Charles Faulkner

Met him last week at a practice group. Any of you know much about his role in the world of NLP? I love his way of looking a metaphors in language and how you can 'roll with the clients metaphors' in order to create change

Hi, I find him a fascinating chap, absolutely knows his stuff and takes it very seriously. His reading pile is apparently solidly academic, he always has the detailed references for anything. And he has some interesting ideas about how academic research from other fields can be used to support and develop NLP ideas.

He was heavily involved in the creation of the Steve Andreas book Six Blind Elephants last year.

As a speaker he can be rather hard work to listen to: he likes to illustrate the language patterns he's talking about by using them in this own speech, without neccessarily saying explicitly that's what he's doing, so it gets rather multi-layered and complicated.

He recently married a Brit and so is spending a lot more time in the UK than he used to. So he's speaking at Richmond NLP group and also the central London NLP Business Group next week, I think.

At the risk of spending the day plugging my own stuff, there's a download of him speaking at the Clean Conference on our website here: Charles Faulkner on Clean Language [D00005] - £10.00 : Clean Change Company Online Shop, Clean: thinking that makes an impact

Judy

Met him last week at a practice group. Any of you know much about his role in the world of NLP? I love his way of looking a metaphors in language and how you can 'roll with the clients metaphors' in order to create change

You might find it worth reading some George Lakoff as much of the metaphor stuff is adapted from there. Faulkner and Andreas seem to be fans of Lakoff and the field of embodied linguistics and are pulling some of it into NLP. I think this is a good thing considering NLP has "linguistic" in the title!

Start with something easy to digest like "Metaphors we live by"..

Metaphors We Live by: G Lakoff: Amazon.co.uk: Books

Metaphors-We-Live-G-Lakoff [Amazon UK | Amazon US]

Other works in this field are full of valuable insights that can be adapted but can be quite difficult to read as they are mostly aimed at academics and written in a very dense style.

I don't know much about Faulkner, but I will second the George Lakoff recommendation. Very practical stuff. Lakoff's commentary on the last three presidential elections in the USA were insightful and invaluable. Whether you are interested in US politics or not, his book "Don't Think of an Elephant" is easy to digest and offers some entry-level insights into his (and Charles Fillmore's) ideas of metaphors and frames in language applied to politics. Even simpler stuff than "Metaphors We Live By" (which is also quite excellent).

I'll third the Lakoff recommendation! And if you actually prefer complicated, try Lakoff and Johnson's Philosophy In The Flesh. I found it mind-boggling :-)

He says there are 10 senses? Not 5..

He says there are 10 senses? Not 5..

Yes. In fact there may be even more than 10. Some count I think 19 or 29. There is no scientific consensus about the number of sense organs as there are different valid conceptions of what actually constitutes a sense. It always troubled me that kinesthetic was lumped together as a single sense in NLP coming from a more physical background. It seemed a bit limited to me. There is a world of difference between the way we react to different "feeling" senses such as "pressure", "body part location in space", "heat", "balance" etc.. A warm person is a very different concept to a balanced person. Classic NLP attempted to describe many of these facets as submodalities of kinesthetic but then you may as well describe vision as submodalities of kinesthetic because you can state that "I can't take my eyes off of her" as the old soul song goes. So does that make seeing a submodality of kinesthetic? It didn't ring very true for me. This idea does need updating. I am all for Charles Faulkner's bringing more senses into NLP. It makes total sense!

My personal definition of a sense is an organ which receives a message and attributes the message some meaning. This could be just a single cell wall receptor receiving a hormone that fits the key telling a cell that some action is required or a neuron signalling another. In that case we have millions. However, how we cut the world into pieces should be based on the task at hand and what is most pragmatic. That is our choice.

Remember, the body knows not its own name. Nature didn't cut the body into pieces. We did that. This is why I very much like the concept of perception as it doesn't require the separation of senses at all. With what organ do you perceive your thoughts? Where does that happen? We are yet to discover many more senses and much more sense I suspect!

Interesting stuff. Personally I think we have a huge number of sense organs (indeed, each cell of the body is studded with numerous receptor sites that can be considered incredibly specific sense organs). Senses as a linguistic construct, however, does seem closer to the old VAKOG.

It's kind of like the old game of "How many colors are there in a rainbow?" Do you know?

