Ontology versus Epistomology

Did the chicken come before the egg or was it that the egg that came first?
Or maybe even both at the same time?

In the world of linguistics and science people are trying to define "what is what".
NLP for instance is a science to define the way we know the things we know the "how".
Ontology on the other hand is trying to define what is there the "being". Or if you ask me to answer the ever ending question of "why?"

I had several ways to ask Joseph what he did mean by ontology and how he defines that word.
For him, Ontology comes before epistomology since as he states "there has to be something there first" before something can exist and in that epistomology comes after in the next logical step.

I define this a little different,
that Ontology is on a higher logical level and that epistomology is at a lower level but they both exists at the same time or in other words, the fields define each other.

For me that Ontology comes before epistomology bears no substance and are of no relevance to either NLP or for example mythoself as models.

They both define what each other "is" and "means" and how they are as in expereince and as the very definition of our subjective way to define what is reality.

John Grinder and Carmen argues that epistomology ends since we cant know what is truly real outside our what our senses can detect, that there is always a difference between the world and our way of sensing the world.

For me, since I try to define this is that we cant use NLP to define words refered to as nomilazations ie words that are so abstract and have no sensory channels to define them in subjective concrete sensory language which you hear a lot in NLP circles.

What I say is this, that Ontology are at a higher logical level than epistomology and they both define each other, and as they do so they make each other valid and existent and without that nither of them can exist.

Our language can express "I" or, being who you are.
We can define that who you are the "I" but we cant know what it is since we cant define such abstract experience into words that make sense to someone else, we then refer to metaphors to explain that abstract area. To know who you are, you have to use a process to define it, and when you do, the process you use is the way you elicit how you know who you are.
The evidence is twofolded, first you have an evidence of knowing who you are, (being and the evidence knowing this to be true) then you use a process to define who you are making it obvious how you know it and also how this expereince knowing who you are also affects you perception in your mind and this is btw both input and output.

When people are making decisions that alter their beliefs in a such manner that they stick with the decision something happens that are a blend of ontology and then epistomology.
People are when they reach the final criteria in what they want into a one final criteria of this is as it is and cant be anything else, for our minds and body this experience is unique.
When you done that, you shift the evidence in how you know that something been true for you without any fuss at all.

Then often a process take place that sets new pathways in your brain to solidify this new way of living your life, new evidence and how you know it becomes ingrained and becomes the new reality.

For me, when you lead people to the expereince of what they want to be, and then set that expereince and link making decisions "from that state of expereince" you want to have creates the sorting out I refer to "The NOT Factor-tm" where your beliefs, states and stuff will be displayed and sorted out until the Complex Eqvivalence that runs your context is in the open.

For people this will be an expereince where the old problem does not exist at all, the sensations you have here is like, this is how it is, pure and simple just what it is without any attatchements to the old past references, memories and such stuff.
The problem simply cant exist when this state is had.

To reach this are for many a relif, they suddenly can sense the possibilites of how this is for them, they reach a level of enlightment for some or just a clarity of aha...
Then how to keep this going you can do several approaches,
you can anchor the steps getting there and when in distress, re-anchor it back.
or
holding that state of expereince and then when identifying the issues or problem you once had, re-integrate them in a way that makes them obselete and non existent.

Its snowing here where I live and tomorow morning I got to go out and shuffle some snow and clean the space for the cars.
Its not that cold, around -3 or so.
The snow is light and thin.
I had some coffe earlier which makes life more speedy and I also talked with one of my students.
She been trained well, she went trough the NLP Prac program and also the NLP master.
She came up for a module in the master program and was exposed to what I am doing currently, and as she said, it was "new" and a different way to work at stuff than I taught previously.
She by coming back and assisting gets her hands on the new updated material beacuse I am not standing still in how I teach or do things, for me it evolves and what I am doing nowadays are a reflection in how I understand the balance between Ontology and Epistomology.

In other words, to change or shift you got to reach the criterion of making a decision where the expereince is total or whole with mind and body where you just know this is important enough to go trough with.
When you do it that way its an ontological state of being, it is simply the way it is.
Like this. often people display a gesture where the body and mind is balanced with left and right side for example both arms displaying the same gesture, shoulders etc..
The way we know that this is the proper level is to have it fully expressed and then to sort out and identify what can limit, stop or block this experience by making sure we get it to a point where this can only be as it is, there in that moment only exist this experience and then what we do is to use that as the starting point for making decisions from that state of being. When the treshold is reached people can then integrate this with the earlier limitations and reach a fully established state of being and also that creates actions and evidence in behavioural patterns in what you think and do.

