What is the Experience of “Meta”?
A dialogue between Steve Andreas and Michael Hall
Some time ago, I (Steve) made the following general proposal to Michael for a dialogue to exemplify a respectful exchange of views in the field:
In the past, you and I have had significantly different fundamental understandings on a number of issues that could be the basis for a public dialogue between us, such as:
1. Whether or not it is important to distinguish between two uses of “meta” to refer to large scope (“the big picture”) or general category — a topic I explored at length in my Six Blind Elephants books.
2. My description of your concept of “layering” as the reverse of nested categories in the logical levels of naïve set theory, as set forth in Elephants, pp. 114-116
3. Whether Submodalities are meta or subdivisions of scopes of experience.
Of course you may have changed your views on one or more of these issues, or you might prefer to choose others. Assuming we could agree on an interesting issue on which we have differing views, I have some fairly specific ideas about how to create a respectful dialogue to avoid misunderstandings, side issues, etc.
Privately one of us would write up a position statement on the selected issue, and the other would respond to it in writing. Then we would each edit or revise our positions until we are both satisfied that we have had an opportunity to present our position fully, respond fully to the other’s position, and that we each understand the other clearly, to avoid problems like, “Well, that’s not what I said,” or “That’s what I said, but what I really meant was—” etc. This would also be an opportunity for each of us to notice any “ad hominem” arguments or other logical fallacies, and remove them.
After we are both satisfied with the result of this process, we would jointly offer this to the public (the summit group, your and my blogs) and invite comments from others.
I think this could serve as an example of working toward clarification or resolution of important issues that currently divide or confuse the field. Please let me know if you might be interested in joining with me on this, and/or if you have other views on how we could better accomplish the goal of presenting contrasting views in a way that could provide a productive dialogue.
Michael agreed in principle, and sent me a number of different extensive position statements on the meaning of “Meta,” and I take this as an invitation to focus on this topic. I prefer to begin with a more concise statement for our dialogue, but other writing projects (and my struggle with greatly diminished energy due to Parkinson’s disease) have delayed me until now.
Steve Andreas
I want to start with a brief exploration of how prepositions work, because this provides a basis for understanding the experience of the word “meta.” Notice your image in response to the sentence, “She is on the bed,” and compare that with your images for the same sentence, but replacing the word “on” with “off,” “in,” “under,” “beside,” or “behind.” . . .
Next, notice your image of the sentence, “Buy some groceries before you drive home,” and compare that with your images for the same sentence, but replacing “before” with “after,” “when,” or “as.”
A “pre position” positions two things (“she” and “bed”) with respect to each other in space, or two activities (buying groceries” and “driving home”) with respect to each other in time.
In NLP generally, and in Michael’s writing, the prefix “meta” is used for many different experiences, with the general meaning of “about,” such as “meta-position,” “meta-model,” “meta-communication.” If you look up synonyms for “meta,” the most common is “about,” a preposition.
“About” has one meaning that is explicitly about location, as in “She looked about the room,” or “His things were scattered about.” A second, more general meaning is “on the subject of” or “concerning,” as in, “I was thinking about you,” in which some thing or event is described from a different position in space or time.
In one very interesting subset of uses the prefix “meta-” is self-referential, “about its own category,” “an X about X.” Meta-cognition is cognition about cognition, “meta-emotion” is emotion about emotion, “meta-discussion” is a discussion about discussion.
In the early days of NLP the prefix “meta” served a useful purpose, directing attention to important elements of communication that had been ignored. However there are now so many different meanings of the word “meta” that it has become almost meaningless.
I want to explore three very different kinds of experiences of “meta” or “about,” each of which has specific, but very different therapeutic uses. (There may be a number of other kinds of meta experiences, but three are adequate for my purpose, which is to demonstrate how ambiguous the word is.)
Experiment 1
Start by noticing what you see now, looking out of your own eyes. . . . Now move your head two feet to the left or right, and notice how that changes what you see. . . . Probably most of what you see is the same, but this new point of view will be somewhat different; you will see parts that you couldn’t see before, and no longer see parts of what you saw before. Next imagine moving your head two feet to the left or right, but without actually moving your head, in order to change your view point. . . .
Next imagine moving your head two feet up or down, but again without actually moving your head, and notice what you see from this different point of view. . . .
Next pick a point on the ceiling, floor, or corner of the room, and imagine what you would see if you were looking from this point of view. . . .
There is an infinite number of different points of view that you could take. Each of them will include somewhat different content, but each one will be a more or less accurate sensory-based image of what you would actually see from that viewpoint.
Experiment 2
Begin by thinking of someone you have strong feelings about — either positive or negative. . . .
Now imagine that person fairly close to you in a specific context, and notice both what your image of this person looks like, and your feelings toward them. . . .
Now describe that person with a more general word such as “man,” or “woman,” or a word that describes that person’s occupation, and notice how that image changes, and how you feel toward that changed image. . . .
Now use an even more general word, such as “mammal,” and notice how the image, and your response to the image changes. . . .
Next use the word “vertebrate” and notice how your image and response changes. . . .
Next use the word “animal,” and notice the changes. . . .
Next use “organism,” and notice the changes. . . .
Finally, notice what image and response you have to a “flow of energy and information.” . . .
As you went through this process of going from a very specific and “concrete” image to a much more abstract and general one, I want to point out three things:
Experiment 3a, space
Look out a window, and notice something relatively small, roughly an inch or so across, and notice your response to this . . .
Then expand the scope of what you notice slightly, so that your field of view is perhaps 4” x 4,” and notice any change in your response. . . .
Then expand your field of view to be about a foot square, and notice any change in response. . . .
Continue to enlarge the scope of your experience, stepwise, pausing each time to notice your response, . . . until you finally reach a panoramic scope in which you are completely surrounded, imagining the scope behind you, above you, and beneath you, where you can’t actually see unless you move your head.
In this experiment, the scope of space attended to is gradually increased, while maintaining the same point of view. You could also start with a large scope of space, and then gradually diminish it, or you could “change frame” by attending to a completely different scope of space that doesn’t overlap at all.
When you change the scope of what you observe, that usually changes the content of what is attended to, and that often changes your response to what you see. Your experience of a larger scope will tend to be less detailed than a smaller one. However, all of these different scopes will be more or less sensory-based images of the content in the scope.
The same kind of experiment can be easily done in the auditory or kinesthetic modality, but only with some difficulty with taste and smell, because of our limitations in those modalities.
