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

*
Email:

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 402


Hello folks,

We've seen some activity here about this and that. Mostly announcements and some gossip, with some interesting bit and bobs here and there. Yet we seem not have had a lot of *meat* being presented for a while now.

I've been thinking that it's probably time to update the list with the most current conversations being had in and about the MythoSelf Process model and the work being done using it. I've written a series of posts called MythoSelf Morphology (101, 201 ...) that lay out the "state of the art" at the time that each was written as far as I was concerned. Yet what anyone who's been around will recognize and anyone who's new will get is that this model is organic and living, not mechanical and dead. The difference is what can be called dynamism ... the nature of being dynamic, in motion, changing, engaging, interactive ... ALIVE!

So where is the *state of the art* of the model today? Let's see if I can shed some light, eh???

MythoSelf Morphology 402:

[Warning: The following review of my original posting entitled MythoSelf Morphology 401 may be dense if you are not thoroughly versed in the MythoSelf Process model material - however for purposed of brevity I am presenting it in this denser form that allows for a great conciseness. Feel free to skip to the full original presentation using the link following this short review.]

In message 7646, MythoSelf Morphology 401, I wrote about the neurobiology of the MythoSelf Process model - specifically neurobiological development in relation to the inputs the neural system receives during development. This led us to the consideration of the Nature/Nurture debate and my comments that the consideration of nature -or- nurture should be abandoned for a new nature-nurture paradigm. In this new paradigm nature and nurture are seen as two sides of the same coin, not separate considerations. The influence of the environment (inputs) on the neural system shape the neural system to experience the environment. The experience of the environment shapes the response of the individual (outputs) creating inputs to the environment and in turn shaping it.

The interaction between the two, inputs and outputs, creates the structural form of the individual - what we refer to in the model as an ontological position. The ontological position of the individual resides at the core of the MythoSelf Process model, and when the consideration of neurobiological development gets added to the mix we have the basis for working with people in an non-representational manner that directly access the neural system thorough somatic and sensory forms. We can also use the same basis of form, the neurobiological structure of the ontological position, to reverse engineer access using an epistemological approach based in language representations.

http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/mythoself-tm/message/7646

Okay, so where does all that get us???

Well, it may be time for an updating of the presentation regarding what the MythoSelf Process intends to be about. To begin I must refresh the idea that the entire model is made up. To put this into perspective it will serve us to realize that all models are made up, they are representations intended to provide access and possibly a way to manipulate what they model - models are never the thing itself.

While it would be true to say that we have made up the MythoSelf Process model, as do all modelers, it would also be accurate to say that the sources we used are extensive, well documented, verifiable and sound.

In the making up of the MythoSelf Process model the essential material has been drawn from many high quality sources, including cutting-edge neurobiological research, cognitive science and behavioral science. We have also drawn from other high quality models such as Roye Fraser's "Generative Imprint(tm)" Model and the work of Richard Bandler and John Grinder from their NLP (Neurolinguistic Programming) model. In addition the MythoSelf Process model also draws heavily from both anthropological, philosophical and sociological models, such as Joseph Campbell's "Hero's Journey," the work of John Searle and his descriptions of the Social Reality, and Clare Graves' "Emergent, Cyclical, Levels of Existence" model.

In addition to the derivative sources we also have first-hand, direct experiential and empirical work that we draw from and have heavily built upon. This last source, direct experiential and empirical work, validates all other material we have included in our modeling process and remains the most critical test of it's validity. Simply put, does the model do what it sets out to do in practice ... are its assumptions verifiable? In this regard we have demonstrated again and again across a wide spectrum of clients and client populations that the model proves to be sound in application.

[NOTE: We do not claim to draw extensively from or derive our source material from any psychological models.]

Now the question that remains would be: "What does the MythoSelf Process model intend?"

Let me see if I can answer this somewhat definitively and with an eye towards what makes the model distinct. There are surely other efficacious models that do what they intend based upon empirical results in application. Let me begin with some comments on the one I am most familiar with myself.

NLP - Neurolinguistic Programming:

One strong example of a highly efficacious model would be the NLP model. The NLP model intends to offer a way to shift the perceptual/sensory experience of the individual by manipulating the sensory representations of the individual. This leads to changes in thinking and behavior. These changes could and do include things like improved learning strategies and behavioral flexibility. Among the ways the NLP model creates access to an individual's perceptual/sensory experience would be through specific language models such as the Meta-Model, Hypnotic Protocols and language patterns like meta-programs and slight of mouth. In addition techniques like the modification of submodalities and anchoring widen the model in application.

