Mmmmm.... Ok all U process watchers.... what's wrong with this picture ?

Great incongruity check.... HINT! Modelled after dysfunctional father-son dynamics.... funny innt that Dr. Phil appears totally OBLIVIOUS to his responsibility for imprinting weirdly incongruent communication patterns.... IMHO Phil mcGraw is the party here as much in need of intensive therapy as his repulsive guest....

Did this thing make the slightest bit of sense ??? Processwise ?
Naaaaaah.... not in teevee land.... it just a trance, you know...

Phil INVITES this wack job onto his show (i.e. sets him up for a fall),
Phil OBVIOUSLY fully understands the footage his is going to show the television audience... the Phil DISSIMULATES (i.e. engages in a bald faced lie) that he is so surprised and shocked by the horror of it all that he is morally compelled to heave the "guest" OFF of the show by the ugliness of it all.

AS IF (note the cutesy use of the "as if" frame) Phil was not fully aware that HE was exploiting the footage to its fullest effect, then DISAVOWING ALL RESPONSIBILITY by PROJECTING his (moral, aesthetic, commercial) choices on the "bad son", while POSITIONING himself as the "upstanding father figure".

A masterful and utterly sleazy use of framing devices.... watch and learn how families can go down in flames...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CNPvdsJS-qE]YouTube - Dr. Phil Kicks Guest Off Show[/ame]

Bufo Marinus wrote:

Did this thing make the slightest bit of sense ??? Processwise ?

well this depends on the producers intentions, if they wanted to humiliate the guy they're not going to be too successful by simply ignoring him are they ? I think Dr Phil may have spotaneously reacted to the fact that the guy had shaved his head to look like him

That's an interesting point... did Dr. Phil freak out when he may have intuited that this guy represented an unconscious part of himself ?

I think either it was just a straight set up as per your first post, or, Dr Phil sensed an unpredictable threat

There was something strange and subtle going on... the way the younger man seemed to be in an identifcation trance, and I think Dr. Phil knew, unconsciously, that it had the power to pull him in, he was looking into a distant mirror of his own narcissism, his voyeuristic and exploitive sides... he knew exactly what was going on, after all, HOW did that intoductory video get produced ? There was another camera following hin (the "guest") as he roamed the streets, that seemed like it was "intendng" (in the philosophical sense) Dr. Phil's perception... then something instantly snaps in Dr. Phil's mind... like he caught a glimpse of his true identity..

Hi Bufo
Thanks for a fantastic display of content imposition, mind reading and interpretation/evaluation

Is that the message you really want us to see from your posting? I'm wondering if you needed to warn inexperienced NLPers who are unfamiliar with the patterns you have just used, as they unlike you may not recognise the implications created to the reader of such content.

If I'm going to join you and run with interpretation for a moment from my own map, the whole clip seems a little bizarre for the reason you said, could he really not know what was on the film??? I don't have the answer to that? If through our guesses and mind reading he does know then what is the intention? If he does not know then that could indicate congruency, but as I have not had the opportunity to ask him it will just have to remain speculation??????.......................

BTW i value your clips that you find and bring to our intention, please keep it up.

Regards
Peter

NLP Coaching Success.co.uk

Peter,
since you have positioned yourself as a trainer, I think a deep responsibity is inherent in your choice of thoughts and words. That's my assertion. IF you're intending to generate certian attitudes towards reality in the minds of your students, you're also going to have to be willing to explore the deep contradictions and inconsistencies that some expressions are grounded in.

I am genuinely disturbed to see you reaching, reflexively, for a dogmatic position without sufficiently questioning that position. Or the implications of that position. Perhaps the practice of NLP, in toto, is so fundametally incoherent in its basic assumptions that it simply ought to be eliminated and replaced with something else.

The incoherence I am addressing is the idea of "content imposition" and the stated taboos against content imposition.

I'm very sorry, but consciousness IS content imposition. You can't think or do the simplest thing without massive content imposition. To insist otherwise is folly or madness. So to bracket one expression and point to that as fallacious content imposition while ignoring all the other, mundane content imposition which composes this convincing illusion you tell yourself is "reality" is just nonsense.

Ergo, I am proposing we tear down NLP.... because the problems with NLP-as-formulated go further down than the need for new-code-ish clean ups. Nope.... we've got to chuck the whole preposterous pretension of doing Epistemology "right"... which is a bogus absurdity if there ever were one... and restructure it around Phemonenology (not that phenomenology isn't infested with its own peculiarities)...

Yet, I'm well aware that isn't going to happen. NLP has become far too complacent, far too weighed down with dogma and cant, far too much a packaged retailed product, and far too little a thinking person's way of life to, in my humble estimation, outgrow the mold it found itself poured into.

