Person Self1 Depressed

Now this kind of a statement of identification becomes especially dangerous and insidious as a complex equivalence since identity (as a belief and conceptual way of constructing the world) exists at a higher logical level than other beliefs. It exists as a belief about a concept—the concept of "self." So first, we need to do a little meta-modeling. "How do you know this?" "Do you have these feelings all the time?" "What specific experiences, actions, circumstances has lead you to conclude that 'you' as a person can be summarized in the emotional term 'depressed?'" The way the person presents the statement, "lam..." codes and represents themselves as a nominalization. This led Gregory Bateson (1972) to comment about the problem with small words like "I" and "ego." They represent the biggest nominalization of them all. And as a nominalization, it creates a frame-of-referenceabout self as having no movement, but as a static and unmoving thing. Actually, all of the "to be" verbs (i.e., "is, am, are, be, being, been, was, were," etc.), when used as an "is of identity" share in this especially insidious form of linguistic mapping (See Appendix C). Obviously, we need to de-nominalizethis nonsense.

"How do you currently, at this moment in time, experience this emotion of depressing?"

"How and in what ways 'are' you more than this emotion? What else 'are' you? How else can you define yourself?"

When we start with a global generalization that someone has condensed into "lam., "form, I typically like to first explore for the person's evidence for the belief. "How do you know that?"

What lets you know that it represents depression and not patience?"

If the person gives another vague generalization (which we can generally expect and count on), "It feels that way," I just explore that one as well.

"How do you know that that feeling means you 'are' depressed? It might mean that you feel calm."

And again, we can expect more vague fluff, "Because I lack energy."

"Energy to do what? At what times? According to what standards?

Questioning in this way (which we call meta-modeling) looks for evidence, helps the person index his or her thinking and generalizing, and in this way gets them back to the experience out of which it came.

Once we have deframed sufficiently, they can re-map from that experience and create a more enhancing map. This process facilitates a new kind of mental mapping to occur—one where we put the process back into a form that represents "process" and movement, and so frees us from the static and permanent nature of the nominalizations. The word "I" helps us to re-associate to the kinesthetics. And, getting ourselves back to the experience and the evidence lies at the very heart of the NLP method. "Being in control always gets results."

Meta-modeling that we might ask:

"What behaviors would I see if I saw you 'in control?'" "What kind of results do you here speak about?" "Results in business, in personal life, etc.?" "Does not being-in-control not always get results?" "How do you control being-in-control?"

"Do you have awareness that being in control, in the way you have described, won't always get you the results you want?"

"Being knowledgeable means you won't be loved." "Say, since you use very knowledgeable words to tell me this, does that mean people can't love you? Have you ever spent time with someone you thought as knowledgeable and yet also lovable at the same time?"

0 0

Post a comment