A Good Word for the Conscious Mind

“Actually, I Like My Conscious Mind!”

We invite M. Hall to make explicit the answer to the simple meta model challenge,
Meta states are states about other states… about, how specifically? (Grinder, Whispering in the Wind, p. 288)

Unless I missed a disclaimer, NLP is all about “running your own brain.” Does that correspond with your impression about NLP? Isn’t that what you learned?

What cued me to this as being a key facet of NLP? Well, it was mentioned in my early NLP trainings. It also stands out in the books that Connaire and Steve Andreas edited. At least the titles are suggestive of this, are they not? Namely, Using Your Brain —For a Change.

It was this very theme and focus, of running your own brain, that first excited me about NLP as it did my associate, Dr. Bob Bodenhamer. I was so impressed with this theme, that I wrote a article on our web site, Brain #101. Bob, on the other hand, was so impressed with this idea that he made these words the title of the Neuro-Semantic web site. You can get there by simply typing in: www.runyourownbrain.com.

For us, this is the stroke of genius in NLP—empowering people to take charge of their brains and to consciously run them. Even the “ecology check” in NLP presupposes that we can mindfully check out the health, balance, and ecology of our brain functioning. In a chapter on meta-states and the history of NLP (Meta-States, 2000), I noted that the Ecology Check is a meta-state process. You have to go meta to your state of mind, emotion, and body to quality control things and to consciously evaluate any given frame or state.

Does this enhance your life?

Does this empower you as a person?

Does this support your relationships and health?

Does this create a balance in life between work and love?

This is also why we have found the first model of Neuro-Semantics, the Meta-States model so powerfully profound in enabling people to run their own brains. In this sense, Meta-States takes NLP to the next level by empowering people to rise up in the mind and to manage the higher levels (or lower and deeper, depending on your metaphor of choice) of one’s consciousness. It enables us to use the human kind of consciousness, self-reflexive consciousness, and to become thoughtful about our thoughts. This leads to what we call “mindfulness.”

Yet in spite of this original focus, both Bandler and Grinder today seem more focused on debunking the conscious mind as they give more power to “the unconscious mind.” For years, Bandler has called the conscious mind a “dick head.” In promotional literature he has threatened participants to not bring paper or pens to his trainings or else they will be collected. Now, Grinder and Carmen’s latest book, Whispering in the Wind (2001) similarly questions the conscious mind’s value, wisdom, and usefulness. The critique here of NLP, and even of Grinder’s own contributions to that model, center around the over-emphasis on the conscious mind.

“… these experiences had taught me that understanding is in no way a prerequisite to acting effectively in the world—this insight would subsequently be incorporated to great advantage in NLP patterning both as an essential element in the actual modeling of patterns of excellence as well as in the appropriate positioning of the NLP agent of change in the context of applications.” (144)

Regarding the flaws that he now perceives in what he calls the Classic Code, he writes the following:

“In this prototype Classic Code anchoring format,, then, we note that

1. The consciousness of the client is assigned the responsibility for the selection of certain critical elements: the desired state, the resource and/or the new behavior that will substitute for the behavior to be changed…
2. There are no constraints placed on the selection of the resource or new behaviors to replace the original behavior being changed.
3. There is no explicit involvement of the unconscious of the client.
4. The focus of the work is at the level of behavior. (pp. 213-214)”

Why Banish Consciousness?

Why this attempt to banish the conscious mind from taking the lead? Why this over-devotion to the “unconscious” mind? Is the “unconscious” mind different in nature from the conscious mind? Is the “unconscious” mind somehow smarter, more holistic, and more informed than the conscious mind? Does the unconscious mind not make mistakes (i.e., allergies, cancer, memory loss, etc.) as does the conscious mind? Is it not as fallible (e.g., liable to error)?