Experiment 3b, time
Start with the present moment, or a moment from some time in the past, and notice your response to this very short segment of time. . . .
Now make a very short movie by adding a few seconds that occurred before that moment, and adding a few seconds that follow that moment (real or imagined), and notice any change in your response. . . .
Now make that short movie a little longer, by adding a few minutes that occurred before that moment, and adding a few minutes that follow that moment (real or imagined), and notice any change in your response. . . .
Now make that movie even longer by adding the half-hour that occurred before that moment, and adding the half-hour that follow that moment (real or imagined), and notice any change in your response. . . .
Continue to gradually lengthen this movie, stepwise, pausing each time to notice your response, . . .by adding days, weeks, months, years, decades, centuries, millennia, until your movie is as long as the age of the universe before and after this moment. . . .
In this experiment, the scope of time attended to is gradually increased. You could also start with a large scope of time, and then gradually diminish the length of the movie, or you could “change frame” by attending to a completely different scope of time that doesn’t overlap at all.
When you change the scope of what you observe, that usually changes the content of what is attended to, and that often changes your response to the scope of what you see. Your experience of a longer scope of time will tend to be less detailed than a shorter one. However, all of these different scopes will be more or less sensory-based images of what you see.
The same kind of experiment can be easily done in the auditory or kinesthetic modality, but only with some difficulty with taste and smell, because of our limitations in those modalities.
Discussion
“Meta” is a very general term, one that could indicate any of the three very different kinds of experience described above — and potentially many others. Unless further specified, the instruction to “go meta” could indicate any of them. Although each kind of intervention has useful effects, they are also very different, so some of them will be much more useful for a given client’s problem or outcome.
Furthermore, some kinds of client problem already involve one or more of the kinds of meta described above, so any kind of “going meta” will either make no difference, or will make the problem worse.
For instance, a client who is grieving over a loss is already seeing the lost person from a distant point of view, which is what creates the feeling of absence/loss. Additional distance, or taking a different point of view will only increase the feeling of emptiness/loss. Recategorizing the loss as “inevitable,” or as something that “everyone experiences” may normalize it, but that won’t change the feeling of loss itself. In the resolving grief process the key intervention is to “un-meta” what they are doing by seeing the lost person out of your own eyes, close enough to touch, so that they are experienced as present, no longer absent.
Some very “mental” or “intellectual” clients already live in a vague, shadowy meta-world of abstraction, with very little direct sensory-based experience. These clients don’t need any form of meta; they need the opposite — how to find specific sensory-based examples of their lofty generalizations, so that they can change their experience in useful ways. The best-known way to do this is by asking the questions in the meta-model “Who/what/where/when/how specifically?” etc. (The meta-model is appropriately named — it’s a language model of language, an example of recursive meta-categorization. However, the result of using the meta-model is the opposite of going “meta.”)
Summary
Since the word “trauma” can mean almost any kind of unpleasantness, from life-threatening terror to being ignored at a party, it’s not very useful in understanding an experience, or in deciding what kind of intervention to make. Likewise “meta” or “going meta” are vague terms that can indicate one or more of several different ways to change experience. Because of this ambiguity, it’s impossible to know in advance how a “meta” intervention will change a client’s experience, and whether the change will be useful or not.
Although each of the different kinds of meta can be useful in changing a client’s experience of a problem or outcome, there are also clients whose problem is a result of already going meta in one or more of the ways described; for them a meta intervention will either make no difference, or make their problem worse. What they need is some kind of experience of “un-meta,” but the word “meta” is so vague that’s not clear what kind of “un-meta” will be a useful intervention.
Accordingly I advocate eliminating the use of the word “meta” altogether, and replace it with a specific VAK description of a client’s experience. “So you are looking back at that event and wishing it hadn’t happened,” “When you think about that event, it makes you angry,” “It’s as if you are seeing that event from her point of view,” etc.
Likewise any intervention can be an equally specific description of a change in that experience such as, “Look at that event from a point on the ceiling,” “How else could you describe that event?” “Can you see the larger context around that event,” etc.
This kind of specificity tells you exactly what a client is experiencing, and how an intervention will change it in a useful way. Nothing is lost by replacing the vague word “meta” with a more specific description.
At the very least, realize that when you use the word “meta” (as with the words “trauma,” “problem,” or “state,”) that is really only a sort of “placeholder” for a package of ignorance unless it is specified in much greater detail.
Steve Andreas has asked that I write a statement about my use of the term “meta.” I have done that in the following pages. My understanding of our differences is that Steve limits the term and processes it solely in of primary states. On the other hand, I follow the idea of self-reflexivity as Korzybski developed it and the unlimited iterations that can occur so that I see and use meta in many other ways. For me meta leads to the meta-levels that we call “logical levels,” to the theory of multiordinality (as Korzybski used the term), to meta-states (as I developed in the Meta-States Model), to the process of meta-detailing, and to many applications.
THE TERM “META” AND ITS USES
In NLP, meta has always been a central concept and term. And no wonder, from the beginning NLP has been recognized as a meta-discipline — one focused on the structure of experience. Accordingly in the early years (1972-1976), before the name “Neuro-Linguistic Programming” was chosen, NLP was called “Meta.”
Similarly, in the first books of NLP, The Structure of Magic, I and II (1975, 1976) meta occurs all over the place. There you will find such expressions as — meta-models, meta-representational systems, meta-tactics, meta-form, meta-distinctions, meta-messages, meta-questions, meta-position, meta-commenting, etc.
“The representational system which is presupposed by your clients’ predicates is what we call a Meta-form.” (1976, p. 16)
“The Meta-Tactic of switching representational systems allows the client to overcome the pain or the block to further growth and change.” (1976, p. 19)
“Retaining the meta distinction is useful for us in our work.” (p. 41)
The Term “Meta”
The Greek term “meta” literally refers to something “above, beyond, or about” something else. As a relational term meta speaks about a thought about a thought, a feeling about a feeling. In meta-communication we communicate about our communications. In meta-linguistics, we use and/or develop language so we can talk about our language.
