Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry Share Next Entry
Моделируем "meta experience" (1) Онтология "meta experience"
metanymous wrote in metapractice

What is the Experience of “Meta”?

Posted by: Steve Andreas in: Articles

What is the Experience of “Meta”?
A dialogue between Steve Andreas and Michael Hall

Some time ago, I (Steve) made the following general proposal to Michael for a dialogue to exemplify a respectful exchange of views in the field:

In the past, you and I have had significantly different fundamental understandings on a number of issues that could be the basis for a public dialogue between us, such as:

1. Whether or not it is important to distinguish between two uses of “meta” to refer to large scope (“the big picture”) or general category — a topic I explored at length in my Six Blind Elephants books.

2. My description of your concept of “layering” as the reverse of nested categories in the logical levels of naïve set theory, as set forth in Elephants, pp. 114-116

3. Whether Submodalities are meta or subdivisions of scopes of experience.

Of course you may have changed your views on one or more of these issues, or you might prefer to choose others. Assuming we could agree on an interesting issue on which we have differing views, I have some fairly specific ideas about how to create a respectful dialogue to avoid misunderstandings, side issues, etc.

Privately one of us would write up a position statement on the selected issue, and the other would respond to it in writing. Then we would each edit or revise our positions until we are both satisfied that we have had an opportunity to present our position fully, respond fully to the other’s position, and that we each understand the other clearly, to avoid problems like, “Well, that’s not what I said,” or “That’s what I said, but what I really meant was—” etc. This would also be an opportunity for each of us to notice any “ad hominem” arguments or other logical fallacies, and remove them.

After we are both satisfied with the result of this process, we would jointly offer this to the public (the summit group, your and my blogs) and invite comments from others.

I think this could serve as an example of working toward clarification or resolution of important issues that currently divide or confuse the field. Please let me know if you might be interested in joining with me on this, and/or if you have other views on how we could better accomplish the goal of presenting contrasting views in a way that could provide a productive dialogue.

Michael agreed in principle, and sent me a number of different extensive position statements on the meaning of “Meta,” and I take this as an invitation to focus on this topic. I prefer to begin with a more concise statement for our dialogue, but other writing projects (and my struggle with greatly diminished energy due to Parkinson’s disease) have delayed me until now. ... http://realpeoplepress.com/blog/what-is-the-experience-of-meta?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+SteveAndreasNlpBlog+%28Steve+Andreas%27+NLP+Blog%29

Мета опыт


Lots of things happen simultaneously in the meta process. By “going meta” you 1) classify an item. You put it in a certain category and this delimits what’s in that category. 2) Qualify or texture the items in that classification. 3) Govern the experience as it sets up the “rules” for how the experience now operates.

Re: The Meta Functions

1) Classify. “The context (or meta-message) classifies the message…” (Bateson, 1972, p. 247). “In human life … there occur signals whose major function is to classify contexts” … context markers (Bateson, 1972, p. 289). With each new frame we simultaneously set an internal context for our experience. Each meta-level is simultaneously a meta-state, named by some meta-term, a frame, an inner context.

2) Qualify. “All messages and parts of messages are like phrases or segments of equations which a mathematician puts in brackets. Outside the brackets there may always be a qualifier or multiplier which will alter the whole tenor of the phrase.” (Bateson, 1972, p. 232). As a higher level is set to classify members of the set, it modulates and qualifies their members.

3) Govern. “… in the process of therapy, there must have been communication at a level meta to these rules. There must have been communication about a change in rules.” (Bateson, 1972, p. 191). The higher modulates the lower as the bias set in a thermostat controls the range of flexibility of temperature in a room.

4) Expand Perspective. The process of moving up to a meta or higher level simultaneously expands one’s perspective. When a person moves from a particular to more general and abstract level (the class or category), the person at the same time gains a broader perspective of a large horizon.

5) Gestalt and Emergence. The process of “going meta” is not always additive, in fact, it is more typically exponential. It multiples things so that a gestalt experience arises. Then something “more than and different from the sum of the parts” arise. This is an emergent property in a system of multiple variables. Many complex states (courage, forgiveness, self-esteem, seeing opportunity, etc.) are gestalt states.

