You know about reframing, you know about the nature and functioning of "meaning," you know about how we meaning-makers structure our net/ro-semani/'c,meanings, .. , . , .

you nave explored seven directions in which to shift and re-direct consciousness, and you have learned about twenty ways to conversationally reframe meaning.

Now as an apprentice magician you only need to get out there and get some real-life hands-on practice with the mind-lines.

As you do we would love to hear about your forages into the world, your experiences of turning frogs into princes, taming dragons, and conquering kingdoms.

Go for it!

The Institute of Neuro-Semantics™

http://www. Neurosemantics.com

Building on the original formulations of Korzybski, the models and technologies of NLP, Cognitive Neuro-science, Systems Theory, and Bateson's Meta-Levels—we have trademarked Neuro-Semantics so that we can produce books, journals, and training materials as well as research and trainings into the practical applications of such.

To that end, E.T. Publicationshas produced this as well as other books, and the Institute of Neuro-Semantics has created and promoted numerous trainings and certifications .

Meta-States Journal —published 6 to 10 times yearly; a research and development project of the Meta-States Model. 01998 Copyrighted, E.T. Publications ISBN 1-890001-12-0. Written and edited by L. Michael Hall, Ph.D.

The Meta-State Dream Team: a team involved in ongoing training and promotion of the Meta-States Model, trademarked by The Institute of Neuro-Semantics as well as trainings and studies in Neuro-Semantics.

Michael Hall, Ph.D. - Meta-States Developer Bob Bodenhamer, D.Min., Director NLP of Gastonia Robert Olic, NLP Trainer, Director of Marketing & Training Keith Lester, NLP Trainer, Director of Multi-Media Productions

Dr. Bobby G. Bodenhamer, D.Min., 1516 Cecelia Drive, Gastonia, NC. 28054. [email protected] (704) 864-3585 Fax: (704) 864-1545

Dr. Michael Hall. Ph.D., P.O. Box 9231, Grand Junction, CO. 81501 [email protected] (970) 245-3235.

Appendix A

NLP Modalities & Submodalities

Recall some pleasant experience from your past. As you do, various things may pop into mind. Whatever pops up into consciousness, just allow yourself to go with that for the moment. If you dori't seem to find the kind of pleasant memory that you'd prefer, then allow yourself to simply imagine a desired pleasant experience that you'd like to have.

Most people find that closing the eyes helps this process. Once you have this pleasant experience, permit it to remain in your awareness so you can work with it and use it.

Now with this pleasant thought in mind—just notice its visual aspects. As you recall the experience, what specifically do you see? Notice the picture of the memory. If you do not visualize well, then imagine what the pleasant experience feels like. Or, allow yourself to just listen to some pleasant sounds—words or music and enjoy that kind of an internal pleasant experience.

Next, make the picture of the memory, make the picture larger. Let it double in size... and then let that picture double... Notice what happens. When you made the picture bigger, what happens to your feelings of that experience? Do they intensify?

Now shrinkthe picture. Make it smaller and smaller. Allow it to become so smallyou can hardly see it... Stay with that a moment.. Do the intensity of the feelings decrease? Experiment now with making the picture bigger and then smaller. When you make it smaller, do your feelings decrease? And when you make it larger, do your feelings increase? If so, then running the pictures (sounds, feelings) in your awareness in this way functions as it does for most people.

However, you may have a different experience. Did you? No big deal. We all code our experiences in our minds uniquely and individually. This simply represents another aspect of our differences. Finish by putting your picture of the pleasant experience in a format that you find most comfortable and acceptable.

With the same picture, now move the picture closerto you. Just imagine that the picture begins to move closer and closerto you, and notice that it will. What happensto yourfeelings as it does? ... Move the picture farther away. What happens when you move the picture farther away? Do your feelings intensify when you move the picture closer? Do your feelings decrease when you move the picture farther away? Most people find this true for the way their consciousness/neurology works. When you moved the picture farther away, the feeling probably decreased. Notice that as you change the mental representation in your mind of the experience, your feelings change. This, by the way, describes how we can "distance" ourselves from experiences, does it not?

