WHEN FACTS DICTATE VALUES

 

"This is an example of truth dictating what must be done, of the is
dictating the ought."

Abraham Maslow (1971, p. 117)

 

When you and I talk about values we generally talk about things that we
value, we deem important, that we think it would good for us and others.
But sometimes, just sometimes, we slip from a desired-value or a fact to an
ought-value.

"You know, you ought to find a job."

"You ought to treat your wife and kids better."

"You ought to exercise more and lose some weight."

"You ought to communicate more if you're going to be a leader."

 

Sometimes we treat facts (what is) as if they are values (what ought to be).
Is that possible?  Is it possible that a fact can prescribe a value?  Maslow
thought they could.

"Where knowledge brings certainty of decision, action, choice and what to
do, and therefore, strength of arm.  This is very much like the situation
with a surgeon or dentist.  The surgeon opening up the abdomen and finding
an inflamed appendix knows that it had better be cut out because if it
bursts it will kill the person.  This is an example of truth dictating what
must be done, of the is dictating the ought."

 

>From that Maslow said that he thought "the clear perception of value is in
part a consequence of the clear perception of facts."  Then he noted,
"perhaps they may even be the same thing."  Pretty amazing!  Could they be
the same thing?  How could they be the same thing?  When you perceive the
Being-values, you are more likely to perceive the intrinsic nature of a
person or thing.  This occurs for people who are self-actualizing.  This
seems to be "a perception of the deeper facticity" of things and, "at the
same time, of the oughtiness of the object."

"Oughtness is an intrinsic aspect of deeply perceived facticity; it is
itself a fact to be perceived." (Ibid. p. 118)

 

All of this led him to then talk about the demand character of a fact.
Sometimes, some facts carry with them a requiredness, that is, a built-in
request for action.  Yet who are the people who are able to see that?
Maslow said those who have moved from the D-needs to the B-needs.  Those who
are living the value-life and seeking the being-values.  Those are the
healthier people who are more perceptive and who are less ought-blind.  What
this means is that via facts, they can perceive what the facts require-the
values that they imply.

"They can therefore permit themselves ...to be guided by the facts-they will
have less trouble with all value decisions that rest in the nature of
reality."

 

A wonderful example of this is the process of carving a turkey.

"Carving a turkey is made easier by the knowledge of where the joints are,
how to handle the knife and fork-that is, by possessing full knowledge of
the facts of the situation.  If the facts are fully known, they will guide
us and tell us what to do.  But what is also implied here is that the facts
are very soft-spoken and that it is difficult to perceive them.  In order to
be able to hear the fact-voices it is necessary to be very quiet, to listen
very receptively.  That is, if we wish to permit the facts to tell us their
oughtiness, we must learn to listen to them... silently, hushed, quietly,
fully listening, non-interfering, receptive, patient, respectful of the
matter-in-hand, courteous to the matter-in-hand."

 

Compare all of that to those who seem to be lost in today's world in terms
of values and ethics.  What's wrong with them?  Could it be that they are
not willing to listen to the facts-the facts of life, of human nature, of
economics, of relationships, etc. and let the facts dictate what they ought
to do and value?  If a person is blind to future possibilities, change,
personal development, unleashing their potentials-he will strive for a
status quo in "what is."  Yet "true freedom consists of accepting and loving
the inevitable, the nature of reality." (Ibid. p. 119)

 

The bottom line is that sometimes facts can dictate values.  Yet this
doesn't occur to everyone or at all times.  It seems to occur to those who
have released their biases and cognitive distortions so that they can "hear"
what a fact is suggesting.  It happens to those who live the value-life of
the being-values and who have learned to become ought-aware.

 

 

 




 

 

L. Michael Hall, Ph.D.

ISNS Executive Director

 META-STATING FOR HEALTHY AGING

 

While the states you access certainly play a big role in your well-being and
health, your meta-states play an even bigger role.  There are many reasons
for that.  Primarily your primary or first-level states are nearly always
appropriate.  After all, all of your emotions are valid and appropriate-if
they come from correct assessment of the situation.  In this, you and I need
our fear, our anger, our stress, our sadness, etc.  If and when appropriate,
these emotions create the energy you need to respond effectively.