Certainly it is true that Bateson (1972) warned about the short-sightedness of a mind so set in a purposeful way on an outcome that it fails to take into consideration long-term consequences, aesthetics, and the wisdom of ecological concerns. And true enough, Bateson took on the medical community on this account as he did much of twentieth century science. He argued for the aesthetic concerns of the larger mind, mind-as-a-cybernetic system that takes values, beauty, relationship, and wisdom into account. Yet he did not thereby argue that the conscious mind was a bad thing. After all, he wrote his critique with his conscious mind as John and Carmen wrote their book.

Meta-Stating “Mindfulness”

I like what Ian McDermott noted in The NLP Coach. He wrote that it is not the fact of being conscious or aware that’s the problem. Rather, the problem is the kind of awareness that we bring to things, even ourselves.

“It’s not the fact of being conscious that’s the problem for most people. It is rather the kind and quality of consciousness! Self-conscious: fearing inadequacy imperfection, Judgmental, criticizing, Harsh, demandingness, imposing norms, rules, shoulds. How aware is your mind? How mindful? What’s the quality of the mindfulness?” (pp. 248-9)

Mindfulness, in fact, is today recognized as a key ingredient in many aspects of health, creativity, and genius. In terms of research, Ellen Langer’s work in Mindfulness (1989) offers afresh perspective on the importance of the conscious mind in terms of health, energy, longevity, optimism, resilience, learning, and many other things. Professor Langer and her staff have conducted research studies for many years showing the value of bringing conscious awareness into the picture for a greater sense of personal control. In fact this is a key theme in her book,

The Psychology of Control.

In terms of being aware, and in experiencing self-awareness, we need a special kind of consciousness. We need to be conscious with grace, calmness, acceptance, appreciation, pose, joy, and celebration. Mindfulness, then is a meta-level state (a meta-state) that goes beyond mere awareness. In mindfulness, we become aware of our awareness and if we do so with an intention to manage our mind, we can then texture and quality control our awareness. This is the reason for meta-stating multiple levels. We can qualify our everyday mindset or attitude with numerous frames that texture it in just the right way. For more about this, see the article, Texturing our States on the website. ________

Mindfulness actually describes a complex meta-state structure. In Meta-States we say that it is a gestalt state of the mind-body-emotion system and hence an emergent property of the human matrix. Eastern religions and philosophies describe this high level quality of mindfulness as a higher awareness. In such fields, numerous processes such as meditation, journeys, emptying, etc. are used to generate that state. That’s the long way. The short way is direct meta-stating processes.

So what? What’s the value of such mindfulness? The value is that such mindfulness enables us to be more intelligent about our emotions and relationships. It increases our emotional intelligence. Patrick Merlevede, Denis Bridoux, and Rude Vandamme described the use of meta-states in this way in their book, 7 Steps to Emotional Intelligence (2001).

Of course, the nice thing about rising up in your mind to a higher awareness, a textured awareness of your awareness, is that it enables us to re-enter into any experience with a higher level awareness that then transforms that experience. Re-entering into the state of anger with calmness, respect, love, seeking positive intentions, etc. changes the experience of anger. It is still anger, but now qualified and textured in a new way. This leads to state management from a higher frame of mind.

Meta-Stating a Higher Frame of Mind

If you would like to meta-state yourself with a higher frame of mind, the process is really very simple. All meta-stating involves accessing and applying. We access one state (a resourceful state of mind-body-emotion) and then apply it to another state. We can access calmness and apply it to the state of anger to create calm anger. This process can lead to all kinds of empowered states: joyful learning, respectful disagreement, seeing opportunities in difficulties, passionately excited about a challenge, and so on.

But sometimes access and apply isn’t enough. It generally takes a robust state to set one state as the frame for another, so we access and then amplify before applying. Then afterwards, we appropriate to a given life context (future pace) and then analyze (check the ecology) to make sure that it is ecological.

