THE NEURO-SEMANTIC DIFFERENCE Part VI

“Why ‘Neuro-Semantics?’ What does Neuro-Semantics offers that NLP does not? What would you say is the biggest difference?”

There’s another difference I want to mention. And it goes to the systemic nature of Neuro- Semantics that I’ve been describing that results from the Meta-State Model. Now while NLP is “systemic,” to some extent, it is just so on a surface level. And this is a sad development. After all, NLP emerged from the “family system” therapy of Satir and from the system approach in Korzybski (the non-Aristotlian system) and from the systemic thinking of Bateson. And yet for all of that, the way NLP is mostly taught around the world is very linear and simplistic.

Now, as with most things, there’s exceptions to this. Robert Dilts has attempted to introduce into NLP several systems models, as has O’Connor and Ian McDermott, as well as others. And yet, most NLP practitioners think and talk in linear terms... following the Strategy model: first make a picture, then say these words, then feel this feeling, now let’s anchor that, okay, future pace and we’re done.

By contrast, learning Neuro-Semantics involves a much more systemic approach and one that involves many system words and processes: simultanenality, hyphenating words, both-and framing, etc.

Hypenating First, we begin by adopting the language of systems by using a hyphen when we talk about thoughts-feelings, mind-body, thinking-doing, etc. This comes from Alfred Korzybski and the Meta-Model distinction that he offered of using the hyphen to re-connect words that are especially systemic, we more consciously and intentionally try to use a systemic language. And by doing that, to avoid falling into the linear thinking of talking about “thoughts,” “emotions,” “cognitions,” etc. as if they were separate elements and could be separated. They are not and cannot be spoken in such “elementalism” without confusion.

Stepping in and Stepping Out of States Then there is the shift from talking about states and emotions. You will notice that most of us do not use the over-simplified NLP language of “association” – “dissociation.” This language comes from psychiatry, and especially from the sub-field of the Dissociative Personality Disorders. There they talk about people as “dissociated” and suffering from “dissociation.” That’s why it does a disservice to NLP to talk about “dissociating” a person as in the Movie Rewind Pattern. Talk that way, and people from that field will think you are not only ignorant

and crazy, but doing real harm to people.

Further, you have to remember that this language is metaphorical. The actual fact is that no one is literally dissociated, no one is literally outside of his or her body. They may feel that they are; they may think that they are—but those are only thoughts and feelings, mental maps about such, not the fact. They are in their bodies and from inside they are breathing, standing, sitting, etc. A person with the label of “dissociative personality disorder” thinks and feels numb, strange, weird, and so makes judgments about themselves that they are crazy or literally out-of-the-body.

In Neuro-Semantics we avoid all of that language and talk more simply about stepping into and out of various states. If you are in a depressed state and step out of it you inevitably step into some other state— curiosity, witnessing, joy, playful, laughter, neutrality, etc. You are always in a state! You cannot be in no-state. You may not know what to call it. You may not like it, but you are always in a state. So you are always and continually stepping in and out of states.

Similarly, associate and disassociate are relative terms. Whenever you associate into one state you are always dis-associating and can do so with hundreds of other states. Whenever you step into one, you are stepping out of many, many others. So to keep things easier to track and simpler in concept, my recommendation is to speak in the metaphor of stepping in and out of various states.

Feelings and Meta-Feelings Whenever you think, you are at the same time thinking emotionally. It’s inevitable! There is no such thing as “pure” thinking. We humans have bodies and as long as we do, we will always and inevitably think somatically and think emotionally! So when you buy something, anything, you think emotionally as you buy. You think emotionally whenever you make any choice or decision. How something feels to you, the emotions associated with something moves you to choose it.

Now the conclusion some people make from this is that we have a “rational” brain and we have an “emotional” brain and the emotional brain always wins out. Oh, that human psychology was so simple! It is not. This is the same old dichotomy of mind versus emotions; mind versus body that has been around since Aristotle. It posits that mind and body are polar opposites. But again, they are not.

The mind arises from the brain of the body and is both rational and emotional at the same time. That’s why we inevitably and always are meta-stating our states with emotions as well as thoughts, as well as with reasons and explanations and other “cognitive” stuff. If you think systemically about the mind-body-emotion system, you will save yourself (and others) a lot of elementalistic non-sense. You’ll speak and then think as if the mind-body-emotion are part of a singular system rather than competing parts. This is a distinction that we have brought from Korzybski into Neuro-Semantics.

Responsible Accountability

Finally I’ll mention the systemic thinking about responsibility. This is key in Neuro-Semantics. To empower ourselves and others, we highlight our four powers of response and that we are always able to make these responses. This put all of us “at cause” for our mapping of reality and the responses we make as a result. So we ask, “How have you contributed to this experience that you’re having or reporting?”

As a higher level meta-state, “responsibility” empowers us to take ownership of our powers, to develop them into high level competencies, and to respect the response-abilities of others. We are responsible for our responses and to others. The first creates accountability, the second relationships. Now we can positively welcome and use feedback from others as part of the system of interactions.