The World of Abstractions

The Chunking Up Process:

World of Meta-Level Abstractions (the Kantian Categories) (The Meta Meta-Programs & Meta-St)

Agreement Frame-of-Reference Î

What does that meaning mean to you? What idea, example describes this?"

For what purpose...? What intention do you have in this... ? What does this mean to you? T

Wren mediating, chunk up to get agreement. Chunk-up until you get a nominalization. The Structures oflntuition. 'Deductive Intuition: the ability to take a general principle 8 chunk down to apply & relate to specific situations.

•Iflductivelntuition: theabilityto chunk-up to find meanings, connections 8 relationships betweenthe small pieces.

The chunking down process:

What examples/references? What specifically do you mean...?"

(Usé any meta-model specificity question)

More and More Specific Details & Distinctions The World of Submodalities

Abstractions eo*ot lower-level ideas, "•►»«tentations, understandings t

The language mechanism that moves us upward into higher level abstractions -the Milton Model. Those who use intuiting to gather 8 process information live here in the world of the big chunks and into "Trance"

Existence

Economy

Business CEO

Managers t

Unit Managers

Supervisors

Administrative Support

The language mechanism that enables us to move down the scale into Specificity -the Meta Model Those who gather information by Sensing live here. We come out of trance when we move here. (Edited from Hierarchy of Ideas Copyrights 987-1396, Tad James)

Appendix D THERE 'IS'NO 'IS'

Did you notice that we wrote this book using the General Semantic extensional device called E-Choice (a version of E-Prime)?

E-Prime refers to English-primed of the "to be" verb family of passive verbs (is, am, are, was, were, be, being, been), invented by D. David Bourland,Jr. He and Paul Dennithome Johnston first wrote about it in To Be or Not: An E-Prime Anthology. E-Prime and E-Choice empowers people to not fall into the "is" traps of language.

The "is" traps? Yes, Alfred Korzybski (193311994) warned that the "is" ofidentityand the "is" of predication present two dangerous linguistic and semantic constructions that map false-to-fact conclusions. The first has to do with identity—how we identify a thing or what we identify with. The second has to do with attribution—how we project our "stuff onto others and things without realizing it.

Identity as "sameness in all respects," does not and cannot exist. At sub-microscopic levels, everything comprises a "dance of electrons," always moving, changing, and becoming. So no thing can ever "stay the same" even with itself. Nothing "is" in any static, permanent, unchanging way. Since everything continually changes, then nothing "is" static. To use "is" mis-speaks, mis-evaluates, and mis-maps reality. To say, "She is lazy..." "That is a stupid statement..." falsely maps reality. Korzybski argued that unsanity and insanity ultimately lies in identifications. The "is" of Predication asserts our responses onto the world. To say, "This is good," "That flower is red," "He is stupid!" presents a language structure implying that something "out there" contains these qualities of "goodness," "redness," and "stupidity." The "is" implies that these things exist independent of the speaker's experience. Not so. Our descriptions speak primarily about our internal experience, judgments, and values. More accurately we would say, "I evaluate as good this or that," "I see that flower as red," "I think of him as suffering from stupidity!"

"Is" statements falsely distract, confuse logical levels, and subtly lead us to think that such value judgments exist outside our skin in the world "objectively." Wrong again. The evaluations (good, red, stupid) function as definitions and interpretations in the speaker's mind.

The "to be" verbs dangerously presuppose that "things" (actually events or processes) stay the same. These verbs invite us to create mental representations of fixedness so that we begin to set the world in concrete and to live in "a frozen universe." These verbs code the dynamic nature of processes statically. "Life is tough." "I am no good at math."

These statements sound definitive and absolute. "That's just the way it is!" Bouriand has described "is" "am" and "are," etc. as "the deity mode." "The fact is that this work is no good!" Such words carry a sense of completeness, finality, and time-independence. Yet discerning the difference between the map and the territory tells us these phenomena exist on different logical levels. Using E-Prime (or E-Choice) reduces slipping in groundless authoritarian statements which only close minds or invite arguments.

If we confuse the language we use in describing reality (our map) with reality (the territory), then we identify things that differ. And that makes for unsanity. There "is" n o is. "Is" non-references. It points to nothing real. It operates entirely as an irrational construction of the human mind. Its use leads to semantic mis-evaluations.

Conversely, writing, thinking, and speaking in E-Prime contributes to "consciousness of abstracting" that we make maps of the world which differ from the world. E-Prime enables us to think and speak with more clarity and precision by getting us to take first-person. This reduces the passive verb tense ("It was done." "Mistakes were made."). It restores speakers to statements, thereby contextualizing statements. E-Prime, by raising consciousness of abstracting, thereby enables us to index language. Now I realize that the person I met last week, F&b "is" not equal in all respects to the person that now stands before me, Person,,,, week This assists me in making critical and valuable distinctions.

E-Choice differs from E-Prime in that with it we use— the "is" of existence (e.g. "Where is your office?"

"It is on 7th. Street at Orchard Avenue."), the auxilary "is" (e.g. "He is coming next week."), and the "is" of name, (e.g. "What is your name?"

"It is Michael." "My name is Bob.").

So we have written this in E-Choice and not pure E-Prime as in previous works, thereby avoiding some circumlocutious phrases that we have used in the past(!).

Appendix E

0 0

Post a comment