Why ? Because it no longer has the courage to ask itself embarrasing, frame challenging questions. It has lost all appetite for intellectual (and emotional) risk... there is precious little real growth and expansion in it. Where's the original daring ? Where's the iconoclasm and (real, not canned) genius of Erickson or Bateson ? Who's the Virginia Satir or Fritz Perls of NOW (Eckhart Tolle ? give me a friggin' break)...

Yeah, so I'm going to rework NLP a lttle bit, and I frankly don't give a fecal pellet what the archbishops of NLP think about that... what do I have to lose ? NLP is only three letters with a load of baggage attached... so who cares if we fuck it up and mix it around and, heaven forbid, actually engage in generative frame busting... ?

Bufo Marinus wrote:

I am genuinely disturbed to see you reaching, reflexively, for a dogmatic position without sufficiently questioning that position.

Hey Bufo you might be somewhat less disturbed if you stopped mind reading his intentions.

Bufo Marinus wrote:

I'm very sorry, but consciousness IS content imposition. You can't think or do the simplest thing without massive content imposition. To insist otherwise is folly or madness.

True and I think an important point is that we have choice about what and where we impose content - it doesn't have to just happen. So it's something we do rather than an excuse for foisting our ill conceived, ill formed or lazy opinions and ideas onto other people

I also enjoy some of your vids and hope they keep coming

That's EXACTLY the point.... you can't NOT mind read... it is known formally in psychology as "theory of mind".... people completely w/o "theory of mind" are severely autistic... is that a shocking revelation ?

You MUST, CONTINUOUSLY, THOROUGHLY both mind read and impose content to operate in the world. MUST. Full Stop. period. No way out. You HAVE to do it. The "mind" is by design, by evolutionary structure, a mind reading, content imposing machine of sorts.

So, by irrefutable logic, NLP has engineered this hilarious, buffooninsh absurdity, the utterly preposterous totally untenable position that some forms of social and world perception ARE mind reading/content imposition and others are not !!!

Is it any wonder that NLP is a freaking laughingstock in many circles ?

The proposition is broken. It does not and can not fly. It is based on hopelessly flawed premises. It MUST be reworked and replaced from the finest grained assumptions on up. MUST. With Total Holy Dogmatic Absolute Immovable Object Meets Unstopable Force Absolutism! Full Stop. Period. End Of Discussion, God Has Spoken!!!!! Me, that is!

The Great Gaping Problem is that NLP has no pholosophical vocabulary for doing the phenomenology of categorical expression... as in Zilch.... it's stuck in these deep ruts of , "dude, that's so a mind read... so.... Verboten, Schwein!"....

Honestly, by comparision the writings of L. Ron Hubbard in masterpieces like Scientology 8-80 sound like Plato on a good day.

It's just that bad. It really is. And people are paying money for this. Imagine.

Noooooo.... Batgirl.... we NEED a much more sophisticated, much more finely differentiated, phenomenologically specific, usable descriptive architecture for putting meanings and implications in their true locations....

NLP, you see, has a few slippery rhetorical tricks up its sleeve, in this case we have to looks at the "distinction" of modes.... in this case, the Dismissive Mode... well, Batgirl, how does the Dismissive Mode operate ? How does the Dismissive Mode categorically assign ?

Because, what the Dismissive Mode DOES do is do is assign an idea to the category of "beneath consideration" by demotion.... the idea undergoes a categorical demotion and a (rather interesting) chunking up from a particular observation to a generalized value statement...

BUT... WHO, EXACTLY is the Pope who declares... and this is a bit of phenomenology we must be very, very attentive to, the distinction of "declaration" WHICH presentations of reality SHOULD be dismissed as mind reading/content imposition and which should not ? Where is the boundary condition between "imposed content" and "natural content"

Inquiring minds would really love to know a coherent answer to that...

Hi Bufo
please could you define for me what you perceive a mind read actually is?

Please do this in descriptive language. I want to know what you believe happens in some ones mind that constitutes a mind read.

I can think of four examples at hand where mind reading IS NOT apparent in a conscious form? So lets get some sort of place to start from first where we can both be clear.

Thanks

Peter

Bufo Marinus wrote:

That's EXACTLY the point.... you can't NOT mind read... it is known formally in psychology as "theory of mind".... people completely w/o "theory of mind" are severely autistic... is that a shocking revelation ?

You MUST, CONTINUOUSLY, THOROUGHLY both mind read and impose content to operate in the world. MUST. Full Stop. period. No way out. You HAVE to do it.

Yes mind reading is inescapable, and still, it isn't something that just happens to us, we don't have to be a victim to the whims of our mind, we can exercise choice - what do I get from this mind read ? In the same way someone else can observe our fallacious, unfounded, sound or solid conclusions, so we can observe them too - and decide whether to run with them or not. I guess that bit, the choice, depends on how aware we really are, what our intentions are and how in touch with them we are.