We can now operationalize our description of developing and creating these higher states of mind in the following step-by-step process. This provides the general formula for texturing your states with ever higher meta-states, what Grinder has called “the proliferation of meta-states.” Do this and you will be able to replicate a higher awareness and to practically use it as a way of moving through the world. The process is actually very simple.

The Texturing of Meta-States to Create Emergent or Gestalt States

1) Identify the primary state that you want to texture.

What is the everyday state that you want to texture?

What contexts are involved in this state? When, where, with whom, etc.?

What are the challenges before you in this state?

2) Identify the qualities you desire in your mindfulness (or conscious awareness).

What qualities and properties would you like to access and apply to this state?
What properties would you like to texture your awareness with?
Which resourceful states of mind and emotion would you like to apply to your primary
state?
Create your own menu list for qualifying your state (e.g., calmness, focus, concentration,
creative, loving, caring, compassionate, firm, goal-oriented, gentle, etc.

3) Access and apply each quality to your primary awareness.

Access each state getting a good representation.

Apply each state to the primary state. Keep adding until the gestalt emerges.

4) Step up a spiraling loop in your mind to create a gestalt state.

Would this empower you as a person?

Would you like this?

How would it be valuable to you?

Would it affect your self-definition?

5) Test by quality controlling, checking, future pacing.

Are all parts of your mind-body system fully aligned with this?

Is there any aspect of yourself that objects to this as you imagine taking this into your

future?

What is this like? What symbol comes to mind that represents this new gestalt?

The Unconscious Mind? Which one?

If there ever was a term or phrase that glories in indefinite vagueness it is “the unconscious mind.” What does that mean? Several years ago I wrote with Dr. Bob an article that we entitled, Which Unconscious Mind do you Train? You can still find it on our website _________.

In that article we identified several references for “the unconscious mind.” After all, if we are only aware of 7 plus-or-minus 2 chunks of information at a time, then most of our knowledge, awareness, skills, memory, imagination, etc. is outside-of-our-awareness. That’s one facet or referent of our “unconscious mind.” Freud called this the pre-conscious. Then there is our memory, our autonomic nervous system “mind,” our immune system “mind,” the “mind” of our DNA, and so on.

What I find amazing is that in a field like NLP where we take such pride in being specific and precise in our communications, a book like Whispering in the Wind uses the term “unconscious” over and over and over without ever defining it. Then, to increase the vagueness and indefiniteness of things, John (and I suppose Carmen as well) continually presupposes that this “unconscious mind” is somehow smarter, more intelligent, wiser, more holistic than the conscious mind. There is no evidence for this, no proof for this, no argumentation that leads to demonstrate this, just the assertion.

Through Consciousness to the “Unconscious Mind”

Habituation creates one form of “the unconscious mind.” Repetition and over-learning can drive anything that we focus on into unawareness. We say that things “drop out of conscious awareness and into the unconscious mind” through repetition and learning. We know that this happens in learning physical activities like cycling, roller-skating, driving, tying our shoes, etc. It also happens for school subjects that we memorized like the mathematical times chart, historical events, names of presidents, meta-model distinctions, meta-programs, etc. When it “drops out of consciousness” and becomes “unconscious,” it becomes “intuitive” (an in-knowing).

What does this mean? It means that most of what we have in our “unconscious mind” we put there through our conscious mind. We learned it. We habituated it. We made it intuitive. So how much smarter, more intelligent, or wise is this “mind” than our conscious mind? Will it not be just as full of errors, mistakes, and irrationalities as our conscious mind? Will it not, in fact, have more errors within it since it is comprised of our older learnings—learnings we made when we were children and less intelligent?

What about the “mind” that’s outside-of-our-consciousness that we call our autonomic and immune systems? Is that “mind” more intelligent, smarter, and wiser than our conscious mind? Obviously, that “unconscious mind” can and does make mistakes as in allergies and in immune system disorders. So there’s certainly no infallibility there.