Two Worlds: Newtonian (Substance) and Communication (Form)

Two Worlds: Newtonian (Substance) and Communication (Form)

Bateson constantly spoke about two worlds which operate by different principles and “dynamics.” He emphasized that while the term “dynamics” can be used literally for the Newtonian wolrd, it can only be used metaphorically for the inner world of communication.

“The difference between the Newtonian world and the world of communication is simply this: that the Newtonian world ascribes reality to objects and achieves its simplicity by excluding the context of the context — excluding indeed all meta-relationships —a fortiori excluding an infinite regress of such relations.” (Bateson, 1972, p. 250, italics added)

“The explanatory world of substance can invoke no differences and no ideas but only forces and impacts. And per contra, the world of form and communication invokes no things, forces, or impacts but only differences and ideas.” (Bateson, 1972, p. 271, also p. 489)

For the world of communication, we use our self-reflexivity to move up a logical level to set a frame-of-reference about our experience in the Newtonian world. Doing this creates a meta-level state, an inner context of understanding, which then defines the pattern — “a contextual structure, a set of rules for how to put the information together” (Bateson, p. 276). Together all of these variables make up the human mind-body-emotion system. This gives us a holistic system with feedback and feed-forward communication loops.

Креатура –> человеческая активность (ЧА) -> МЕТА ЧА

Bateson constantly spoke about two worlds which operate by different principles and “dynamics.” He emphasized that while the term “dynamics” can be used literally for the Newtonian wolrd, it can only be used metaphorically for the inner world of communication.
Бейтсон постоянно говорил о двух мирах, которые действуют по разным принципам и «динамике». Он подчеркнул, что, хотя термин «динамика» можно использовать буквально для ньютоновского мира, его можно использовать только метафорически для внутреннего мира общения.

И более общее названием этим двум мирам в упоминаниях Бейтсона есть «мир живого» - креатура и «мир неживого» - плерома.

Для моделирования важно чисто волевым усилим сделать два ограничения. Первое: ограничиться рассмотрением только креатуры – живого мира. И второе: среди форм активности креатуры рассматривать только человеческую активность.

И почему такие ограничения? По двум соображениям:

--лично и тесно знакомый с Милтоном Эриксоном, сам Бейтсон отказался от рассмотрения его наработок в своих трудах. Неофициально изучал, а официально – нет.
--Гриндер, так много сил потративший на построение теоретического аналога бейтсонианской «эпистемологии всего» - на построение своей гриндеровской «теории эмерджентности» , до сих пор не продемонстрировал ничего внятного

..и Бейтсон и Гриндер в основе своих построений рассматривали и креатуру, и плерому. Из этого наблюдения метапрактики сделали свой вывод в духе Козьмы Пруткова – нельзя объять необъятное.

В разработках моделирования следует рассматривать только ЧЕЛОВЕЧЕСКУЮ АКТИВНОСТЬ. И формы мета опыта искать только относительно человеческой активности.

The Meta of Meta-States

Structurally, a meta-state stands in special relationship to a state. The second state relates to the primary state as a higher awareness about the lower state. The junior state functions as a member of the class defined by the higher state. The higher or meta-state functions as a category for understanding and feeling about the lower.

That’s why “fear of our anger” (fearful anger) differs in texture so much from “respect of our anger” (respectful anger).

That’s why “shame about getting angry because it only turns things nasty” differs so much in texture to “appreciation of my powers to get angry because it informs me that some perceived value or understanding feels violated and allows me to respectfully explore the situation anger.”

As a higher logical level, the mental and emotional frames that we bring to our primary experiences represent the governing influences of beliefs, decisions, identities, etc. The higher frame, as a message about the lower experience, modulates, organizes, and governs it. It functions like a self-organizing attractor in the mind-body system. In your meta-states, you will find values, beliefs, expectations, understandings, identifications, etc. Some will be obvious and explicit, others will be hidden and convert.