Suppose you experiment with the brightness of the picture? As you look at your pictures, do you see them in color or black-and-white? If your pictures have color, make them black-and-white, and vice versa if you have them coded as black-and-white. ... When you changed the color, did your feelings change?

Considerthe focus of your images: in focus or out of focus? Do you see an image of yourself in the picture or do you experience the scene as if looking out of your own eyes? What about the quality of your images: in three dimensional (3D) form or flat (2D)? Does it have a frame around it or do you experience it as panoramic? Experiment by changing frowyou represent the experience. Change the location of the picture. If you have it coded as on your right, then move it to your left.

Debriefing the Experience

We can change our feelings by changing howwe internally represent an experience. NLP glories in these very kinds of processes of the mind since it works preeminently with mental processes rather than with content Here we have changed how we feel about an experience by changing the quality and structure of our images rather than their content. We made the changes at the mental process level while leaving the content the same.

What would happen if we made all our unpleasant pictures big, bright and up close? What would happen if we made all our pleasant experiences small, dim, and far away? We would become an expert at feeling depressed, miserable and unresourceful! Consider what would happen if we coded our pleasant experiences as big, bright, and up close... will that not create for us a more positive outlook on life? What if we made our unpleasant experiences small, dim and far away? Would not the negative have less influence over us?

Submodality Distinctions and Qualities Visual System:

. Location of images Distance

, Snapshot-movie (Still — moving) , Number of images , BorderedlPanoramic . Color I Black-and-white . Shape, form . Size

. Horizontal & Vertical perspective . Associatedl Dissociated . 3D or Flat (2D) Brightness (from dull to bright) Foregroundl background contrast Auditory System

Location of sounds . Distance

, Number of sound sources . Music, noise, voice Whose voice Tone

Volume (from low to high) . Clarity, intelligibility . Pitch (from low to high) . Melody Kinesthetic System

. Location of sensations What sensations . Stilt/ moving . Pressure . Area, extent . Intensity . Temperature . Moisture . Texture . Rhythm Auditory Digital System . Location of Words

Other Systems

. Smells . Tastes . Balance

Sensory-Basedl Evaluative . Simple/ complex Self/ others . Current/dated

Appendix B

The Meta-Model

(1) Unspecified nouns (deletions) refer to statements which lack a referential index regarding the performer or subject of the action. Unspecified verbs refer to the action or process representation that lacks specificity.

(2) Unspecified adjectives and adverbs refer to the qualifiers of nouns and verbs which lack specificity.

(3) Unspecified relations (comparative deletions) refer to those comparative statements that lack the standard by which the comparison arises. "She is better than him;" "he is smarter than his brother."

(4) Generalized Referential Index: words with a generalized referent so that the words do not immediately make the specific reference clear.

(5) Universal Quantifiers refer to those words that create representations of allness: all, every, never, everyone, no one, etc.

(6) Modal Operators refer to the modes wherein people tend to operate. This indicates the kind of "world" out of which they operate. Modal operators of necessity presuppose a world of laws and rules: hence, "should, must, have to, need to," etc. Modal operators of possibility presuppose a world of choice and options: hence "can, may, will, might possible, etc. Modal operators of impossibility presuppose a world of limitations, hence, "can't, impossible, etc.

(7) Lost Performatives refer to those phrases and sentences which indicate a value judgment given without specifying who made the evaluation.

(8) Nominalizations refer to noun-like words and phrases that hide or smother a verb within it. Here someone has turned a process word (a verb) into a noun and treated it like a thing. This reification of a process or event accordingly masquerades the verb within and prevents the reader from recognizing it. Thus, relating becomes relationship, motive and motivating becomes motivation, leading becomes leadership, etc. De-nominalizing nominalizations serves as the meta-model process for challenging nominalizations and turning the nouns back into the verbs from which they came.