 

What you do not need are negative thoughts and feelings as meta-states to
your primary states.  That's when and how things become unhealthy.  Bring
negative states of thoughts, feelings, beliefs, understandings, etc. against
your experience (whatever it is), and you put yourself at odds with
yourself.  And that begins the process of neurosis!  Consider the following
negative thoughts and emotions and how they set a frame-of-reference for the
first-level experience:

              "I hate feeling this way!"

              "Why do I have to be this way?  It's not fair!"

              "I'll always be this way.  Nothing ever works out for me."

"Getting healthy is a matter of luck-the right doctor, the right
medicine..."

"Some people just have healthier genetics.  They don't have the struggles
that I do."

              "I gain weight just by looking at food..."

              "It's too much work to eat right, exercise regularly, etc."

   

When you take a meta-level position to an unpleasant primary state and bring
a state of hate, rejection, non-acceptance, a discounting state, an
excuse-making/victim state, etc. to it-you outframe your distress state in a
way that amplifies your distress.  The state-about-a-state that results
generates a layered complexity and neurosis.  You are meta-stating yourself
into illness.

 

Here the way you use your self-reflexivity is creating a living hell out of
what you would otherwise experience as something normal and a bit
unpleasant.  This illustrates that how you communicate to yourself about
your primary states can create psychosomatic illnesses.  But it doesn't have
to be that way.  You can use your reflexivity for vitality and well-being.
If, for example, you apply an empowering state to your distress, you can
generate an enhancing state of well-being.  How?  By meta-stating your
everyday first-level states with such healing emotions as-love, compassion,
acceptance, serenity, curiosity, hope, purpose, humor, etc.

 

The subjective structure of many psycho-physiological states resulting in
sickness, disease, and psychosomatic problems arise because of the negative
mental-emotional states that you set.  For example, the problem is not that
you have a headache, it is rather that you hate your headache.  The problem
lies in how you are interpreting your experience.  You are turning your
psychic energies against yourself-and to your detriment.  You are layering
your experience with judgment, self-rejection, hatred, guilt, shame, etc.
No wonder you feel sick; no wonder you are aging unhealthily.

 

In this lies the paradoxical nature of accessing states of joy,
pleasantness, acceptance, humor, fallibility, affection, meaningfulness,
etc. about your fallibilities, hurts, dysfunctions, etc.  As you lighten up
to cease taking your first-level states so seriously, you are setting a
higher level frame-of-reference around things.  This creates what we call
neuro-semantic magic at higher levels.  Here there is the seeming "magic" of
accepting and welcoming a headache so that the headache vanishes.

              Play with that one sometime.  When you experience the ache in
your head, instead of cursing it, rejecting it, tightening your muscles and
trying to make it go away, just sit back, take a deep breath, and welcome it
into your awareness.  Notice the kind and quality of the "ache."  Do you
experience it as tightness, warmth, a pulsing, or what?  Where do you
experience it most intensely?  Where does it begin to fade?  How far does it
extend?  How do you experience a different intensity in it at different
places?

   

The heart of a great many NLP and Ericksonian approaches to states of
ill-health involves outframing.  This means moving to a higher logical level
and establishing a frame-of-reference of acceptance, love, purpose/meaning,
learning, etc.  In Milton Erickson's classic approach to headaches, he first
simply accepted its presence and encouraged a welcoming of it.  He did this
by having a person curiously explore its kinesthetic qualities.

              Does it throb or pound?  Do you feel pressure or heat?

Where do you centrally feel it?  Where does it begin to fade out?

And if each throb is like a kitten stomping its feet-and you imagine the
kitten stomping even harder...with more force...

At a higher level Erickson presupposed that the person could become curious
about the pain.  Then by accepting the pain from the frame of curiosity, he
wondered how much control can you exercise over the cinematic qualities.
Typically, the experience changes.