Мета ЧА имеет эмерджентное отличие от исходного элеме

Structurally, a meta-state stands in special relationship to a state. The second state relates to the primary state as a higher awareness about the lower state. The junior state functions as a member of the class defined by the higher state. The higher or meta-state functions as a category for understanding and feeling about the lower.
Структурно мета-состояния имеет особое отношение к состояниям. Второе состояние относится к первому состоянию как к более высокому осознанию нижнего состояния. Младшее состояние функционирует как член класса, определенного высшим состоянием. Высшее или мета-состояние функционирует как категория для понимания и восприятия более низкого.

Всё хорошо про состояния и мета-состояния излагает Холл, пока не дошел до фразы: «The higher or meta-state functions as a category for understanding and feeling about the lower”, которая категорически неверная. Ибо, мета-состояние может сколько угодно регулировать своё подведомственное состояние, при этом, «управление» может не иметь никакого отношения к «понимаю» низшего состояния. Это если мы судим, находясь в первой позиции субъекта, испытывающего указанные состояния. Просто, Холл, совершенно не контролирует ролевые позиции моделирования в своих рассуждениях – когда од ведёт рассмотрение от лица субъекта, когда от лица оператора, когда от лица контроллера/ моделиста.

Так вот, чтобы проредить созданное Холлом чрезмерное сгущение слово/ термино-употребления «мета», введём уточнение: в качестве мета опыта человеческой активности, который начинаем анализировать в роли оператора, мы выбираем только такие производные «мета», которые эмерджентно отличаются от своего первоначального опыта. Т.е. содержат некое новое мощно выраженное свойство/ качество.

В сфере состояний и эмоций для субъекта полным-полно таких формальных мета, которые, фактически, не очень-то различаются между собой.

A word that is a close synonym of meta is frame. A frame is a perceptual filter, it sets a category or a class, it is an interpretative schema as a structure whereby we attribute meaning to things. And similar to meta, it does many things simultaneously. As such it manages meaning, governs attention, controls responses, creates an orientation, orders (organizes) perception, punctuates a series of events, etc.

“Within dream or fantasy the dreamer does not operate with the concept ‘untrue.’ He operates with all sorts of statements but with a curious inabiity to achieve meta-statements. He cannot … dream a statement referring to (i.e., framing) his dream.” (Bateson, 1972, p. 185)

“The first step in defining a psychological frame might be to say that it is (or delimits) a class or set of messages.” (p. 186)

“While the analogy of the mathematical set is perhaps over abstract, the analogy of the picture frame is excessively concrete. The psychological concept which we are trying to define is neither physical nor logical. … Psychological frames are exclusive, i.e., by including certain messages within a frame, certain other messages are excluded. Psychological frames are inclusive, i.e., by excluding certain messages certain others are included. …” (187)

“A frame is meta-communicative. Any message, which either explicitly or implicitly defines a frame, ipso facto gives the receiver instructions or aids in his attempt to understand the messages included within the frame.” (188)

МЕТА: = фрейму (Холл) vs = паттерну [фрейму](Метапрактик)

A word that is a close synonym of meta is frame. A frame is a perceptual filter, it sets a category or a class, it is an interpretative schema as a structure whereby we attribute meaning to things. And similar to meta, it does many things simultaneously. As such it manages meaning, governs attention, controls responses, creates an orientation, orders (organizes) perception, punctuates a series of events, etc.
Слово, которое является близким синонимом мета, является фреймом. Фрейм является перцепционным фильтром, он устанавливает категорию или класс, это интерпретационная схема как структура, посредством которой мы приписываем смысл вещам. И подобно мета, он делает много вещей одновременно. Как таковой он управляет смыслом, управляет вниманием, контролирует ответы, создает ориентацию, упорядочивает (организует) восприятие, акцентирует ряд событий и т. д.

(I) Ну, если сохранять избыточность в словоупотреблении термина «мета», тогда фрейм/ рамка можно отнести в категорию психологических феноменов опыта переживаний мета. Это вариант определения Холла.

