Do I Have To Think In This Formulaic

No you don't. But then again, if you do it really does help. Avoiding the clinician/technician stage of developing competence makes it really hard on yourself when you want to move to the ultimate expert stage of unconsciouscompetence.

Actually, this step-by-step process only enables us more efficiently and effectively to train our intuitions to hear higher level mental constructions involving causation, meaning, intentionality, identity, etc. Further, since the center of reframing begins with some human meaning-maker attributing, and associating some meaning (IS) to some external stimuli (EB), the more quickly and automatically we train our consciousness to sort and separate between the sensory-based level (EB) and the higher evaluative level (IS), the more quickly and automatically, we will know where to begin.

To develop the greatest effectiveness with these "Sleight of Mouth" patterns, aim to train and tune your ears to hear two kinds of linguistic structures. These involve complex equivalences (CEq) and cause-effect statements (C-E).

1) Cause-Effect Statements (C-E). When a person speaks in such a way as to imply that one thing causes another, they present a causation model of the world.

"When you say mean things to me, it causes me to wonder about the stability of our relationship."

Here, "saying mean things" (EB, a tangible, empirical see-hear-feel reality) causes "me to wonder about the stability of our relationship" (IS, an internal subjective meaning, state, feeling, etc.).

2) Complex Equivalent Statements (CEq). When we link two such statements together so that we use them interchangeably, we have created a complex equivalence. Why "complex?" Because one item belongs to one level of reality, and the other to another level. So what looks simple: X=Y actually involves a very complex set of relationships.

"When you say mean things to me, it means that our relationship is on the line." "When you show up late for these meetings, it means you don't care about me." "His tone of voice (EB) means that he does not like me (IS) and that he will reject me (EB) since it is a form of verbal abuse (IS)." Creating a mental equivalent which thereby equates two items existing in different worlds (or levels), creates in our mind-neurology a mental belief. And this will show up in the human nervous system as a "semanticreaction." Korzybski (193311994) described such CEq as "identifications." He described it as identifying things that exist on different levels (see Appendix B).

EB=IS Thinking

Obviously we don't always go around presenting our beliefs and surface statements in direct and overt C-E or CEq formats. Nor do other people. More often than not, we talk using only half of the formula. It shows up in everyday language like this: "I'm depressed."

Here, however, we don't have enough information to even start reframing. We only have an internal state (IS). We don't have any information from the person's model regarding what caused this internal state (C-E) or what the internal state means (CEq). This illustrates the value of the Meta-Model for information gathering.

"What specifically do you feel depressed about?"

"What lets you know that what you experience is depression?"

"When did you first begin to feel this way?"

"When do you not feel this way?"

Habitually meta-model statements of problems, feelings, beliefs, and other abstract concepts to gather high quality information about the person's model of the world. What does he or she think brought this about (C-E)? Or what meaning it has (CEq)? What other significance does he or she give to it?

Use the following five simple questions to elicit causational maps (C-E) and meaning attributions (CEq).

C-E "How does this create a problem for you?

C-E "How much of a problem does this create?"

CEq "What does this mean to you?"

CEq "What other meanings do you give to this?"

Since we want to make sure that we actually have a problem on our hands (a limiting, non-enhancing map) before we try to fix it(!), these questions effectively assist us in converting the sentences and statements that we hear into a C-E or CEq.

Suppose someone says, 'You are staring at me." We begin with "staring"as an obvious EB. (Can you video-think about that? See a person staring.) We now have half of the formula. So we ask for the person's meaning. "Does that feel like a problem? How does that create a problem for you?" "What does it mean when you see him staring?" This invites the person to specify the meanings that govern that statement.

"Your staring at me causes me to feel uncomfortable."

The IS ("uncomfortable") results from the EB ("staring"). We could now run some of the "Sleight of Mouth" patterns on this. Or we could continue to meta-model the IS. "How specifically does my staring at you cause you to feel uncomfortable?" "What do you mean by 'uncomfortable?'"

Another question helpful in translating statements into a complex equivalence for "Sleight of Mouth patterning simply involves asking the meaning question over and over:

"What does that mean to you?"

This question directly inquires about the neuro-semantics, and rarely do people feel it as threatening. Typically, people will give their belief that drives the problem: "Joe is so uncaring."

Now we have a fully blown identification. When someone offers the belief itself, simply inquire about the evidence for such.

"How do you know that Joe is uncaring?"

"What does Joe do that makes you think that?"

After you find the evidence and put it into EB form, you can construct the complex equivalence.

0 0

Post a comment