“The ability to communicate about communication, to comment upon the meaningful actions of oneself and others, is essential for successful social intercourse. In any normal relationship there is a constant interchange of meta-communicative messages such as ‘What do you mean?’ or ‘Why did you do that?’ or ‘Are you kidding me?’ and so on.” (Bateson, 1972, p. 215)
In the NLP Strategy Model, the meta-move is a move along a set of representational steps in which a person as it were “steps back” or “reflects back” onto a previous step or response and responds to that response. (NLP, Volume I, pp. 90, 91-92, 96, 109-110)
Steve has identified three definitions of “meta” and detailed them with some thought experiments. I fully agree with those and then see several additional definitions of “meta,” especially the role of self-reflexive consciousness. My guess is that this is the source of our differences, hence the emphasis (below) on self-reflexivity.
Relying on both Korzybski and Bateson, I have relied on and run with the idea that Korzybski put forward about “the theory of multi-ordinality” as the source of so many human disasters. “Going meta” for him meant that the ability for an infinite regress of responses explained how the same word at different logical levels would have very different meanings, his introduction of multi-ordinality as an important linguistic distinction.
From that I developed the Meta-States Model as one expression of delving into a theory of multi-ordinality. When Richard Bandler asked me to review the history of the Meta-Model and write a book that we would jointly author, I added “multi-ordinality” to the extended Meta-Model (Communication Magic, 2001).
The “Meta” Source
In the human experience, the meta-function operates due to the kind of mind that we have — our self-reflexive consciousness. That is, as we think-and-feel in regard to something “out there” in the world (a primary state), perhaps experiencing joy, fear, love, anger, stress, etc., we can then as it were “step back” from ourselves and entertain additional (secondary) thoughts-and-feelings about our experience. When we fear our state of fear, we construct a meta-state. We can love our joy, fear our anger, feel ashamed of our fear, feel sad about our misunderstanding. The second state is about the first state. Here consciousness becomes richly complex. Here we do not just add another thought or feeling so that we have more thoughts and feelings in reference to something. Here we multiply.
Infinite
Nor does it stop at one level. Korzybski said that humans can “go meta” infinitely, that is, it is a process without end. With animals, the reflecting back onto one’s experience ends, not so with humans. With the reflexive consciousness of humans, whatever you think and/or feel, you can step back and think yet another thought/feeling about that.
Levels as Hierarchical
Bateson noted that the term meta creates a hierarchic series whether we are speaking about “change,” “learning,” “contexts,” etc.
“Within the field of pure communication theory, the steps of an hierarchic series may be constructed by successive use of the word ‘about,’ or ‘meta.’ Our hierarchical series will consist of message, meta-message, meta-meta-message, and so on.” (1972, p. 247-8)
He also noted that with the meta level structures that’s within communication and consciousness there are inherent complications.
“Further complications are added … by noting that message may be about (or ‘meta’ to) the relationship between messages of different levels. … In human relations another sort of complexity may be generated; e.g., message may be emitted forbidding the subject to make the meta connection. … The hierarchy of messages and contexts thus becomes a complex branching structure.” (1972, p. 248)
Teasing Out the Levels
Given that we can create communication-about-communication, and states-about-states, and these states merge and permeate to generate gestalt states (or experiences). What was meta or higher does not stay higher because, as the system operates, it eventually becomes incorporated within the state. When you transcend and include, you apply higher levels to the lower levels and eventually the higher levels permeate the lower levels — they coalesce.
Responsibility coalesces into commitment to a goal in a situation of fear and so “courage” then emerges as a gestalt state — more than and different from the sum of the parts.
Conversely, we can tease out the higher levels by simply inquiring about the quality of a state.
What’s the quality of your anger? That is,when you feel anger, what is that like for you? Do you like yourself when you are angry? Are you respectful and thoughtful when you’re angry? Do you lose your head and go ballistic when you get angry? Can you maintain civility and patience when you’re feeling upset or angry? Or do you become impatient and insulting?
Asking about the quality of a state flushes out the higher level frame that’s governing the state. Inside that “frame” are thoughts, understandings, beliefs, identifications, decisions, memories, imaginations, etc. These meta-states are the states that you have previously brought to the experience, the experience now is a member of these frames.
The Multiple and Rich Significance of Meta-Levels
Given all of this, when you move to, or create, a meta-level, you are doing multiple things simultaneously. You are creating a frame that classifies the experience, setting an internal context that controls the meaning of the test, establishing a “game” that has inner rules, etc.
Start with a second thought about a first thought. This creates a frame-of-reference for the first thought and within that frame are multiple understandings. We call them by various meta-terms: beliefs, understandings, identity, memories, imaginations, permissions, etc.
An example: Access a thought-emotion of joy (delight, fun, playfulness) about learning. This joy (second thought or emotion) is about the state of learning (being receptive, changing perception, etc.). In doing this, you set a frame of joy about learning. The joy also becomes your inner context about learning. Learning now becomes a member of the class of Joyful things. Now you probably believe in learning as being fun. You might even define yourself as a joyful learner.
This is where terminology, critically important becomes challenging. Because the abstractions we use are reified (treated as a real thing and coded as nominalizations). This terminology itself makes understanding and clarity difficult. Bateson note how much language restrains us and creates problems for clear thinking when we move to this realm.
“These signals are evidently of higher Logical Type than the messages they classify. Among human beings this framing and labeling of messages and meaningful actions reaches considerable complexity, with the peculiarity that our vocabulary for such discrimination is still very poorly developed…” (Bateson, 1972, p. 203).
Speaking about abstractions in language such as “hostility,” “love,” “dependence,” etc. as if real things, he noted that “this is epistemology backwards,” and says—
“We are so befuddled by language that we cannot think straight…” (p. 275)
The Meta Functions
Lots of things happen simultaneously in the meta process. By “going meta” you 1) classify an item. You put it in a certain category and this delimits what’s in that category. 2) Qualify or texture the items in that classification. 3) Govern the experience as it sets up the “rules” for how the experience now operates.
1) Classify. “The context (or meta-message) classifies the message…” (Bateson, 1972, p. 247). “In human life … there occur signals whose major function is to classify contexts” … context markers (Bateson, 1972, p. 289). With each new frame we simultaneously set an internal context for our experience. Each meta-level is simultaneously a meta-state, named by some meta-term, a frame, an inner context.
2) Qualify. “All messages and parts of messages are like phrases or segments of equations which a mathematician puts in brackets. Outside the brackets there may always be a qualifier or multiplier which will alter the whole tenor of the phrase.” (Bateson, 1972, p. 232). As a higher level is set to classify members of the set, it modulates and qualifies their members.
