ABTI | Joseph Riggio International

You are here: Home / Archives for Transformational Communication

Transformational Communication

SENSING TIME

SENSING TIME

by ·

Time lines in an abstract spiral

Just like seeing or hearing TIME is a sense.

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

A Sense of Time

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

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

First a little background to where I’m going …

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

More Than The Traditional Five Senses

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

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

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

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

 

 

The Finer Distinctions Of Time … And Other Things Too

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

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

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

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

 

 

The Teleological Factor

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

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

So this brings me around to my next point …

TIME IS A CONTEXT.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

TRANSFORMATIONAL THINKING

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

 

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

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

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

My comments on Social Ontology

by ·

[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.

 

Revisiting Bliss …

Revisiting Bliss …

by ·

Follow your bliss …

and the universe will open doors

where there were only walls.

Joseph Campbell

 

Coffee & Croisant Sq 200px

 

Wow!


I was a little stunned myself at how much more clarity and focus about what counts in life can be achieved in about the time it takes to have a cappuccino and a croissant.

 

If you’re … lost … tired … unmotivated … or, yearning for something elusive that you hope will give you the sense of destiny and  fulfillment you desperately desire … but have been unable to find … what I discovered accidentally one morning over breakfast with a friend may just be the answer you’ve been looking for …

But first indulge me in sharing a little bit of background.
Joseph Campbell is remembered by many for his injunction to …

Follow your bliss …

It always amazes me how little people expect of life that really counts for something, and how hard they are willing to work to get it.

 

I think that’s mostly because they don’t get what Joseph Campbell meant when he referred to “bliss” …

Most people think “BLISS” refers to being happy or comfortable, or more than that a kind of ecstasy of spirit. 

Yet, I’m confident it has nothing to do with any of those things …

As I understand it, and work with my clients around it, “BLISS” refers to being fully and completely aligned with one’s self … identifying and moving in sync with your true nature.

Think about it … Joseph Campbell says when you follow your bliss “the universe will open doors where there were only walls” … he says nothing about feeling “happy” or “being comfortable” …

In Joseph Campbell’s magnum opus, “The Hero With A Thousand Faces” … he lays out the structure of the “Hero’s Journey” and shows us that the hero/heroine must enter the “belly of the beast” first … facing their fears and overcoming many trials before achieving their bliss.

But, while the “Journey” can be wrought with difficulty it doesn’t have to be that way …

Joseph Campbell also points us to other aspects of the “Hero’s Journey” … in this case specifically the “Guide” and the “Magic Helper” … Luke Skywalker’s “Obi Wan Kenobe” and “Hans Solo” in StarWars, or Daniel’s “Mr. Miyagi” and “Ali” from The Karate Kid are examples … but, my favorite guide and magic helper are Carlos Castaneda’s “Don Juan” (Juan Mateus) and “Don Genaro” (Genaro Flores).

The guide and the magic helper are crucial when you are ready to transcend what limits you.

In the past there were many who fulfilled these traditional roles of guiding the seeker over the threshold … the shaman … the medicine man/woman … the witch doctor … the priest/priestess … and on and on.

Today some hope for this kind of facilitation with their psychologist, counselor or therapist … yet the medical models these folks work from is often completely lacking in achieving such transcendence.

However, all is not lost … there are still some models which seek to fulfill these sacred roles … I got this many years ago when I was apprenticing with Roye, my own mentor.

A little over two months ago I began something extraordinary … a *NEW* program for one to one private work I designed, i.e.: the Breakfast Discovery Process … an extremely focused, a single 45 minute coaching session.

Both my client and I agree at the outset that the intention of our time together will be to arrive at an extraordinary clarity about the current situation and the realization of a direction leading forward … a path through the next steps to take.

According to great Swiss psychologist, Carl Jung, there are two tasks of life:

  • In the first half of life arriving at ego differentiation … to find yourself at home in the external world.

  • In the second half of life the task becomes about … discovering who you are as an individual.

I had a conversation about a month ago with a twenty-something client who was striving to achieve the realization of the first task … to find himself at home in the external world, i.e.: to know what to do with his life.

The conversation began naturally enough, around how he was not sure about what to be doing with his life … the direction he should be taking to build a career and find success in his life. The real issue was one I’ve heard again and again, “I get started on something new with a sense of excitement and hope that this thing will be it … then I quickly get bored and disinterested.”

Twenty-somethings … Thirty-somethings … even some Forty-somethings find themselves lost in this loop … looking for bliss in their lives, but only finding boredom instead. 

This comes with incredible possibility … with options and choices, i.e.: boredom common to folks who are ambitious and desire more from life than a guarantee of a place to go from 9-5 everyday and a paycheck at the end of the week.

Transcending the re-occurring boredom that comes with opportunity requires a special kind of vision and perspective to see beyond the obvious. Yet, when that special perspective is achieved what had been hidden with it becomes obvious as well.