The argument I propose is, there can not be the question of either the egg or the chicken since both has to be there to have either the egg or the chicken.
The how to and why has both to be there to satisfy the evident practical way of achiving results.
People want to either change how they think or how they feel.
They want to achieve this by altering the behavioural patterns that gets results for them.
For me, the evidence of "being" is defined by how you know (epistomology) and that in turn only exists by the way we just know it to be true (ontology) or in simplier forms, we can only define an object if we can use our senses to define an object using language (words) and representations (abstract thoughts) and the object can only exist if we define it.

The argument then if the object (ex: stone) exist or not or if it is true or not simply isnt an important consideration for human beings reaching results.

Before we know what something is we use a process to define what it is and before that is done the object in question does not exist for us since we still have not reached the criterion to define it as yet.
Does it then exist even when we cant define it?
The process we use implies that it does even though we dont know what it is.

For most humans the obvious question is more, how do I use this to achive goals/outcomes that I am interesting to get?

What I am proposing, when the future outcome or goal is elicited in your experience, made important enough and sorted out to be only one single experience with body and mind and is displayed as either/or and then tested in your daily life and proven and established by evidence from you when interacting with the world then it will work to create action and be displayed into new behaviours.

if a limitation exists, a belief, an emotion, trauma, block etc...
we then identify it by sorting out the contexts involved and the evidence to support the structure that builds this up and when identifying the smallest component that holds this together integrate this with the wanted state of expereince and making decision from one final position. When this is done properly, the old habit, problem or thinking/feeling simply appears to exist.
What is left are the new wanted state of the future outcome and goal which then will be displayed into action where your doing things to get there naturally.

If someone has an habit of doing something that they dont want example is smoking, they want to stop smoking, but they cant since they tried to do so many times.
This process can lead to beliefs as, I cant stop smoking since the habit to smoke is to strong, i will fail, can be reinforced to such a level of I am a failure.
And also, if the person states, I am a smoker which will also induce two levels of beleifs, one is being a smoker and the other a failure of quitting to smoke.

If asked what they want is to stop smoking then you just ask them, so you stopped smoking, what expereince do you end up when you done that "stopped smoking?"
The expereince will be the one they seek to have when not smoking.

Then what is to be done is to establish it, making sure it is what they want to have and experience.
Then, if they can have that state of experience fully with just one option that it is like that, then what is done are to sort out the limitations until they are exposed.
Often the feeling of desire to smoke is one big one.

/Robert Johansson

NLP Training for the future

What is the length of days to use for the optimal NLP training?

In the old days 25 days or so was used to teach the skills and techniques of NLP, it was also stated and said that NLP was to be updated by newer techniques as they where developed.
A new training could be taught with 25% new material so that would be for many years.

Then in later years Mckenna/Breen and Bandler set a new revisition to NLP bringing the 7 day accelerated practitioner of NLP to the table.
of course there become an uproar of the NLP community saying that NLP could not be taught in 7 days.

Paul Mckenna wrote some bit of article where he proved to some agree that the skills taught from Mckenna/Breen was more effective that the individual was able to do things with the skills taught that a 20 day NLp practitioner from someone else could not do.
Knowing the what to do, does not equal being able to do the techniques taught with any degree of skill.

I am also saying here that 7 day is to short time to teach NLP with any kind of precision and knowledge of the techniques applied, it is possible to teach NLP in those days if the following conditions are meet, 10 people or so in class.
Its simply not possible to teach the skills with 400ppl in the class with any acurate skills being in consious awareness.
Its simply a to big of a task for anyone no matter how skilled teaching using unconsious installation patterns.

For me skills with proper applying with a lot of practice delivers what I call the baseline for an NLPér.

The example by for example Joseph Riggio in his mythoself program do teach in 19 days the basic mythoself facilitator program. It require 19 days.
Now, he wants people to be skilled and have enough experience doing the program with exquisite precision.

I am in favor of longer programs, provided the skills taught with experience are provided with practice of the same in the class.

