To really "getgood"with Mind-Linesyou need to understand the magicthat lies within them. And to understand the magic of mind-lines, you need to have a pretty clear grasp about neuro-linguistic magic. So to make sure you have gotten "up to speed" on this—we here offer you three facets of neuro-linguisticmagic.
I) THE LANGUAGE OF SPECIFICITY
Use To Cast Spells For Precision and Clarity When You Want to Deframe
Remember what we did with the sensory-based illustration earlier, the rebuke that I imagined a mother might say to a child?
"Would you turn around (K) and look (V) at the dirt on the carpet? Do you see (V) the dirt that forms the shape of your footprints? Now what do you have to say (A) about that?"
How clearly did those words communicate? Go with that description for a moment. Follow the words as instructions beginning with the words, "turn around" and "look," etc. You may not have carpet under your feet, so you may have to pretend that you do. You may not be standing, but you can imagine yourself standing. You may not be standing inside a room, but again, you can pretend, can you not? To "influence"you (as these words do) to signal your brain to run this particular movie which you've done (have you not?), we only needed to provide you clear, precise, and specific symbols.
Ah, the magic of communicating with precision!
Similarly, for you to invite another person to move their internal representation in a specific direction, you get them to make a movie that corresponds to the one in your head by simply describing to that person (loved one, client, customer) what you see, hear, sense, and say inside your head.
Simple? Well, not really.
Because most people don't know how to talk in sensory-based terms! We rather do what humans all over the planet do all too well and too quickly, we go meta and head to the ozone into higher levels of abstraction. Then, from those heights of abstraction we talk. And when we do, we end up talking in non-sensory based terms.
"You are so rude to come into my clean house and make a filthy mess. I get so angry at your irresponsibility!"
Ah, a different kind of confrontation from the former one, don't you think?
[By the way, this illustrates an extremely powerful NLP technology. If we need to say something unpleasant or "confrontative" (another nominalization!)—we can say almost anything to anybody if we use sensory-based descriptive language. Further, we can say almost nothing to anybody if we use evaluative, non-sensory based language! Don't take our word for this, try it out for yourself.]
We truly enrich our language and communication when we use more and more specific visual, auditory, kinesthetic, and sensory-based language components about the movie that we have constructed in our head. Rerêadjthe Qrwell passage and the biblical referent in Chapter One (p^).2" Which makes more sense? Which do you find easier to understand?
So to communicate with more clarity and precision, go descriptive! The words will flow out of your mouth as you describe what you actually experience and represent, and hence what you wish for the one with whom you communicate. Without the ability to distinguish between descriptive and evaluative language, you will never become truly professional or elegant in language use. So begin here. Begin at learning the power and simplicity of see-hear-feel language (sensory-based language). It provides the magic of clarity, the magic of precision, and the magic that deframes.
Deframes? Yes, it pulls apart old constructions. It pulls apart abstractions that confuse. (More about that in Chapter Five on Deframing.)
2) THE LANGUAGE OF EVALUATION
Use to Cast a Spell of Conceptualization To Construct New Realities & Frames In Order to Reframe & Outframe
"Should we therefore never use abstract or non-sensory based language?"
"Of course not."
Such represents our uniqueness and glory as human beings. We only need to do so with more mindfulness and thoughtfulness, or as Korzybski phrased it, "consciousness of abstracting."
Here, too, the NLP Model truly provides a most wonderful paradigm and tool (technology) for guiding our understanding of what we do with words, and the effect that our languaging has on ourselves and others.
Many times, instead of getting a person to accurately and specifically represent information with certain VAK signals, we need to move them to a higher level. Then, from there we can offer new and different ways of abstracting and conceptualizing. And when we do that, it enables the other person to set a whole new frame of reference that will transform everything. Using such language enables us to construct new "realities," create new meanings, establish new reference systems, call new worlds into existence.
Sometimes this moves a person from one position at a meta-level to another level.
For instance, suppose a father sees his teenage son lying on the couch watching TV. At this point, we only have a sensory-based set of representations, right? Or have you already drawn a conclusion and evaluated it? Suppose the father sees such and immediately jumps a logical level to classify that behavior as a member of the class that we call "laziness." He thereby sets laziness as his frame. He looks at the specific behaviors and does not see them as mere sensory-based pieces of information anymore. He looks and sees Laziness with a capital L. Right?
Now, of course, "laziness" does not exist in the world. (Yes, we suspect that you might have begun to smile at this, but go with us for a moment.)
What exists in the world simply involves the see-hear-feel information: lying on a couch, watching TV. The meanings that we (as meaning-makers) give to those VAK signals depend upon our beliefs, values, understandings, abstractions, frames-of-references, etc. Some parents may look at the same signals, and using other frames may say—
"I'm so glad John can relax and enjoy the good things of life, unlike my traumatic childhood and I'm so thrilled that I can provide for him all the things I never got."