This is the foundation for BLISS.

We discussed a lot of things, beginning with an exploration of where he’d been in his life and where he found himself in the moment … all very casual, all very conversational.

At some point he began revealing his deeper thoughts and desires … what really held him back and where he really wanted to be … what it was exactly that he was revealing, all spoken outside of his conscious awareness (… and that’s what made is so unavailable to him).

Although it was now obvious to me the path forward remained inaccessible to him …

The key to his movement was actually remarkably simple … a single powerful insight followed by an equally powerful single action were all it took to transform his blindness to clarity.

A critical point is that insight without action is most often meaningless … yet, insight followed by action can be the most powerful transformative process available to you.

Now like most things … any old action won’t cut it.

The action must be precisely aligned with the insight, and the insight must cut through to the core of your hidden identity to create the alignment that leads to BLISS.

My client wanted to know the next steps …

  • First of all he was (and is) a truly talented programmer … code comes to him like babbling comes to a baby.
  • He was a dream employee for every up and coming start up he ever worked for … for the first month or two … and then he’d simply get bored and lose interest in the project and ultimately the company.
  • Then he’d move along to the next bright and shiny thing that came along (usually at an increased salary and bonus package) … doing well, until that too got boring … and so it went.
  • What he kept missing … that was actually supremely obvious despite how elusive it was for him … was that he was the world’s best starter and problem solver when it came to coding … and the world’s worst finisher … he didn’t get bored with coding, he got bored with finishing.
  • What he was really missing was a way to structure his talent in relation to a team that could and would support what he was best at … that would allow him to step away and move on as soon as he began to get bored BEFORE he lost interest.
  • Next step … get hired in a leadership role with a team under him to support his remarkable talent as a coder and a way to keep him motivated about moving the project forward without him having to be responsible for doing it himself.
  • So we designed a way for him to find and move into role where he could get just that, including all the steps he needed to take immediately to make that happen … and he was on his way.

Okay, so you get the idea … a carefully crafted conversation that leads to the insight and action creating the transformation from existential angst to BLISS is what my accidental discovery led me to … and I built an entire process to deliver this kind of clarity to anyone who wants it in about 45 minutes.

I call this process the Breakfast Discovery Process (or BDP in my personal shorthand).

I have a limited number of openings available at the current investment level … and when they are gone the price will more than double.

I’m also including bonuses worth more than three times what the current investment for BDP | Breakfast Discovery Process is today that you’ll get when you register before 1 January 2016.

Here’s your link:

Get all the details and register here:
The Breakfast Discovery Process

 

All the best,

Joseph Riggio, Ph.D.
New Hope, PA

PS – If you are ready to get started here’s the place to register before the program investment more than doubles (from $447 to $975) … and you’ll get my year-end special bonus package when you sign-up before the 1st of January 2016 … including permanent access to TCP | The Complete Package … my premier Personal Development DFY (done for you) program, and Story Control … the complete videos from the three-day program I ran with Jamie Smart … the bonuses alone are worth about three times what I’m charging for the BDP | Breakfast Discovery Process before I raise the price in less than two weeks from now.

The Breakfast Discovery Process

 

Why Bother …

Why Bother …

by ·

River - MorgueFile - New Zaeland 2014_18 - 200px

 (… or, what is liminality, and what’s it got to do with you???)

It happens to everyone … the kind of trauma that causes a set-back, or downright stops you in your tracks.

The trauma doesn’t have to be big, although it might be, but even a small trauma can:

  • slow you down …
  • cause you to question yourself …
  • break your confidence …
  • lead you into a state of depression …
  • or … shut you down completely

My trauma knocked me right off the tracks … and at first I didn’t even know it!

In fact my trauma wasn’t a single trauma it was a series of three traumas that came one on the heels of the other in just a few short years … first a huge financial set back (in excess of $1,000,000 USD) … then major disruption and decline in my business to the point where we had virtually no new clients for almost a full two years … and finally, an overwhelming personal tragedy that virtually brought me to my knees.

What’s interesting is that virtually no one knew that these traumas had this affect on me. Looking in from the outside I seemed to just keep going, but the reality was that for a few years “my get up go, just gone and went.”

I knew on the inside that I just wasn’t particularly motivated to take the big steps forward I also knew that I was capable of, but couldn’t get myself to achieve.

This was the worst part … knowing that I was capable of doing so much more and not being able to get to it.

I was stuck.

I even knew what to do … but I just wasn’t doing it.

In my GETTING UNSTUCK program I talk about this as “Unconscious Limitations” … what you don’t know about yourself that holds you back from …

  • becoming yourself fully
  • doing what your capable of doing
  • realizing your full potential

… and …

  • getting the kind of results and outcomes that are possible when you’re operating at your best

This is how I was caught after one too many traumas to shake off quickly … as I was always used to doing in the past.