Senses as a linguistic construct, however, does seem closer to the old VAKOG.

I'm not sure that linguistically they are as combined as we might have assumed. When someone says they are "under pressure" is that the same sense as saying that they are "out of balance"?

I'm not sure that linguistically they are as combined as we might have assumed. When someone says they are "under pressure" is that the same sense as saying that they are "out of balance"?

And what about looking and listening from our hearts or pelvis?

And what about looking and listening from our hearts or pelvis?

..or talking out of our arses!!

I'm not sure that linguistically they are as combined as we might have assumed. When someone says they are "under pressure" is that the same sense as saying that they are "out of balance"?

I don't know. Which someone? When? I suspect that if you questioned further - depending heavily on what questions you ask - you'll either find they are different, or, more likely, that both are *described* as a feeling, even though one may have been ascertained via a sense of homeostasis and the other with proprioception.

And no one wanted to play the rainbow game? Most will answer that there are seven colors in a rainbow. In fact there are infinite gradations of color (or at least as many millions of colors as you find in photoshop!). It was Isaac Newton's bias toward alchemy in which seven was an important number that gave us the ROYGBIV delineation.

How we delineate comes down to our epistemological presuppositions on a very basic level. We can certainly retrain ourselves to perceive more and more distinctions, although for that to spread widely would take linguistic shifts (and possibly some new words).

It's an interesting subject. Can you recommend some of Faulkner's writings on the senses?

And what about looking and listening from our hearts or pelvis?

Again, the operative metaphors seem to be "looking" and "listening"... regardless of what mechanism was involved. It's difficult to change the delineations. What other words might be useful to describe heart or pelvis senses?

I don't know. Which someone? When? I suspect that if you questioned further - depending heavily on what questions you ask - you'll either find they are different, or, more likely, that both are *described* as a feeling, even though one may have been ascertained via a sense of homeostasis and the other with proprioception.

And no one wanted to play the rainbow game? Most will answer that there are seven colors in a rainbow. In fact there are infinite gradations of color (or at least as many millions of colors as you find in photoshop!). It was Isaac Newton's bias toward alchemy in which seven was an important number that gave us the ROYGBIV delineation.

How we delineate comes down to our epistemological presuppositions on a very basic level. We can certainly retrain ourselves to perceive more and more distinctions, although for that to spread widely would take linguistic shifts (and possibly some new words).

It's an interesting subject. Can you recommend some of Faulkner's writings on the senses?

I don't think Charles Faulkner has anything published on this yet but I got the impression at a presentation I saw recently that he is working on something.

I will play the rainbow game with you!.. I just didn't have time earlier. I agree that a painter or visual artist of any kind will have finer distinctions than I. My vision is unrefined compared to my "kinesthetic" and "auditory" senses. This is simply through having practiced disciplines over the years that require development of those such as music or martial arts.

Not all languages divide the spectrum at the same points in ordinary daily use. The welsh language for instance changes from blue to green at a different frequency.

Psychology | How grue is your valley? | Economist.com

With sound a similar thing happened with the western melodic scale 500 years ago when it was officially "standardized" into equal temperament where the proportional frequency jumps were made all equal. This made possible playing of larger groups of musicians together such as orchestras and increased the number of potential parts to a harmony without it sounding horrible. This also made complex harmonies like jazz possible rather than traditional 3 part folk etc! Initially people thought it sounded a little strange and many even opposed it. Now we assume that's how the notes sound and are out of tune otherwise! Curiously, one of the first promoters of the new scale was Galileo's father!

Equal temperament - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As for crossing senses, I think this is actually the normal most efficient mode of operation for an animal. So even the split between vision and audition is an arbitrary conception. In terms of meditation it is a mistake to separate senses because to do so would presuppose and necessitate multiple centers to perception so perception ceases to be total with a single center. For each center of perception a new action arises in the body so conflict arises within the body as it is being driven in multiple directions. This habit of separating perception in any way (say between thoughts and feelings, eyes and ears) creates tension in the body and results in unnatural movement.

One of the reasons we have many misguided concepts of our body is that we are taught from very young about our body from the outside in but this is crazy because we actually operate it from the inside out. For instance, mummy says "This is your leg, this is your arm etc". Most people conceive of the arm as starting at the shoulder but as far as the body is concerned its origin is at the sternum. It is easy to demonstrate how the erroneous concepts (ones that don't actually follow natural structure) of our body lead to unnatural movement and potential problems. The concept of an arm starting at the shoulder is for the convenience of others and society as in sentences like "mummy my arm hurts" but used for movement of one's own body it is terrible!

