MECHANISMS & MYTHS OF META

I spoke about “going meta” the other day. It was a presentation on Modeling Using the Meta- States Model. It was a description of the very nature of self-reflexive consciousness. As the central executive function in the highest development of the brain (in the prefrontal cortex), self- reflexivity is what distinguishes us from all other species. Yet not only does this special kind of consciousness distinguish us from the animals, its multiple aspects and functions play a critical role when it comes to the highest areas of understanding, intelligence, and performance. That’s why we have to include it in our modeling if we want to get a full picture of any expertise.

This is where the original NLP models for modeling are completely inadequate. As good as Neuro-Linguistic Programming: The Study of the Structure of Subjectivity (1980) is, it only scantily mentions the meta-move in how a strategy is structured. Yes, there is the little (m) notation after some responses, but that tiny little (m) is only briefly mentioned and never really developed.

For a fuller development of the meta-move within any linear strategy, you have to study and learn the Meta-States Model. It is true that other NLP models began “going meta” and including some of the meta-level structures. Several people enriched NLP modeling with meta-levels: Robert Dilts with The Neuro Logical Levels. In that model, Robert included four meta- levels (i.e., beliefs, values, identity, purpose) over and above the primary state (i.e., behaviors, environment, and capability). David Gordon and Graham Dawes with The Experiential Array Model included the meta- levels of beliefs (i.e., motivating, contributing, and enabling beliefs), values, and criteria. James Lawley and Penny Tompkins with Symbolic Modeling with Clean Language included the meta-level of metaphor. Leslie Cameron-Bandler, David Gordon, and Michael Lebeau in their The Emprint Method included beliefs, values, and criteria.

Most of these developers also acknowledged a debt to Gregory Bateson for his Levels of Learning, his extensive description of the meta-response, and the epistemology of meta. Yet it was only in the Meta-States Model do you can find a full development of meta and its mechanisms. Seven of those mechanisms are self-reflexivity, self-organization, multi-ordinality, holographic structuring, systems thinking of the loops, mindfulness, and simultaneality.

These mechanisms of meta reveal the systemic nature of human consciousness and therefore the need for systemic modeling. Because your thinking, feeling, and learning reflect back onto itself, your first thinking–learning becomes the content of your next level thinking–learning, and that becomes the content of the next higher context that you set. And when you set it, it becomes a meta-level frame of reference for all that went before. Complex? Yes. Human? Even more so!

The idea of meta has always played a big role in NLP. In fact, before the name NLP arose (Sept. 1976), the people and community that were working things out was called Meta. Frank Pucelik even registered “Meta Institute” when he moved to San Diego (1977-8). If you read some of the original books, you will find meta-moves, meta-patterns, meta-tactics, etc. all over the place. So no wonder whenever you sign up for NLP training anywhere in the world, you will get hands-on practice of patterns with three people and you will take turns being experiencer, coach, and meta- person. The role of taking a meta-perspective occurs in nearly every single NLP pattern.

Strangely enough, however, Grinder has come to downplay the meta-role as he aimed criticisms at the Meta-States Model and myself. In spite of his book Turtles All the Way Down (1987) where he abundantly talked about the meta-moves, he has come to now constantly questioned meta and meta-states. “Why do you refer to it so often?” “What is the need for going meta from one state to another state?” In the Bandler camp, there are trainers who have foolishly announce that they do not go meta “because it takes away from being in the moment.” Of course, that is a major misunderstanding of the concept of “going meta.”

“Going meta” does not mean becoming dissociated. It does not mean being less involved or less present. The truth is the exact opposite. When you step out of one experience, you step into another state— perhaps observing, witnessing, learning, being curious, etc. Taking another perspective may make you more emotional, “joyful about learning,” “angry at being afraid,” “love sadness,” etc. When you “go meta” you may become more emotional, rather than less.

The idea stepping out of one experience always and only means disconnection is a big myth in NLP that some are still repeating today. Regarding consciousness, you and I can be present to a moment and simultaneously aware (at a higher level) of numerous patterns. Our self-reflexive consciousness is able to set a frame for a moment and be present in the moment. The human kind of mind is that rich and robust. It is not an either-or choice, “either be aware of your awareness or lose that awareness and be in the moment.” That is a far too simplistic dichotomy.