I was experiencing “liminality” …

Liminal Space

A “limen” is the smallest possible thing you are capable of detecting, or the threshold condition for an effect to begin.

Liminality refers to the “in-between” … when you are no longer in the world as you knew it to be, and you’re not yet beyond it to the next thing either … you remain “in-between.”

After a trauma, we’re almost always experiencing “liminality” and find ourselves stuck in “liminal space” … in a state of transition, not knowing where you are anymore nor where you going … at least not fully, or with any sense of deep comprehension.

What’s interesting to me is what causes us to experience trauma …

  • failing to succeed where we thought we would … or should
  • an off-hand, stray comment that leaves us reeling
  • personal loss like a failed relationship or a death
  • failing health, an accident or serious medical incident
  • financial, career or business set-back … or outright failure

When we look closely we might recognize that we experience sensitizing imprints on a regular basis. While we won’t experience everything bad that happens to us as a trauma, some of them are … and those are the ones that create set-backs in our lives that we may find difficult or impossible to get over on our own.

When this happens we’re experiencing “liminality.” … we feel lost, or even trapped, in a maze of our own making.

The Apathy of the “Lotophagi”

We may seem to have amnesia about our part in constructing the labyrinth we’re trapped in, usually because the construction happens in the blink of an eye … literally faster than we can think.

So when we realize stuck in liminal space, we seek the guide that will point the way out, or a map that shows us where we are, where the exits are located, and the paths open to us to get from here to there.

Sometimes we spend so much time in the labyrinth that we begin to become comfortable living within it, and it begins to feel like home to us. This is the mythical danger associated with the sophoric lotophagi, i.e.: the lotus eaters of the Homeric epic the Odyessy.

”I was driven thence by foul winds for a space of 9 days upon the sea, but on the tenth day we reached the land of the Lotus-eaters, who live on a food that comes from a kind of flower. Here we landed to take in fresh water, and our crews got their mid-day meal on the shore near the ships.

When they had eaten and drunk I sent two of my company to see what manner of men the people of the place might be, and they had a third man under them. They started at once, and went about among the Lotus-eaters, who did them no hurt, but gave them to eat of the lotus, which was so delicious that those who ate of it left off caring about home, and did not even want to go back and say what had happened to them, but were for staying and munching lotus with the Lotus-eaters without thinking further of their return; nevertheless, though they wept bitterly I forced them back to the ships and made them fast under the benches.

Then I told the rest to go on board at once, lest any of them should taste of the lotus and leave off wanting to get home, so they took their places and smote the grey sea with their oars.”

The great seduction is to fall asleep, like Odysseus’ men in the land of the lotus eaters, to our own predicament, and to fail to notice that we are in the maze. Then when we arise from our slumber, finding it as hard as Odysseus’ sailors to leave the place where we find ourselves. Yet desperately seeking to find a way back home.

Coming Back to “Home Base”

When I awoke from my own dazed condition, and found myself deep in liminality, I realized I had to shake off the desire to doze again … peaceful in my apathy. I knew I wanted more from life than to coast through, because I had seen some difficult days.

The question was how to revive myself to a fully awake state. I knew that the first few steps would be the most difficult of all … and yet these were also the most essential steps I could … and would … take.

I also knew to that to fully enliven my drive to rediscover myself I had to fight the urge to accept the obvious as evidence of truth … I had to dig beyond that to my core, to reawaken my essential self.

So I set up a regimen that associated a sense of recursive, iterative inquiry to linking intention to action. I think the fundamental ground of performance is linking connection to action.

1) Remembering to link intention to action became my first step out of the maze.

Because I couldn’t discover what I didn’t know and couldn’t see for myself I had to work with what I had access to, my perceptions, my decisions, my behaviors and the results I produced.

2) Noticing the sequence that connected my perceptions to the results I produced, through my decision and behaviors, became my second step.

Then I knew to improve my performance, i.e.: to improve the linkage between my intention and the action I took, would be to record and measure the value of each link in the chain. I had to create a system to measure the value of the steps I took in moving through the sequence of perception, decision-making, behavioral response and results.

3) Establishing and tracking the metrics of my process became the third step beyond the threshold of the liminal space that had trapped me.

Once I could track the movement of my process in real time using the metrics I had established I was able to begin thinking about how to improve the process. Using the data I was tracking and gathering I began altering the things I was doing seeking to identify the things that made a difference.

4) Building a feedback loop using the information I was uncovering, and refining my process by focusing on what worked and eliminating what didn’t, became the forth step to improving my performance.

Now I had the skeleton key to the final step in my perfomance improvement process … the path out of the labyrinth of liminal space … uncovering what I could not see for myself.