I wonder if Peter108 wants to chip in with a bit about Attention and Intention or whether he's going to save that for part of Fridays New Code Event

Then you have to evolve a clarifying language as to what you intetend by imposing content laden langage like "victim" or "whim", or how you could distinguish between "fallacious" or "unfounded" without resorting to multiple planes of both the data at hand (the salient content) and the processes by which you evaluate the data at hand. "Ill conceived". "ill formed", or "lazy" are also conent impositions, holding a speaker to rather severe account... so looking for a logical bolt hole by imposing content in thought act leaning against imposing content is sort of like demonstrating a pistol by shooting oneself with it. It is quite wholly paradoxical, and in the worst sort of way.

If you look at the evolution of the mamallian brain, it (barring a highly imaginative illusionist for a creative force) the great thrust seems to be greater and greater sophistication and transparency in precisely that, "mind reading" or intuiting intentionalty to the behaviors or potential behaviors of sentient creatures, and "content imposition", i.e. building a coherent internal model of the inhabited world.

Further, and most significant for us is that mind reading and content imposition weren't spandrels, they weren't confusions, side effects, or some kind of mental decorations, they were the primary drivers of survival and reproductive success, and ultimately evolutionary change.

Stop a second and contemplate that. The more and better and more transparently critters got at mind reading and content imposition, and the less they had to consciously reflect on it, the more it became their seamless model of reality, the better chance they had at surviving and procreating.

The only way out of it is to find a way to stop the brain from functioning. If NLP wanted to efectively demonstate a high competence at reducing content imposition, all it has to do is provide low cost lobotomies to any willing participant. How many takers do you imagine we'd have ?

That's why I'm proposing a new approach. A more rigorous practice of stepping back behind the movie screen and engaging in pre-framing, and the development of higher resolution categories and categorical thinking.... because this hang up on mind reading is 1, patently ridiculous unless it is applied specifically and with precision, and 2, we may get a lot more milage with better phlsophies anyway...

First, by accepting that we're neurologically and evolutionarily stuck with a certain bill of goods, and second, leveraging that bill of goods proactively....

And the only way to make it tick is to become wicked sharp pre-framers, overtly to the brink of derangement in training so the structure van drop back into unconscious competence in daily life...

Much better to say... "yup, I'm a primate, albeit a fancy one, and I'm stuck with all the biological reality of being a primate, as opposed to a smoothly functioning Intel chip" and chuck oversimplified truisms a training room patter that hasn't budged in eons

think I need to make another youtube to directly address this point... because it is absoluely central move NLP into the next level of competence..

peter108 wrote:

Hi Bufo
please could you define for me what you perceive a mind read actually is?

Please do this in descriptive language. I want to know what you believe happens in some ones mind that constitutes a mind read.

I can think of four examples at hand where mind reading IS NOT apparent in a conscious form? So lets get some sort of place to start from first where we can both be clear.

Thanks

Peter

Mind Reading, in my miserably limted frame of understanding, is an evolutionarily derived survival mechanism which attempts to develop a mini-theory in the mind of one creature as to why another creature is behaving the way it does.

Corvids (the crow family) seem particularly good at this, albeit they didn't follow the mamallian path...they will carefully observe a behavior then form intuitions... and as primates get further up the evolutionary ladder, they are better and better at building assumptions as to the "true intentions" of other primates.... who is hiding food while pretending to generously share etc... so it seems that even aberrations like voyeurism are probably grounded in evolutionary dynamics..

It does seem probable that human theory of mind and those uncanny processes we call intuitions are souped-up versions of social assessment mechanisms that were essential for avoiding predation, locating food supplies, mating, and making long range specualtions as to the quality of the environment, such as some animals observing the behaviors of others, say a group of herbivores keeps a close watch and ear open for the warning cries of a certain bird.... which then signals the presence of a predatory large bird.. thus an intuition must be formed based on what might seem like abstract evidence..

Thought I'd take a quick shot at one other default content imposition...
shame. When we feel shame (I admit I'm imposing my ideas about shame) we're "transposing" how we'd feel about our behavior if we'd witnessed it from an outside perspective, and forming some assumptions about how others are looking at us. They might evidence overt, minimal, or no behaviours that confirm our suspicions... but notice that where you're feeling sheepish, you are quite ready to impose the beliefs about your shamefulness onto the observer.... "aha, they must have intuited! they know! they MUST know"..... soooo what appears to be happeneing with shame is that WE are forming an unconscious (yet highly obsessive) image or some sort of representation of what we believe THEIR representation of OUR representation is.... so an imposition on an imposition.... yet it happens so naturally, so fluidly, and animal behaviorist have filmed creatures who seem (OK, our imposition) to be experiencing embarrassment at being seen by other members of their species when they "mess up".... Now, have you ever tried to NOT feel shame when something's happenened that was just gawdawful cringeworthy... it's as if the more you try to suppress it, the worse it gets...