What about “the collective unconscious” or the “intelligence” that some humans seem to have access to beyond our basic “senses?” Could that facet of “the unconscious mind” be wiser and more intelligent? Yes, it could. Yet we also have to recognize that these are theories and beliefs. I might also add that Jung, the brilliant psychologist and philosopher, who postulated “the collective unconscious” was not exactly a paradigm of mental wellness. In his biography he details his two major psychotic episodes when he really lost it. So those who might want to believe in the possibility of “the collective unconscious” might want to add some ecology to their search as they follow his lead.

Back to Consciousness

Alfred Korzybski argued throughout Science and Sanity (1933/ 1994) that in our use of symbols what’s important is our “consciousness of abstracting.” This phrase occurs hundreds of times in his book. It was his call to consciousness, to mindfulness. By this phrase he called for an awareness and understanding that our symbols and the recognition that our symbols (as maps) are not the same as what we symbolize by them, that the verbal and non-verbal levels should be kept distinct and coordinated.

Consciousness of abstracting means realizing that our assumptions are assumptions and they are our assumptions. It is this kind of mindfulness that then allows us to ask meaningful questions. Because map differs from the territory it represents, we use symbols and that makes us a symbol-using class of life. In this, our attitude toward language plays a critical role. Our degree of conscious awareness of language, its use, the difference it makes in adjusting to reality, etc.

Conversely, our habits make us unconscious. As any habitual response drops out of conscious awareness and becomes part of our unconscious intuition. When that happens we become unaware and automatic in our response. It becomes our “program.” We become less flexible, and more rigid. This typically reduces our choices and options and if the external contexts change, make us less effective.

Why? Because no habit is foolproof. Habits are useful if we don’t depend on them, and if we don’t insist on following them blindly regardless of circumstances. Habits can make us rigid, stupid, and inefficient. In this, they can be dangerous and stupifying.

For Korzybski, delay of reaction has an adjustive value only to the extent that we carry on effective evaluation during the delay, that is, that we come back to conscious awareness and evaluate the situation confronting us and of the likely consequences. In this we need consciousness.

It is through consciousness that we can break an old habit that has become unuseful. To substitute another response or behavior for an old one, we first have to become aware in a new and fresh way. Similarly, to stay adjusted in our orientation to the world and to react differently to different situations, we need the flexibility that awareness gives us. That’s why our ability to bring a habitual pattern back into awareness lies at the heart of such flexibility and choice. And for me, this is much of the power of NLP and Neuro-Semantics in enabling us to “run our own brains.”

In this I disagree with Grinder’s critique of NLP in his criticism of it giving too much attention or focus on the conscious mind. In Meta-States we use not only the immediate conscious mind of some immediate awareness and goal, but many multiple levels of awareness. We do this to manage our states and emotions from a more executive level of mind. We do this to put our entire mind-body-emotion system to good use in creatively thinking outside the box, thinking by analogy and metaphor, influencing our physiology, and integrating our knowledge. Much of this is described in The Secrets of Personal Mastery (1999) and in Meta-States (2000).

Summary

Neither the conscious nor the “unconscious mind” is infallible. As part of the same mind-bodyemotion system, they work together enabling us to process and integrate knowledge and skill. We need them both.

References

Grinder, John; St. Clair, Carmen, Bostic. (2002). Whispering in the Wind. Scotts Valley,
CA: J & C. Enterprises.
Hall, L. Michael. (1999). The secrets of personal mastery. Wales, UK: Crown House
Publications.
Hall, L. Michael. (2000 second edition). Meta-States: Mastering your higher states of
mind. Grand Jct. CO: Neuro-Semantics.
Langer, Ellen J. (1989). Mindfulness. Reading, MA: A Merloyd Lawrence Book.
Patrick Merlevede, Patrick; Bridoux, Denis; Vandamme, Rudy. (2000). 7 Steps to
Emotional Intelligence. Wales, UK: Crown House Publications.