Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Going
Deeper:
The
Framing
Tool
Questions
The
Framing
Tool
excels
at
helping
you
track
the
two
key
dynamics1
that
humans
use
to
make
sense
out
of
their
experiences.
When
you
familiarize
yourself
with
these
two
dynamics
you
realize
that
thoughts,
and
then
the
descriptions
of
those
thoughts,
don't
just
emerge
out
a
purple
cloud.
1
Time as it relates to causality, and the process of specification and abstraction.
The
central
part
stands
for
the
present
moment
as
expressed
through
the
description(s)
made
by
a
speaker.
More
than
one
statement
can
be
there,
as
our
ideas,
thoughts
and
feelings
often
require
elaboration
to
make
ourselves
understood.
That
central
box
could
be
described
as
the
issue,
question
(problem,
challenge,
idea,
goal,
etc.)
under
consideration
but
what
it
represents
are
conclusions
that
the
speaker
has
reached,
so
far,
given
specific
referents
(the
root
word
"refer"
gives
you
a
big
clue
–
"given
what
the
speaker
is
using
or
referring
to
in
making
their
language
choice").
Change
how
someone
draws
their
comparisons
and
references;
you
change
what
they
can
think
and
feel.
Wherever
we
go
in
the
world,
we
carry
with
us
the
conclusions,
habits,
and
expectations
which
we
have
acquired
and
developed
in
the
past.
But
more
than
that;
those
habits
of
thinking,
feeling
and
behaving
set
the
foundation
for
our
reactions
to
new
situations
and
environments.
Emotions
and
habituated
response
do
not
just
Rather than merely being right and attempting to pull someone else over to your right
way thinking, when you learn to use the processes of Specification and Abstraction, you
discover where else to look for resources, alternate pathways, choices not perceived,
meanings unexplored – it’s how you can find the room for change from within their map
or model of the world. You make change far more elegant and less potentially bloody this
way…
Top down contains bottom up, and bottom up infers top down
We can group aspects of our experience in many ways, depending on how we identify
what things are, what we compare them to, and how we choose to sort them
(Good/Bad/Neutral/Uncertain/etc., or any other schema you can imagine). The mental
groupings – the labels and descriptions we use and all of the “thinking about” is at a
higher level of abstraction than events in the world.
Furthermore, when we think about doing or creating something that doesn’t exist in the
world, that thinking is more abstract and less concrete than an object, say a table, which
already exists in the world.
Our understandings and the maps we make of the world are at a higher level of
abstraction than the world itself. But even though most often these subtler, non-concrete
aspects of a person’s existence are “hidden inside”; clues are given through language and
through non-verbal signs of what may be “behind” statements someone makes or the
thoughts they think.
For example, let’s use an example that everyone might have heard of, the notion held by
some New Agers that one can “manifest” your strong desires by thinking hard and long
concentrating only on the thing you want to “manifest”. Now, we don’t want to burst
anyone’s balloon or bring someone down; at the same time, those sorts of assertions carry
with them certain assumptions, which can be tracked from the statement.
In other words, “stuff” in our Universe doesn’t just happen all by itself. Complex
processes create everything and, according to current scientific understanding nothing is
destroyed; only transformed. When you or someone else makes a statement, especially
one about your experience of reality; you also assert that there is a way or process for
what is being described to occur.
Every statement is made within an implied, asserted reality. Some of those “realities” are
shared. Some of them cannot be shared. Which set of “rules for asserting realities” you
choose to play by, determines how you will deal with any particular statement.
Your “model of the world” will include “in-bounds” and “out-of-bounds” rules. Some
statements will not be allowable under the rules you play by. Some people’s rules assert
that there is only one possible way to experience reality and everyone else who says that
they have another way is wrong, or evil, or idiotic.
But the war over whose interpretation of reality is superior to everyone else’s does not
concern us. What we are interested in are the games rules that must exist in order for your
or someone else’s statements (or thoughts) to be valid within the internal worldview they
relate to. In other words, the question is “If what someone says is true; how does the
world, and their relationship to it, have to be in order for the statement to be
valid?”. What we seek are the rules that make the statement function for the person
making the statement.
Now, let’s return to the notion that one can “manifest” your desires by thinking hard and
long concentrating only on the thing you want to “manifest”.
If this is so; then the Universe must be organized in such a way that the Universe
somehow (unstated) creates the multitude complex processes and manipulates
circumstances by which the things most strongly desired by people can manifest. The
The person who makes the statement has within their “model of the world”; implied
statements of cosmology (not the stars and big objects in space, but how the whole
Universe must behave) that are “bigger” and more comprehensive than their own life and
experience (in this instance, the whole of space-time and everything in it.) That’s a big
map with a lot of missing detail, which must be so, if what they are saying is true.