 

When it comes to health and well-being, aging healthily, there are logical
levels.  There are higher level meta-states that can build up a much more
healthy mind-body system.  At the primary level-you can think and access
environmental helps-sunshine, walks, good food, good medicine, restful
sleep, exercise, etc.  At the behavioral level of your primary state, you
can do these things to create healthy habits.  At the first meta-state
level, you can believe: "I can influence my health and aging by establishing
healthy mental and emotional habits."  As an identity meta-state, you can
believe, "I am a healthy person."  At the intentional level, "I intend to
live healthily in my eating, exercising, sleeping, etc."  Herein lies a key
to aging healthily.

 

How about one additional meta-state?  Years ago Bob Bodenhamer found the
following quotes in the USA Weekend Magazine , in the Gaston Gazette
(January 3, 1999) and sent it to me.  It came from an Annual Health Report
on brain research. 

"Recently, a Dutch psychologist tried to figure out what separated chess
masters and chess grand masters.  He subjected groups of each to a battery
of tests-IQ, memory, spatial reasoning. He found no testing difference
between them.  The only difference: Grand masters simply loved chess more.
They had more passion and commitment to it.  Passion may be the key to
creativity." (Italics added)

 

The point?  To increase your effectiveness and well-being, meta-state your
work with love and passion.

 

L. Michael Hall, Ph.D.

ISNS Executive Director

P.O. Box 8

Clifton Colorado 81520 USA

 HEALTHY AGING

AND STRESS

 

Earlier I mentioned that stress is one of the key negative aging factors.
Yet it isn't the stress per se that's the problem.  In fact, we need stress.
We need stress to be alive and to function well.  Hans Selye made this point
decades ago when he relabeled some stress as eu-stress (literally good
stress).  This is the stress that you and I experience as excitement, as
"passion," as "enthusiasm," or even as "love."  This is the stress that
optimally keeps you functioning well.

 

We know and experience this kind of stress in any kind of sport.  The effort
you expend as you rally your speed or strength or endurance to do something
that you find exciting expresses a healthy effort.  It enables your muscles
to grow, your lungs and heart to develop, it enables you to tap into your
physical potentials.  It's good for you!   This is the kind of stress I long
for and plan for when I go to the gym.  The exercises I engage in push me to
exert a level of effort that uses a certain set of muscles and in the
process, enables the muscles to grow and to become stronger or more
flexible. 

 

Imagine a stress scale from 0 to 10.   When you are at zero on that
scale-you are dead.  There is nothing going on, nothing is alive, nothing is
moving, nothing is striving.  And at the low numbers (1 to 3) there is very
little stress.  You are resting, relaxing, or sleeping (if it's healthy);
you are depressed or lacking vitality (if unhealthy).  Then there is the
range of eu-stress (4 to 6).  This is the healthy range-the range of stress
that you need to be alive and growing.  And this applies to the mind and
spirit as well as the body.  Beyond the eu-stress range is the dangerous
range (7 to 10).  Here there is too much stress and except for an emergency,
this is not a range to live in.

 

What is "stress?"  Stress refers to anything that activates the
mind-body-emotion system requesting or demanding that we respond in order to
deal with whatever is challenging.  If the challenge or threat is in the
eu-stress zone, things are fine.  You have the resources for handling it and
you probably love handing it.  You find it exciting and enlivening.  But
above that, the challenge is a threat or an over-load.  These are the two
messages that kick in the general arousal syndrome when the brain gets them.
Then, adrenaline and cortisol is released into your blood stream.  Then the
heart and lungs start pumping away as blood is withdrawn from brain and
stomach and sent to the larger muscle units.  Then to handle the extreme
danger (the threat or over-load) you are ready to fight or flee, or freeze.

 

If this happens on a temporary basis, it is acute stress and designed to
help you deal with the emergency and then get back to normal.  But if this
happens regularly or, worse still, consistently, then you are in chronic
stress.  This will exasperate any illness or disease and/or create different
diseases.  It lies at the heart of cardio-vascular diseases.

 

Now as a fact of life, stress is not the problem per se.  The problem lies
in how a person manages it or more accurately, how a person does not manage
it.  And again, the key goes to how you think about stress, about over-load,
about adding more and more demands to everyday life, about how you interpret
things as threat which are actually psychological issues and not physical
threats, etc. 