3) Govern. “… in the process of therapy, there must have been communication at a level meta to these rules. There must have been communication about a change in rules.” (Bateson, 1972, p. 191). The higher modulates the lower as the bias set in a thermostat controls the range of flexibility of temperature in a room.
4) Expand Perspective. The process of moving up to a meta or higher level simultaneously expands one’s perspective. When a person moves from a particular to more general and abstract level (the class or category), the person at the same time gains a broader perspective of a large horizon.
5) Gestalt and Emergence. The process of “going meta” is not always additive, in fact, it is more typically exponential. It multiples things so that a gestalt experience arises. Then something “more than and different from the sum of the parts” arise. This is an emergent property in a system of multiple variables. Many complex states (courage, forgiveness, self-esteem, seeing opportunity, etc.) are gestalt states.
Two Worlds: Newtonian (Substance) and Communication (Form)
Bateson constantly spoke about two worlds which operate by different principles and “dynamics.” He emphasized that while the term “dynamics” can be used literally for the Newtonian wolrd, it can only be used metaphorically for the inner world of communication.
“The difference between the Newtonian world and the world of communication is simply this: that the Newtonian world ascribes reality to objects and achieves its simplicity by excluding the context of the context — excluding indeed all meta-relationships —a fortiori excluding an infinite regress of such relations.” (Bateson, 1972, p. 250, italics added)
“The explanatory world of substance can invoke no differences and no ideas but only forces and impacts. And per contra, the world of form and communication invokes no things, forces, or impacts but only differences and ideas.” (Bateson, 1972, p. 271, also p. 489)
For the world of communication, we use our self-reflexivity to move up a logical level to set a frame-of-reference about our experience in the Newtonian world. Doing this creates a meta-level state, an inner context of understanding, which then defines the pattern — “a contextual structure, a set of rules for how to put the information together” (Bateson, p. 276). Together all of these variables make up the human mind-body-emotion system. This gives us a holistic system with feedback and feed-forward communication loops.
The Meta of Meta-States
Structurally, a meta-state stands in special relationship to a state. The second state relates to the primary state as a higher awareness about the lower state. The junior state functions as a member of the class defined by the higher state. The higher or meta-state functions as a category for understanding and feeling about the lower.
That’s why “fear of our anger” (fearful anger) differs in texture so much from “respect of our anger” (respectful anger).
That’s why “shame about getting angry because it only turns things nasty” differs so much in texture to “appreciation of my powers to get angry because it informs me that some perceived value or understanding feels violated and allows me to respectfully explore the situation anger.”
As a higher logical level, the mental and emotional frames that we bring to our primary experiences represent the governing influences of beliefs, decisions, identities, etc. The higher frame, as a message about the lower experience, modulates, organizes, and governs it. It functions like a self-organizing attractor in the mind-body system. In your meta-states, you will find values, beliefs, expectations, understandings, identifications, etc. Some will be obvious and explicit, others will be hidden and convert.
Framing
A word that is a close synonym of meta is frame. A frame is a perceptual filter, it sets a category or a class, it is an interpretative schema as a structure whereby we attribute meaning to things. And similar to meta, it does many things simultaneously. As such it manages meaning, governs attention, controls responses, creates an orientation, orders (organizes) perception, punctuates a series of events, etc.
“Within dream or fantasy the dreamer does not operate with the concept ‘untrue.’ He operates with all sorts of statements but with a curious inabiity to achieve meta-statements. He cannot … dream a statement referring to (i.e., framing) his dream.” (Bateson, 1972, p. 185)
“The first step in defining a psychological frame might be to say that it is (or delimits) a class or set of messages.” (p. 186)
“While the analogy of the mathematical set is perhaps over abstract, the analogy of the picture frame is excessively concrete. The psychological concept which we are trying to define is neither physical nor logical. … Psychological frames are exclusive, i.e., by including certain messages within a frame, certain other messages are excluded. Psychological frames are inclusive, i.e., by excluding certain messages certain others are included. …” (187)
“A frame is meta-communicative. Any message, which either explicitly or implicitly defines a frame, ipso facto gives the receiver instructions or aids in his attempt to understand the messages included within the frame.” (188)
When Meta becomes Systemic
When we tease apart the structure of our higher frames-of-references (or meta-states) from the primary experiences we do so to create clarity about the inherent structure within complex states. In actual practice, however, primary and meta levels of experiences or states merge into one unit. Research scientist Arthur Koestler introduced the term “holons” to describe reality as composed of “whole/parts.” These whole/parts holons refer to any “entity” that is itself a whole and yet simultaneously a part of some other whole.
“To explain the observed phenomena we always have to consider the wider context of the learning experiment.” Why? “The larger context may change the sign of the reinforcement proposed by a given message, and evidently the larger context may also change the mnode – may place the message in the category of humor, metaphor, etc. … The context (or meta-message) classifies the message, but can never meet it on equal terms.” (Bateson, 1972, p. 246-247)
This means several things. First as holons, we experience our “states” as a whole. We experience confidence, courage, commitment, playfulness, joy, flow, etc. as a whole experience and not as the various variables that make up the experience. Yet second, each exists as a part of some larger whole. Within the holistic experience there is a part/whole structured experience — inner contexts and contexts-of-contexts.
As a system, we now have systemic properties arising. We have the emergence of new qualities. By transcending the current state or experience and including it, we put the experience within a higher frame.
In systems, the new gestalt is “more than and different from the sum of the parts.” Merely adding all of the parts together does not, and cannot, explain what emerges. Emergence occurs as new properties arise and there is a leap upward to a higher form of organization.
“So there are both discontinuties in evolution —mind cannot be reduced to life, and life cannot be reduced to matter; and there are continuities ..” (Ken Wilber, 1996, p. 24)
Each higher level embraces and engulfs the lower. When you take a primary state like anger or confidence and set various frames on it, you create the possibility for new emergent properties to emerge.
