The Structure of Magic vol. I by Richard Bandler, John Grinder

[Michal]

I found this book very interesting and useful for my understanding of how in my language I reflect what are my convictions about my experiences and how I have made and am making my own model of the world.
From chapter Warning to the Reader page 1:

[...Continuing with the example of human languages, the number of possible sentences in each human language (e.g., English, Spanish, etc.) is infinite. In other words, the number of verbal descriptions of human experiences is limitless. At the same time, the number of forms (syntax) in which this infinite set of meanings is represented is highly restricted - hass structure - and, therefore, may be described by set of rules. ...]

And than in chapter The Structure of Choice page 7:

[... We as human beings do not operate directly on the world. Each of us creates a representation of the world in which we live - that is, we create a map or model which we use to generate our behavior. Our representation of the world determines to a large degree what our experience of the world will be, how we will perceive the world, what choices we will see available to us as we live in the world. (...)
No two human beings have exactly the same experiences. The model that we create to guide us in the world is based in part upon our experiences. Each of us may, then, create a different model of the world we share and thus come to live in a somewhat different reality.

and than cited after A. Korzybski

[... important characteristics of maps should be noted. A map is not the territory it represents, but, if correct, it has a similar structure to the territory, which accounts for its usefulness...] Science and Sanity, 4th Ed., 1958, pp. 58-60

From chapter The Structure of Chocie, Models and Therapy page 13:

[... Our experience has been that, when people come to us in therapy, they typically come with pain, feeling themselves paralyzed, experiencing no choices or freedom of action in their lives. What we have found is not that the world is too limited or that there are no choices, but that these people block themselves from seeing those options and possibilities that are open to them since they are not available in their models of their world. ...]

Same chapter:

[... In coming to uderstand how it is that some people continue to cause themselves pain and anguish, it has been important for us to realize that they are not bad, crazy, or sick. They are, in fact, making the best choices from those of which they are aware, that is, the best choices available in their own particular model. In other words, human beings' behavior, no matter how bizzare it may first appear to be, makes sense when it is seen in the context of the choices generated by their model. The difficulty is not that they are making the wrong choice, but that they do not have enough choices - they don't have a richly focused image of the world. The most pervasive paradox of the human condition which we see is that the processes which allow us to survive, grow, change, and experience joy are the same processes which allow us to maintain an impoverished model of the world - our ability to manipulate symbols, that is, to create models. So the processes which allow us to accomplish the most extraordinary and unique human activities are the same processes which block our further growth if we commit the error of mistaking the model for the reality. We can identify three general mechanisms by which we do this: Generalization, Deletion, and Distortion. ...]

 

[Buddy]

I found this book very interesting and useful for my understanding of how in my language I reflect what are my convictions about my experiences and how I have made and am making my own model of the world.

Very interesting, Mikel. Do you have a good grounding in basic dissociation and narcissism as laid out in our Big 5 recommended reading? I ask because it made a great foundation for me when I was studying Bateson's work and R.D. Laing's work, not to mention some of the NLP stuff as it relates to my own early "neuro-linguistic" programming.

In case other readers are interested, here's the full title of the Book:

The Structure of Magic, Vol. I
A Book about Language and Therapy

...and some comments from an associated web page on the chapter on Psychotherapy:

[...]
Bandler and Grinder had [already] begun laying the foundation for the field of neurolinguistic programming (NLP) which was to follow in a few years. This was the book which started it all. This book was the first blaze on a trail into understanding, to be succeeded by "Structure of Magic II", "Changing with Families", and "The Hypnotic Patterns of Milton H. Erickson, MD I and II."
[...]
[page vii, viii Virginia Satir (from her Foreword to the book)] ... two intriguing, smart, young men . . . seem to have come up with a description of the predictable elements that make change happen in a transaction between two people. Knowing what these elements are makes it possible to use them consciously and, thus, to have useful methods for inducing change. . . . What they learned relates particularly, in a sophisticated way, to mathematics, physics, neurology and linguistics.