 

The bottom line is that despite the idea that "stress makes you old," it is
actually not stress that does that.  It is rather the perception of stress
that ages you.  It is fearing stress, hating stress, living in stress-these
are the things that age a person.  It is the inability to manage stress well
and the lack of resources for handling stress effectively-these are the
things that will age you before your time.

 

Actually, living in and with eustress keeps you young in body and in heart.
Living above the eustress level (from 7 to 10 on the stress scale)-that is
what will wear you out and makes you old.  To manage stress- change your
frames about things that are not true threats or dangers, but psychological
fears.  Build up your resources for handling everyday challenges.  Develop a
dozen de-stressing processes so that you can quickly get stress out of your
body.  Then you don't have to live with it.  Slow down and do one thing at a
time.  Be fully present in everything you do.  These are the things that you
can choose to do that will enable you to manage stress and prevent it from
undermining healthy aging.

 

 Call Marie    0411515802




 

 

L. Michael Hall, Ph.D.

   THE EXPERIENCE

IS NOT THE MEANING

 

If there's any misbelief, myth, misunderstanding, and false perspective that
influences just about everyone, it is the idea that your experiences
determine your meanings.  That's wrong.  It's wrong on many accounts.  And
it is an error that undermines the quality of life, the response-power of a
person, that denies a person joy and hope, and that misdirects how to cope
with experiences.

 

To give you an idea of how pervasive this deadly idea is, consider the
following statements.  Sadly, they are as common as they are erroneous and
misleading.

"Losing my dream job means I'll never find another one as good."

"I can't help but feel depressed, everyone does when they go through a
divorce."

"I can't help but being negative.  The way I was treated as a child has made
me the pessimistic person that I am today."

"You don't understand what being molested does to a person, it's something
that you don't just get over, you carry it with you all the days of your
life."

"What I want is to fall in love because then I would feel really good about
myself and have the high self-esteem that I have always wanted."

"We're social beings so needing approval is just built in, so don't tell me
that I need to have thicker skin and not take criticism so personal."

 

The hidden idea behind all of these is that your experiences determine your
life.  They determine your meanings, your emotions, and your responses.  And
what we can infer behind that is that you have very limited range of
responses when you have certain experiences.  If you have had X-given
experience, then you are pretty much fated to think, feel, speak, and act in
a certain way.  And to make that more explicit: you can't help yourself.
You have to feel depressed if you had a loss.  You have to feel suicidal if
you were publically humiliated.  You have to feel an insolvable grief if you
lost the love of your life.

 

If experience determines life, then we are all in a pretty desperate and
pretty much hopeless situation.  However, there's good news-experience does
not determine your response!  In fact, whatever happens, whatever experience
you have or go through-you have a whole range of ways to respond.  This is
worth writing down- whatever the experience, you have many choices about how
to interpret it.

 

The truth is that you have the power inside you to choose your response.
That's why we have the word, response-ability or response-power.  You can
determine what your experience means and how to perceive it.  You can draw a
whole range of different conclusions about the experience so that you can
give it the best one possible.  In this way, you have the power to fashion
your world, your thinking, your emoting, your coping, and your mastering of
your life situations. The power does not belong to the experience, to the
event-it belongs to you.  You are the meaning-maker.

 

Alfred Adler spoke to this subject in his book, Understanding Human Nature
(1927).  There he argued that the key is how a person interprets the
experience and that from that conclusion he creates his how "style of life"
which he will then project onto other experiences.

"We must remember that any experience may have many interpretations.  We
will find that there are no two people who will draw the same conclusion
from a similar experience.  This accounts for the fact that our experiences
do not always make us any cleverer." (1927, p. 20)

 

Whatever you have experienced is just that-an experience. What that
experience means, however, depends on you.  It depends on how you think
about it, perceive it, reason about it, draw conclusions from it, in a
word-how you interpret it and give it meaning.  And whatever meaning you
give it, that's the semantics that you have created and from that will come
your neurology, your emotions, your body sensations, your physiology, your
felt life.  Together we now have your neuro-semantic reality.