Imagine embracing your anger with acceptance, appreciation, and then wonder. Imagine engulfing it in love, respect, and honor. Imagine applying mindfulness, values, and patience to it. Imagine bringing ecology concerns, moral uprightness, and honor to it. Mix well. Put into the oven of your mind, let it bake for awhile…
Imagine embracing your power to take action in the world with acceptance and appreciation. Imagine engulfing it with ownership, excitement, and joy. Imagine applying hope, desired outcomes, willingness to take intelligent risks, love, and concern for others, to it. Mix all of these well in a state of contemplative relaxation. Let it bake as you learn and explore and develop…
Do this and you will texture your state. You can now create calm respectful anger. If you take charge of the process, you can design the kind of quality states that will enhance your life. To transcend an everyday state, begin with the primary level of consciousness, notice your thoughts and feelings about something. As your primary state, your awareness focuses on something external to yourself. You fear driving fast, closed in places, particular tones of voices. You get angry at insults. You delight in and enjoy the beauty of a scene or a piece of music.
You then transcend this experience including it as you move up to a chose meta-awareness. This creates a new level of organization. You now have something higher that still contains the essentials of the lower plus something else.
In respect, considerate, and patient anger — you still have anger. You still have the sense of threat or danger to your person, yet the anger is now textured in larger levels of mind and emotion causing something new to emerge. You have the anger state plus something that transcends the anger. Perhaps you have thoughtful anger or respectful anger.
By transcending the lower, you add new features, qualities, properties, and characteristics. You now have the ability to engineer new emergent properties for your states. It gives us the key to the structure of subjectivity as experiences become more complex and layered.
When your learning is taken up into playfulness and appreciation, when you engulf it with passion and the intention to improve the quality of life — something new emerges. You have a passionate and accelerated learning state.
Psycho-Logical Levels and States
When we put a state like anger or fear inside another state (i.e., calmness, respect, gentleness, courage, etc.), we change the internal logic of our nervous system. And in doing this we also change our way of thinking. We create what Alfred Korzybski called “psycho-logic.”
Anger now becomes a member of the class of calmness. Or it could become a member of the class of respect. This completely re-creates one’s “logic,” way of reasoning and generates a very new and different way of responding. Normally (what’s the norm in most cultures) anger is a member of the class of threatening things or personal insult. To put it into a new classification re-creates a new psycho-logic for a person’s state and experience.
“Levels” and “Types” as Synonyms
When we move from one level to the next higher “logical” level, to its classification, it is simultaneously at a higher logical type. In this the terminology of level and type are synonyms of each other. When you put one thought-feeling at a meta-relationship to another, the higher level operates as a category of the lower level. This is what we mean by both “logical types” and “logical levels.” One state is a “logical” relationship to another so it is at a higher level and is about the other.
The phrase “logical level” is comprised of two abstractions or nominalizations. For “logical” we have logic, logos, so the hidden verb is reasoning, a way of computing information. For “level” we have layers and the hidden verb layering. So with a “logical level” we refer to the process of reasoning that layers one thing upon another. When you hunt for a “logical type or level” you look at how a mind is classifying, categorizing, or punctuating things. That’s where a “logical type or level” exists — in a mind that represents categories and levels or orders of abstractions.
What is a logical level?
“In our brain structure, language, and perceptual systems there are natural hierarchies or levels of experiences. The effect of each level is to organize and control the information on the level below it. Changing something on an upper level would necessarily change things on the lower levels; changing something on a lower level could but would not necessarily affect the upper levels.” (Dilts, Epstein, Dilts, 1991, p. 26, italics added).
“Logical Levels: an internal hierarchy in which each level is progressively more psychologically encompassing and impactful” (1990: 217, italics added).
“Logical typing occurs where there is a discontinuity (as opposed to a continuity, as with the hierarchies) between levels of classification. This kind of discontinuity is exemplified:
“The informational effects between levels and types is called feedback and is probably the major distinguishing feature of cybernetic systems.” (1983: 39)
“Differences of the same or different logical type interacting at different levels (hierarchical or logical respectively) will result in the modulation of the difference on the lower level.” (1983: 49)
Gregory Bateson:
A Logical Type: 1) The name is not the thing named but is of different logical type, higher than the thing named. 2) The class is of different logical type, higher than that of its members. (Mary Catherine Bateson, 1987, pp. 209-210).
Criteria for “logical levels:”
In the index of Bateson’s book Mind and Nature (1979), he writes this under the list of “Logical Types.” A series of examines is in order:
In another place Bateson defined logical types in the following way:
Logical Type: 1) The name is not the thing named but is of different logical type, higher than the thing named. 2) The class is of different logical type, higher than that of its members. (Mary Catherine Bateson, 1987, pp. 209-210).
Bateson’s interchangeable use of “Levels” and “Types”
In Steps to an Ecology of Mind (1972/2000), Bateson defines “logical types” in terms of levels of abstraction and quotes Korzybski’s map-territory distinction (p. 180). The following highlights his use of levels and types.
“… a frame is meta-communicative. Any message, which either explicitly or implicitly defines a frame, ipso facto gives the receiver instructions or aids in his attempt to understand the message included within the frame.
… Every meta-communicative or meta-linguistic message defines, either explicitly or implicitly, the set of messages about which it communicates, i.e., every meta-communicative message is or defines a psychological frame. (p. 188)
“No class can be a member of itself. The picture frame then, because it delimits a background, is here regarded as an external representation of a very special and important type of psychological frame — namely a frame whose function is to delimit a logical type.” (189)
In his chapter “Toward a Theory of Schizophrenia” Bateson describes “how humans handle communication involving multiple Logical Types” (p. 203). In that section he writes the following:
“Multiple levels of learning and the Logical Typing of signals. These are two inseparable sets of phenomena — inseparable because the ability to handle the multiple types of signals is itself a learned skill and therefore a function of the multiple levels of learning.” (204)
From Mind and Nature (1979), Bateson defines “mind” as involving processes of transformation that discloses “a hierarchy of logical types immanent in the phenomena.” (p. 122).
“I shall try to drive home the importance of this criterion by exhibiting cases in which the discrimination of levels of communication has been so confused or distorted that various sorts of frustration and pathology have been the result.” (122)
He then speaks about signals that we emit and then about another class of information that tells us about the coding of messages or indications from the person. These he calls meta-messages (p. 122-123). In so explaining “logical types” he then says,
“All this is premised on the existence of levels whose nature I am here trying to make clear. We start with a potential differentiation between action in context and action or behavior which defines context or makes context intelligible. … I refer to the latter type of communication as meta-communication… A function, an effect, of the meta-message is in fact to classify the messages that occur within its contexts.” (p. 124).