While I still couldn’t notice what I couldn’t see for myself, my process left a trail of evidence I could and did begin to track that pointed to the invisible. Although my unconscious limitations remainded beyond my ability to recognize, I could notice for the contexts where I found myself getting limited … this proved to be the key to unlock the gate that freed me.

Instead of trying to figure out what was going on that was unconscious for me, I began noticing where I was limited and what my behavioral responses were in those contexts … then I began changing my behaviors without worrying myself about why I had behaved as I had before.

5) The final step in finding my freedom and fully regaining myself was choosing to do what was not automatic or familiar … I began exploring the idea of becoming comfortable with uncertainty, even the chaotic … and choosing intentional and unfamiliar actions that were most likely to produce my outcomes, even when they were counter-intuitive.

Following these steps I began rebuilding my business and my life. It took a little while but I woke up completely and re-discovered myself again. In fact in many ways my life today is more completely aligned with who I most am more than ever before.

It feels like the first time I can honestly say I’ve truly come home to myself since I was a child. I’ve regained the surety of being myself in a way that is usually associated only with the innocence of youth.

Yet, what may be most interesting to me is that I feel like I’m more aware of the dichotomies of life than ever before … and, in my newfound innocence I find myself simply able to accept them as part and parcel of life and move on.

Maze - Morge-file7541243010745 - 200px

Escaping the Maze … Beyond the Labyrinth

Now I’ve begun refocusing the work I’m doing too. It’s the same process I’m working with, but the focus is on choosing to limit what I’m doing with it and for whom.

I’ve been moving toward working with people and organizations in liminal space for the last few years, and I’ve amped it up even more recently.

  • These are folks who are in transition themselves, or lost between transitions.
  • Maybe it’s someone who is moving between jobs, or coming out of corporate/organizational life and trying to discover the next thing for themself.
  • I’m finding that I’m attracted to folks who are deeply confused about where they are in their lives, while doing their damnest to remain where they are and doing what they do … and not so strangely they’re attacted to me and the work I’m doing too.

Usually this is about going beyond the discovery phase and onto how they relate to others … leaving behind some of the folks who are most familiar to them … and making new connections, or reconnecting, with people who have now become important in their lives in new and exciting ways.

Sometimes the work I do involves groups or teams of people. I love helping people learn how to go beyond competition to collaboration … and to develop the communication tools necessary to begin performing at an elite level.

The most complete expression of the work I’m doing these days, the MythoSelf Process Professional Training, though is actually teaching the process to people who want complete access to it in their lives for themselves and to share with others that are important to them. Those who get hooked even stick around to become skillful enough to become certified MythoSelf facilitators themselves.

FWIW I’ve never felt more complete or satisfied!

I tell you all this to let you know if you’re struggling with liminality yourself there’s a good chance with some persistence you could come out the other side even stronger and more fulfilled than ever.

The hardest part of the journey is always taking the first step as they say … yet, it could be as simple as waiting at the edge of the river for the ferryman, ready with coin in hand to be ferried across the threshold to the other side.

When you get there look me up …

Buona Fortuna & Abundaza,

Joseph Riggio, Ph.D.
New Hope, PA

P.S. – I’m running another session of GETTING UNSTUCK, the live webinar series, starting on October 13th. If you’re interested in learning more stay tuned and I’ll get you the details … if you can’t wait drop me a line.

Freedom is just another word …

Freedom is just another word …

by ·

Plugboard-eniac4 175px

 

… 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. 

Wizard of Oz Scarecrow - MorgueFile-IMG_3130 175px 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,

Joseph Riggio, Ph.D.

New Hope, PA

The Nature of Change

by ·

“Happiness is never really so welcome as changelessness.”

-Graham Greene

 

I often get asked something like, “Why bother?” … because it’s unclear to most folks exactly what it is that I do.

 

It’s usually a sign of some confusion that I get asked such a thing, because the connection between the work I do … the actual service I provide … is often unclear, even to my clients … except for the results they get. It’s why they keep coming.

To be fair what is unclear is “HOW” what I do works, NOT the outcomes I produce.

The outcomes, the “WHAT” that clients want, are attained within the work we do together … that’s clear.

However, from my point of view the “HOW” is much more interesting than the “WHAT” … despite how obscure it can seem to the uninitiated.

 

Separating “THIS” and “THAT” … or,
Unraveling the “X/Y Paradigm”

 

In the simplest terms I am a “Change Artist.”

That is, I help individuals and organizations make changes they want or need to make … for whatever reasons they may have to do so.

To be more specific, I am a “Healer” … in the most traditional sense of that word.

For most people the word “Healer” is a mystery of sorts, carrying a ton of semantic baggage with it.

However according to Webster’s 1913 edition of the dictionary a Healer is:

“One who, or that which, heals1.”