The developers of the NLP model call it an epistemological model/process, making it about what we know and how we know what we know. In other language we can say the NLP model addresses beliefs, attitudes, propositions, cognition and perception in relation to how we operate in the world. In my opinion the NLP model remains the most elegant model for doing what it does that has been developed so far. The competition in this domain includes models such as cognitive-behavioral models, semantic models and gestalt models.

MythoSelf Process Model:

The MythoSelf Process Model builds on the technology of the NLP model. The techniques to access and work with an individual's subjective (personal/individual) experience are vital to the application of the MythoSelf Process model. These techniques are taught and used as per the NLP's fundamental methodology/technology. The usage of the methodology/technology, i.e.: what we intend in the application of the techniques derived from NLP, varies greatly though from the NLP model (what could be and has been called the "attitude" of NLP).

We do not intend a change in the perceptual/sensory experience of the individual that would produce an epistemological shift as the primary outcome of our work with clients. This may in fact be one of the results of what we do (creating an epistemological shift), however it does not reside at the core of what we intend to do in the application of the MythoSelf Process model.

What we intend within the application of the MythoSelf Process model may best be phrased as an explicit modeling of how an individual performs brilliantly as themselves, first and foremost. This seems a critical distinction for me.

Let me be more precise vis-a-vis my example of the NLP model ... NLP began with the intention of learning how to model exemplars, people who demonstrated excellence in some domain of performance and codifying their process of excellence. It succeeded brilliantly at doing this in many cases. From this process many powerful and even profound techniques for modeling and codifying excellence and doing change work resulted. Then the model progressed in developing applications from this modeling process to developing a methodology or technology to teach people how to "run their own brains" in the language of NLP. Again the model proved to be extraordinary for producing results for those who learn and apply it their own lives. The outcome in each case would be the ability to provide significant performance enhancement, but not necessarily performance creation - great stuff but not nirvana.

The unique distinction of the MythoSelf Process model would be that it seeks to model how the individual performs brilliantly as themselves and to then re-model that process out for them explicitly. This process offers the individual deliberate and intentional access to this way of being in the world as the baseline of their experience. In other words the individual begins to experience themselves at their best as their ordinary way of being. This constitutes an ontological shift vs. an epistemological or behavioral shift. When the baseline of experience shifts in this way the individual experiences a automatically arising virtual shift in their thinking and behavior immediately.

We now have the basis for the performance creation, instead of being simply limited to performance improvement. For instance using this approach we can explicitly model out what would have to be true of a person when they can do what they cannot do yet - again think in terms of the ontological position they would be holding when they can (do it). Using the form we explicitly modeled regarding how they are when they can we install that explicitly modeled ontological form of success/excellence/performance with the client. This forms the basis for what we could call, "Personal Modeling" - a process that builds the requisite ontology (way of being) and a profound personal mythology associated with the ontological position now held.

The MythoSelf Process through "Personal Modeling" builds a profound personal mythology of success.

We refer to the technology we employ to do this as Soma-Semantics, a unique modeling process that elicits, tracks and installs the somatic and semantic form associated with the ontological position of choice. This allows the individual to function from a profound best state as the baseline of their experience.

The Ole' One-Two

Step One: The essential first step in the MythoSelf Process model that establishes and maintains this way of being at your best in the world resides in the somatics of the individual - their unique way of using themselves in an embodied manner. The modeler using the Soma-Semantics process elicits the form of the desired baseline experience embedded in the individual's personal experience and then calibrates and tracks the micro-muscular form they exhibit. The modeler then extrapolates the extension of this form using the methodology of Soma-Semantic adumbration and makes this explicit for the individual giving them deliberate and intentional access to this form and assisting them in installing it for themselves as the baseline of their experience as a physical/somatic form that they access at will.

NOTE: For all intents and purposes this form will be pre-representational. The form becomes the ground upon which all representational forms that follow arise. We are not making a claim about this being a non-sensory form. A somatic form by its very nature has a sensory aspect, i.e.: it can be and will be experienced sensorily. What makes this form unique has to do with the the sensory experience of it being direct - a sensory experience that remains pre-representational. This makes the somatic form as described ontological vs. epistemological - i.e.: you can and will experience this form whether or not you have any awareness or conscious recognition of it.

