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


  • 1

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.

  • 1