It could happen!
Meaning ("semantics") exists only, and exclusively, in the "mind." It exists and arises as a form of evaluation and appraisal. This makes meaning a higher logical level abstraction about the information. It exists as information-about-information, thoughts at a higher level (meta-level) about lower level signals. Hence we reserve the term neuro-semantic for these higher levels, in contradistinction to neuro-linguistic for the primary level of sensory-based descriptions.
[Yes, we recognize that this represents an arbitrary definition. And yet we have found that it provides an useful distinction between the associations and meanings that we experience at the primary level when our consciousness goes out to recognize and represent the world and when our consciousness comes back onto itself to have thoughts about its thoughts.] In reframing, we essentially do a horizontal shift at the meta-level that basically says,
Figure 2 1
"This doesn't mean this -> it means this."
"John isn't being lazy, he simply really knows how to relax and enjoy himself."
"Jill isn't rude, she just forgot to wipe her feet." "Jerry isn't ugly and hateful, he has just gotten into a very unresourceful state and feels really threatened." "Terri isn't trying to put you down, she just feels overwhelmed and has become emotionally preoccupied with three little ones and the recent death of her mother."
Reframing a Statement
Frame-of-Reference of Meaning About f Another Frame-of-Reference
Person — VAK&Ad representations about
(Auditory-digital stands for words and language.)
In the language patterns (or mind-lines) that follow, the NLP Model offers numerous ways to reframe meanings using this horizontal shifting pattern. So what?
Well, reframing transforms meaning! So these linguistic mind-line patterns provide us with all sorts of resourceful ways to puf the best frame-of-reference on things so that we can operafe more effectively. And doing so empowers us to use the magic of our evaluative powers to set frames of references that will bring out our personal resources as well as the personal resources in others.
?) THE LANGUAGE OF EVALUATION-OF-EVALUATION Cast Even Higher Level Spells Outframe All Meanings and Frames And Transform Everything in One Fell Swoop
The ultimate form of reframing involves making a vertical move (going up the abstraction scale). When we do this, we leave the frame-of-referenceatthe first level the same, and move to a higher level. Then, from there, we outframe the whole context. I n doing this, we create a new context for the context. ("Outframe" here refers to setting up a frame-of-reference over everything that lies underneath it.)
Suppose, for illustration, we talk at the primary level about a boy who signals his brain with all kinds of VAK and A (words) cues of physical beatings with a stick as a child for simply acting and thinking like a kid. Within his mental movie, these images, sounds, and sensations play over and over along with the words of insult, "You stupid brat, you'll never succeed in life with that attitude!" Got the picture? Not very pretty, huh?
Now suppose the kid (let's call him Wayne) grows up and makes several beliefs from those experiences. Suppose he concludes the following:
"I'll never amount to anything."
"Something's wrong with me. I must be defective because I have this 'attitude' that provokes dad so much." "I don't feel very loved or loveable, therefore I must not be loveable."
With evaluative meanings like that, guess what kind of neuro-semantic states Wayne would continually create for himself in moving through life? We wouldn't call them the most resourceful ones. These states, in fact, would likely only reinforce and deepen his distresses. They would only provide him "proof" about the validity and accuracy of those limiting beliefs. Then, as he grows and receives more of the same, he would draw another and even higher meta-level frame of reference,
"I'll never change. This is the way life is going to be. No need to get my hopes up that things will turn around. I'm just a loser and always will be."
That neuro-semantic state, as a state-about-a-state (hence a meta-state), will then multiply his psychological pain and create even more of a self-fulfilling prophecy. All of this operates as a form of black magic. It sets a high level frame-of-reference typically outside of consciousness that governs perception, behavior, communication, expectation, etc. so that it actually seeks out and invites more of the same.
Further, with that belief working at a meta meta-level, reframing Wayne at the first meta-level will not have much effect or any long term effect. After all, it doesn't get to the meta-frame. Suppose we offer a reframe,
"Ifs not that you won't amount to anything, actually you can decide to become anything that you want to if you just put the past behind you."
That reframe probably won't work. At least, it will have little effect because at a higher logical level, another frame engulfs it and discounts it. "No kidding I started with a handicap. But as we all know, 'You can't teach old dog new tricks.' So don't give me any of your psychobabble crap!"
Meta Meta Meta-Level
New Enhancing Frame-of-Reference that outframes the lower frames
Meta Meta Meta-Level
New Enhancing Frame-of-Reference that outframes the lower frames
but this higher
but this higher
In this case, we need to outframe. So, we go up and find the meta meta-frame, and then go above that frame and set a whole new frame of mind.
"So those are the ideas and beliefs you built as an eight-year old boy and then on top of that, at 17 you built that stuck-and-can't change belief." ['Yeah, so?']