Step Two: Once the individual can deliberately and intentionally access their best state as a way of being in the world using the somatic form that has been installed we move onto the second step in the process. The second step in the process involves building the semantic form. The somatic form begins as a non-representational, direct experiential form as noted above. On the ground of this form we instantaneously perceive sensory forms that are representational in nature, i.e.: what we experience in terms of our sensory experience ... what we feel, what we see, what we hear, what we smell and what we taste. These sensory forms are processed from within the ontological position held by the individual at every moment in time. The form that the individual experiences resides in and get shaped by the ontological form held, i.e.: a different ontological form would yield a different sensory experience. From the experience of sensory forms a semantic form gets generated, i.e.: meaning ... what we experience forms the basis of meaning for us in the world as we experience it.

The meaning that arises from the experience of sensory forms can only exist in context, i.e.: what something means must be in relation to the totality of a person's life experience. By example think of beauty, what one person calls beautiful may not match what another calls beautiful even though they are arguably experiencing the same sensory inputs. The distinction that makes the difference has to do with the ground (the ontological position) and the experiential context of the individual. The totality that I refer to in the opening sentence of this paragraph would be what we are referring to when we speak of an individual's personal mythology. Obviously this mythology, if it can be referred to as a totality, must include not only the individual's considerations of the present space-time experience but also their historical and future considerations as well. What a person thinks and believes of their personal history as well as what they think and believe of their future possibilities and potential must be included in the totality we are considering. We build an appropriate personal mythology to sustain the individual's newly found ontological position using much of what the NLP technology offers us by way of methodology and technique.

Specifically, what we will do in step two will be to build a profound personal mythology that sustains the individual at their best. We use the structural form of Joseph Campbell's "Hero's Journey" as a template to do this work, especially in regard to the neurobiological expression of the Hero's Journey model. We build the appropriate representations, including semantic forms and narratives - both verbal and extra-verbal (visual images, body sensations ...), to support the individual in maintaining and operating from the ontological position of choice - their best state. We refer to this operating position as the "Ready State" (from Roye Fraser's "Generative Imprint" model).

Onwords, and More ...

Once we have elicited, explicated and installed the Soma-Semantic form as noted in steps one and two above we will assist those individuals who are interested in building the requisite skills to live from and out of this new position. This process forms the developmental aspect of the MythoSelf Process work we do with clients. In most cases all of the client's pre-existing skills will continue to serve the individual wonderfully while operating from this new position. In fact in many cases the new well-formed operating position will serve to enhance pre-existing skills. This would create automatic, virtual performance improvement by default. However, we often find that it can be useful to build additional skills and resources with our clients as well - what we think of as developmental work.

Success Strategies

An example of developmental work can be expressed in terms of the individual's essential success strategy the way of operating that an individual uses to produce success. This way of operating has been built from and into the ontological position in place when they built this strategy - what we'll call their success strategy. This strategy forms the basis of how an individual responds and behaves in the world to produce their successes. Their strategy may be most obvious in how the relate to and interact with others (- or not as the case may be). Often they find after they have access to their best state, or the Ready State as described above, that their old success strategy no longer remains appropriate, or they may find it no longer even works. Regardless, in most cases they find that they have to let go of operating from the Ready State to have access to the old success strategy ... in other words people "give up" being at their best so they can operate the old success strategy which was designed to compensate for them not being at their best.

The new personal mythology that we build with clients provides them with a new success strategy that allows them to produce successes operating from and out of being at their best in their Ready State. The new Soma-Semantic form that we install replaces the existing success model of the individual with all of its compensating and limiting strategies with a recursive, self-generating (generative) strategic process that organizes the individual to take action in relation to their intended outcomes in a self-adjusting and ongoing way.

That should be enough for one installment of the MythoSelf Morphology I think. In closing I want to stress that the MythoSelf Process model has been much, much more difficult to describe than it has been to execute - in many ways I have found the technology to be beyond language ...

Thanks for your time and attention. Please feel free to come back to me with your questions or comments in this forum.

Best regards,

Joseph Riggio, Ph.D.
Architect and Designer of the MythoSelf Process

Joseph Riggio International | Princeton
http://www.josephriggio.com
jsriggio@josephriggio.com

© 2007 Joseph Riggio & Applied Behavioral Technologies, Inc. - All Rights Reserved.

| Back |

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