“The more appropriate question would be: At what level of logical typing does genetic command act in the determining of this characteristic? The answer to this question will always take the form: At one logical level higher than the observed ability of the organism to achieve learning or bodily change by somatic process.” (175)
“In sum, each of these disasters will be found to contain an error in logical typing. In spite of immediate gain at one logical level, the sign is reversed and benefit becomes calamity in some other, larger and longer, context.” (189)
In describing the “levels of control of house temperature” Bateson used arrows to mark the direction of control in the system. It zigzagged from Personal status to Genetics and training to personal threshold, to “too cold” or “too hot” to bias to oscillating temperature. To all of this Bateson commented:
“With each zigzag of the ladder, the sphere of relevance increases. In other words, there is a change in logical typing of the information collected by the sense organ at each level.” (215)
“To jump downward two or more steps in the hierarchy is likewise undesirable … the effect of any such jumping of levels, upward or downward, is that information appropriate as a basis for decision at one level will be used as basis for decision at some other level, a common variety of error in logical typing.” (216)
References
Bateson, Gregory. (1972/ 2000). Steps to an Ecology of Mind. Chicago: The University of Chicago.
Bateson, Gregory. (1979). Mind and Nature. Chicago: The University of Chicago.
Dilts, Robert; Bandler, Richard; Grinder, John. (1980). Neuro-Linguistic Programming, Volume I. Cupertino CA: Meta Publications.
Hall, L. Michael (1995/2000). Meta-States: Mastering the Higher Levels of the Mind. Clifton, CO: NSP.
Hall, Michael. (1997). NLP: Going Meta — Advance Modeling Using Meta-Levels. Clifton, CO: NS Publications.
Hall, L. Michael; Bodenhamer, Bobby. (1999/ 2005). Sub-Modalities Going Meta. Clifton, CO: Neuro-Semantic Publications.
Hall, L. Michael (2000). Winning the Inner Games. Clifton, CO: Neuro-Semantic Publications.
Wilber, Ken. (1996). A Brief History of Everything. Boston MA: Shambhal.
Watzlawick, Paul; Weakland, John H.; Fisch, Richard. (1974). Change: Principles of Problem Formation and Problem Resolution. New York: W.W. Norton and Company.
Watzlawick, Paul. (1984). The Invented Reality: How do we know what we believe we know? New York: W.W. Norton and Company.
The discussion is continued on the next blog post here.
12 Responses
Bruce Grimley
03|Jan|2018 1What a respectful and educational format. I hope NLP as a group learn from this and adopt it when discussing differences in the future. Thank you, Steve and Michael, for your discussion and with best wishes, :-)
Viktoria Ter-Nikoghosyan
05|Jan|2018 2Thank you Steve for posting this exchange of opinions! I learned a lot! Steve’s spesific examples always teach me new ways of using my NLP knowledge skills. So, grateful!
Marco Fida
05|Jan|2018 3Thank you for posting this very interesting discussion, and thank you both for offering your positions.
I find the proposed discussion format both respectful and useful.
For a next time, I also think that organizing the discussion along answers to agreed points or questions would facilitate to compare the positions.
I also appreciate Steve’s proposal of replacing the somewhat ambiguous instruction to “go meta” with a more specific description of the experience we want to elicit. I believe this will both enrich the NLP model and facilitate to guide our clients.
Kelly Gerling
05|Jan|2018 4That appears to be round one.
Steve, are you going to respond, to start another iteration of the discussion??
Will Murray
06|Jan|2018 5If I had to translate this into simple English, would I be close if I said “‘meta’ may mean many different things?”And in NLP, which relies on accurate and specific meaning appropriate to the context, making the distinction about what “meta” means in the specific context would be important.
John McWhirter
07|Jan|2018 6Thank you both.
I wrote this as part of an Article on Re-Modelling NLP in 2003. It is a description of six different things that are described as being “Meta”.
Summary of types of Meta
Development of Type of use of ’META’
Examples related to NLP
1. After:
Original use: Not in official use in NLP:
It could be used for identify as use of conjunction and sequence
e.g. “You are feeling anxious and now can beginning to relax”.
Some types of ‘Meta States’
2. Beyond Another older usage: Not in official use:
It could be used for things like non-sequitor e .g. “You are getting angry at him and you have toget the food ready for the children tonight”.
Some types of ‘Meta States’
3. Above “Go Meta”
“ Now float up and look down and see how you and your wife are relating”.
Some types of ‘Meta States’
4. Contain Models that contain other models or parts of models.
“NLP Meta Model”
“NLP Milton Model”
Some types of ’Meta Theories’
Some types of ‘Meta States’ e.g.
5. Reflexive / Evaluate Evaluations require changing perceptual position to complete them (See article 13)
Work of Satir leading to Meta States e.g. “What do you feel about feeling that?”
Also potentially useful are:
“What do you think about feeling that?”
“What do you want to do about feeling that?”
“What do you feel about thinking that?”
“What do you think about thinking that?”
“What do you want to do about thinking that?”
“What do you feel about doing that?”
“What do you think about doing that?”
“What do you want to do about doing that?”
6. Organise
“Meta Programmes: organise sensory and language ‘programmes’”
“Batesonian Meta Learning and Meta Theories”
Some ‘Meta’ States, e.g. depression, joyfulness
The DBM® Levels of Modelling NLP (See Article 1)
One of the benefits of modelling is to identify the different ways that both the speaker and listener in any communication use words. For example Virginia Satir’s reflexive question could elicit all six of the uses of ‘meta’ (and probably more). These distinctions could improve the effectiveness of the whole “Meta State” approach by identifying which of the six (or more) possibilities the “Meta State” question was intended to create and what was actually created.
Marco Fida
09|Jan|2018 7It seems to me that it is now clear that “meta” can mean refer to several experiences, the point would be to agree on what might be the conventionally agreed meaning and use of it as a distinction within the NLP model.
In my understanding, “meta” has been mainly used to indicate a state from which one can reflect upon or consider his own perspective on things (present state, desired state, resources etc.) in a less involved or objective way. Because of the spatialization of timeline, it was referred to as a “meta-position”.
Because “meta-cognition” (thinking about thinking) can apply to any content or thought, it can refer to many specific experiences, such as Satir’s “How do you feel about feeling that way?”, V/K dissociation, observer position, etc.
In other words, in all these cases what counts, or what makes change possible, is how I relate to what I am experiencing, i.e. the process vs. content difference.
So I find Steve’s suggestion to be more specific a useful one, for it brings the discussion to a more practical ground, i.e. the relevance of “meta” for change and how to more effectively lead a client.