I prefer this quote in describing a Healer myself:

“Healing is really just a common job, there are lots of healers. She was one, I was one. Doctors, therapists, nutritionists, acupuncturists, dentists, shamans, physical therapists, editors, divorce lawyers, plumbers; there are healers everywhere. I used words and emotion to help people heal. He, I was told, used something along with words and emotion. That’s what interested me, the something else.“

I too help people to heal with “something else“.

The “healing” I provide people with happens through facilitating change.

If we dig a bit deeper we would come to a more interesting tidbit about the nature of the work I do, and that is that I am actually promoting “changelessness” in the work I do with clients.

You see I’m Graham Greene on this one, that “changelessness” is more welcome by most people than happiness. BUT unlike Graham, I believe that perceiving and experiencing the extant changelessness at one’s core is what they actually seek … NOT the changelessness he refers to on the outside, i.e.: no change in the context of their lives, stability and consistency over all.

Folks are simply confused about this, and it’s what I believe leads to confusion in my work too.

 

I’m never confused about what I do, or for that matter, what I’m doing when I’m working with clients … I’m aiming at what is changeless in the individuals and organizations I work with, and making that manifest and extant in how they experience themselves.

 

Sometimes it’s also about how people in relationships experience what is changeless in their relations … but it’s always the same old, same old … or as my teacher, mentor and friend would tell me … “Joseph you’re a one trick pony.

 

The real trick is the paradox that to become changeless you must first change, and I am gifted at provoking change in people.

 

 

Healing Beyond Words …

 

What’s sometimes surprising to me is how the obviousnesss of what I do escapes folks, even those I’ve worked with for years sometimes.

Sure, they get the outcomes the come for … the the “HOW” seems elusive, or invisible, to them somehow.

What they miss most of all is that what they really get is healing … deep, profound, unspeakable healing.

This is understandable, how they miss the healing part of it … because it’s beyond words, and beyond the common paradigm. WHAT I do, and HOW I do it, are beyond how “it’s done” in the modern framework.

 

Heck, if I more openly called what I do “healing” or called myself a “Healer” most folks who don’t yet know me would be more likely to use the label “quack” … especially when I refer to healing relationships and organizations!

 

I’m guessing though that quite a few of the folks who do know me, when they read this, will get exactly what I’m talking about … and may even wonder why I don’t more often use these terms in referring to what I do or myself.

There is another part of the “trick” I do. My “trick” depends on helping my clients get to NOTHING before they get what they want.

This is where we separate the clients who will make and those that will go back to where they’ve always been … those who choose the red pill and those who choose the blue pill.

“Morpheus: This is your last chance. After this, there is no turning back. You take the blue pill – the story ends, you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill – you stay in Wonderland and I show you how deep the rabbit-hole goes.“

From: The Matrix (1999)

It’s about the choice between the path of seeking change or unveiling one’s changelessness and learning to remain constant in that.

It’s about the freedom to become who you are … fully, completely and wholely … and in that healing what ails you. In becoming changeless, even when the disease remains … the discomfort is relieved.

The idea of becoming changeless is far beyond “healing” as most people have been taught to think about it … it’s about leaving the Matrix behind.

Profound healing is NOT about getting better, or getting past or over what ails you, or learning how to cope with it either.

Profound healing is stepping into your life “as it is” without changing a thing … and in that finding the enchantment, wonder and awe present in this moment.

Then and only then, when you’ve stepped beyond the Matrix, delved into the deepest regions of your being, and begun to experience the essential nature of your changelessness, can you begin to re-emerge into the world proper and choose the life you will lead.

 

Maybe even more acurately than calling myself a “Change Artist” or “Healer” .. in the tradition of Tarkovsky I should call myself a “Stalker”2. This is very particular and peculiar skill … one I seem to have a proclivity and prodigious training for as well3.

 

Joseph Riggio, Ph.D.
Princeton, NJ

 

  1. From The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48 ↩
  2. A guide who leads others into the “Zone” where their deepest desires are revealed, and their wishes granted. ↩
  3. My everlasting thanks to Roye Fraser. ↩

 

PS – Summer Intensive Training w/Dr. Joseph Riggio:

 

MythoSelf Behavioral Communication
Professional Certification Training

Presented by ABTI | Princeton and Acuity World, DK

SPECIAL ONE WEEK ONLY OFFER
(expires 19 June 2013)

 

Opps … I made a BIG MISTAKE …

My partner Henrik Wenoe, at Acuity World has been on my case for weeks (months really) to announce this training program to my list … but I’ve simply been swamped.

The Early-Bird pricing “officially” ended on 15 May 2013 … and here we are almost a month later and I haven’t even let folks know about this powerful program we’re running this summer.

