money is not going to keep you happy).

Now going back a step …

If you both want to make money AND satisfy your deeper desires and values you’ll need to come to terms with a couple of things …

FIRST … you MUST satisfy the intention to serve your clients based on “What Your Clients Want and Will Pay You Handsomely For” … if you’re NOT starting here you are NOT operating strategically with regard to building a High-Ticket Practice.

AND … you MUST satisfy the intention to serve “What You’re Passionate About” as well.

Now, that may sound like I just recommended that you follow the Graves Six pathway to success, and that’s ALMOST correct, but as they say in the infomercial world … “WAIT THERE’S MORE!”

REMEMBER … there’s absolutely no guarantee that “What You’re Passionate About” and “What Your Client’s Want and Will Pay You Handsomely For” are aligned or will come together … if those two things aren’t also “What You’re Good At” too.

Because typically High-Ticket Clients almost always go to someone who is an expert, who does the best quality work, for what they want and expect to pay handsomely for as well. In other words, they seek out folks who are good at what they do as their primary criteria (even when they get it wrong because someone has created a reputation built on sand … probably a savvy Six BTW).

 

For BOTH YOU AND YOUR CLIENTS to be deeply satisfied you need to be in the Reactive Thinking/Graves Five zone for them … AND the Reflective Thinking/Graves Six zone for you!

And, in the world of this model Reactive Thinking/Graves Five and Reflective Thinking/Graves Six together equal Integrative Thinking/Graves Seven when it comes to building a High-Ticket Coaching, Consulting or Training Practice that satisfies BOTH YOU AND YOUR CLIENTS!

 

Summing It Up

Simply put, STOP PAYING ATTENTION TO THE MAGICAL THINKING WORLD OF THE GET RICH QUICK BY DOING WHAT YOU LOVE Gurus!!!

While there’s nothing wrong with doing what you love … HECK I RECOMMEND IT … you aren’t going to have the chance to work with the High-Ticket clients you want, or to strategically satisfy your desire to make more money … or get filthy, stinking rich for that matter … if you don’t move out of the position you’re in to a position where you really do satisfy all the people in the equation BASED ON THEIR CRITERIA AND NOT YOURS ALONE.

As the wise men say, there are many paths to the top of mountain, but whether you get up there broken and defeated barely having survived, happily trekking with a merry band of sherpas and stopping for a week in basecamp before you turn around and head down never having seen the peak, or travel all the way in a luxury helicopter is up to you.

If you want to you can indeed have it, and knowing WHO you are, is at least as important as WHAT to do and HOW to do it … this is the world of Integrative Thinking/Graves Seven autonomy and success … and, here’s a little secret, when you are operating from WHO you are, you begin to gain unprecedented insight into WHO your clients are as well.

So if your guru isn’t starting there with you, i.e.: WHO you are, as the basis for designing the offers you build your HIGH TICKET Coaching/Consulting/Training business around, then at least remember this wise saying … CAVEAT EMPTOR (i.e.: buyer beware).

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

P.S. – Leave a comment and let me know what you think  … if you’d like to get a little more clarity on your current identity and values in regard to your business, I can talk and walk you through where you are on the diagram today and help you make the move to the center of yourself in about 15 minutes . If you’d like to pursue it you can schedule a call here …

Schedule Your Short Complimentary 15 Minute Call with Me Here

Seeing Wholeness

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

Pathways To A High Ticket Coaching Or Consulting Practice

Or … The Gravesian Way To Making A Great Living As A Coach/Consultant/Trainer …

Graves Business Model Venn Diagram JSR

 

Okay … the idea of the Venn Diagram isn’t mine, but the commentary around it is …

Let’s take a closer look together … shall we?

 

Graves Business Model Venn Diagram JSR

Most of the “Build Your Coaching Business Gurus” will point you towards what I’m calling out as the “Graves Six” position where you supposedly make money by pursuing your passion … e.g.: “Your Million Dollar Message” B.S.

