NLP Workbook states that...


"Deep structure is everything we know about an experience and is unconscious. Some of it is indescribable in words - some of it will be preverbal. other parts will have distinctions that we do not have words to describe. From this deep structure we create a surface structure - we transform the deep structure into a form that we can communicate
using words tonality and body language. We create a surface structure that we can understand and communicate to others."

So it's saying, surface structure is what we have when our deep structure(what we experience) has been distorted/generalized/deleted by our rep systems and language.


Then, somewhere else it says...


"Meta Model:

Chunks language down, becoming more specific.

Moves from deep structure to surface structure
by challenging deletions, distortions and
generalizations,

Milton Model :

Chunks language up. becoming more general

Moves from surface structure to deep structure
by generating deletions, distortions and
generalizations."


^^^ Uh... What???

Yeah, basically the two language patterns use the same model of mental functioning to do different things. There is no conflict.

Please read the bolded parts again, and you might see why I see a contradiction.

Ah.

Can you explain the contradiction for me?

Sure, it first states surface structure has more deletions/distortions/generalizations than deep structure.

But then, it states that milton model uses deletions/distortions/generalizations to move from the surface structure to the deep structure.

Sounds like the opposite to me.

Sounds more like the meta model is what uncovers unconcious/presuppostions deep structures of our experience from the surface structure.

What if there is no such thing as deep / surface structure?

Then there are no contradictions... problem solved!

Meta Model: Chunks language down, becoming more specific.
This it does.

Moves (information) from deep structure to surface structure
by challenging deletions, distortions and
generalizations,
I think my insertion should clear up what is going on. The information that we get by chunking down is moved from deep structure to surface structure.

Milton Model: Chunks language up. becoming more general
Again I think it does do this.

Moves (information) from surface structure to deep structure
by generating deletions, distortions and
generalizations."
Makes sense then, to me, that to move information in the opposite direction you'd reverse the action. Basically this is how it implants suggestions in the unconscious.

Does what I'm doing here make sense to you?

chris_morris wrote:

What if there is no such thing as deep / surface structure?

Then there are no contradictions... problem solved!

What if there are no such things as contradictions? problem solved

Whether there is or is not a deep or surface structure is largely irrelevant. The question is, when is acting as if there is such a distinction useful.

edwardewilson wrote:

Whether there is or is not a deep or surface structure is largely irrelevant. The question is, when is acting as if there is such a distinction useful.

Exactly right.

You didn't need the stepping stone but some people would.

Thanks, Ed. Clever!

I have a gig to go and get ready for, so I can't give a longer answer, but I suggest you find the post I put up on 17 June, 2008, entitled 'Chomsky and NLP'.

You could also look again at that famous hand-out, 'Hierarchy of Ideas', which started the confusion of "Meta Model = chunk down" vs "Milton Model = chunk up". Such tosh.

Eric.

Let me put it another way (I have time; my cab is late):

If we rank-order the features of the Meta Model and the Milton Model in terms of "amount of information carried and/ or significance in the process", and if we do that rank ordering by number, then the position is:

Smallest Chunk..............................Smallest Chunk

MM feature 1...........maps to............Milton Model feature 1
MM feature 2...........maps to............Milton Model feature 2
MM feature 3...........maps to............Milton Model feature 3
MM feature 4...........maps to............Milton Model feature 4
MM feature 5...........maps to............Milton Model feature 5

MM feature 6...........maps to............Milton Model feature 6
MM feature 7...........maps to............Milton Model feature 7
MM feature 8...........maps to............Milton Model feature 8
MM feature 9...........maps to............Milton Model feature 9

MM feature 10...........maps to............Milton Model feature 10
MM feature 11...........maps to............Milton Model feature 11
MM feature 12...........maps to............Milton Model feature 12
MM feature 13...........maps to............Milton Model feature 13

Largest Chunk..................................Largest chunk

And - AS A DIFFERENT DIMENSION - ALL the items on the left are to do with "being more specific", while ALL the items on the right are to do with "being artfully vague".

If we do that, then one piece of the confusion disappears.

For example, you can lead other into being highly specific when you gather information from them about their use of feature 12, Cause and Effect - just as you can be very artfully vague when you suggest the other person forms in their mind a connection based on Cause and Effect.

As to the several other things wrong with the bits you quote from that workbook, those will have to wait till another day. My cab is here.

Eric.

ericrobbie wrote:

my cab is late

ericrobbie wrote:

My cab is here.

See you soon!