Semantic Restructuring is the pursuit of enlightenment, enlivenment, empowerment through the creative re-arranging of the building blocks of meaning. For a better description, Start Here.
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | ||||
| 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 |
| 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 |
| 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 |
| 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 |
| Months | ||
|---|---|---|
| Jan | Feb | Mar |
| Apr | May | Jun |
| Jul | Aug | Sep |
| Oct | Nov | Dec |
Bateson, books, cogling, context, CPB, embodiment, framing, I Ching, paradox, perception influence, prisdem, semantic punctuation, sensation, techniques, unconscious
By making a clear, actionable distinction between text that does something and text that doesn't we are simply, directly conditioning readers to scan. It is unavoidable. Well, no, it could have been avoided by disallowing in-line linkage, forcing folks to link at the end of a document, abstracting links away from content. But by conflating hyper-text with non-hyper-text we have created a simple, clear conditioning scenario: scanning rewards. (Nice syntactic ambiguity, that.)
[]
static link
writebacks: 1 (writeback = trackback +/- comment)
I am working this morning with an idea about a possible relationship between Weber's "Protestant Ethic" and a concept from N-LP that morphed into something ugly.
The start is Grinder and Bandler's "Polarities" concepts in Structure II. Given a client exhibiting lateral incognruency, if the counselor adopts a congruent example of one, the client will typically become congruent in the other. This leaves open the vague term congruence; for the counselor is only playing congruent, not neccessarily feeling the feelings, but very much acting, in the craftsman sense, using their instrument to acheive a result. Of course this idea of acting, of using the instrument in such a fashion is anathema to lots of folks's notions of how to know you can trust someone; it dissolves faith in spontaneity. (And that gets us to Watzlaiwicks "be spontaneous" error. But there are only so many hours in a day and this post has already taken most of two hours creating glossary terms, book links, and web-cross-references.)
So, we've got a therapeutic maneuver: becoming congruent to feed back to the client one of their poarized expressions. And we've got the Calvinist, as described by Weber, notion of "doubting one's status as elect is a sure sign of ot being elect" (which is not without a compelling rhetorical force...to be reckoned with at a later time; there's still the whole presupposition project to put up, and to which this should point, being, in effect, an example of "If you were of the elect you wouldn't doubt it.") Add in Erickson's "Hypnosis is only dangerous when the hypnotist thinks so." Heap "don't think of blue monkeys" onto the pile. Toss in "Personal Power/Congruence" (which needs to be de-conflated from the glossary entry on congruence), which claims in essence that if you act like the client is going to go into trance they'll go into trance. Finally, stir in a little more of the self-sealing condition in which any appearance of self doubt is a sin, because it plays against the results of being congruent, with the flavor of, "If you think you can't, you won't try, so it might as well be true" grotesquing into the nonsense of "You can do it if you really believe" and the disgustingly smug smarminess of the fire-walkers and huslters who so degraded the tone of N-LP that I still can't bring up the subject without cringing.
It all hangs on "Congruent", but, clearly, there are more than a couple types.
[]
static link
writebacks: 0 (writeback = trackback +/- comment)
Early in my reading on the subject I encountered, "A linguist is someone who takes seriously the question:
What is the difference between
- A black bird's nest
- A black bird's nest
This becomes a little less non-sensical when you toss in a hyphen to alternately prepend "black" to "bird's" or "bird's" to "nest":
- A black-bird's nest
- A black bird's-nest
The above by way of context for today's quote from Language Log:
"White bred" for "white bread" is an excellent example of the subspecies where the sounds are not just familiar, but identical, and where the misinterpretation makes at least as much sense as the original."
I simply don't hapeen to agree, on no other basis than my own experience as a native speaker, at a not-entirely-trivial skill-level, of English. The difference in sounds between "white-bread" and "White bred" are perhaps subtle, but not entirely missing. Am double-checking whether this qualifies as a "phone" or no. To my ear, in addition to simple differences in stress, similar to the blackbird example, there is an intonation difference; the food-stuff reference would get a spike-and-drop intonation; the genetic reference would get a double-flat intonation:
I have no idea of where to find a web-friendly orthography for such notation.
[]
static link
writebacks: 0 (writeback = trackback +/- comment)