BUT … while you can indeed make money by overlapping “What You’re Passionate About” resides and where “What Your Clients Want and Are Willing To Pay Handsomely To Get” overlap … there ain’t no guarantee that’s gonna happen …

BECAUSE there’s no guarantee that what you’re passionate about … or your message, life story, insights, calling, whatever … is going to resonate with what customers and clients are willing to pay handsomely for today.

Now if you notice most of these “Gurus” are following the path that most of the “OnLine Business/Marketing Gurus” will point you toward (and mostly follow themselves) … i.e.: the place where “What You’re Good At” and “What Clients Want and Will Pay Handsomely For” overlap. This is the Graves Five position on the diagram, and you can indeed make loads of money when you follow this path to riches.

In other words, the Graves Six “Do What You Love Gurus” seldom follow their own advice precisely, except when there’s a lucky accident and they are actually at the Graves Seven position (think Oprah Winfrey)

I point to this position in the middle of the diagram where all three circles overlap … (BTW this is where the money you can earn is for all intents and purposes unlimited), so it all comes together for them.

Just to complete the outer positions, 90% of folks who have businesses that are actually jobs are stuck in the Graves Four position, where “What You’re Good At” and “What You’re Passionate About” overlap. (NOTE: This is Michael Gerber of “The E-Myth” fame refers to as the technician’s entrepreneurial spasm.)

 

OKAY, SO HERE’S THE “SKINNY” AS I LIKE TO SAY …

YOU HAVE TO DECIDE EXACTLY “WHY” YOU WANT TO RUN A COACHING/CONSULTING/TRAINING BUSINESS!!!

Or, what you get from it will not necessarily be what you want or expect.

What To Do About It …

(If You Really Want To Build A High-Ticket Practice)

A great majority of folks who are good at what they do, but they ain’t making no money, are operating at a Graves Four position on this diagram. Simple and kind of stupid (I’ll explain why later on, give me a minute to get there …)

Most folks who are willing to do what it takes, are at a Graves Five position on the diagram, and are building businesses that make money, sometimes “tons of moolah,” but they aren’t necessarily that happiest folks on the planet (in fact they are often the most anxious folks on the planet, always waiting for the house of cards they built to implode).

When you leap to the Graves Six position you find that there’s a whole spectrum of success, from what is utter financial failure to super financial success and independent wealth. Yet, these folks are living in a dream expecting to live “the dream,” i.e.: doing well by doing good, regardless of the fact the reality is that most of the time they are more interested in what they want to do for themselves than helping out the world as a form of service or sacrifice.

Now that ain’t saying that folks who are operating out of the Graves Six Value Set aren’t doing good work, it’s just that the reality is that most of the time that decision is based on what NLPers (folks trained in neurolinguistic programming, or NLP) call “Sorting By Self” and “Internal Reference.” In other words they decide what’s most “right” by their own internal measure and not necessarily what would in fact most serve the world-at-large.

For example a whole lot of these folks drive expensive SUVs and many drive expensive sports cars, that ain’t doing a whole lot for the planet they claim to love, or being particularly respectful of the percentage of resources they use compared to the least privileged folks on the planet. And those in the coaching/consulting industry don’t stay local/buy local/work local either, because they are getting on planes to go to the conventions where their “tribe” meets up and when they’re not flying to meet their “tribe” they’re looking to hook up with some tribe in Fiji or Patagonia or the Himalayas “on holiday.”

Once again, I’m NOT condemning these folks … good on the if they’ve found a way to satisfy their deepest desires and making the dosh they need to pursue them fully. BUT, as I said this is as much a lucky coincidence as it is strategic planning, and even then this is NOT the path to sainthood regardless of how many Salutations to the Sun you’ve done, or how many hours you’ve spent meditating mindfully, or even if you’ve spent two years of your youth in the Peace Corps.

The main point for anyone who’s trying to build a High-Ticket Coaching or Consulting Practice is to get that if you want to be on the path to success that IS strategic, then you’ve really got to look at WHY you want this and how you expect to pull it off in the real world where no one cares about your intention …

 

That’s right NO ONE CARES ABOUT YOUR INTENTION!