So I’m taking the blame and doing what I can to make it up to you …

For the next week you can still get the Early-Bird pricing for either attending the event live in-person, or via Live Internet Simulcast (there’s even an option to pre-purchase just the videos) … when you register directly using this link:

MythoSelf Behavioral Communication – Summer Intensive

You’ll SAVE $3000 from the Regular Investment for this 12-day Intensive program when you attend it live (BTW the investment includes room and board with three meals a day, snacks and coffee/tea/water all day long).

If you want to attend via the Live Internet Simulcast … now broadcast in HD via my private LiveSteam MythoSelf Channel … or pre-purchase the HD video recordings, you’ll be able to take advantage of the Early-Bird pricing as well.

BUT … you must act immediately to get the Early-Bird Pricing (there’s also a three-payment plan I’ve set up for you as well if you want to spread out your payments over three months) …

Here’s the link you need to use to register and get the Early-Bird pricing:

MythoSelf Behavioral Communication – Summer Intensive

 

 

[NOTE: The full program brochure is here: http://www.acuityworld.com/pictures_da/med_clips/Joseph%20Riggio_2013.pdf]

 

 

How Modern Business Models Developed

by ·

It Isn’t Always Obvious How Modern Business Models Limit Entrepreneurship … Or What To Do About It … But There’s A Postmodern Eject Option That Will Set You Free

 

[This particular post is dedicated to the real and aspiring entrepreneurs out there,
especially my brethren who are the creators, compilers and consorts of information ...
and it's distribution to the people.]

 As Always, I like to start near the beginning …

In the case of looking at modern business models we need to look to the great monarchies and empires that grew out of the dawn of the Agricultural Era. There were a number of forces that shaped societies at this time, including the ever present economic forces driving the behaviors of men (Author’s Note: assume the term “men” is used here and throughout for convenience sake referring to all of humankind, i.e.: children, women and men).

By economic forces we can begin with the fundamental necessities required for sustaining and nurturing life, including creating a context appropriate to successful procreation. Prior to the Agricultural Era the evidence we have uncovered points to at least two previous phases of evolutionary development in human systems, a “Hunter/Gatherer” phase and a “Hunter/Horticulturist” phase. Sometime during these phases of human development basis social tenants were being programmed into the basic biological machinery as well as the social machinery. Essential remnants of the developmental process that imprinted itself on the human species remain in place today, e.g.: competition and altruism.

The primary social evolution mechanism during this phase transition from “Hunter/Gather” to “Hunter/Horticulturist” to “Agriculturalist” included the ability to create larger groupings leading to the first of many city-states and subsequently empires. The primary driver of this development was the ability to create wealth in the form of excess food resources, freeing individuals for specialization beyond food production in the population. From this consideration we can make the argument that the first rudimentary elements of what we think of today as business began to evolve within the social fabric.

It would be a reasonable conjecture to presume that the first elements of business in early societies took the form of services and craft, production of products, access and acquisition to goods,  and distribution of goods. While it would also be reasonable to presume that services and craft, along with the production of products came first, the access and acquisition of goods, and the distribution of those goods was unlikely to be far behind. We can place the last of these two elements of business under the heading “trade” for simplicities sake. This model of the fundamental elements of early business models can then be presented simply as a triad of services/craft … production … and trade …

 

At this time there were only a few ways business of any kind to be conducted …

In a very local model, e.g.: craftspeople serving their local communities … carpenters, potters, healers …

Creating goods to be traded directly, i.e.: barter … or later for the exchange of payment in coin made of valuable metals representing fixed value, typically in direct association with the value of the metal in which the coin was minted, e.g.: copper, bronze, silver, gold …

Trade between kingdoms for precious resources and goods … this trade was the sole privy of monarchs, even when conducted on their behalf by merchants of their choosing.

Back to Basics  For A Moment …

However, behind this model was the constant of food production as the basis of all “real” wealth – and in an Agricultural society that meant land upon which the Agriculture depended for the growing of grains, vegetables and fruits, the raising of livestock, or the hunting of game. This was the driving force behind the concept of “real estate” … of the “King’s Estate” … the land is owned by the monarch, and all others have use as decreed by the monarch with taxes applied to the rights of use, i.e.: “real estate taxation” … the “owner” of the land is NOT the one who occupies and or uses the land, the “owner” of the land is the one who can claim taxes for the right of occupation and use. The owner can also always reclaim the land for a higher use, e.g.: eminent domain.

Since the ownership and control of land, the right to occupy and use it, as well as access to the resources contained on or below it … e.g.: fauna, flora and minerals …  was (and to a great extent remains) the most essential economic driver another source of economic growth for the monarchies was conquest. As the need to expand the ownership and control of land became more dominant, to sustain the less productive inhabitants of the cities for essential resources, the monarchs were forced to expand their armies and seek new lands for these essential resources to bring back to the cities, with their aristocrats and elites, if they themselves desired to remain in control. This new necessity of supporting a growing elite class placed a new kind of pressure on the system to become more effective and efficient in the arts of war, e.g.: the Roman Legions.