Use the last two fields Satir mentions, neurology and linguistics, and orchestrate with them conscious applications of inducing change and you have the seed of the new field of neurolinguistic programming (NLP).
Source: _http://www.doyletics.com/art/som1art.htm

 

[Michal]

Taken from chapter "The Structure of Choice" page 14-17:

[...Generalization is the process by which elements or pieces of a person's model become detached from their original experience and come to represent the entire category of which the experience is an example. Our ability to generalize is essential to coping with the world. For example, it is useful for us to be able go generalize from the experience of being burned when we touch a hot stove to a rule that hot stoves are not to be touched. But to generalize this experience to a perception that stoves are dangerous and , therefore, to refuse to be in the same room with one is to limit unnecessarily our movement in the world.
Suppose that the first few times a child is arround a rocking chair, he leans on the back and falls over. He might come to a rule for himself that rocking chairs are unstable and refuse to ever try them again. If this child's model of the world lumps rocking chairs with chairs in general, then all chairs fall under the rule: Don't lean on the back! Another child who creates a model which distinguishes rocking chairs from other kinds of chairs has more choices in her behaviour. From her experience, she develops a new rule or generalization for using rocking chairs only - Don't lean on the back! - and, therefore, has a richer model and more choices.
The same process of generalization may lead a human being to establish a rule such as "Don't express feelings." This rule in the context of a prisoner-of-war camp may have a high survival value and will allow the person to avoid placing himself in a position of being punished. However, that person, using the same rule in a marriage, limits his potential for intimacy by excluding expressions which are useful in that relationship. This may lead him to have feelings of loneliness and disconnectedness - here the person feels that he has no choice, since the possibility of expressing feelings is not available within his model.

(...)

A second mechanism which we can use either to cope effectively or to defeat ourselves is Deletion. Deletion is a process by which we selectively pay attention to certain dimensions of our experience and exclude others. Take, for example, the ability that people have to filter out or exclude all other sound in a room full of people talking in order to listen to one particular person's voice. Using the same process, people are able to block themselves from hearing mesages of caring from other people who are important to them. For example, a man who was covinced that he was not worh caring about complained to us that his wife never gave him messages of caring. When we visited this man's home, we became aware that the man's wife did, indeed, express messages of caring to him. However, as these messages conflicted with the generalization that the man had made about his own self-worth, he literally did not hear his wife. This was verified when we called the man's attention to some of these messages, and the man stated that he had not even heard his wife when she had said those things.

(...)

The third modeling process is that of Distortion. Distortion is the process which allows us to make shifts in our experience of sensory data. Fantasy, for example, allows us to prepare for experiences which we may have before they occur. People will distort present reality when rehearsing a speech which they will later present. It is this process which has made possible all the artistic creations which we as human beings have produced. A sky as represented in a painting by Van Gogh is possible only as Van Gogh was able to distort his perception of the time-place in which he was located at the moment of creation. Similarly, all the great novels, all the revolutionary discoveries of the sciences invlove the ability to distort and misrepresent present reality. Using the same technique, people can limit the richness of their experience. For example, when our friend mentioned earlier (who had made the generalization that he was not worth caring for) had the caring messages from his wife pointed out to him, he immediately distorted them. Specifically, each time that he heard a caring message that he had previously been deleting, he turned to us, smiling, and said, "She just says that because she wants something." In this way, the man was able to avoid allowing his experience to contradict the model of the world he had created, and, thereby, he prevented himself from having a richer representation, blocking himself from a more intimate and satisfying relationship with his wife.
A person who has at some time in his life been rejected makes the generalization that he's not worth caring for. As his model has this generalization, he either deletes caring messages or he reinterprets these messages as insincere. As he is unaware of any caring messages from others, he is able to maintain the generalization that he isn't worth caring about. This description is an example of the classical positive feedback loop: the self-fulfilling prophecy, or forward feedback (Pribram, 1967). A person's generalizations or expectations filter out and distort his experience to make it consistent with those expectations. As he has no experiences which challange his generalizations, his expectations are confirmed and the cycle continues. In this way people maintain their impoverished models of the world. ...]