The experience in itsel is not enough to have a skilled practitioner.
I seen people attaneding classes with bandler, being able to do things proving that sure enough unconsious installation do work, however the indvidual who did the work, suddenly stopped doing it since he became afraid of doing what he did beacuse he didnt know how he learned it.

Peoples beliefs and assumptions in how to learn and being able to do is more powerful than being able to do.

let say someone become skilled, for a few weeks he practice and are able to do things, then he stopps and when asked are saying, well I need to know more.
He dont need more skills or knowledge but his beliefs are telling him that to be able to become let say rich, you need to be able to do xxxx.

7 day NLP practitioner with 400ppl are a bad idea, its to short and quality is not there.
if it was with 10 or maybe 20 ppl I would say so much but going to an event having an expereince with unconsious installation might work for you well enough but the risk is, what about the belief you have that might be in the way?

How do people change thier beliefs about stuff just like that when they dont know its a belief there in the first place?
They dont.

To change a belief, you got to learn to see them plainly in what results they produce for you.
Its in actually kind of easy, as soon your trying to do something new, to achive a result and then stop doing that, whatever pops up in your consious mind is a reference to a belief.
if your saying, "I cant do that", that is a belief statement about something, what its about, and who cares?

To sort out stuff in your mind and body the beleifs you have, you got to define a result in the future that you want to achive.

Lets say, you want to have 20 million dollars.
is that impossible?
No, just ask Bill Gates or people who have that kind of money, its kind of easy to have it, the boys creating youtube.com did that, they created a website, found a value for alot of people and sold it for a lot of money.

However, do you want that badly enough?
Do you have the motivation and desire to fullfill that kind of bankaccount?
No, you dont.

Isnt it then a good idea to spend some time to elicit what you truly really want?
Notice here how your point of view shifts, now its not impossible or hard to get 20 million, now its all about defining the feelings of desire, motivation and fullfillment which are prerequisites to get there.

Every success are just that, a state of expereince of doing things to get where they want to be by being there already, sitting in that ferrari every day driving when its just an old crashed car but for you its red blood lusted ferrari.
Its called using your perception to see what you want instead of what you dont want.

Now, a lot of people come to an NLP training by 7 days, they cant do much but have a great experience, its not something you get automatically, you got to use skills, set yourself up to the practice of applying your skills.

Anchoring for example, just go into your supermarket, smile at the person behind the counter, say in a husky voice, hello there, I just love people who work here.
Now, when you do it right, they shift there state to a more let say, positive one, now you elicited a new state, and you at the same time anchored it to your husky voice.
easy isnt it?

Amplifying that state and leading to another you can use a slight handgesture and create a small packet practicing anchoring and at the same time making someone else feel good for no reason at all other than you practicing skills.
Then again, we are always doing that but most people do it backwards, they have a bad mood, and then elicit a bad state from someone else and then they wonder why thier life sucks?

To keep a state you got to be able to have the state going and improving over time, you then use and establish a contextual shift or in NLP terms a Ceq where how you feel(being at your best) is always improving.
How you do that is to use a swishpattern that was designed by Joseph Riggio.
It establish a belief that is "meta" to the feeling, and provide a subtle but important link between the action done (how you feel) and what your doing.
That is in essence a updating software outside contextual markers ie anchors.

Lets say, you establish an outcome, you want that car, or money or whatever, to get there,
what do you need to do?
Elicit the future state when you have got the outcome, and then ask yourself what are you doing next after getting that outcome?

if you do it that way, elicit the state and feeling getting the outcome and then what is going on after you shift contexts, you have got the outcome, and then you do something else, right?
This allow us to shift our attention to what we doing later and this is a shift in our context in our heads.

people who are successful are doing that, moving into the future, where they want to be, have that future state today, how it is having that future, now this creates a feeling for the person and also is the requirement for manifestations wehre this future is already made real.
They simply instead of doing as they do it in NLP are actually moving the about the outcome into a past reference memory.
and at the same time keeeping the future state in a present time frame.

How you know is that there is only one option, no hesitation or anything else, you know it in your bones its true and already happening for you since you have the expereince...with that.
Uisng the "NOT factor" you can elicit the future state and outcome and eliminating beliefs along the way that might stop you until you arrive at the one option, its just like this now.

/Robert Johansson