Now a new economic entity sprang into existence as well. The knowledge associated with the building of war machinery and of the conduct of war. New technologies evolved to support the enterprise of war and conquest, including sophisticated communication technologies for the delivery and security of critical messages to and from afar – in this endeavor speed and utmost secrecy could mean the difference between ultimate success and utter failure. Yet, at the core of the massive campaigns conducted by the armies the issues of supplies, especially food, clothing and weapons, remained critical.

 

Supply Chains and Distribution As An Economic Cornerstone

Once again we can look to the Romans and their feats of engineering, specifically their roads. To a great extent the success of Rome can be directly traced back to its ability to build roads to distribute goods throughout the Empire.

This had two significant functions …

  1. Keeping the armies of Rome supplied so they could conquer and rule in foreign lands
  2. Providing the access to Rome necessary to bring back essential goods required to keep the Roman citizens pacified 

In the world of the Roman Empire, Rome was the first mega-city with over a million people occupying it. This population was largely comprised of aristocrats and elites, their servants and slaves, the service providers catering to them, the craftspeople providing skilled labor, and the producers and traders providing them with the goods they desired. This population created far less wealth than they consumed, yet through the control of the surrounding lands they continued to refill their coffers and exert control on the ever deepening maw of Rome’s own resource hunger. This made for a very unstable position for a Caesar unable to keep the provisions coming … so the constant need for conquest and the drain on the essential resources from the conquered to feed the Romans.

Without the technologically advanced engineering required to build the roads that led to and from Rome, and the aqueducts that kept her supplied with clean water and water to wash away the waste of millions Rome would have never survived to build such an edifice to herself. In some ways Rome in her unsatiable hunger for goods created the basis for the modern age of business that depends on the movement of goods as its lifeblood today.

 

Mid-Course Conclusions And Corrections

Once this fundamental structure was established, i.e.: the acceptance of an elite ruling class, the blueprint for modern society, modern economic structures and modern business was firmly grounded. When we look through the lens of history at a particular angle what we see is that the elite, ruling class was built on the labor of the peasant class who accepted their rule in exchange for the illusion of safety, security, freedom and the potential to pursue a life of liberty and wealth themselves. What the peasant class never realized was the extent of the bargain they were making, or the reality that they were always playing by different rules than the aristocrats and the elites.

The lessons contained in history continue to show that only those who were able to exploit the limitations, weaknesses and gaps in the ruling class’s position were ever able to become part of that class themselves. Before they crossed the chasm of becoming aristocrats and elites, many of those working the chinks in the system to their own ends would have been by definition at best outside the borders of lawfulness and at worst criminals. Staying with this same lens what we can learn is that the most efficient way to cross the chasm from commoner to elite is to do the dirty work of the elites for them, earning you passage beyond the gates yourself.

 

Modern Banking And The Fleecing Of The Common Man

We can look at the modern banking system as an example in quick review. Beginning with the Medici’s who devised a way for the Kings and Queens of a Catholic European Empire to circumvent the rule of usury to the modern age of centralized banks and fiat money the bankers have aligned themselves with the ruling class to concentrate the wealth of the system at the top. The recent activity we’ve seen throughout South and Central America beginning in the postwar era of 1950’s  through the 1980’s and on, in North America in the 1980s, 90s and most recently in the last five years leading up to a massive reformation of the banking industry with massive bailouts based on taxpayer indebtedness bloating the bottom-line of the failed banking institutions that fundamentally corrupted the system, and now the debacle threatening all of Europe with the same re-distribution of wealth upwards are perfect constructs of the mechanisms I’m pointing to here.

Essentially in a central banking environment, like those in most industrialized Western countries, and in the U.S. via the Federal Reserve System (which is neither Federal, holding any reserves, or a system in any real sense of the word), fiat money is created at the demand of a government (in the U.S. via Congressional request for increased funding outside of the requirement of raising it through direct taxation or tariffs), then the “banks” loan that money out at a ratio of many times the funding they hold in reserve (in the U.S. the ratio is about 10:1, i.e.: for every dollar a bank holds they can make a “loan” of ten dollars) and they are allowed by law to charge interest on the loan amount that is payable by debtor.

