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