"And now here you are at 30 living out these old beliefs-how well do you like those beliefs? Do they serve you very well?" ["No, not at all."]
"So the conclusions you drew at 8 and 17 don't work very well. Well, that's probably the best kind of thinking that younger you could do at those times. Yet, after all, they do reflect the thinking of a child, not a grown man who can look back on all that and recognize them as misbeliefs and erroneous conclusions. Because children tend to self-blame rather than recognize that their parents didn't take 'Parenting 101' and never learned how to affirm or validate..."
NEURO-UINGUISTIC MAGIC — The Framing & Creation of Meaning
In the Mind-Lines Model, we use conversationalreframing to alter "reality" (our own or someone else's). When we do, this then transforms external expressions (emotions, behaviors, speech, skill, relationships, etc.). This means it changes "logical fate." Korzybski used this phrase about the internal psycho-logics of our neuro-semantics. After all, beliefs and ideas have consequences.
If you believe that you "won't amount to anything," that you "can't do anything right," that you "don't have the right to succeed"—the logical fate involved in those psycho-logic statements will show up in how you present yourself, talk, walk, act, think, feel, etc.
Via mind-lines we utilize neuro-linguisticmagic in order to set new frames and to play around with frames until we find those that result in the kind of "logical fates" that we desire and want for ourselves and others. Frames (as in frames-of-reference) refer to the references (conceptual, abstract, beliefs, etc.) that we use and connect to things, events, words, etc.
Neuro-linguisticand neuro-semantic reality begin not with the world as such, but with our thoughts about the world. Apart from our associations, nothing means anything. Apart from our thoughts, events occur. Things happen. Sights, sounds, sensations, etc.
stimulate our sense receptors.
Then the magic begins. We see, hear, and feel such and so represent it and connecf (or associate) it with other sights, sounds, and sensations, and then later, connect to it even higher level abstractions. Thus we give it "meaning."
Giving or attributing meaning to something (to anything) involves an associative process. We link the external event, action, or behavior up with some internal representation or thought. Sounds simple enough, right?
This seemingly simple and obvious linkage begins the creation of "meaning." What does anything mean anyway?
What does "fire" mean? It all depends upon what any given individual (or animal) has connected, linked, or associated with it. This sends us back to experiences. Have we seen and experienced fire only as campfireswhen camping, and associated with food, marshmellows, companionship, etc.? Then the external behavior (EB) of "fire" means (relates to, causes, connects up with, etc.) the internal state of fun, delight, joy, togetherness, attraction, excitement, etc.
How very, very different for the person whose experience of "fire" relates to getting burned, feeling physical pain, seeing a home destroyed, etc. What does "fire" mean to that person? Again, it all depends on what that person—conceptually and mentally—has connected to, and associated, with "fire." For that person, "fire" probably means hurt, pain, loss, grief, aversion, etc.
So what does 'Tire" really mean? (Get ready for a surprise.) It "really" "means" nothing. Fire only exists as a certain event of change in the external world. Alone—unconnected by and to consciousness, it has no meaning. Nothing has any meaning. Meaning only and exclusively arises when a consciousness comes along and connects a thing to an internal reference. Then we have a frame-of-reference. We might have "fire" seen, heard, felt, and languaged from the frame of a campfire or from a home burning down. And in either case—
the frame completely and absolutely controls or governs the meaning.
In fact, we cannot even understand the EB (External Behavior or event) apart from the frame. Apart from the frame, we don't know anything about its meaning to another person. Apart from knowing their frame—we tend to use our frames-of-references and so impose our meanings upon them.
So what do we have? We have two major factors, one external, the other internal. The external component: Events. The internal component: a nervous system taking cognizance of the event. (Cognizance means awareness.) We cognize the event via our sensory-system languages: visual sights (V), auditory sounds (A), kinesthetic sensations (K), olfactory smells (0), and gustatory tastes (G) as well as by our digital language system of words (Ad).
These two phenomena occur at different levels and in different dimensions. But when we connect them, we have suddenly created neuro-linguistic meaning/magic.
In formula format we have:
External Behavior = Internal State
This creates the basic frame-of-reference that we use to attribute meaning to things. It explains not only how humans make meaning, but how animals can also experience and develop associative learning and understandings. Things get connected to things. Things of the outside world (events, behaviors) get associated with internal feelings, moods, states, ideas, understandings, values, etc. And when they do—we develop a meta-level phenomenon that we call "beliefs."
Once we have a frame (as in the above formula: (EB=IS), we don't stop there. Animals generally do, but not us humans. No way.
We have a special kind of consciousness that reflects back onto itself (which we more technically call, self-reflexive consciousness). So wheneverwe have a thought, "I like fire; it makes me feel warm and loved." "I hate fire. Fire is scary; it makes me shutter just to think about it," we never leave it there. We then complicate matters (wouldn't you know it?) by then having a thought about that thought!