The “trick” in the system is that they are collecting interest on money they don’t have, so any interest rate is exhorbitant, creating windfall profits. A further insult on injury is that those furthest away from the lending source pay the most for the money they borrow, so the wealthiest borrow as the best rates. When you add in inflation to the sequence it immediately becomes apparent that holding as much debt as possible, borrowed at the best rates possible, becomes a pathway to increasing wealth at an accelerated rate, i.e.: you are borrowing money at a cost that’s lower than the value of the money you will pay the loan back with, and if you are close enough to the lending source you will borrow at preferential rates and your costs can be passed onto those who have to borrow further down the line. In the meantime if you purchased real assets with borrowed money they appreciate while you are paying back the borrowed money with devalued currency … a nice little spiral of wealth creation if you can “get in on it” early enough. One of the best way to “get in on it” is to become a borrower and a lender, borrowing inexpensively and lending expensively, i.e.: become the bank. (Thank you for the examples Mr. Morgan, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. Rothschild …)

 

The Modern Entrepreneur

Now we come to the crux of my tirade (you did realize this was a tirade didn’t you?). The story that continues to get sold about modern entrepreneurial success is that it is a function of insight, courage, wisdom, brilliance … and maybe some hard work. We also “know” that it’s being in the right place at the right time, and who you know as much as what you know. FWIW I agree with much of this … to a great extent it’s true … until you get to the point where you have to work the system. At some point in the equation you have to find the chinks in the armor of the ruling class and use them to your benefit.

In a modern entrepreneurial system the ruling class is made up of at least three segments:

  • The political/governmental sector
  • The financial/banking sector
  • The existing commercial sector that you seeks to displace

To do this, and to succeed in a monumental way, you have to work the system … often at the edge of criminality, or downright stepping over that line. There are hundreds or thousands of books that document what I’m referring to here. Some of the favorite targets are mega-companies like Walmart, the mulit-national banks, the fiascos like Enron and World-Com. However, when you study the field you’ll find that there is no large business that isn’t tied in with the political and the financial players required to perpetrate their actions.

HOWEVER … this tirade isn’t about that … it’s about what you can choose instead if you so desire … BUT AT A PRICE!

I’ll lay it down simply … to use an oft quoted comment, “If you aren’t part of the solution you are part of the problem”

If you are making your bed and lying down with the players I’ve been decrying then you are part of the problem, even if you only occasionally suck at the corporate teat. You cannot claim you are only a small little guy/gal trying to make a living off of the leavings of the corporate giants and not be awash in the stench of the garbage they put out. Even if you are selective in your takings, and what you do with them – e.g.: charity and philanthropy, you are insidiously continuing the subjugation by the ruling class. Of course the lunacy is that the subjugation I refer to includes your own (I am assuming that Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, and even Mark Zuckerberg are not reading this … although some Congressperson, Senator or even the Oval Office itself may have readers who keep an eye on things doing it for them).

So how do you opt out … where the lever to eject???

The way out of the debacle is to stop being part of the problem … become a problem for the problem.

Despite their ill-fated attempt the “Occupy” movement had the right idea fundamentally … what they left out was that they thought they were playing on a level field. What they might not have anticipated was that the folks who are much more “like them” then their masters would turn against them, i.e.: the police, law enforcement officials and legal system jumping through the hoops of the puppet masters on Wall Street and in City Hall.

Remember, once these folks get to City Hall they are no longer one of you! When politicians pass laws that discriminate preferentially for themselves they are declaring that they have entered the hall of the elites and you are not entitled to sit beside the table with them, e.g.: the healthcare bill in the U.S. that excludes Federal politicians … Congresspeople, Senators, Presidents … all get preferential treatment over the citizenry … and that was a Democratic initiative!

So you opt out …

You set up shop for the people directly … and you co-opt the resources of the elites. You use their distribution systems to get your goods to the people, you use their communication tools to spread your message, you take advantage of their financial systems to build your own position … just enough.

This last bit is critical … JUST ENOUGH … because when you cross the line to more than enough it’s very hard or impossible to come back. However, when you realize that JUST ENOUGH is really enough there’s no way to control you anymore. You don’t need or want the bigger house. You don’t need or want the prestige car. You don’t need to display your wealth to prove you possess it .. and you begin playing a different game.

The new game you play is riding the waves of the system rather than being caught by them. You set up and run your own thing. learning how to become a part of and to tap into communities of your own making … by invitation or creation. You decide independently, apart from the system’s approval, certification and licensing process, how you will run your life … and part of that is the kind of business entity you establish.

The whole “lifestyle business” movement is a part of this idea. The most basic expression of it however is a harkening back to the days of old in the marketplace, where you are serving a “local” audience that knows you and your personal credibility and mark mean something to them. Yet in the modern expression of this idea that local market is not confined by geography, but is instead comprised of islands of values, beliefs, philosophies and concepts in common. Like the first traders you become a “global” citizen belonging to many tribes, not just the one defined by and imposed upon you by the ruling elites.

Once you learn to surf the system staying on the boat just doesn’t make sense … maybe it’s time for you to consider what it will take to jump ship and take back the oceans.

 

Joseph Riggio, Ph.D., Princeton, NJ

Architect & Designer of the MythoSelf Process and Soma-Semantics

P.S. – If you want to spend some quality time finding the eject lever, opting out and landing well take a look at my page here, How I Work, check out the links for the practice areas I specialize in, and then let’s talk.