 

[Michal]

I found this book very interesting and useful for my understanding of how in my language I reflect what are my convictions about my experiences and how I have made and am making my own model of the world.

(...) Do you have a good grounding in basic dissociation and narcissism as laid out in our Big 5 recommended reading? (...)

Basic dissociation? Like the term used in NLP? I do not know if I have a good grounding :/. I just know what it is and how it feels like :). Any book hints for dissociation?
About narcissism and big five I have ordered:
Myth of Sanity - Martha Stout
The Narcissistic Family - Stephanie Donaldson-Pressman and Robert M. Pressman
Trapped in the Mirror - Elan Golomb
Unholy Hungers - Barbara E. Hort
Will see. Up to now I have red "The Games the Narcissist Play" by Laura and after lecture I may say that I am sometimes narcissist. And also I am surrounded by narcissiticly behaviouring people. Thanks for a hint.

 

[RyanX]

[... We as human beings do not operate directly on the world. Each of us creates a representation of the world in which we live - that is, we create a map or model which we use to generate our behavior. Our representation of the world determines to a large degree what our experience of the world will be, how we will perceive the world, what choices we will see available to us as we live in the world. (...)
No two human beings have exactly the same experiences. The model that we create to guide us in the world is based in part upon our experiences. Each of us may, then, create a different model of the world we share and thus come to live in a somewhat different reality.

<snip>
So the processes which allow us to accomplish the most extraordinary and unique human activities are the same processes which block our further growth if we commit the error of mistaking the model for the reality. We can identify three general mechanisms by which we do this: Generalization, Deletion, and Distortion. ...]

Mikel,

I don't know if you've read the Wave Series yet, but I think you might find this chapter interesting:

http://www.cassiopaea.org/2010/05/18/the-wave-chapter-24-lucifer-and-the-pot-of-gold-or-the-quest-for-the-holy-grail-of-no-anticipation/

Basically, the side of the brain (left brain) that allows us to construct conceptual models of the world is also the one that formulates belief systems and all that implies. Every time we are using this part of our brain to the exclusion of our intuitive/creative right brain, we are "raping the maden of the well", as Laura puts it. This neglect of half of our brain has negative consequences for an individual and the world at large -- and this has been going on a long time!

Anyways, you might find that chapter interesting.

 

[Michal]

[... We as human beings do not operate directly on the world.

I have not thought about it before. That above is not true. I am operating also directly on the world.
But how does it work? By means of verbal questioning of deleted, distorted or generalized portions of utterance I may discover or simply notice some false convictions. Using left brain. Using left brain may create but also destroy convictions. And without convictions am I in "now" and "non-anticipating"?
Not necessarily so. Some convictions are not conscious. And whats more, does eliminating convictions put me in "here and now"?
Thinking about being happy and being happy. Thinking about X and do/be X. I experienced that difference. But is it left brain thinking, right brain being here and now and doing things? Anyway my life is like 90% thinking about, and 10% living. There must be a way to go from one to another. But how? How to be united?
After reading the chapter from "The Wave" suggested by you I see cited statement at the top, limiting reality. I have a tendency to label, make theory, put into words, which tendency is strong. Maybe the same with author of that statement when writing this.
What about reading? I finished reading 1 hour ago.
From books I made quite a model of the world. Or is that only conviction for verification?
Hmm. I made a model or I have modified or extended existing model.
And what is "model"? Is that memory of past things and situations or interpretation of past things and situations.
When I generalize then it is interpretation of reality.
Or maybe allowing some new probabilities and possibilities (like time travel, UFO, psychopathy, ancient cultures and their implications, control system, densities, different realities) made me going out of the model?
This all thinking now is operation on words, related pictures and memory of past situations like short clips. Hard to catch exactly. I can not disconnect word and associated picture/clip. Or maybe it is not the word and pictures but it is thought, like concept. Taking hypotheses as possible means that I am creating larger model or means that I am not limiting my reality by model (model which is belief). Is model a belief system?
I am not believer.
But how do I came here? By something like believing? No. I think it was being curious. But I am not sure.
I have this impression or intuition I do not know for how long that there must be something in this life to find to discover to realize. But I do not know what is it. I know words but I did not experienced what I am looking for.
I do not know words.
How to communicate and connect "the one using words" and "the one being here and now"?
Thanks Bud thanks Ryan X.