(II) Но, вот если мы рассмотрим такую цитату:
"Форма и паттерн в антропологии"/Бейтсон: "Шаги к экологии разума"
"Смысл" можно рассматривать как приблизительный синоним слов "паттерн", "избыточность", "информация" и как ограничение внутри следующей парадигмы.
Следует считать, что некоторый конгломерат событий или объектов (например, последовательность фонем, картина, лягушка или культура) содержит "избыточность" ("паттерн"), если этот конгломерат некоторым способом может быть разделен "чертой" таким образом, что наблюдатель, воспринимающий только то, что находится по одну сторону этой черты, может догадаться (с успехом, превышающим случайный), что же находится по другую сторону черты. Мы можем сказать, что то, что находится по одну сторону черты, содержит информацию (смысл) того, что находится по другую сторону. На инженерном языке можно сказать, что конгломерат содержит "избыточность". С точки зрения наблюдателя-кибернетика, информация, доступная по одну сторону черты, будет ограничивать ошибочное угадывание (т.е. снижать его вероятность).

…рассмотрели цитату и получили вот такое вероятное построение/ определение более «мощного мета», развиваемого в подходе метапрактика: конгломерат событий, объектов, феноменов и прочее создает ИЗБЫТОЧНОСТЬ, выражающуюся, в том числе, в соседстве и ПЕРЕСЕЧЕНИИ множества ФРЕЙМОВ. И некоторые из границ пересечения ФРЕЙМОВ формируют/ содержат ПАТТЕРНЫ/ закономерности, выражающие связь между соседними ФРЕЙМАМИ.

В метапрактике мы считаем, что более «мощное» МЕТА ЕСТЬ ПАТТЕРН, сформированный на границах двух соседствующих ФРЕЙМОВ, включающих в себя конгломерат событий, объектов, феноменов.

Edited at 2018-01-18 01:39 pm (UTC)

When Meta becomes Systemic

When we tease apart the structure of our higher frames-of-references (or meta-states) from the primary experiences we do so to create clarity about the inherent structure within complex states. In actual practice, however, primary and meta levels of experiences or states merge into one unit. Research scientist Arthur Koestler introduced the term “holons” to describe reality as composed of “whole/parts.” These whole/parts holons refer to any “entity” that is itself a whole and yet simultaneously a part of some other whole.

“To explain the observed phenomena we always have to consider the wider context of the learning experiment.” Why? “The larger context may change the sign of the reinforcement proposed by a given message, and evidently the larger context may also change the mnode – may place the message in the category of humor, metaphor, etc. … The context (or meta-message) classifies the message, but can never meet it on equal terms.” (Bateson, 1972, p. 246-247)

This means several things. First as holons, we experience our “states” as a whole. We experience confidence, courage, commitment, playfulness, joy, flow, etc. as a whole experience and not as the various variables that make up the experience. Yet second, each exists as a part of some larger whole. Within the holistic experience there is a part/whole structured experience — inner contexts and contexts-of-contexts.

As a system, we now have systemic properties arising. We have the emergence of new qualities. By transcending the current state or experience and including it, we put the experience within a higher frame.

In systems, the new gestalt is “more than and different from the sum of the parts.” Merely adding all of the parts together does not, and cannot, explain what emerges. Emergence occurs as new properties arise and there is a leap upward to a higher form of organization.

“So there are both discontinuties in evolution —mind cannot be reduced to life, and life cannot be reduced to matter; and there are continuities ..” (Ken Wilber, 1996, p. 24)

Each higher level embraces and engulfs the lower. When you take a primary state like anger or confidence and set various frames on it, you create the possibility for new emergent properties to emerge.

