.

NLP Academy Forums

   
 
Epistemology: Feed Forward and Feed Back Loops
Posted: 27 June 2010 05:12 PM   [ Ignore ]
Member
Avatar
Rank
Total Posts:  14
Joined  22-09-2009

There are many lively discussions currently going on regarding what occurs epistemologically when the NCCF is vs. is not followed according to the four steps as listed in the book Whispering in The Wind pg 240. 

As a NC Trainer, my intention is to teach precise methodology (as a starting point) to my students.  Once I calibrate my students understand and can demonstrate they know how to apply the basics I like to introduce challenges and or invite them to experiment.  Before I venture into new terrain, for ecological purposes, I seek to improve my understanding of what I propose to my students.

For this stated purpose I am seeking *esoteric (not eclectic) feedback from others using NC for self application and with clients to help unpack a **concise linguistic description for what occurs in the epistemological cycle when the following situation occurs at step 3:

1.  The coach guides client through the NCCF (WITW pg 240)

2.  After step 4 is complete the coach calibrates the client has integrated the HPS into the context

3.  *** The Coach initiates a verbal discussion about what the client is feeling.


As a starting point, I share my thoughts on several possible epistemological descriptions as follows:

For the client to describe how they feel, the client will consciously either:

1. Access newly created FA representation (the HPS)
2. Feed forward through f2 transforms/filters
3. Create linguistic representation
4. Offer verbal description
or

1. Access existing f2 representations
2. Loop back to FA to access newly created FA representation (the HPS)
3. Loop forward to f2 and feed forward through f2 transforms/filters
4. Create linguistic representation
5. Offer verbal description

or

1. Access existing f2 representations
2. Loop back to FA to access newly created FA representation (the HPS)
3. Loop forward to f2 and search for old context
4. Create a new imaginary context with HPS added in
5. Feed forward through f2 transforms/filters, add in existing memories/ filters
6. Do a contrastive analysis at f2 between original context and new imaginary context
7. Create linguistic representation
8. Offer verbal description

If you choose to respond with comments, it would be helpful to use a similar bullet point method.
My desire is that collectively we produce an acceptable description of the feed forward/feed back loop cycle or set of cycles that could be occurring.

..........

*A discussion with focus on the specific area of epistemology as it relates to both feed forward and feed back loops.

**I do not have the expertise or equipment to non-linguistically communicate what is occurring inside my body/mind to another person to ‘show’ them what I mean.  Therefore, I am seeking as best a linguistic description as is possible at this time (I’m sure a current linguistic description will change as the field of Neurology grows at the speed it is currently).

***I am not proposing coaches/trainers have a verbal discussion with their client at this stage of the NCCF.  I want to explore what could be occurring within the epistemological cycle IF a coach did initiate a verbal discussion.

Cheers,
Jacquie

Profile
Want to join in with this discussion? Please Login or Register.
 
Posted: 06 July 2010 05:44 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]
Member
Avatar
Rank
Total Posts:  14
Joined  22-09-2009

Hello njsc,

Thank you for responding and offering your thoughts.  I do apologize if my post was poorly worded, confusing or inappropriate in any way. 

Why on Earth would you ask what would happen if you asked about a person’s state if you’re supposed to be a New Code trainer? Was it a serious question, or are you trying to be provocative?

My intention was to understand what is going on so that I could pass on an explanation to students that have asked me for a more detailed explanation.

Don’t ask about your client’s state. Simple. Easy. Neither esoteric nor eclectic.

As a rule, I don’t. Nor do I demo/teach students to.  However,  I have noticed that students are sometimes stuck in ‘auditory digital’.  I thought it would be helpful to have an explanation (if possible) that would explain to them what can be happening. 

I’m ready to accept that a written/verbal description is not a neccessary or helpful tool and to your point, to understand what goes on may require a study of neurology which I am not interested in doing at this time. 

Cheers,
Jacquie

Profile
Want to join in with this discussion? Please Login or Register.
 