Bufo Marinus wrote:

Stop a second and contemplate that. The more and better and more transparently critters got at mind reading and content imposition, and the less they had to consciously reflect on it, the more it became their seamless model of reality, the better chance they had at surviving and procreating.

That sounds really cool for a critter. What about for you personally ?

Bufo Marinus wrote:

The only way out of it is to find a way to stop the brain from functioning. If NLP wanted to efectively demonstate a high competence at reducing content imposition, all it has to do is provide low cost lobotomies to any willing participant. How many takers do you imagine we'd have ?

I don't think anyone is proposing the complete erradication of content impositions, it's not a black and white issue, you've just been pulled up by Peter on this occasion. And you're response is to write as though you know why he's choosing to behave the way he is. In fact I think in a previous post you denied he was choosing - you imposed more of your content on him personally. Kind of funny really, don't you think ?

Yeah, I kind of go along with Bufo for much of this. There's a kind of tabula rasa mindset suggested by New Code devotees in particular which cuts off a lot of productive debate at the knees. Merely observing that something is a mind-read doesn't stop it being incisive, creative, and generative. The necessary distinction is awareness of when one is doing this, and when it is not needed. And it takes time and training to develop the requisite awareness-of-awareness.

Nope, not really... because it fails to distinguish between the general principle and the special case.... in other words there is no apparent comprehension of the process of Deduction... and to my mind that's a little bit scary... because there has to be some logical bedrock before you can proceed.... it looks to me like your arrow from the general to the specific and the specfic to the general gets confused... that's the bothersome part, because w/o the architecture of logic, formal or informal, one tends to founder in categorical error and vagueness that has the superficial appearance of clarity... I guess that this "false obviousness" that philosophers bend themselves over backwards to dispel is a core problem in the NLP mosh pit as well...

For example, yes, it is easy to say, or in philosophy-speak, "trivially true" that "nobody is proposing the complete erradication of content impositions", but on closer examination that is so general it could mean anything or nothing. Because it describes no clear set of standards, bounds, gradients, etc. for what rule sets one applies, or filters, if you will, under what conditions for what is and what isn't content imposition.

And that may be of no great use as a mode of inquiry, at least relative to other angles of perspective...

We may need to move ahead in a totally different fashion, e.g. knowing that we are continuously imposing content whether we like it or not, even to the point that different species will impose content that SEEMS highly concrete and obvious to them (I have no idea what sorts of obviousnesses apply to an eager dog sniffing scent marks, but my hallucination is that they are richly descriptive to the dog in a way that is utterly unknowable to me), HOW can we proceed in the face of this continuous, selected for, pro-survival process ?

Otherwisw we get rapidly stuck in this anile parsing out of where we ought and how we ought and where we oughtent and how we oughtent impose content. Who'se got the impose-o-meter and how much did they pay for it ?

Hi Adrian
Quote Adrian,
"There's a kind of tabula rasa mindset suggested by New Code devotees in particular which cuts off a lot of productive debate at the knees."
Care to be specific so that New Code Practitioners can learn what this mind set is as suggested to you?

Regards
Peter

You might want to check with John G. about the connections between his early interest in Carlos Casteneda (different times, different John, mucho different NLP all around)... anyway, Casteneda had this distinction of Tonal (everyday concept based awareness) and the Nagual (somewhat like pre-conceptual awareness).... Casteneda also had a notion he called "the second attention" which sorcerers developed.... my hallucinated projection is that when Casteneda somewhat fell from favor, John moved on from talking about the Nagual and reframed it as FA, first access.... both an interesting and problematic, ambiguous description of something specific to John that he's been trying to communicate.... so there was this geneology that began with Casteneda-nagual... to FA.... and then expanded into New Code and the Know Nothing State.... that had a connection to his famous "sponge state" that was like regressing, perceptually to early childhood... I've been told by a friend of mine who was doing some CIA ops in Central America where he worked in parallel with US special forces that back in the day when John was prob just out of SF school, they were deeply into studying with local shamans and learning techniques for psychologically "becoming" vegetation, rocks, and natural features so as to so perfectly blend into the environment that one would become invisible... so that may have been the true genesis of New Code....

adrian r wrote:

Yeah, I kind of go along with Bufo for much of this. There's a kind of tabula rasa mindset suggested by New Code devotees in particular which cuts off a lot of productive debate at the knees. Merely observing that something is a mind-read doesn't stop it being incisive, creative, and generative. The necessary distinction is awareness of when one is doing this, and when it is not needed. And it takes time and training to develop the requisite awareness-of-awareness.

Says Adrian as he neatly paraphrases the new coder ...