 

It is in this way that we say that you have a neuro-semantic nature.  And
the key is your semantics, your meaning-making powers.  That's what enables
you to live with hope and optimism, with resilience and determination, and
to make your life a work of art.

 If you are interested in making changes,

give me a call.

Marie 0411 515 802

 

 




 

 

L. Michael Hall, Ph.D.

 THE NEURO-SEMANTICS

BEHIND MASKING

 

Behind every experience, every activity, every event—there are meanings and where there are meanings there are elicitations of neurology.  So now that the governments which forced us to wear masks have ended “the mask mandate,” what have we learned?  What meanings have we discovered?  Do masks work?  Did the masks that we were forced to wear actually prevented the spread of Covid?  The evidence that is now coming in suggests a strong negative answer.  No, they did not actually work to limit the spread.

 

A lot of the confusion was and still is caused by the inept way governments attempted to communicate about covid.  Most governments did an extremely poor job.  For one thing, they over-promised.  “Get the vaccine and you will not get covid.”  That proved false.  “Wear a mask and substantially reduce the spread of covid.”  Again, that proved incorrect.  Further, many governments took a very heavy-handed approach by punishing anyone who did not wear a mask, including firing them or jailing them.  Then there was the man swimming in the ocean under a sunshine sky who was arrested for not wearing a mask—while swimming of all things!

 

What’s ironic here in the US is that the first recommendation from Dr. Fauci was to stop wearing masks.  Remember? 

“When you’re in the middle of an outbreak, wearing a mask might make people feel a little bit better, and it might even block a droplet, but it’s not providing the perfect protection that people think it is.” 

 

That’s what he said in the early days of the epidemic.  Then he explained further:

“Often, there are unintended consequences.  People keep fiddling with the mask, and they keep touching their faces.” (Video of Fauci saying ‘There’s no Reason to be Walking around with a Mask’ Rueters, Oct. 8, 2020).

 

For medical questions like this, a UK-based non-profit organization known as Cochrane has long provided a major source of high quality, reputable meta-analyses.  They have published comprehensive meta-analyses on medical and therapeutic interventions.  The result:

“Our analysis confirms the effectiveness of medical masks and respiratory against SARS.  Disposable, cotton, or paper masks are not recommended.”

“Single-use medical masks are preferable to cloth masks, for which there is no evidence of protection and which might facilitate transmission of pathogens when used repeatedly without adequate sterilization.” 

“Wearing masks in the community probably makes little or no difference to the outcome of laboratory-confirmed influenza/ SARS-CoV2 compared to not wearing masks.”

 

Then there is the issue about how to wear a mask consistently and correctly.  Studies have shown that “if you have properly fitted N95 masks you do have some protection.”  Yet as one doctor said, “Outside of hospital I have never seen a properly fitted mask.  The observation I’m sharing is this, if you can smell wood smoke while wearing your face covering of choice, you’re probably not at all protected from Covid.”

 

Accordingly, taking a mask off to get a drink or eat radically reduces the effectiveness of the mask and does so to such an extent that the mask becomes essentially worthless.  This was what struck me as completely ridiculous on the numerous airlines I have flown in the past year.  “You have to wear a mask, you can take it off when you are eating or drinking.  Then you have to put it back on.”  And this is a context where the air is conditioned and filtered so it is as “clean” as a surgery room!

 

What we have found is that what a mask mostly protects is you from projecting the virus into the area immediately around you if you have Covid.  That means that the only persons who should wear a mask is someone with covid!  If you have the flu, wear a mask.  Then a mask would warn the rest of us who to avoid.  Only in that way would a mask slow the spread.

 

One of the problems with wearing a mask is that it creates a false confidence.  For many people, wearing a mask makes them feel that they are doing something that effectively reduces the chance of getting the flu or covid.  But because that is not really the case, it’s a false confidence.  It may deceive you into thinking you are doing something useful.  But it may be satisfying a person’s paranoia without actually contributing to one’s well-being.

