Eb Is

li 1

The unexpected nature of the Chunking Down moves in the Mind-Lines Model, of course, further explains its power. We "chunk down" (conceptually) from a meta-level of awareness. As such, it generates more and more enlightment as we do. We become aware of several things:

• Our strategy (the sequence of representations in response to the external stimulus and our own internal components that create the experience). . The component pieces in consciousness

(submodalities) that create our experience, our internal coding that generates differences.

• How we have created the experience: the formula or mix of pieces that generates the subjective experience.


As we have moved down to specify the submodality components and their syntax (sequence) that comprise the magic inside the box this enables us to begin the content reframing. Formula identification and chunking down thoroughly prepares us to become fully engaged in the magical art of content reframing. We have described this fully in the chapter on Content Reframing (Ch. 6).

Here we most essentially give new meanings or definitions to the IS and the EB. Linguistically, you can use the following linguistic environments as cues to get you started:

1) "This isn't this IS — it is this IS." "This isn't laziness, this shows the ability to really relax!"

"This isn't rudeness, this demonstrates tremendous skill at independence from the opinions of others." "This isn't insult, this is his bad tonality!"

2) "If you want to see real IS — look at this EB." "If you want to really see laziness, consider if he wouldn't even dress himself. That would be laziness!"

"If you want to see rudeness, listen to Saddam Hussein talk!"

3) "What I really consider IS is this EB." "What I would really consider as rude is if he picked his nose and flipped it at me. That would be rudeness, not being late."


Up to this point we have worked inside the Magic Box. We have worked within it by clarifying the formula, moving down to the elements and their sequence that creates the magicinside the box. We have worked inside the box to alter the linguistic labels that we have attached to various EB stimuli.

Now the time has come for us to step aside from the box entirely. Here we leave the Magic Box intact and no longer seek to change it. From this point on we move out of the realm of content reframing and into the realm of context reframing. This means that we now will work to outframe the frame. And as we move out into the larger contexts within which we reference the magic box—the contexts that we bring to bear on the box sets up new and different contexts. Doing this transforms the meaning of the box—from a higher logical level.

We have written about outframing in terms of all of the other kinds of concepts that we can apply to the box. We do this from above the box. This includes

. Analogous Reframing (Ch. 9)

To express this in another fashion, all of the context reframing in using conversational reframes involves the meta-stating process. This means that because we have stepped out of the Belief Box and gone meta to the magic-everything that occurs here involves bringing a meta-level frame (or context) to bear on the old formula.

In the Meta-States model, we utilize the principle of layering or embedding. This means that because we can experience thoughts about thoughts, feelings about feelings, ideas about ideas, etc., we can always loop back to some other thought, feeling, or idea and bring it to bear on the previous thought. This layers consciousness. It creates an embeddedness—that we typically talk about as our "assumptions, presuppositions, beliefs," etc.

Thus when we ask the question, "And what idea do you hold about this concept?" we get to the frame-of-reference within which the person has embedded the lower idea. Or we could ask, "What do you presuppose about this experience?" "What comes to mind when youthink about that belief?"

For a full description of the Meta-States model, see Meta-

States Self-Reflexivity in Human States of Consciousness

(1995), Dragon Slaying: Dragons to Princes (1996), NLP: Going Meta—Advanced Modeling Using Meta-Levels (1997), and/or Meta-States Journal (1997,1998).


Now you know that you can send consciousness in seven basic directions and that you have numerous specific patterns within each of those seven directions. Knowing this, you now have a whole set of ways to reframe meaning. These seven directions for mind-shifting also describe and illustrate seven types of mental-emotional functioning that set up or construct these dimensions.

What does that mean? It means that we can fit the NLP IVteta-Programs into the Mind-Line Model. So just as we can take the Meta-Model itself and identify the language distinctions used in these "sleight of mouth" patterns, we can also now specify and incorporate both the Meta-program distinctions as well (see figure 15:2).

Figure 15:2

The Mind-Lines Model With Meta-Model & Meta-Program Distinctions Specified

#13 Model of World Beliefs Operational Paradigm

Criteria Allness Values

Importance Apply Significance to all

Ps. Values Toward /

Code: Bold: Name of M4. Regular: Description Italic: Meta-Model Distinction Underline: Meta-Program Distinct.

#19Meta-Frame Checking Ecology

Modal Identity Abstractions Operators

Necessity Concepts


Impossibility Self Complex Eq. AfO-n, MO-p Id, Nominalizations MQ-n. D Self MPs Aristotelian

Awav From

— The "Time" Meta-Frame — Cause-Effect

#6 #7 Positive Intent Positive Cause

#8 #9 First Outcome Past Ref.

Outcome of

Outcome Future Ref.

#10 Ultimate

Inductive Thinking in Chunkina Up all higher levels

Reflexively Apply to Self/ Listener Internal/ Fxternal Reference

Refrarne EB Ref rame IS

Complex Equivalence / Cause-Effect/Identification/ Nominalizatjon Sameness/Matching Aristotelian Association

Content Specifics

VAK RS Chunk Down


Order of VAK Reality Strategy U.N., U.VI, U.R. (Dei) Deductive Thinking

Counter Example Mind-Reading

Story/ Metaphoring Analogous Framing Matching/ Mismatching

Metaphors Abductive thinking

0 0

Post a comment