(9) Mind-Reading involves claiming to know someone's internal state, thought, emotions, etc. without specifying how you attained that information. 'You don't like me."

(10) Cause—Effect involves the making of causation statements which contain illogical formulations. "She makes me angry."

(11) Complex Equivalences involve connecting two experiences linguistically so that one equates and treats them as synonymous. "I know he doesn't like me when he uses that tone of voice."

(12) Presuppositions involve the unspoken assumptions, beliefs, understandings and ideations necessary for a statement to "make sense."

Extending the Meta-Model with Korzybskian Distinctions

Along with these twelve, I identified six additional linguistic distinctions for an extended Meta-Model from the formulations of General Semantics (Hall, 1992 Anchor Point, 1998, "TTie Secrets of Magic).

(13) Pseudo-Words. Words that in either written or auditory form look, sound, and present themselves as words, but do not actually reference anything. Korzbyski described such as "spell-marks"and "noise."

(14) Static Words. One-valued terms that the speaker has failed to extensionalize.

(15) Undefined Terms. Like presuppositions, these refer to those terms that we can't define except in using terms that make up the meaning of this term. Korzybski noted that we ultimately reason circularly, defining our terms by the very terms that we use in our definition. Here we must simply "lay on the table our metaphysics and our assumed structures" recognizing the undefinedness of the terms.

(16) Either-Or Terms and Phrases. When we use an either-or format for representing reality, we create a two-valued structure, and this typically does not accord with the territory. More typically, it creates excluded middles and eliminates both-and thinking.

(17) Multi-ordinal terms. As we generalize and abstract words, we can and do use the same words on many different levels of abstraction without so indicating the level of our abstracting. This creates multi-ordinal terms. Like nominalizations, these ambiguous words, mean nothing in and of themselves, but take their meanings from their levels of abstraction.

(18) Identification. This refers to treating phenomena that occur in different levels or dimensions as if "the same." We then identify things, processes, events, etc. by ignoring differences. The "is" of identity works in an especially insidious way. Via identifications, we hallucinate concepts as external things, and create a frozen universe.

(19) Delusional Verbal Splits When we split phenomenon which cannot and does not exist in those parts (mind-and-body, space-time, etc.) we create an elementalism and dichotomy. Since, by language, we can analyze and separate things, we can then forget that our verbal map doesn't necessarily reflect reality. This can create delusional verbal splits, "mind," "body," etc.

(20) Static or Signal words. Terms that portray reality as static, definite, absolute, and one-valued give rise to "a legislative semantic mood." Such language leads to the "thinghood of words."

(21) Metaphors. While all language works as metaphors and metaphorically, obvious and explicit metaphors describe larger level units of meaning, using stories, narrative, poetry, koans, proverbs, etc. Such language enables us to map a facet of some phenomenon in terms of a similarity of structure, function, purpose, etc. of another phenomenon. Accordingly, we construct metaphors when we assert that one item "is" or has a "likeness" to another.

(22) Over-defined and Under-defined Terms. We typically under-define our terms extensionally by failing to point out the exfensional meanings of them in sensory-based terms, and we over-define them intensionally as we over-rely upon verbal, dictionary definitions. Doing so, Korzybski noted, leads to unsanity since it leads us to move further and further away from the sensory based, empirical world and more into a world of words and mere verbal definitions.


(Bandler & Grinder, 1975, The Meta-Model

Hall, 1996, Extended Version of the Meta-Model, The Secrets of Maaic 1988). * '


Part I: Deletions


Words with no true referents. What specifically do you refer to?

Index the Reference. What specifically do you mean

'That makes him a failure. by "failure?"

Does "failure refer to anything that actually exists? Does it not merely function as an intensional definition?