 

              For more: https://www.city-journal.org/the-mask-of-ignorance  

 

https://www.thejournal.ie/what-have-recent-scientific-studies-said-about-masks-and-disease-6026435-Mar2023/

 

 

                                                                                                    

 

 

L. Michael Hall, Ph.D.

ISNS Executive Director

 DISTINGUISHING

EQUALITY AND COMPETENCE

 

Equality is one of the being-values that Abraham Maslow identified.  If
that's true, then the sense of human equality is one of those values which
are wired into us and an essential part of what makes us fully human/ fully
alive.  But what does equality mean?

 

What is obviously does not mean is that we are all equal in intelligence,
talents, abilities, or genetics.  Genetically, we are all different in many
unequal ways.  This lack of equality goes to our DNA which goes back to our
neurological gifts or challenges.  We are also not equal in terms of our
family heritage, our social status, our financial status, the advantages or
disadvantages of our town or country.  In all of these areas, there are lots
of inequalities.

 

In the 18th century a new budding idea was given birth.  In the first
democracies in the late 18th century, the idea was conceived that "all men
are created equal by their creator and endowed with certain inalienable
rights, among them life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."  At that
time, that was really radical!  For the many millennia of human history,
people had accepted as a given that people are not equal in value and
therefore made no attempt to establish equality in the eyes of the law.
Instead, they had built up caste systems, hierarchies of power, and myths
about royal blood lines.

 

The idea that all people are created equal then lead to an equally radical
concepts, namely, that we can, and should, create political, economic, and
social systems to actualize that idea.  In 1776 that gave birth to the US
Constitution and launched an "experiment" in democracy which sought to
answer the question, "Can free men and women govern themselves?"  Or do we
need those who are innately "superior" (those of the higher classes, the
ruling classes) to govern us?

 

This idea of equality is not an equality created by people being educated,
trained, or manipulated to be the same, to have the same talents, beliefs,
understandings, skills, etc.  That's impossible.  And if it were possible,
it would be a nightmare.  It is rather a belief in all people are to be
equally valued in the eyes of the law.  All are to be treated by the same
rules and applications of the rules.  No one should get preferential
treatment.  Those who make the laws should equally have to obey the same
laws as everyone else.

 

At the same time we are equal before the law, we are also very different.
We differ in our talents, skills, interests, capacities, understandings,
meanings, beliefs, preferences, habits, and on and on.  And this diversity
lies within the concept of equal as persons.  Consequently, what does not
matter any longer is ethnic background, family of origin, birthplace, creed,
skin color, lifestyle, etc.  No person is "better" than another.  No one is
"superior" than another.  We are all human beings-all members of the one and
only "race" on planet earth, the human race.

 

In making distinctions about people, we distinguish competencies of skills,
not their humanity.  In terms of their humanity, we are all one; we are all
equal.  In terms of skills, competencies, what we can do, what we are good
at-we are all very different.  Some are smarter, some are faster, some are
stronger, some have more money, some are more interested in money, some are
more loving, etc.  And because we are all equal in humanity-the differences
do not create a basis for superiority of persons.

 

Now we can look upon someone superiority in a skill, knowledge, competency,
etc. as a human possibility that the rest of us can learn from and model.
Now we can respect and honor every such superiority, knowing that it is a
gift to humanity which can enrich us all.  This explains why it is perfectly
fine to give accurate feedback to children about what they excel in.  If one
is superior in math or music or literature or whatever, that is God's gift
to that person.  It is not that person's "superiority."   To have a contest
and give "prizes to all" so that "all can win" confuses this distinction
between equality and confidence.

 

Let's honor our equality as persons and our equality in value as human
beings while simultaneously embrace our differences.  Let's respect each
person and challenge each one to be the best version of him or herself.

 

 

 

L. Michael Hall, Ph.D.

 META-EXPERIENCES

IN THE META PLACE

                                                         

Above and beyond your everyday experiences are meta-experiences.  These are
the experiences of your mind.  And when I say "mind," I mean all of the
known and unknown aspects of consciousness itself.  Here are just some of
the higher or meta-experiences in your mind:

           Your memories.  What you "hold in mind" and take with you and
use as your internal reference system-your library of what you've learned
about what things mean, what things there are, what to focus on.

