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

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.

  • 1