Imagine embracing your anger with acceptance, appreciation, and then wonder. Imagine engulfing it in love, respect, and honor. Imagine applying mindfulness, values, and patience to it. Imagine bringing ecology concerns, moral uprightness, and honor to it. Mix well. Put into the oven of your mind, let it bake for awhile…

Re: When Meta becomes Systemic

Imagine embracing your power to take action in the world with acceptance and appreciation. Imagine engulfing it with ownership, excitement, and joy. Imagine applying hope, desired outcomes, willingness to take intelligent risks, love, and concern for others, to it. Mix all of these well in a state of contemplative relaxation. Let it bake as you learn and explore and develop…

Do this and you will texture your state. You can now create calm respectful anger. If you take charge of the process, you can design the kind of quality states that will enhance your life. To transcend an everyday state, begin with the primary level of consciousness, notice your thoughts and feelings about something. As your primary state, your awareness focuses on something external to yourself. You fear driving fast, closed in places, particular tones of voices. You get angry at insults. You delight in and enjoy the beauty of a scene or a piece of music.

You then transcend this experience including it as you move up to a chose meta-awareness. This creates a new level of organization. You now have something higher that still contains the essentials of the lower plus something else.

In respect, considerate, and patient anger — you still have anger. You still have the sense of threat or danger to your person, yet the anger is now textured in larger levels of mind and emotion causing something new to emerge. You have the anger state plus something that transcends the anger. Perhaps you have thoughtful anger or respectful anger.

By transcending the lower, you add new features, qualities, properties, and characteristics. You now have the ability to engineer new emergent properties for your states. It gives us the key to the structure of subjectivity as experiences become more complex and layered.

When your learning is taken up into playfulness and appreciation, when you engulf it with passion and the intention to improve the quality of life — something new emerges. You have a passionate and accelerated learning state.

Psycho-Logical Levels and States

When we put a state like anger or fear inside another state (i.e., calmness, respect, gentleness, courage, etc.), we change the internal logic of our nervous system. And in doing this we also change our way of thinking. We create what Alfred Korzybski called “psycho-logic.”

Anger now becomes a member of the class of calmness. Or it could become a member of the class of respect. This completely re-creates one’s “logic,” way of reasoning and generates a very new and different way of responding. Normally (what’s the norm in most cultures) anger is a member of the class of threatening things or personal insult. To put it into a new classification re-creates a new psycho-logic for a person’s state and experience.

Страх внутри спокойствия превратится в ОБЩИЙ СТРАХ.

When we put a state like anger or fear inside another state (i.e., calmness, respect, gentleness, courage, etc.), we change the internal logic of our nervous system. And in doing this we also change our way of thinking. We create what Alfred Korzybski called “psycho-logic.”
Когда мы ставим состояние, подобное гневу или страху внутри другого состояния (т. е. спокойствие, уважение, кротость, мужество и т. Д.), Мы меняем внутреннюю логику нашей нервной системы. И при этом мы также меняем наш образ мышления. Мы создаем то, что Альфред Коржибский назвал «психо-логией».

Тут важна последовательность. Как отмечал Ричард Бандлер:

Однажды я видел, как терапевт за один сеанс сделал агорафобика. Он был милый, благонамеренный человек, любящий своих пациентов. У нет были годы клинической подготовки - но не было ни малейшего представления о том, что он делает. Его клиент пришел с конкретной фобией высоты. Терапевт предложил этому парню закрыть глаза и подумать о высоте. А-а-п - парень краснеет и начинает дрожать. "Теперь подумай о чем-то, что тебя ободрит". Ф-ф-у-у. Теперь подумай о высоте. А-а-п. "Теперь подумай о том, как ты спокойно ведешь машину". Ф-ф-у-у. "Теперь подумай о высоте". А-а-п.
Этот парень кончил фобическими ощущениями по поводу почти всего в жизни -- что часто называют агорафобией. То, что сделал терапевт, было блестяще -- в некотором смысле. Он изменил ощущения своего клиента путем связывания переживаний. Вот только сделанный им выбор ощущения, подлежащего генерализации, в мои представления о наилучшем выборе не вписывается. Он привязал панические эмоции этого человека ко всем тем контекстам его жизни, которые производили ободряющий эффект. Вы можете использовать в точности этот же процесс, чтобы взять приятное ощущение и генерализовать его таким же образом. Если бы этот терапевт понимал процесс, который использовал, то мог бы обернуть его на сто восемьдесят градусов.
Ричард Бендлер. Используйте свой мозг для изменений http://lib.ru/NLP/bend05.txt_with-big-pictures.html