Words/language that either empirically describes y^ ^ hear or that evaluates. & feel terms. '


Unspecified Referential Index; "Simple deletions"

"I am uncomfortable." Uncomfortable in what way?

They don t listen to me. who specifically doesn't listen to you?

"He said that she was mean." mo specifically said that?

What did he mean-by 'mean'?


Verbs that suffer from vagueness How, specifically, did he reject


Comparative Deletions, relations not specifified

'She's a better person." Betterthan whom?

Better at what? Compared to whom, what?

- Given what criteria?


Hidden or Smothered Verbs, Nounified Verbs

"Let's improve our communication." wiose communicating do you mean?

,„„, ± ± A , How would you like to communicate?

What state did you wake Use Co.0rdinatesto index: up in this morning?" Specifically what, when, who, where, which, how, etc.?

De-nominalize the nominalization to recover the hidden verb.

Describe all emotional and psychosomatic words using verbs.


One-valued words.

"Science says that..." What science?

Extensionalize the word. Science according to whose model, theory, etc.? Does only one "science"speak for all sciences?


Lost Performative: Speaker of statement deleted.

"It's bad to be inconsistent." Who evaluates it as bad?

According to what standard? How do you determine this label of "badness?"


Terms not adequately defined by extension

"Your egotism is really getting What specifically do you refer to?

out of hand." What does this mean to you?

State your assumptions & Presuppositions— Part II: Generalizations


"She never listens to me." Never? She never listens to you?

What would happen if she did?


Words of State or Mode: Necessity, Possibility, Impossibility, Desire, etc.

"I have to take care of her." What would happen if you did?

"I can't tell him the truth." What would happen if you didn't?

What wouldn't happen if you didn't?


Indicating two-valued representations

"If I don't make this relationship "See lf y°u can frame that work, I'm done with them." statement in a non either-or way."

"What in-betweens, grays, stages, Have y°u excluded the middles? etc. could also enter into this picture?"


Words whose meanings can operate at multiple levels, whose meaning depends upon context

"Science" "Whose science?" "Science at what time?"

"What kind of science?"

Part 111: Distortions


Making Statements About Another's Internal States:

Thoughts, Intentions, Motives, Motivations, etc.

"You don't like me..." How do you know I don't like you?

What evidence leads you to that conclusion?


Making Statements that connect assertions of "cause" between various processes.

"You make me sad." How does my behavior cause you to respond with sad feelings? Counter Example: Do you always feel sad when I do this?

How specifically does this work?


Statements of equation and Identity, that use the "Is" of Identity. "Complex Equivalence"

"She's always yelling at me; How does her yelling mean she doesn't like me." that she doesn't like you?

Can you recall a time when you yelled at someone you liked?

Eliminate To-Be Verbs (is, am, are, to be, been was, were) by E-Priming.

"He's a loser when it comes How does him failing at job turn him to business; he just lacks business into a loser?

Extensionalize: Upon what basis do you make this evaluation?

Differentiate: How does being a human being

Subscript time, place, person. differ from being a loser*?


statements that make the equation that one thing exists just like another thing in all respects.


Silent Assumptions and Paradigms that lurk within &

behind words and statements.

"If my husband knew how much This presupposes that she

husband s behavior cause her suffering, that he lacks knowledge about her pain, that his intentions would shift if he knew.

How do you choose to suffer?

How does he react?

How do you know he doesn't know?

19. DELUSIONAL VERBAL SPLIT STATEMENTS: Statements that split a part of an unsplitable "reality" into elementalistic parts. ,,

"My depression has nothing to do How ^ you experience mind with my "mind,"it's just the way my aPart from y°ur

"bodv" works " How does y°ur rn'nd function y apart from your body?


Words & Sentences that refer to Analogous relations

Stories. Tell a story!

Appendix C

Hierarchy of Language Chart

Hierarchy of Language on the Scale of Specificity 8t Abstraction

0 0

Post a comment