.

NLP Academy Forums

   
 
New code epistemology
Posted: 05 October 2010 02:44 PM   [ Ignore ]
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  54
Joined  09-10-2009

I want to present a laymans version of the new code epistemology for my blog for people that might find whispering a little too heavy. I fully appreciate the benefits of knowing nothing pre - new code training but other than whispering there seems to be very little for practitioners to begin to understand the intricacies of New code. Obvioulsy this resource is very helpful but from my own personal experience when people have discussed stuff it is extremely technical and difficult to understand the concepts discussed because it requires a different form of thinking and the terms are rarely put into contexts when discussed. I also appreciate that red tail math has been cited to expand on the epistemology further but it hasn’t seemed to appear.

As I am keeping the explanation simple I won’t really be going in depth initially on F2 (although I may de a follow up post), F1 very briefly mentioned and the mapping part won’t be mentioned at all at this stage. My questions revolve around what’s occuring at FA:

1) When watching the marsh hawk, fully present do I take that as no conscious manipulation of internal sounds, internal images just being present with maybe a kind of conscious awareness of feelings but no conscious commentry on them. Just being

2) If I write a toddlers book from scratch making up the images and sounds only, no words or meanings how can that be at FA? If not at FA what place does it have?

3) When a person is imagining something that has never happened where abouts does that sit? Same goes for a composer of music.

4) When I recall a context am I recalling the closest phenomenon to FA but not strictly FA? Its bound to have been subject to all sorts of transforms

5) Strictly Pure FA experiences in adulthood are rare and nearly impossible?

5) If I am watching the marsh hawk while consciously imagining with pictures and sounds only what the rabbit will do where does that sit?

6) Does consciousness then still operate in FA as long as there if no meaning is placed upon it with language? This is where I fall into confusion because consciousness doesn’t necassarily have to go through the F1 transforms because it goes meta to experience and doesn’t necassarily need outside stimuli in order to occur. I am currently wondering why F2 is confined to language only when you can go meta with images, sounds and subsequently feelings

I am more than happy to link back to anyones sites with full credit for contributers to the post I create on the back of this. There’s probably overlap in the questions as well, just wanted to cover all basis

Profile
Want to join in with this discussion? Please Login or Register.
 
Posted: 12 October 2010 02:24 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  54
Joined  09-10-2009

Thanks Nj that’s a great help. I have a clearer understanding of FA now. I would say clear but I can’t gaurantee that one. I still cannot figure out where non - language based consciously created stuff fits within the model although that may be more due to my misunderstandings. An architect that designs a building will be visualising without the need for language. I realise that example would be in the same place as the toddlers book and composed music but what place is that? I guess the answer to the question:

“And how is ________ relevant to nlp practice?”

Would be for designing techniques and also having a clearer idea of whether you are working with the right bit (level, type? not overly clear on that bit) with regards the presenting issue. I’ve had one particular success with the N.C.C.F that was beginning to be unpicked by the persons F2 constructs. Maybe this is why Erickson performed so much amnesia after his work. I think by being aware of additional leverage points and potential threats from F2 constructs e.g expectations the state based interventions will hold tighter.

“So, you have a bunch of external data coming in through the senses. Your brain converts it from data into a perceivable format (FA) giving you a flow of experience. As soon as you go meta with language you unearth feelings, sounds, images carving up the experience and its never the same again after that. Or, the feelings sounds and images are there which leads to the language otherwise you wouldn’t be debating whether the marsh hawk dipped left or right. As far as consciously created stuff not involving langauge e.g sounds, images and imagined feelings for people the literature is unclear.”

Would that be as basic a description as you can get or are the errors in the above statement?

Ps. Thanks for the suggested resources, everyone you have suggested on the forum is on my “must” list. And do you want me to link to your site or just add credit if the site has no content on it as of yet. Thanks again NJ

Profile
Want to join in with this discussion? Please Login or Register.
 
Posted: 13 October 2010 11:27 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  54
Joined  09-10-2009
njsc - 13 October 2010 01:01 AM

You’re thinking of ways to make the state-based interventions “hold tighter”, in other words, future-pace them.

 

Hmm, I would rather have somebody “in time” doing a state based intervention than future pacing them

Profile
Want to join in with this discussion? Please Login or Register.
 
Posted: 16 October 2010 02:46 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 3 ]
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  54
Joined  09-10-2009

Thanks Nj that’s a great help.  Just one more thing if i’m not testing your patience too much, unless anyone else would care to join?: When you said NLP practice concerns itself with f1 and f2 transforms and its products - when working at the level of FA does that mean you are directly affecting the information coming in at f1 as the state change (from a game for example) directly affects what comes in and experienced as FA? So when placed back in the context the HPS is affecting transforms at f1 (somehow, granted nobody knows yet) and hence leads to a different experience at FA? With a succesful collapse the person would say what problem? because their FA experience has changed completely?

Profile
Want to join in with this discussion? Please Login or Register.
 
Posted: 21 October 2010 12:47 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 4 ]
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  54
Joined  09-10-2009

As far as “working at the level of FA”, mm, I would think that applies to the practitioner in how they handle their client, responding directly to what the practitioner’s senses tell the practitioner, not what the client talks about their problem to say.

I agree, this is specifically what I meant by “hold tighter”

Other than that, you might want to either:

* trace the causal links you interpret from Dr. Grinder and Ms. Bostic St. Clair’s work on f1 and f2 transforms.
* assert the causal links you think apply to New Code work (the object of our discussion, presumably) in terms of f1 and f2.

The first would be you exploring what you think Dr. Grinder and Ms. Bostic St. Clair are talking about. The second would be to ask for counterexamples to what you think New Code does, or does not do, with f1 and f2. Let me draw out the second with a hypothetical example.

The single question I asked was whether the transferred state change affected f1 transforms afterbeing placed back in to context, for the purpose of offering a laymans version of what is occuring post N.C.C.F. If you don’t know just say so and we can both stop wasting our time.

If I were a practitioner, knowing what I know about internet discussions, and having been trained in New Code (hypothetically, this is some future self), I would try to get a place in the ITA private discussions, with specific questions intended to improve my practice, and sticking to those (sensory descriptions, specific requests for advice, discussions of real problems, no jargon, just what I saw/heard/felt, what I did, what worked, what didn’t, how could I improve?).

I’m not you Nj

I said when I first posted here that I wanted to decide whether New Code was for me.

You posted here when the site was renewed and the new forum begin. It has to be at most a year ago when this occured. At most. I’ve seen your posts (on the WWW) Nj indicating you were exploring new code going back at least five years. Rendering that statement BS? I appreciate your criticisms (here, and on the WWW) at the same time wondering how constructive they are. If you don’t like “all things John Grinder” or even “some things John Grinder” or anything “in between” so what? How are you not posting your own discoveries and developments which add to a persons skill set rather than *mind read* moaning about John Grinders teachings?

Profile
Want to join in with this discussion? Please Login or Register.
 
   
 
 
RSS 2.0     Atom Feed