Так что ест две большие разницы между опытами, в которых:

(а) ставим состояние, подобное гневу или страху внутри другого состояния (т. е. спокойствие, уважение, кротость, мужество и т. д.)
(б) ставим состояние, подобное спокойствию, уважению, кротости, мужеству внутри другого состояния типа гнева или страха

…природе не случайно создала такие аффекты типа страха, гнева и т.п., чтобы они обладали способностью ПРЕРЫВАНИЯ любых других состояний и/ или эмоций. Прерывали, а затем, и перекрывали их. Страх внутри спокойствия, в итоге, превратится в страх.

“Levels” and “Types” as Synonyms

When we move from one level to the next higher “logical” level, to its classification, it is simultaneously at a higher logical type. In this the terminology of level and type are synonyms of each other. When you put one thought-feeling at a meta-relationship to another, the higher level operates as a category of the lower level. This is what we mean by both “logical types” and “logical levels.” One state is a “logical” relationship to another so it is at a higher level and is about the other.

The phrase “logical level” is comprised of two abstractions or nominalizations. For “logical” we have logic, logos, so the hidden verb is reasoning, a way of computing information. For “level” we have layers and the hidden verb layering. So with a “logical level” we refer to the process of reasoning that layers one thing upon another. When you hunt for a “logical type or level” you look at how a mind is classifying, categorizing, or punctuating things. That’s where a “logical type or level” exists — in a mind that represents categories and levels or orders of abstractions.

What is a logical level?

“In our brain structure, language, and perceptual systems there are natural hierarchies or levels of experiences. The effect of each level is to organize and control the information on the level below it. Changing something on an upper level would necessarily change things on the lower levels; changing something on a lower level could but would not necessarily affect the upper levels.” (Dilts, Epstein, Dilts, 1991, p. 26, italics added).

“Logical Levels: an internal hierarchy in which each level is progressively more psychologically encompassing and impactful” (1990: 217, italics added).

“Logical typing occurs where there is a discontinuity (as opposed to a continuity, as with the hierarchies) between levels of classification. This kind of discontinuity is exemplified:

Re: “Levels” and “Types” as Synonyms

  1. a) in mathematic, by the restriction that a class cannot be a member of itself nor can one of the members be the class.
  2. b) in logic, by the solution to the classic logical paradox, ‘This statement is false.’ (If the statement is true, it is false, and if it is false, then it is true, and so on.) The actual truth value of the statement is of a different logical type than the statement itself.
  3. c) in behavior, by the fact that the reinforcement rules for exploration in animals is of a completely different nature than those for the process of testing that occurs in the act of exploration.” (1983: 24).

“The informational effects between levels and types is called feedback and is probably the major distinguishing feature of cybernetic systems.” (1983: 39)

“Differences of the same or different logical type interacting at different levels (hierarchical or logical respectively) will result in the modulation of the difference on the lower level.” (1983: 49)


Gregory Bateson:

A Logical Type: 1) The name is not the thing named but is of different logical type, higher than the thing named. 2) The class is of different logical type, higher than that of its members. (Mary Catherine Bateson, 1987, pp. 209-210).


Bateson’s interchangeable use of “Levels” and “Types”

In Steps to an Ecology of Mind (1972/2000), Bateson defines “logical types” in terms of levels of abstraction and quotes Korzybski’s map-territory distinction (p. 180). The following highlights his use of levels and types.

“… a frame is meta-communicative. Any message, which either explicitly or implicitly defines a frame, ipso facto gives the receiver instructions or aids in his attempt to understand the message included within the frame.