. For instance, mummy says "This is your leg, this is your arm etc". Most people conceive of the arm as starting at the shoulder but as far as the body is concerned its origin is at the sternum. It is easy to demonstrate how the erroneous concepts (ones that don't actually follow natural structure) of our body lead to unnatural movement and potential problems. The concept of an arm starting at the shoulder is for the convenience of others as in sentences like "mummy my arm hurts" but used for movement of the body it is terrible!

Do you know something about anatomy that I don't John?

Do you know something about anatomy that I don't John?

Do this. Hold your collar bone with one hand and raise the other arm vertically slowly. What do you notice with the hand holding the collar bone?

Now do the same experiment with another person in two ways. When the arm reaches the top get the other person to test the strength by pulling vertically downwards.

Do this twice, once with the concept in mind that the movement of your arms orginates at the sternum. Again, with the concept of the arm originating at the shoulder. What is the difference in relative strength at the end of the movement and compare the two for smooth flow of the movement. If you do this honestly you should notice some interesting differences. In one you should notice that all the parts move in harmony, in the other that they have become "parts" or separated in function and don't work together in harmony.

Similarly, the neck also originates at the sternum and moves move naturally with this concept. If you conceive of the neck orignating at where you see it emerge from the body it will move more "clunkily". You are more likely to get tension in the neck this way.

It could be just a curiosity but also useful for people who move in ways that are unnatural (maybe with neck or shoulder problems) to reconceive of all body parts that hang off the central column as originating there. Practicing use of these concepts for movement result in far less tension related problems.

In person, it would be much easier to demonstrate these difference than in writing of course because we are out of the realm of language.

I get what you're saying. I suppose it depends on the definition you give to the arm as to whether you include the locomotive muscles as well and if we include innervation, I suppose it technically starts from the brain!

I can see how your definition could be useful in some circumstances so thanks for expanding my options with regard to definitions!

I get what you're saying. I suppose it depends on the definition you give to the arm as to whether you include the locomotive muscles as well and if we include innervation, I suppose it technically starts from the brain!

I can see how your definition could be useful in some circumstances so thanks for expanding my options with regard to definitions!

Yeah. Ultimately, the most powerful situation is that all movement originates for a single point of unified perception. However, that is a life time of practice and the holy grail of martial artists and meditators so not so practical for a therapeutic situation.

However, it seems much easier for people to update their concepts in terms of structure and a central column. This is then more practical in remedial situations i.e. get their concepts more in line with the internal structure of the body. People tend to forget about the inside of their body because they have been taught about it from the outside!

The point is that our concepts actually affect our movement in beneficial or not so beneficial ways. Some just work more efficiently and so result in less wear and tear on the body over time. I can roll on concrete without hurting my body simply by switching concepts. I do not recommend practicing this though without some expert help!

So you are right about saying it depends on definition. To be more specific some definitions work better than others. Most people don't realize they can update the definitions of how the mind relates to the body and improve certain functioning this way. We are simply taught incorrectly but not intentionally. Mummy doesn't think she is teaching something inaccurate when she says "this is your arm".

The body knows not its own name. We impose these on it and often in a way that doesn't work very well.

I've not studied martial arts since I was a kid and am relatively new to meditating, so what are the benefits to preceiving that all movement originates from a single point?

I've not studied martial arts since I was a kid and am relatively new to meditating, so what are the benefits to preceiving that all movement originates from a single point?

For instance showing how to pick someone heavy up without hurting yourself. For fun sometimes I show children how to pick up an adult much bigger than them without any tension or straining. Normally that would be quite difficult and potentially tear something. It is extremely useful especially where size and physical strength is an issue say a female nurse.

I can think of 3 times when having learned these concepts has saved my life in an accident or at least a very serious injury. For instance one time when just about to get hit by a car I spontaneously jumped on top of the bonnet (there was not time to get out of the way) so I could roll over the top of the car. I flipped over the car and landed on my feet. The driver looked more shaken up than me. There is no way I would have done that automatically before learning this stuff. I just would not have had the necessary concepts of movement available.