           Your knowledge.  What you "know" or think you know.  The ideas
that you have become aware of in your home, culture, school, life
experiences.  As one aspect of a meta-experience, your knowledge informs you
about lots of things.

           Your beliefs.  All of the things that you "hold real and true."
They may not be real or  true, but you believe them anyway and have all
sorts of experiences both in your mind and in your outside life because of
them.  Why?  Because every belief sets up a self-organizing and
self-fulfilling process.

           Your imaginations.  Your powers of imagining, fantasizing,
pretending, thinking of possibilities, playing around with "what if...?" is
your ability to create all sorts of internal meta-experiences-some very
creative and productive, some that create pathology.

           Your decisions.  You make choices, everyday you make lots of
choices, little ones and big ones and cumulatively, your choices generate
the over-all meta-experience of your life orientation-the direction of your
life.  In your decisions, you forecast how to live, where to go, and a
thousand other inner experiences.

           Your intentions.  Within intentionality are your choices, your
decisions, and also your values-what you care about, what's important to
you.  And this is the source of inside-out motivation, the energy and
vitality to live with vigor and passion-more really important
meta-experiences.

 

Well, you get the idea, do you not?  Inside your mind-your wonderful
consciousness by which your self-reflexivity operates-there are a hundred or
a thousand meta-experiences.  And they are all at your command when you
learn how to use the meta-functions.  In Neuro-Semantics we have been using
the old NLP idea of "going meta" for two and half decades and since 2002 we
have used The Matrix Model to sort out the human system.  And it has worked
pretty well.  We modeled numerous experiences using the Matrix Model
including stuttering.  But now we have something even better.  Something
that takes the Matrix Model further, deeper, and higher- The Meta Place.

 

While the Matrix Model gave us three key dimensions of the Meta Place, that
is just the beginning.  It gave us meaning, intention, and self (identity in
five aspects).  But there is so much more.  And what it provides is a
dynamic structuring of consciousness so that you can follow consciousness in
a conversation and thereby come to understand another person at a much, much
deeper level.  What is meta to our everyday experiences at the primary
level?  If at the primary level of experience we have immediate thoughts and
feelings (a state) as we respond (or react) to some trigger in the outside
world-what is higher than that?  What meta-experience do you first have and
then have, etc.?

 

           You first represent the outside experience.  You create, as it
were, a movie in your mind and use the representational systems-visual,
auditory, kinesthetic, etc.

           You then edit your inner cinema.  With all of the cinematic
features that are available to you, you customize your movie sometimes
making it wonderful, sometimes horrible.

           You then draw conclusions.   You never just represent-you
construct beliefs about things and once you do that, every higher meta-level
is some form or aspect of a belief.  You believe something is important-a
value.  You believe you should do something-a decision.

           You construct your identity.  You invent a self-image that
includes your worth, your skills, your social self, your temporal self, your
roles, etc.

           You learn and remember.  You encode and store learnings into
your memory banks which become your Background Knowledge, which when fully
habituated become your automatic programs.

           You anticipate and predict.  Your mind as a prediction machine
is always trying to figure out "what's next?"  "what's coming?"  It's a
survival mechanism.  This is the foundation for thinking strategically,
thinking consequently, and for hoping.

           You meta-state or set frames all the way up.  By this
self-reflexive function you then layer thoughts upon thoughts to create
complex understanding and belief systems.  You create value hierarchies,
belief hierarchies, decision hierarchies, etc.

           You set multiple intentions.  Now you are creating your life
orientation, your future direction, and the management of your attentions.

 

Your meta-mind is rich!  It is also chaotic and for most people
unstructured.  And because people do not have a sense of structure of their
mind, they don't know how to use it effectively.  To do that, they need to
develop an ability to use the meta-functions.

 

              Want more?  Check out Meta-Therapy and look for the newest
book, The Meta Place.

 L. Michael Hall, Ph.D.

ISNS Executive Director

P.O. Box 8

Clifton Colorado 81520 USA

(970) 523-7877