… Every meta-communicative or meta-linguistic message defines, either explicitly or implicitly, the set of messages about which it communicates, i.e., every meta-communicative message is or defines a psychological frame. (p. 188)

“No class can be a member of itself. The picture frame then, because it delimits a background, is here regarded as an external representation of a very special and important type of psychological frame — namely a frame whose function is to delimit a logical type.” (189)

In his chapter “Toward a Theory of Schizophrenia” Bateson describes “how humans handle communication involving multiple Logical Types” (p. 203). In that section he writes the following:

“Multiple levels of learning and the Logical Typing of signals. These are two inseparable sets of phenomena — inseparable because the ability to handle the multiple types of signals is itself a learned skill and therefore a function of the multiple levels of learning.” (204)

From Mind and Nature (1979), Bateson defines “mind” as involving processes of transformation that discloses “a hierarchy of logical types immanent in the phenomena.” (p. 122).

“I shall try to drive home the importance of this criterion by exhibiting cases in which the discrimination of levels of communication has been so confused or distorted that various sorts of frustration and pathology have been the result.” (122)

Re: Bateson’s interchangeable use of “Levels” and “Types”

He then speaks about signals that we emit and then about another class of information that tells us about the coding of messages or indications from the person. These he calls meta-messages (p. 122-123). In so explaining “logical types” he then says,

“All this is premised on the existence of levels whose nature I am here trying to make clear. We start with a potential differentiation between action in context and action or behavior which defines context or makes context intelligible. … I refer to the latter type of communication as meta-communication… A function, an effect, of the meta-message is in fact to classify the messages that occur within its contexts.” (p. 124).

“The more appropriate question would be: At what level of logical typing does genetic command act in the determining of this characteristic? The answer to this question will always take the form: At one logical level higher than the observed ability of the organism to achieve learning or bodily change by somatic process.” (175)

“In sum, each of these disasters will be found to contain an error in logical typing. In spite of immediate gain at one logical level, the sign is reversed and benefit becomes calamity in some other, larger and longer, context.” (189)

In describing the “levels of control of house temperature” Bateson used arrows to mark the direction of control in the system. It zigzagged from Personal status to Genetics and training to personal threshold, to “too cold” or “too hot” to bias to oscillating temperature. To all of this Bateson commented:

“With each zigzag of the ladder, the sphere of relevance increases. In other words, there is a change in logical typing of the information collected by the sense organ at each level.” (215)

“To jump downward two or more steps in the hierarchy is likewise undesirable … the effect of any such jumping of levels, upward or downward, is that information appropriate as a basis for decision at one level will be used as basis for decision at some other level, a common variety of error in logical typing.” (216)

Bateson, Gregory. (1972/ 2000). Steps to an Ecology of Mind. Chicago: The University of Chicago.

Bateson, Gregory. (1979). Mind and Nature. Chicago: The University of Chicago.

Dilts, Robert; Bandler, Richard; Grinder, John. (1980). Neuro-Linguistic Programming, Volume I. Cupertino CA: Meta Publications.

Hall, L. Michael (1995/2000). Meta-States: Mastering the Higher Levels of the Mind. Clifton, CO: NSP.

Hall, Michael. (1997). NLP: Going Meta — Advance Modeling Using Meta-Levels. Clifton, CO: NS Publications.

Hall, L. Michael; Bodenhamer, Bobby. (1999/ 2005). Sub-Modalities Going Meta. Clifton, CO: Neuro-Semantic Publications.

Hall, L. Michael (2000). Winning the Inner Games. Clifton, CO: Neuro-Semantic Publications.

Wilber, Ken. (1996). A Brief History of Everything. Boston MA: Shambhal.

Watzlawick, Paul; Weakland, John H.; Fisch, Richard. (1974). Change: Principles of Problem Formation and Problem Resolution. New York: W.W. Norton and Company.

Watzlawick, Paul. (1984). The Invented Reality: How do we know what we believe we know? New York: W.W. Norton and Company.

  1. Bruce Grimley

    03|Jan|2018 1

    What a respectful and educational format. I hope NLP as a group learn from this and adopt it when discussing differences in the future. Thank you, Steve and Michael, for your discussion and with best wishes, :-)