The User's Manual for the Brain Volume I
Page 38
15.8.0.110 VIII. The Grief/Loss Pattern24
Part I
Identify a “Loss” (absence/emptiness): “A” asks “B” to think of an actual loss such as a loss from death or divorce. Or “A” can ask of “B” to think of a potential loss such as a valued person who has a terminal illness. If “B” chooses the potential loss, this will take the form of “pre-grieving” which provides a useful coping response to a possible future loss. “A” should make sure “B’s” representation consists of what “B” valued and did not want to lose, not the person after they died or divorced. The Andreas’ state: “It’s what you valued and now miss that leads to grieving—the child’s laughter and play, special qualities, future promises, etc.” If “B” just sees the ill child or a coffin, ask, “How do you know you lost something valuable?” or “How do you know this has significant value worth grieving over?” Follow this line of questioning until “B” thinks of some valued experience, not its negation. This piece plays an extremely important role in this pattern. The grief pattern will not work without it.
Identify the Structure of “Loss.” “A” asks “B”: “How do you represent this person—the loss of this person—in your internal experience?” For this exercise use the visual submodalities of color/black-&-white, movie/still, 3D/flat, frame/panoramic, associated/dissociated, bright/dark, in focus/out of focus, far off/close and location. After eliciting these visual submodalities, “A” asks “B” if the auditory or kinesthetic submodalities seem significant and important. If they do, elicit them. “B” lists these submodalities on the top left side of a blank sheet of paper.
The structure of loss will involve, in some way or another, a sense of emptiness. The person will attempt to represent the person, thing, experience, value, etc., and will then “ghostify” it in some way so as to create the meaning—“not really here anymore.”
Get the Structure of Presence and Fullness (resource person): “A” ask “B” to think of a significant person who has died or who through some other incident no longer lives in “B’s” vicinity but when “B” recalls them “B” no longer experiences loss. “B” selects a person that at the time of the death or loss they experienced some grief but when they recall them now they experience a presence or fullness as if the lost person seems “still with you in some way.” “B” experiences this person as a resource for them in some way.
Sometimes the person may draw a blank and seem incapable of identifying such a resource. In this case, ask the client to think of a person that they typically have available to them but who does not live in their vicinity at this moment. A child living somewhere else may provide a resource. Or, I may ask the person to recall a special schoolteacher who still lives, but lives elsewhere. This person will serve so long as the client experiences the person as a present resource.
“A” elicits the submodalities of “B’s” resource person. “A” asks “B,” “How do you represent this resource person in your internal experience?” “B” lists these submodalities on the top right of the sheet of paper. List them beside the submodalities of the unwanted belief (# 1) in the same order.
Run a Contrastive Analysis: Contrast these two experiences (# 1 and # 2). Mark with an asterisk (*) those submodalities that differ. Also note what the person says about each and identify the specific languaging of this.
Test the Structures: “A” directs “B” in testing each of the submodality differences (marked with an *) between # 1 and # 2 to find out which ones provide the most powerful in changing grief/loss to presence/fullness. After testing one submodality, “A” directs “B” in changing it back to the way it originally appeared before testing each one.
Run an Ecology check: “A” asks “B,” “Does any part of you object to your experiencing person # 1 like you do person # 2? Would any of your family members object if you stopped grieving now?” Satisfy any objecting parts through reframing. For instance, should “B” say that they would not honor the deceased if they did not grieve, you could reframe by asking, “What better way to honor this person than by joyfully carrying this person in your heart for the rest of your life and by drawing on the resources they have given you for a fuller life for yourself?”
Map the Submodality Differences from One to the Other: Using the submodality drivers discovered in # 4, “A” directs “B” in changing the experience of loss (# 1) into one of presence/fullness (# 2). Usually the content of the representation will remain the same. However, at times the content may need adjusting in order to match the structure of the present experience. Also map across what the person says about the loss when they have come to terms with it and accept it fully.
Testing: “A” directs “B,” “Think of the “loss” experience now. Does it feel like a resource to you in the same way as the original “fullness” experience?” “A” checks “B’s” submodalities for the former loss experience. They should appear the same as the presence/fullness experience. Sometimes they may not have the exact submodalities. In such cases, use those differences to complete the change.
15.8.0.111 Part II
In Part I, you utilized submodality “mapping across” to transform an experience of a past loss into a present resource. In Part II, you will direct the client in seeking out replacement experiences now and in the future to replace the experiences with the person whom they have lost. This provides a future pace designed to insure that the person gets on with their lives.
Access the valued experience: “A” asks “B” to take the valued experience of the person that you just transformed from a loss into fullness, and represent it in whatever way seems natural and easiest for you now. Imagine a blank movie screen in front of you. Place the image of the person at one side of that screen.”