Cosmology
The way the Universe must behave
in order for a worldview (and
statements that are consistent within
that worldview) to be valid
Worldview containing
many “rules” including…
Different Meta Model questions will generate different classes of result. Let’s use the
“Quantifier” – Universals (all/none; every/never”, etc.) to find out about exceptions to the
general rule, and finding counter examples, to test the rule.
For example, with “desire creates reality” as the worldview pointing to a cosmology,
there are so many questions – Does every desire become real?… some people use
expressions frequently like “I wish they would curl up and die”? or “I wish I was never
born”? or “If I were in charge things would be different around here”? – Do those
become real or only some desires? Do everyone’s desires become real or just for some
people? Do you always “get what you want” or are there other rules? Etc.
Cosmology
The Universe is organized to respond to
human congruent desiring, and… (?)
Does
Does the Every
Universe Desire
respond to Manifest?
everyone’s
desires? Worldview including…
“Desire Creates reality”
“You can ‘manifest’ your desires merely by thinking about them long and hard”
If we change our intent (going from finding the abstractions “above” which must function
in order for what the person is saying to be true); we can move to Specification and ask
for examples which “fill in the blanks”, in order to find more about the elements or
components of statement.
Worldview including…
“Desire Creates reality”
There are many possibilities for using this practically in finding out what might be
“behind” or “within” a particular statement. With practice; you will discover that there
are inferences that you can draw that are quite common to many people and also some
that are absolutely unique.
Generally, when someone is pursuing a direction – whether that be a plan of action, a line
of questioning or thinking, or a communication; the specifics of what they say sits within
a purpose for the activity. That purpose may not be stated overtly or it may not even be
held uppermost in someone’s mind put the purpose is there. That purpose sits at a higher
level of abstraction than the statements and actions made in pursuit of it.
At it’s simplest level; even having a drink with a friend may have several purposes, not
explicitly stated. For example, some purposes might be:
They may not be stated but if they are held; they will influence how a person interprets
the events that occur in pursuit of the purposes.
A simple drink with a friend is one thing; when purposes are pursued which influence the
perception of survival; these purposes can have a profound effect on how one goes about
one’s activities.
Purpose
Actions
This becomes relevant when someone has difficulties with their actions not fulfilling their
intended purposes. Through mere habituation; one can become “possibility blind”. The
greater the level of abstraction; the more possibilities there are for creating fulfillment of
that purpose. For example, there are more ways to eventually feel free… by having
money… than to pursue a job you hate but which pays you well. Many people mistake
money (a means) for the end that is desired (freedom, happiness, etc.). The purpose of
eventually being free can be pursued in many ways beyond money. Money is but one
means to that end. Far too many people go the way of career burnout before they discover
that. Just as many people pursue money above all else and then, usually in mid-life,
discovering that having got the money; they feel empty.
You see it isn’t an all-or-nothing scenario. Purposes can be fulfilled (usually) through a
variety of means.
Like many other things in life; even the different purposes behind the actions we take will
often summarize into a kind of durable intent, which crosses several areas of life. Some
people become fixated on what they call “survival” (when what they mean is maintaining
their lifestyle in a specific way). This collection of purposes brought together and thought
about as “survival” will have consequences. Sometimes these “intentions” will be
revealed. At times; “the problem” isn’t so much what is happening, as how things are
interpreted with regards to the more abstract and internalized “Intention” and thus various
dramas play out.
Worldview
Intention(s)
Purpose
Actions
One of the secrets of values is that there will usually be differences between what is
asserted overtly as a value; and then what is lived. This is a consequence of acting from
within a mind and simply not perceiving what one has learned to exclude (rather than
being the product of some latent evil or “character flaw”.
The following diagram shows you the higher “levels” of abstraction, followed by a
review of the questions that we use for each level.
Values
Intention(s)
Purpose
Actions
Worldview (Map of the world) “What
can
we
understand/must
be
true
about
the
speaker’s
model
of
the
world?”
Values “How
is
X
behaviour
important?”
Intention “What
is
the
intention
trying
to
be
fulfilled?”
Purposes “What
is
the
function/purpose
of
X
behaviour?”
Actions “What
is
the
verb?”
(The
doing)
We’ve explored the impact of the south axis of the Framing Tool which is concerned
with sensory detail, evidence and examples. Our question to map at the sensory “level”
is:
As you will read in “Becoming More Skillful With The Framing Tool”, the south axis is
where we find instances that support the conclusion uttered by the speaker, and the
examples that help support their worldview.
The magic, as you will discover, is in the systematic use of the Framing Tool questions in
combination with the Meta Model. Combined you have the “Swiss Army Knife” of
linguistic tools to help you transform limitations, overcome problems and be able to help
yourself or others re-map a more enriched model of the world.