Finally, it seems to me that while submodalities in themselves can be usefully described as subdivisions within the sensory modalities, the ability to voluntarily change them seems to me to require to “dis-identify” from one’s own thoughts and “objectify” them (meta-cognition) in order to choose a more useful way of thinking.
David Jencks
16|Jan|2018 8I’m confused by Michael’s essay in which I do not see that he addressed Steve’s point, which I take to be that we can be much more useful if we elucidate the detailed structure of the particular process of “meta” that we want. I’m having some trouble finding an explanation of Michael’s meta-states concept that I can understand, not having his particular meta-states book, but he seems to be saying that a meta-state is a state about a state, and that Virginia Satir’s asking “How do you feel about that feeling” is one way to elicit a meta-state.
I tried an experiment on myself; the particular things I noticed are undoubtedly influenced by practicing Connirae’s wholeness process on myself for many months now.
– I thought of a situation in which I got angry;
— This felt like the top inside of my head was a hot churning red fluid.
– I thought of how I felt about being angry
— This felt like a black hollow vacuum in my chest.
— Now that I’m paying attention to this thing happening in my chest, while the original feeling of anger in my head is definitely still there, it’s not the center of my attention and seems less all-consuming.
To me this was a lot more informative than saying “meta-state!”.
Somewhat along the same lines, in the wholeness process, moving along the chain of “I”s or along other relationships (e.g. authority) could be described as each step going “meta” to the previous, but by doing so you completely lose any idea of what to actually do.
Joy Livingwell
16|Jan|2018 9Interesting discussion and comments!
Artful vagueness and sensory specificity both have their place. What are you trying to accomplish? How are you trying to accomplish it?
Change work relies on the client’s intuitions. When you tell a client to do X, their intuitions about what that means and how to carry it out inform what they actually do. If they do something else that doesn’t work, or if they don’t know HOW to do what you asked in a useful way, no amount of trying harder will get the job done.
This is where very specific instructions about EXACTLY what to do and how to do it really shine. If a client’s intuitions are similar enough to those of a technique’s developer, you don’t need detailed instructions; just give general ones and the client will follow them successfully. When the client’s intuitions differ a lot from those of the technique’s developer, and from yours, exact instructions help a lot, as do instructions about what to do with various client presentations, and this is something Steve excels at.
Other times artful vagueness is just what you need to keep the client from getting bogged down in or distracted by irrelevant details. IMO Michael is particularly good at artful generalizations and large-chunk, big-picture thinking and instructions. My experience is that his instructions as given work well for a lot of people, but not everybody. YMMV.
What interests me most here is the contrast in how two great minds generate intuitions, inferences, and generalizations; what they pay attention to; and what results. Such differences can make understanding and communication difficult. They can also be highly useful, pointing to things that one person alone would not have created, and generating useful synergies. I hope the NLP field will see far more of this sort of discussion and synergy in the near future.
Toni
25|Feb|2018 10Stated purpose: a dialogue to exemplify a respectful exchange of views in the field~
Without diving into the content of either position, I would just say thank you to both of you for demonstrating the HOW TO in answer to this challenge.
David Murphy
01|Mar|2018 11Thanks Steve and Michael for opening this conversation about the word “meta” and the different ways we use it.
In my experience of more than 16 years in the field of NLP and Neuro-Semantics I have been seen one and again and again how powerful is to understand that the frames upon frames are the ones that texturize the primary state.
So as a simple example:
If we have a person that is taking a class and it’s primary state is the state of learning, and this person categorizes learning as something delightful, and the same person categorizes delightful experiences as moments of grace; then what will determine the quality of his/her experience in that primary state (learning) will be the “meta”-states he/she has constructed in his/her mind.
Why meta?
Because those are beyond the primary state.
Because those are the ones that texturize the primary state.
Because those are the ones that determine the quality of the experience.
So for me is very simple:
Thought about a thought is a “meta” thought
Feeling about a felling is a “meta” feeling.
Believe about a believe is a “meta” believe.
I also think we don’t need to complicate what could be simple.
And I also think: if there’s no word to represent and communicate something, we can always create it.
Isn’t that what korzybski did with the word Neuro-Linguistics?
Adrian Estrada
04|Mar|2018 12Meta States: Correct or Incorrect?
Is there not freedom to create?
I read Steve Andreas’ NLP Blog and I found an article:
What is the Experience of “Meta”?
A dialogue between Steve Andreas and Michael Hall
I read it with a curious, innocent eye the way I usually read to enjoy the work. I majored in English Literature at the National Autonomous University of Mexico. I know that English is not my first language; however, I can understand and use English quite well. I train speakers and non-speakers of English for different certifications, for instance, TOEFL, TOEIC, IELTS, FCE, CAE and CPE. Furthermore, I write essays (Literary Criticism) from Chaucer on.
And what caught my eye was the first paragraph:
I want to start with a brief exploration of how prepositions work, because this provides a basis for understanding the experience of the word “meta.” Notice your image in response to the sentence, “She is on the bed,” and compare that with your images for the same sentence, but replacing the word “on” with “off,” “in,” “under,” “beside,” or “behind.” . . .
From the beginning I knew that I would not be able to continue reading with that curious, innocent eye since I am used to examine, grade and correct the essays students hand in to be scored for their exams.
Maybe I am expressing a judgment and so Mr. Andreas is. Knowing that judgment is the forming of an opinion. It can be good or bad, for instance saying “what a beautiful day” is a judgment.
This is my judgment and I am responsible of my words.
META IS NOT A PRE POSITION (IN ENGLISH) as it is written in:
A “pre position” positions two things (“she” and “bed”) with respect to each other in space, or two activities (buying groceries” and “driving home”) with respect to each other in time.
Only in Greek is META a preposition. And if I wanted to deepen better, I would have to explain what Genitive and Accusative mean. Unfortunately, Modern English is slightly different from Anglo-Saxon (Old English) and there have been many changes.
(GREEK) Meta (Genitive, Accusative)
1. With Genitive
a. Association/Accompaniment: with, in company with
b. Spatial: with, among
c. Manner (Attendant Circumstance): with
2. With Accusative
a. Temporal: after, behind
b. Spatial (rare): after, behind
Before I start explaining what PREFIXES and PREPOSITIONS are, I want to express my disappointment. I think in NLP there are presuppositions and one of them is the map is not the territory. I can perceive in the article that Mr. Andreas is nullifying what Dr. Hall has written. How can I trust NLP if Trainers attack as if they were “know it all”? Trying to diminish other people´s work. This sounds like FUNDAMENTALISM. I am really disappointed. I cannot understand how leaders try hard to demonstrate that their “colleagues” “brothers from the NLP family” are wrong. Is there not freedom to create?
