Outframing

Beaming Up To Get a Heavenly Perspective

"What about the deeper magic? Yes, what about the deeper magic?"

(C.S. Lewis "me Lion, The Wtch &the Wardrobe)

#13

Model of the World Framing

#14

Criteria and Value Framing

#15

Allness Framing

#16

Have-To Framing

#17

Identity Framing

#18

All Other Abstractions Framing

#19

Ecology Framing

Did you enjoy all of that de-framing and de-constructing of reality in Chapter Five? We did. Did you like the switcheroos that we pulled in Chapter Six? How about the time-traveling shifts of Chapter Seven?

What we did in Chapter Seven with the time frame of reference shifts actually involved a meta-level shift. Did you notice that? We put it as if moving laterally, such as, before and afterthe box. Yet in actuality, since "time" exists as a concept—we really jumped up a logical level and brought concepts of "the pasf'and "the future" to bearupon the belief box.

We upframed.

We challenged the Belief Box by running with the logic (the neuro-semantic logic) within the meaning construction in the box and applying some conceptual frames-of-references (Mind-Lines #8—# 12).

If you liked that, then get ready to do a whole bunch more of it. In this chapter we will overtly outframe. So how about spending some time moving up the specificity/abstraction scale and inducing and generalizing to new principles and constructions? Making such meta-moves sets up new frames-of-references outframes. It establishes ever-higher contexts within which we do our thinking, emoting, responding, and behaving.

You could also think about these outframing Mind-Line moves in anotherway. Since in them you take a meta-position to the belief, you move to a meta-state, and so, meta-state the belief or meaning using various other constructions and ideas.

Here then we engage in more context reframing. Traditionally "context reframing" has referred to asking context questions,

"When and where would this behavior function as a resource?"

"Where would I want to keep this response?"

We want to continue this process of finding or creating new contexts, but with a twist. Now instead of just finding other places where we can use the magic, we intentionally bring some higher magic to bear on the lower magic and then stand back to see the fireworks!

So here we will go beyond just finding a new or different context, we will beam up to numerous higher levels and create contexts of the belief context (the magic box), and even contexts for those contexts-of-contexts.

In C.S. Lewis' children stories about Narnia, the black magic of the Queen had brought perpetual winter to the land of Narnia. But when the children met the Lion, they discovered that he had a higher(or deeper) magic, much more powerful than the magic of the cruel queen. Here we want to do a similar thing.

In the Meta-States Model (Hall, 1995,1996,1997), this outframing process of "goingmeta" enables us, in one fell swoop, to change a whole system. By moving up and above the formula of belief and meaning in the box, we put all of that magic within a largerframe-work of magic and thereby embed it in new and higher magical contexts. And doing this inevitably changes everything! Why?

Because ftvg/ier logical levels always drive, modulate, and organize lower levels.

By moving up and beyond the belief and outframing it with other frames-of-references, we wrap these thoughts around the belief.

Why? In order to increase options. In doing this, we will see if the belief will cohere and maintain itself. What thoughts can we move up to and access to set these larger frames? As the following summarizes the sleight of mouth patterns, they indicate belief tests and mind-lines for working with and reframing beliefs.

The Upframing Moves

The meta-stating mind-line moves (Mind-Lines #13—#19) include the following:

• We could move up to the person's Model of the World itself and examine the belief as a map and as a mental construct. "Who made this map anyway?" "Do we want someone else's map in our head?" (After all, you never know where that map has been!) "Does it serve us well?"

• We could move up to examine the belief in terms of the person's other Criteria and Values of Importance. To do this brings the person's own values to bear on the belief This gives the person a chance to see if the belief coheres and remains consistent with the belief or begins to rattle apart from incongruency and cognitive dissonance.

• We could move up to test the generalization of the belief using allness terms (or the Meta-Model's Universal Quantifiers, i.e. "all, everyone, everywhere, none," etc.) "What if everybody believed that?" "Does this always occur?" "When doesn't it?"

• We could move up to test the belief in terms of the Modal Operators inherent in the belief. These refer to the style or modus operandi that a person uses in moving through the world. Accordingly, we have several modes: a mode of necessity (have to, must, ought, should), a mode of impossibility (can't), a mode of possibility (able, may, can), a mode of desire (get to, want to, desire to, etc.). "Will the belief cohere when we question this?"

We could also move up to examine the belief in terms of what it says and/or does to a person's sense of identity. "What emerges for one's self-definition via the belief?" "Who does this belief make you?"

• We might create numerous other abstractions about the ideas in the belief box. By moving up to higher abstract conceptions about the belief terms (either the EB or the IS) or the overall belief, we could meta-state it from a wide range of other perceptions and ideas. When we do this, the other abstractions will frequently blow the belief out of the water.

• We could move up above all of those and "run an ecology check" on each and every kind of believing and framing of beliefs to see if it has balance and wholeness and does the whole system good.

We noted earlier that when we take a whole of something and then go down to some part of it, we reduce. We create a reduction of an old magical formula. Conversely, if we take a part and move up to some larger whole, and then use that new higher category at a meta-level, we bring the resources and choices of that category or frame to the lower level phenomenon. By moving up, inductively, we access thoughts that we can then bring to bear on the belief. This puts a frame around the belief (or out-frames).

0 0

Post a comment