I once read (in an old psychology book) that lucidity and concentration were opposites as far as neurological activity was concerned. The first is defined by the fact that a large part (all) of the brain is in activity and the second is defined by the fact that a small area is in activity. Thus concentrating isn't that much of a good path to solve a new problem, because it doesn't allow you to fully use all your capabilities.

Furthermore, concentration isn't much good for anything the book said, because either you're searching something new in which case you need lucidity, either you're doing something known in which case you need ease/automatisms.

I mostly agree with this, and from what I can see, it matches my way of working, and it matches "my NLP understanding" (I don't get the impression Bandler spends much time getting headaches from concentrating too much).

Does anyone have an opinion here about this?

Does anyone know if/where I could find recent information sustaining (or not) this view?

What do 'lucidity' and 'concentration' mean to you?

It is my understanding that most of success comes not from "programming oneself effectively" - this is an important step, but only a piece of the puzzle. In my experience, the majority of successful outcomes comes from designing systems which support that outcome. It is this step of designing systems which does in fact require concentration. For instance a system might be the support staff that any executive may surround themselves with. Or it might be something as simple as keeping your keys on a hook by the door.

Now the keys, and all my habits of remembering become a bit irrelevant - once I train myself to keep them on the hook by the door. Ideally, the system has some checks-and-balances built into it. For instance, I could ask my wife to hide the keys if she finds them elsewhere, and I have to do her a favor of some sort to get them back (please don't read into that).

The point is that systems work only when there is a feedback loop to support the system. And to get back to the original topic, I see lucidity as the ability to see which systems are currently in place (a kind of wide-angle focus) which allows me to perceive the system from a point-of-view of being outside of it. It is also (for me) slightly disassociated, and requiring me to be able to see clearly without a bias of how any observations may affect me or others I care about. In short, the monkey-mind can't see beyond the edge of it's nose, and is mainly interested in "what I get out it" - and lucidity (for me) is the ability to observe the monkey-mind from outside of it - or by pretending to be a disinterested third party, and imagining their perceptual position. And lucidity (as I define it) also gives me a better POV from which to see how the parts of a system relate to one another, and the results of such interaction. It also allows me to determine which parts of a system are acting as controls - through a process of testing and observation. This allows me to have more leverage to see how to alter myself (or any system) - in order to create something new.

Concentration is the ability to stay on task without wandering off every time a distraction or "something more interesting" comes along. It is a function of being internally motivated, rather than waiting for life to come along and entertain me. It is also very closely related to how I perceive healthy self-discipline, which for me, is the ability to do what I have set out to do in the time frame of my choosing. And then flexibility and feedback enter the picture as a way for me to notice if my actions are effective or need adjustment.

So for me, concentration is a vital aspect that allows me to stay on task while designing systems, as well as training myself to implement these new patterns. There often seems to be a "pull of inertia" which requires a bit of extra effort in the beginning of anything new - to allow the new pattern to gain momentum. Future pacing seems to be an excellent way to get the ball rolling here. There is also a pull of old patterns, people, and expectations - which also exists as part of the original system. In many cases, the ability to focus on the new pattern - especially in the beginning - is precisely what allows the new outcome to displace the old. This to me, is also a function of concentration.

Clearly these are my own representations for what these words mean, and are by no means intended to be "descriptions of the truth."

Concentration and lucidity, hmn. I'll boldly go where no one boldly go, I'll try to asnwer respectfully as can be begotten.

Let's say for examples,
*the monkey mind tries aiming for the shitter not hung over but drunk, hmnn pisser moving concentration not good!
*the music clicks to the monkey mind, ... when your baby is so far away, in the distant shores ... concentration-slips away cuz ... (Sweet Judy blue eyes?) .... Shit happens to concentration-she made me do it?
*the monkey itself taking a bb shot using pure lucidity w/o the concentrating spilling in ... and makes the lucid (fluid transparency ripples?) shot?
*Monkey sex concentration whether in or out isn't good for much b/c its all lucid anyways?
*Creative monkey assembling uranium concentration to make nuclear power plant in its (cueing boring quickly) mind ....

So as an opinion furthermore I agree on the statement, What do 'lucidity' and 'concentration' mean to you, Chris.

Chris2 wrote:

Thus concentrating isn't that much of a good path to solve a new problem, because it doesn't allow you to fully use all your capabilities.

I find learning in Trance to be the state I learn (and retain) the most from. I've read that learnings/memories are most easily accessed from the state that you were in when you acquired the learnings/memories. So keeping myself in an uptime Trance when I want to access the learnings has given me a much stronger memory. I'm not sure if that relates to what you are talking about but when I'm in a Trance state I feel it is the opposite of 'concentrating' for me.

That is just my opinion. Not sure how you could find more info sustaining (or not) your view, but good luck. I guess I would ask, for what purpose do you need the extra information? If you are interested for yourself then I'm sure you could conduct a simple experiment on yourself to see which works best for you. Regardless of what a book says I imagine the most important data is what does, and doesn't work for you. Best of luck

Chris2 wrote:

I don't get the impression Bandler spends much time getting headaches from concentrating too much.

Regarding the term concentration, I think it's important to make a distinction between the kind of "stressful forcing" which might lead to a headache, on the one hand. And the ability to be able to focus gently and stay on track with whatever you set out to accomplish.

Some of this may involve one's motivation strategy. If one is mainly motivated by fear, worry, stress - or if they are "addicted to adrenaline" as a way to initiate action, then this perhaps may be the cause of the tension and/or headaches. When one is motivated by positive feelings about the goal, or pictures of their goal achieved, or perhaps the relief of just getting-it-done - then this may lead to a relaxed kind of action and an ability to stay on task without a lot of effort.

If you train your mind to concentrate, with water and absolute belief it is possible to adapt methods to concentrate (hard to quantify it in relative terms....relative to what etc) 'very hard' (i.e. - to a level or two higher than you may be used to) for a great many hours. I have gone too far here...or not allowed for enough flexibility, and can sustain up to 30 hours sometimes with no more than three two minute breaks. I am sure some people are far more developed and have better techniques but if you find what works for you it can be extremely rewarding with regard inner focus and ordering thought processes to embark on this.

As for lucidity, I am much further behind in this journey but would look into things as suggested by Lloyd by using trances if you feel confident and are well practised. It seems to me very complicated to fathom the intricacies binding the gap between what is applicable to all (such as the power of picturing a target possibly) to things with which are slightly too abstract to be able to create rules applicable to all. Bon chance....

A