(a meta-frame). "I hate it that I fear fire so much." Nor do we leave it alone at that level, we bring even more thoughts to bear on the thoughts, etc.
"Why do I let fire frighten me so much? I should get over this thing. What's wrong with me anyway that I can't be more reasonable? Well, I guess I'm stuck for life. Once you've had a traumatic experience like that, it seals your fate."
Now we have a real neuro-semantic muddle, do we not? To the original relations and connections that the person made with fire, the person has layered on more and more abstract ideas. This creates not only beliefs, but belief systems, then belief systems about belief systems, etc. Or, to use the metaphor of a frame, the thoughts that we bring to bear on our earlier thoughts, set up a frame-of-reference around a frame, and then a frame around that frame, etc.
Once we have a basic frame established (EB=IS), then we can set a frame above that frame (a meta-frame or an out-frame). Or we could set a frame-of-reference (thoughts) about it prior to it.
Parents do this for kids regarding experiences (events) yet to come, "Now don't fall into the fire—that would be terrible!" In addition to pre-framing, we can frame events and behaviors afterwards (post-framing). 'Yep, sonny, if you burned yourself in a fire once, you are likely to do it again and again!" How do you like that post-frame as a way of thinking? Pretty shoddy and muddled thinking, right? (This also will typically operate as a "post hypnotic suggestion.")
We can de-frame by undermining the EB=IS formula. Asking specific questions about either the EB or the IS tends to pull apart the thought-construction (belief, meaning equation). "When did you get burned?" "In what circumstances?" "What did you learn from that?" "Have you used that learning to not repeat that experience?"
We can even do some fancy kind of mental gymnastics with our thought equation. We can, for example, counter-frame We can ask or suggest experiences that counter to the EB=IS equation. "Have you ever been around a campfire and enjoyed cooking a hotdog over the fire?" "How fearful and worried do you get when you strike a match and light candles on a birthday cake?"
These frames-of-frames provide numerous additional ways to reframe. We not only do not have to stay inside our magical belief/meaning box (thank God!), we can step outside that box and send our consciousness (or someone else's) in one or more of several directions. We can go way down deep inside the box and ask specific questions of the qualities of our modality representations (and the submodality qualities of those). Doing this deframes.
Or, we can reframe by going in one of two horizontal directions. We can go over to the left to a time prior to the frame-of-reference (the EB=IS formula) and preframe the subsequent response. Or, we can go over to the right to a time later to the basic first level meaning, and postframe it as meaning or suggesting something new and different.
Or, we can move up and outframe as we set up a whole new frame-of-reference with a thought-about-that thought. This steps outside of the frame or context and generates a whole new context, a context-of-a-context.
In the chapters to come, you will learn to make these conceptual (magical) shifts as you learn to use various mind-lines to alter neuro-linguistic and neuro-semantic realities. As we do, this process will expand our sense of choice. We will get more and more of a sense that we have so many options about our meaning attributions. It will develop and expand our sense of flexibility (of mind, emotion, and language). This training in language patterning skills will enrich our communication skills, making us more effective and professional, more elegant in persuasion, and more influential. (This preframes you for this study, if you didn't notice.)
This directionalizing and re-directionalizingof consciousness, sending it out in new and different ways so that we construct new and different meanings, empowering meanings that frame our experiential lives so that it makes us more resourceful, insightful, wise, thoughtful, etc., summarizes the neuro-semantic process.
In NLP circles, this has previously been designed, "Sleight of Mouth" Patterns. In this work we will seldom use this designation. Why not? Because we have found that most people relate and experience some negative connotations to the phrase "Sleight of Mouth" patterns. All too frequently it raises thoughts of manipulation, control, pulling something over on someone, etc. In order to stay away from that and to still exult in the neuro-linguistic magic, we will refer to them as Mind-Lines or magical lines.
By Mind-Lines we refer to the fact that the lines (the linguistic constructions) that we connect and associate to things, create meaning formulas (EB=IS). These then operate as mental constructs that carry tremendous neurological effects. Thus as we change the lines that we use in our minds (and those we use on the minds of others), we change, alter, and transform "reality." We, at least, transform neuro-semantic reality. And by the changing of meaning, our emotions change, as do our behaviors, habits, moods, attitudes, skills, health, etc. and our life.
The following Chart overviews and summarizes the seven basic mind-shifting directions and the twenty different mind-line patterns for reframing reality. This chart represents our latest thinking about this magical neuro-linguistic art.
The Mind-Lines Model Chart
'O First Outcome // #9 Ootcome of Outcome /2. #10 Futnre Time Outcome
Cognter> Example g #6 Positive
Intent Q m Positive Cause m,M ReOeiively Apply to Self Listener
The Magic boi The Belief/ Meaning Formula
Chunk Down MD and SBMD
Control Rrf. Of IS
Was this article helpful?