ALL FOLKS CARE ABOUT ARE WHAT THEY WANT AND HOW YOUR ACTIONS HELP THEM GET THAT OR NOT!

(NOTE: There is an exception to this as well … when folks believe and expect that you will help them get what they want, even when that doesn’t turn out to be true after the fact.)

 

So think about it … WHY DO YOU WANT TO BUILD A HIGH-TICKET COACHING OR CONSULTING PRACTICE???

In other words answer these two question for yourself:

1. What do you expect to get from building a high-ticket coaching or consulting practice?

2. How will getting this satisfy your deeper desires and values beyond JUST making money (unless your at Graves Five, JUST making money is NOT going to keep you happy).

Now going back a step …

If you both want to make money AND satisfy your deeper desires and values you’ll need to come to terms with a couple of things …

FIRST … you MUST satisfy the intention to serve your clients based on “What Your Clients Want and Will Pay You Handsomely For” … if you’re NOT starting here you are NOT operating strategically with regard to building a High-Ticket Practice.

AND … you MUST satisfy the intention to serve “What You’re Passionate About” as well.

Now, that may sound like I just recommended that you follow the Graves Six pathway to success, and that’s ALMOST correct, but as they say in the infomercial world … “WAIT THERE’S MORE!”

REMEMBER … there’s absolutely NO GUARANTEE that “What You’re Passionate About” and “What Your Client’s Want and Will Pay You Handsomely For” are aligned or will come together … if those two things aren’t also “What You’re Good At” too.

Because typically High-Ticket Clients almost always go to someone who is an expert, who does the best quality work, for what they want and expect to pay handsomely for as well. In other words, they seek out folks who are good at what they do as their primary criteria (even when they get it wrong because someone has created a reputation built on sand … probably a savvy Six BTW).

 

For BOTH YOU AND YOUR CLIENTS to be deeply satisfied you need to be in the Graves Five zone for them … AND the Graves Six zone for you!

And, in the world of this model Five and Six equal Seven when it comes to building a High-Ticket Coaching or Consulting Practice that satisfy BOTH YOU AND YOUR CLIENTS!

 

Summing It Up

Simply put STOP PAYING ATTENTION TO THE MAGICAL THINKING WORLD OF THE GET RICH QUICK BY DOING WHAT YOU LOVE Gurus!!!

While there’s nothing wrong with doing what you love … HECK I RECOMMEND IT … BUT, DO IT BY MOVING TO “SEVEN” AND HAVE IT ALL BY SATISFYING ALL THE FOLKS IN THE EQUATION … you just aren’t going to have the chance to work with the High-Ticket clients you want, or to strategically satisfy your desire to make more money … or get filthy, stinking rich for that matter … if you don’t move out of the position your in to a position where you really do satisfy all the people in the equation BASED ON THIER CRITERIA AND NOT YOUR ALONE.

As the wise men say, there are many paths to the top of mountain, but whether you get up there broken and defeated barely having survived, happily trekking with a merry band of sherpas and stopping for a week in basecamp before you turn around and head down never having seen the peak, or travel all the way in a luxury helicopter is up to you.

If you want you can indeed have it … and, knowing “WHO” you are, is at least as important as “WHAT” to do and “HOW” to do it.

So if your “guru” isn’t starting by putting you at the center of it all then at least remember this wise saying, CAVEAT EMPTOR (“buyer beware”)

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

P.S. – Let me know what you think below …

P.P.S. – If you’d like to move to “SEVEN” start by getting a little more clarity on your current identity and values in regard to your business, I can talk and walk you through where you are on the diagram today and help you make the move to the center of yourself in about 15 minutes . If you’re like to purse it you can schedule a call by clicking on this link: Get Some Clarity w/Joseph

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.

 

Get Started NOW Download Joseph's Free Infographic :: "GETTING UNSTUCK"