Identify resources: “A” says to “B,” “I know that this person meant a great deal to you. And, that this person has given you much that will enhance your life now and in the future. Get a representation (image) of how that person’s gifts of resources, qualities and values will assist you now and in the future. Place that image at the other side of the screen.” “A” paces “B.” Sometimes the client will take a few minutes and will need a little coaching to get this image. “A” recalls some of the qualities, values and resources that “B” gave to them in previous conversation, and points these out to “B” to assist them in forming this image.
Ecology check: “A” asks “B,” “Does any part of you object to making these experiences or directions a part of your future? Would anyone else in your life have any objections to this?” Adjust this representation and/or reframe to satisfy any/all objecting parts before continuing.
Installation in the future: “A” directs “B,” “Now, take those resources, qualities and values that this person has given to you with you into your future and notice what form these resources take and how they assist you in living your life with other people.” “A” may suggest to “B” to imagine a series of images unfolding out in the future of “B’s” drawing upon these resources to greatly enhance their lives. These representations should look attractive and convincing, but they should not construct too specific images. They should look somewhat vague and unclear, allowing for a variety of possibilities. For most clients, this produces a very valuable experience.
Thought Questions To Assist Your Learning:
Describe the difference between a digital and analogue submodality.
If you wanted to know the critical or driving submodalities of someone, how would you go about discovering them?
What does it mean to “map across” using submodalities?
What submodalities did you find most critical in your “time” representations?
How do submodalities explain the Swish Pattern?
What problems does the term “submodalities” have within it?
What words or terms have we suggested as more accurate and productive for “submodality?”
How do submodalities work in making changes?
15.8.0.112 Notes – Chapter 14
19Wyatt Woodsmall, LifeLine Therapy (Arlington: Advance Behavioral Modeling, 1989), p. 4.
20Proverbs 23:7.
21Edited from Burt Wasserman “‘The Cure” for Headaches and Other Uncomfortable Feelings’ in Anchor Point (Franktown: Cahill Mountain Press, Inc., April, 1993), pp. 4-7.
22Richard Bandler, Using Your Brain For a Change, pp.131-152.
23Robert Dilts, Changing Belief Systems with NLP (Cupertino: Meta Publications, 1990), pp. 11-13.
24Adopted from Connirae & Steve Andreas’ video tape “Resolving Grief” (Boulder: NLP Comprehensive, 1987).
4
Advanced Neuro-Linguistic Programming Modeling
16
Strategies
Part I—Identifying The Pieces Of Subjectivity
“The ‘map’ is not the ‘territory’.” (Korzybski, 1933)
(Note: This material edited from Chapter One of Michael Hall’s NLP: Going Meta Into Logical Levels, 1997).
What you can expect to learn in this chapter:
NLP “strategies” as ways to track down where brains go.
How to use representational system (rep system) language as strategy language.
How to elicit and unpack a strategy.
How to interrupt, design and redesign a strategy.
How to install a strategy.
As “the study of the structure of subjectivity,” NLP encompasses three most influential and essential components involved in experience: neurology, language, and programming. Let’s review. Neuro-Linguistic Programming therefore describes the dynamics between mind-body and how they interact as a system to generate our neuro-linguistic “model of the world.” From that interaction come our emotions, behaviors, communications, etc.
Neurology describes how our bodies contribute to creating our “states” and the behaviors that come out of those states. Linguistics describes how we represent the external world inside our mind-body through various symbolic systems (words, sentences, metaphors, gestures, mathematics, music, art, etc.). Programming describes those formats, processes, technologies, paradigms, etc., by which we organize our neuro-linguistics in useful ways.
Part I of this chapter presents the NLP Model in order to provide the foundation of this study. Here you will find the aspects of subjectivity which NLP identifies, and which comprise the essence of genius of this model of human neuro-linguistics. In Part II we extend this to provide a summary of the NLP strategy model. In Part III we provide step-by-step directions in doing strategy work with the Decision Strategy, Spelling Strategy, Motivation Strategy and the Learning Strategy.
16.1 NLP—A Model Of Models
The NLP model arose originally as an experiment in modeling examples of human excellence. The linguist (John Grinder) and the computer programmer (Richard Bandler) combined their resources to look at the therapeutic skills which Virginia Satir and Fritz Perls demonstrated in communicating with clients. From that original modeling Bandler and Grinder (1975) created an explicit model of the implicit models Satir and Perls were using to guide their responses, behavior, language, etc. Bandler and Grinder called this model-about-a-model “a Meta-model of language in therapy.” Thus began NLP.
Bandler and Grinder both came from backgrounds that equipped them to think in terms of breaking down complex behaviors and linguistic patterns into smaller chunks. They eventually found these pieces of subjectivity in the sensory rep systems. Thus they used the sensory modes of awareness (visual, auditory, kinesthetic, olfactory, and gustatory) as the building blocks of subjectivity.