Guys. May I express myself on this forum that way how I did it now?

 

[Buddy]

Guys. May I express myself on this forum that way how I did it now?

Sure. That would be most helpful to get an idea how best to help you discover what you need, if you need anything. I have a few thoughts for you that come from how I experience disassociation that may help answer your questions, but I need more time to post. Too much going on at home right now.

 

[Michal]

Maybe that is desire or it is good wanting. Now I need time to think about what I realy want :). I feel the need but when I think about it I do not know exactly how to describe it.

I am happy that I have a contact :). That is again maybe wrong because it is maybe stupid to trust, but I am not blind otherhand so I think that maybe I am not stupid. (Was that now right- left brain communication?)

 

[Buddy]

I found this book very interesting and useful for my understanding of how in my language I reflect what are my convictions about my experiences and how I have made and am making my own model of the world.

(...) Do you have a good grounding in basic dissociation and narcissism as laid out in our Big 5 recommended reading? (...)

Basic dissociation? Like the term used in NLP? I do not know if I have a good grounding :/. I just know what it is and how it feels like :). Any book hints for dissociation?

Actually, what I meant was dissociation as presented in the basic psychology recommended reading material (which you've ordered).

As soon as possible, I recommend reading, with the intention to fully comprehend, the books that you've already ordered. In "Myth of Sanity", Martha Stout does an excellent job presenting case histories that demonstrate disassociation and its consequences. In addition, the other books you ordered not only explain the dynamics and mechanics of narcissism with case histories, but you will also be able to see the dissociative aspect of the narcissistic traits. But read "Myth of Sanity" first and it will be much easier to see. :)

Here's what I meant by (some of) my experience of dissociation:

First, my personal understanding of dissociation, which could need more work, is that I see it as a continuum with simple dissociation into an internal thinking space on one end, and on the other end, being completely cut off from the reality of the external world...and cut off from your own emotions as a result.

To me, simple dissociation is like when you are looking out on the world as if through a pane of glass. One moment, all your senses can be tuned to every perception and impression coming from reality at the present moment. The next instant, some external or internal cue causes a concentration of your awareness. You automatically focus short to see, hear, feel some thought loop, song loop, negative introject or something else. Just like you had been looking out a window then all of a sudden your eyes focused on the window pane to see what is there. At that point, you can still maintain a not-so-clear perception of the external world while performing some activity, or you could even completely lose connection to the environmental context.

Some people dissociate so bad, they can drive for miles and arrive at their destination without being able to remember anything they passed along the way. Others might go see a son or daughter's newborn baby and not have any feelings at all about this new life coming into the world. The examples could be practically endless. You'll read more stuff like this in "Myth of Sanity" and you'll be able to compare these cases with your own experience in order to understand yourself and your tendencies much better - or, at least, see how your experiences compare with others.

As an aside, while you're waiting for your books to arrive, I highly recommend reading the online Wave since this forms the background context for most of the discussions on this forum. At least this chapter, since it blends in quite well with the basic psychology material.

I am happy that I have a contact :). That is again maybe wrong because it is maybe stupid to trust, but I am not blind otherhand so I think that maybe I am not stupid. (Was that now right- left brain communication?)

You have more than "a" contact. If you are sincere in this Work, then while you are a member here, all members have an opportunity to offer feedback for your benefit. Even if every one of your posts don't get a ton of feedback, there will be many people reading them (and the replies to you) just to make sure you are not misled and given bad information, so maybe you don't have to worry so much about the "trust" issue right now? I don't know, but I suppose it's something to think about, I reckon. :)