I tried to be brief; however, if you need further information, do not hesitated to contact me.
adrianestradacoach@gmail.com
PREFIXES
Prefixes are letters, which we add to the beginning of a word to make a new word with a different meaning. Prefixes can, for example, create a new word opposite in meaning to the word the prefix is attached to. They can also make a word negative or express relations of time, place or manner. Here are some examples:
BASE WORD PREFIXED WORD TYPE OF MEANING
possible impossible opposite
war pre-war time (before)
terrestrial extraterrestrial place (outside of/beyond)
cook overcook manner (too much)
• Example: I’m sorry I was unable to attend the meeting.
• Non-payment of fees could result in a student being asked to leave the course.
• Has anyone ever really met an extraterrestrial being? (meaning a being from another planet)
• The meat was overcooked and quite tasteless.
PREPOSITIONS
A preposition is a word used to link nouns, pronouns, or phrases to other words within a sentence. Prepositions are usually short words, and they are normally placed directly in front of nouns. In some cases, you’ll find prepositions in front of gerund verbs.
Prepositions are words, which begin prepositional phrases.
A prepositional phrase is a group of words containing a preposition, a noun or pronoun object of the preposition, and any modifiers of the object.
A preposition sits in front of (is “pre-positioned” before) its object.
You know that a phrase is an incomplete sentence and there are noun phrases, prepositional phrases and phrasal verbs, for instance.
Example of prepositional phrases:
After fifteen minutes, we located the key for the lock.
The Monalisa was painted by Leonardo Da Vinci.
There are 70 one-word-prepositions (English Prepositions List Josef Essberger) and there are 69 prepositions according to (Preparation for FCE Interlingua Mexico). META is not one of them. Since META is considered to be a prefix.
META-
Word origin
1. a prefix appearing in loanwords from Greek, with the meanings “after,” “along with,” “beyond,” “among,” “behind,” and productive in English on the Greek model:
metacarpus; metagenesis.
2. a prefix added to the name of a subject and designating another subject that analyzes the original one but at a more abstract, higher level:
metaphilosophy; metalinguistics.
3. a prefix added to the name of something that consciously references or comments upon its own subject or features:
a meta-painting of an artist painting a canvas.
META-
Prefix
1. indicating change, alteration, or alternation: metabolism, metamorphosis
2. (of an academic discipline, esp philosophy) concerned with the concepts and results of the named discipline: metamathematics, meta-ethics See also metatheory
3. occurring or situated behind or after: metaphase
Word Origin and History for meta-
word-forming element meaning 1. “after, behind,” 2. “changed, altered,” 3. “higher, beyond;” from Greek meta (prep.) “in the midst of, in common with, by means of, in pursuit or quest of,” from PIE *me- “in the middle” (cf. German mit, Gothic miþ, Old English mið “with, together with, among;” see mid ). Notion of “changing places with” probably led to senses “change of place, order, or nature,” which was a principal meaning of the Greek word when used as a prefix (but also denoting “community, participation; in common with; pursuing”).
Meta (from the Greek preposition and prefix meta- (????-) meaning “after”, or “beyond”) is a prefix used in English to indicate a concept which is an abstraction behind another concept, used to complete or add to the latter.
As a prefix, meta- has several traditional meanings, including after, along with, beyond, and among. Those are its Greek senses, anyway. In postmodern philosophy and literary criticism, meta, as both a prefix and a standalone adjective, often means about itself. For example, metaphilosophy is the philosophy of philosophy, a meta-emotion is a feeling about a feeling, and a book about its own writing or a film about its own making could be described as meta. This last, adjectival use of the word is a sort of academic colloquialism, though, and might be considered out of place in formal writing.
As a prefix, meta- can be attached to virtually any noun with no hyphen, except where having no hyphen would hurt readability (e.g., meta-analysis is easier to read than metaanalysis). For example, these writers defy spell check with perfectly well-formed meta- terms:
His poems can begin with perception but end in metacognition, thinking about how we think, how our thoughts go astray. [Boston Globe]
Photo Stats makes that info a lot more friendly. It takes the metadata from the photos on your iPhone and wrangles them into cool infographics. [Wired]
My children got a big kick out of the literally metatextual jokes, which plays with the experience of reading the books. [Frothy Girlz]
I do not want to write anymore information because I do not want to make it boring and tiring to read. This is a slight explanation of what i know. Thanks for reading me.
IF YOU NEED FURTHER INFORMATION, DO NOT HESITATE TO CONTACT ME.
Adrián Estrada
Bibliography
English Grammar Today – Ronald Carter, Michael McCarthy, Mark and Anne O’Keeffe Cambridge University Press
Collins English Dictionary – Complete & Unabridged 2012 Digital Edition
Online Etymology Dictionary
Practical English Usage – Michael Swan
Oxford University Press
Advanced Grammar in Use Martin Hewings
Cambridge University Press
Teaching English Grammar: What to Teach and How to Teach it Jim Scrivener
MacMillan Book for Teachers
Learner English: A Teacher’s Guide to Interference and other Problems (Cambridge Handbooks for Language Teachers)
Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English – Douglas Biber, Stig Johansson, Geoffrey Leech, Susan Conrad, and Edward Finegan, Longman in 1999
English-Greek Dictionary: A Vocabulary of the Attic Language S. C. WOODHOUSE, M.A.
Late Scholar of Christ Church, Oxford
London, George Routledge & Sons, Limited, Broadway House, Ludgate Hill, E.C. 1910
Wikipedia
MacMillan Dictionary
Grammarist
Search the Blog
About
This blog contains NLP articles and news from Steve Andreas, NLP author, trainer, and developer.
If you enjoy these articles, please visit the Real People Press NLP bookstore for great books, CDs, and DVDs on personal change, therapy, and communication.
Recent Posts
Categories
A design creation of Design Disease
Copyright © 2008 - Steve Andreas’ NLP Blog - is proudly powered by WordPress
InSense 1.0 Theme by Design Disease brought to you by HostGator Web Hosting.