Using a neuro-linguistic “bio-computer” model of the brain they assumed that it was possible to program its information processing system. What they wanted to know was how the internal structure of these sequences of representational sensory systems could give rise to high quality behaviors. This gave rise to the strategy model.
They then were able to find sequences in these elements by asking, “How does this work?” “How does a piece of subjectivity (e.g. therapeutic communication, motivation to get up in the morning, staying resourceful in the face of negative feedback, etc.) work?” “What goes first, then second, then third?” Using a neuro-linguistic “bio-computer” model of the brain they assumed that it was possible to program its information processing system. What they wanted to know was how the internal structure of these sequences of representational sensory systems could give rise to high quality behaviors. This gave rise to the strategy model.
16.2 The Philosophy/Epistemology Of NLP
NLP represents a constructivistic epistemology based upon the ideas first articulated by Immanuel Kant and then expanded by General Semantics (GS). Epistemology is about what we know, how we know what we know, and how we know that we know. NLP takes as part of its epistemology the quote from Alfred Korzybski (1933/1994), “The ‘map’ is not the ‘territory’.” What we know and experience “inside” ourselves (human “subjectivity”) differs radically from what exists “outside” (that is, the ”territory”). What we know and experience within functions as a “map” relating to a “territory”—it may represent the territory, accord to it, reflect it, symbolize it—but it does not exist as the territory. These two phenomena (“map” and “territory”) exist on different levels (superficially called the “subjective” and “objective” levels of experience). This means, as Dilts, Bandler, Grinder, and DeLozier (1980) wrote, that we do not operate directly on the world.
“Rather, we operate through coded interpretations of the environment as received and experienced in our sensory rep system—through sights, sound, smell, taste and feeling. Information about our internal universe (as well as our internal states) is received, organized, consolidated and transmitted through an internal system of neural pathways that culminate in the brain— our central processing bio-computer. This information is then transformed through internal processing strategies that each individual has learned.” (pp. 3-4).
We operate directly, not upon the world, but upon our “maps” of the world. The models that we build to cope with the world require that we identify and represent two things:1) a set of structural elements and 2) a syntax.
We operate directly, not upon the world, but upon our “maps” of the world. The models that we build to cope with the world require that we identify and represent two things:1) a set of structural elements and 2) a syntax. The structural elements comprise the building blocks and the syntax the set of rules or directions that describe how we can put the building blocks together.
As an constructivist epistemology, NLP shares with Western scientific models its grounding in the realm of sensory experience and transforming environmental variables into decision variables. As such, it focuses more on form than content, and it differs from such models by including the observer into the model.
NLP adopts a systems approach to mind-body as it explores how the brain creates (or constructs) internal representations (IR) that thereby generate our state of consciousness. Our mind-body, culture, language, etc., form a complex system in which no part operates in isolation from the other parts.
Constructivism here refers to the fact that we do not deal with the territory (first-level reality), but only with the internal reality that we construct. Korzybski argued first for a correspondence model of truth, namely, that our model should have a correspondence with the territory. Secondly, he argued for a pragmatic model of truth, that we need a model that will enable us to navigate effectively even if the “map” may not correspond with accuracy.
16.3 The Components Of Subjectivity
The brain uses its senses (sensory modalities) to form its modes of awareness
We begin then with the sensory rep system, which makes explicit that we think in see-hear-feel-smell-taste terms. Through our sensory apparatus mechanisms (eyes, ears, internal sensations, tactile feelings), we input data from the outside. Then we “think” using these see-hear-feel forms to “represent” what we have seen, heard, felt, et
c. The brain uses its senses (sensory modalities) to form its modes of awareness. We cannot think without these basic modes. These components comprise the very form of our thoughts as distinct from their content. We process information in sensory channels. For notation purposes, NLP notates these rep systems as:
V — Visual (images, pictures)
A — Auditory (sounds, tones)
At — Auditory tonal (sounds)
K — Kinesthetics (tactile and internal sensations of the body)
0 — Olfactory (smell)
G — Gustatory (taste)
M — Motor movements
These rep systems can refer to external or internal sources of data, hence sometimes we notate this by adding an e or i as in Vi (visual internal). These rep systems can also refer to remembered information stored inside neurologically (r) or constructed in the imagination (c).
r —Remembered information (VAK)
c —Constructed information (VAK)
i —Internal source of information (TDS, Trans-derivational Search)
e — External source of information (uptime, sensory awareness)
Then to denote that we have a Meta-Representational System, words and language, we use the notation:
Ad —Auditory Digital (the language system, words, self-talk)
Via these rep systems we present to ourselves again (“re”, hence “representation”) the information. Our thinking follows from, and builds upon, our external sensory modalities (the VAK plus language). By these “tools” we sketch personal “maps” of the world to navigate life. Most of us favor one rep system over the others and we may, in fact, over-use it to the neglect of the others.