Bookmark and Share
GNLP Newsletter

Please leave your email to receive our newsletter. Get our free report  "10 Essential Things You Have To Know About Making Decisions" when you subscribe


We value your privacy

What do you want?

The MythoSelf Experience
Latest News & Events

Monday, 31/05/2010

Newsletter will start again...

Sunday, 21/03/2010

NLP Training in Kingston

Tuesday, 22/12/2009

The Collected Papers of Joseph Riggio

MythoSelf Morphology 201

Hello all,

I've been stewing over whether to rant and rave about either of two things,

1. The presupposition that faster is necessarily better, or
2. The presupposition that there is subjective and objective reality, and that they operate diametrically.

So I've decided to cook up a recipe for the second first, which may also provide an appetizer for the first next.

There is an outstanding presupposition in the NLP community that a person can either operate in a subjective or objective frame. Then further NLP would have us believe that there is no such thing as "objective" experience, saying "it's all subjective." This stance propagates a continuation of duality as the operating position. Yet what I've found in my work (as well as in deep research and numerous readings) is that the transcendent position is outside of duality, i.e.: paradox resolved.

When taking this through the thought process of an inherent duality between "subjective" and objective" experience as opposite experiences it could be translated to read that the working model is, subjective=internal and objective=external. Then it is possible that there would be a corollary shift in the perceptual experience to match, that the subjective experience is an internal representation of an objective external world. This would seem to be one way of resolving the seeming paradox presented by operating subjectively in an objective world. However this still keeps the individual at a distance from "reality" if it is assumed that reality" is the objective external world represented.

This is the challenge of assuming that language actually represents that it refers to, in this case a "subjective" and "objective" orientation of perception. These are the presuppositions behind the presuppositions, e.g.: language is representative of that to which it refers. I have challenged this presupposition of language in the past and continue to do so, if anything even more vehemently. What I've suggested is that language is a way of pointing the attention in a direction and that direction becomes the experience the individual experiences. For the individual this experience is "real" and there is no thought of subjective/objective, only the in-time experience of the experience. The only time this is not true is when they go "meta" and begin to construct descriptions of the experience reverting to language to represent the reality. The more a person goes meta, that is to say going meta to meta, the further they get from the experience of the experience they're having. Instead they begin to have the experience of the language they're using to refer to the experience they're having.

If we can accept that language is at least two steps removed from experience, i.e.: experience - deep structure - surface structure (language descriptions), then when you go meta to the language and begin constructing a "meta- language" or a "meta-model" you are now at least three steps removed from the experience as you operate this as an internal operating state. This moves the individual in the rarified realms of mental masturbation.

However it is possible as was pointed out to me by Roye Fraser to construct a "Mesa-Model(tm)"." As I understand it in my learning with him, the "Generative Imprint(tm)" model was just such a model. In his words he's using "mesa" to represent "in the middle" as "in the middle of the experience." This is a movement towards an in-time orientation to operating in the world. As I understood and understand it, one-step closer to reality. In this model, the "Mesa-Model(tm)," the individual is operating in the world directly. They are concurrently interacting with the world as the deep structure is formed and encoded - before language exists. This pre-verbal experience is the core structure of consciousness as I have come to know it. [For a fuller explanation see my Morphology 101 and 102 and Joseph Campbell's "Hero with a Thousand Faces" as references to begin with.]

Which brings me to: MythoSelf® Morphology 201:

Finally to take this all out of the oven and call it done ... I propose a third alternative to subjective and objective experiences - "social experience." This is the common ground which is consensually created and shared, and on which most people play out their lives. It is in the shared space between individuals that experience is generated and becomes manifest. In this space neither individual can lay claim to "ownership" of the manifest experience, they can only experience it as it unfolds. The MythoSelf® model explores this third domain of social experience without dividing what occurs into either a subjective or objective classification. Instead within the model the question becomes, "What next?"

Using this model (the MythoSelf®) the social constructs of the individual become explicit as well as the structural constraints in place in their generation. This "generative" social mechanism is the interface between the internal and external experience of the individual. There are events and the individual perceives these events according to the structure of their internal orientation - i.e.: their ontological state or condition. This is held as a virtual reality, what Leslie Cameron-Bandler called a "virtual philosophy," in the neurology of the individual. That is a specific configuration of the neurology in relation to the specific ontological position held. This is always manifest in the somatic representation and precedes the semantic representation. Using the information present in the somatic representation and overlaying that with the semantic representation the individual's social construct can be extrapolated and made explicit. It is this formation, the social construct, that is the vehicle used in interaction with the world including others. What the MythoSelf® model does is offers a structured pathway to access and make explicit the individual's social constructs. Then further, to utilize and modify the social construct in-time and through-time in relation to the individual themselves (if they so desire), in relation to the interaction that is evolving - or both.

The mechanism that the MythoSelf® builds on is the ontological configuration as it is held in the neurology and represented both somatically and semantically. Then using this information a representation of the direction of attention of the individual is plotted generating a three dimensional holographic topological representation. It is the topological representation that stores the information that the individual uses to interact with the world. Therefore it is the topological representation that can be accessed, utilized and modified in interacting with the individual. What makes this both so relevant and accessible is that the individual projects this representation into the shared space of interaction in order to make manifest their internal representations and realize their expectations. This topological form is both pre-verbal and post-verbal. It is not held in language or language forms, although the attention can be directed to it though specific representational languaging. Both the non-verbal and languaging technologies of accessing, utilizing and modifying this topological representation are contained within the MythoSelf® model. Using these technologies the MythoSelf® facilitator/trainer makes explicit the form of the topological representation and the virtual reality it constructs and contains for the individual. Then using these same technologies the MythoSelf® facilitator/trainer can move the referential points of the topological representation and build a new construct and with it a new virtual reality. This is the matrix of individual reality upon which experience is played out. The MythoSelf® model incorporates the matrix teleologically and topologically basting both into the ontological form held. It is this ontological form that the individual knows as reality and from which they create the experience of their life.

Joseph Riggio

© 2000 - Copyright 2000, Joseph Riggio and Applied Behavioral Technologies, Inc. May not be reproduced or distributed in whole or in part by any means including but not limited to mechanical or electronic without the prior express written permission.

| Back |

Generative NLP train in London and the South West
BOOK NOW +44-(0)20-8974-8974
Resource and Training Centre for the Mythoself Process and The Mythogenic Self Experience