Posted: 12 July 2010 12:03 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  54
Joined  09-10-2009
njsc - 29 June 2010 07:26 PM

The relevance of f2 is whether the FA can be symbolized, but the symbol processing, if it occurs, is all recombination of FA, through and through. Discussion of symbol effects in the abstract has no relevance to how the symbols are represented, as FA experience.

Hi Nj I have tried really really hard to get my head around your post and this question may be well off the mark relating to what I have quoted: Would eliciting the Sm’s of a context be considered be considered an f2 symbolization of FA?

Profile
Want to join in with this discussion? Please Login or Register.
 
Posted: 12 July 2010 12:17 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 3 ]
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  54
Joined  09-10-2009

My question is more related to what’s happening when they build the context initially - are the Sm’s an f2 symbolisation of FA or are they what is actually stored as FA. My intention for asking is because I am trying to figure out how attaching a HPS to a context is more ecological than using Milton patterns. What’s the difference occuring? As I have not done trainers training it is difficult as a practitioner to deepen understanding of the underlying epistemology. I appreciate that NLP is pragmatic in nature although a purely inductive approach won’t allow me to develop my full potential.

Profile
Want to join in with this discussion? Please Login or Register.
 
Posted: 13 July 2010 01:03 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 4 ]
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  54
Joined  09-10-2009

That’s cool thanks for the input. I have some experimenting to do then I will create a post. Thanks Nj

Profile
Want to join in with this discussion? Please Login or Register.
 
Posted: 13 July 2010 11:24 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 5 ]
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  54
Joined  09-10-2009

No worries. Non verbals is all you have to go off with the games as well. The games offer no gaurantees either. And the client can be totally clueless to the effectiveness of the game (they can still think it has worked because I was so congruent in the delivery and they wouldn’t want to think they have wasted their money would they?) and they can also think it has worked when to be honest, they chose the wrong context. I have seen this while calibrating a distinct state shift. The client felt “good” for want of a label for the state (mine not the clients I completely distracted after wards and gave strict instructions to just forget about it) but it quickly became clear to me she had chosen the wrong context all together as the same issues continued but she had a new state. Personally I don’t care what the client “says” just what I observe in terms of non verbals and I am not saying I am amazing at it but work towards it and do pick up on incongruenties. What I am attemtping to make sense of is what you have offered. Their is the epistemological argument that reframing in any sense for example won’t cut it because you are working at the level of f2 and not FA. I am not convinced, yet,,... but that may be due to my inferior understanding rather than a valid point which is why I engaged.

  With regards to the OP I don’t know why you would ask what the client was feeling other than being nosy. I do not know and I am not saying it is merely being nosy. With regards to questions however I do ask them if they can get the feeling back? Any other dialogue would utilise Milton patterning if nothing else than a better distractor than just telling them to forget about it (which I didn’t know how to do when I did the previous example)

Profile
Want to join in with this discussion? Please Login or Register.
 
Posted: 14 July 2010 11:55 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 6 ]
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  54
Joined  09-10-2009

That’s excellent feedback, thanks NJ

Profile
Want to join in with this discussion? Please Login or Register.
 
Posted: 01 December 2010 10:36 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 7 ]
Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  121
Joined  21-09-2009

Hi Jacquie,

It’s been ages since I was here last time - I lost interest somehow (in my own posts as well wink)
It is nice to read something and have a feeling that it might lead to something interesting smile
My first thought was that you really do your best to formulate things as intersubjectively as possible - and I appreciate it very much.
I have an impression that ‘discussion’ has more degreees and shades than yes or no or black and white.
It is however my usual comment - especially nominalisations should be personalised as clearly as possible in order to make the message intelligible and not to be hallucinated over.
Does the word ‘feeling’ refer only to kinestetics? Were you intentionally using present tense in order to stress interviewing the client about their present experience only and not about what they experienced a while ago? And so on.
On the whole I’d love to see your aim fulfilled. If you think I could be of any help I am all yours

Dymitr

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