Widen your understanding of models and paradigms to get a deeper understanding of existence.

The map is not the territory! Alfred Korzybski: Science and Sanity 1933.

If you change the way that you think about the world then the world will change too.

Architects build scale models. Cartographers draw maps. Chefs create recipes. Academics discuss paradigms. The terms model, map, recipe and paradigm mean much the same thing with your choice of word determined by the context.

Some examples of models are human language, mathematics, computer languages, a street map, psychology, physics, naturopathy, medicine, Christianity and Zen. The map is not the territory stated Alfred Korzybski in 1933 in his book titled, Science And Sanity. That is a road map is not the road system, a menu is not the meal, and a word is not the object.

Models can vary in degrees of specificity. A map of the world is less detailed than a street map of a city. Models can also vary in degrees of accuracy. An old world map drawn in 1200AD is less accurate than a satellite map in 2000AD.

Different models can be used to represent the same territory. The naturopathy and medicine models each have their own theoretical foundation that determines the methods, tools and techniques used to achieve an outcome. As a broad generalisation the medical model uses drugs to kill germs, and surgery to remove diseased tissue whereas in contrast the naturopathic model uses herbs, diet and massage to bring a body back into balance. Neither model is necessarily better than the other however models do act as filters and hence limit the territory that can be explored. In some respects the proof of a model is not to be found in the theories and research but in the results.

To compare two models, first each model needs to be reduced to its most basic structure then you look for points of agreement. This requires a third model. If two models do not translate with a high degree of accuracy then you make a decision on what to do with each model. Keep the models as they are, update or discard them. In retrospection it may be obvious that certain models are outdated yet when Einstein introduced his theory of relativity it took some years before Newtonian physicists were prepared to change their way of thinking let alone for the new ways of thinking to permeate the thoughts of the person in the street. Even in the year 2000AD there is still evidence of the Newtonian system in common language. As in the cause and effect relationship between events. It's also possible that the concept of shared blame by the judicial system has its origins in the Judo-Christian belief of original sin which basically means that everyone is guilty, it's just a question, to what degree?

According to chaos theory there is no order in the universe. The sameness that we experience is created by our neurology to give us a sense of order. For example recognising two cars as being of the same model. Our sense organs (the abstracters) abstract up from the territory using the three universal modelling processes of deletion, distortion and generalisation to form internal representations of the world. Human language gives us information on the surface and deep structure of our internal representations but even so the deepest structure which is the actual experience itself is something of which it cannot be spoken.

If we abstract down we discover differences but only by abstracting up do we find sameness. Studies by psychologists have demonstrated that abstracting up from the territory is preferable to abstracting down, that is projecting meaning onto an event. Because projection is a distortion of the territory it may lead to unhappiness and in severe cases illness or violence. By example if we take the example of a rock falling onto our foot we know the experience of pain is not the rock. The meaning we give the experience of pain is not the pain. Also the word 'pain' is not the pain. To project meaning onto the rock is absurd. To say the rock fell on our foot because it was punishment for some past behaviour, would be a projection of meaning onto the event. All we can accurately say is an object fell onto our foot and we had an experience of pain.

We each have a model of the world that we share with others through a common language. Even so no two people share an identical meaning on anything. Try getting an agreement on the meaning of words such as 'love', 'cat' or even 'at'. Instead we agree upon context dependent meaning. The greater our shared experience of a context the closer in meaning are the words used to describe an event within that context.

_________________________

Because our senses are the closest point of contact with the territory, then the linguistic construction of our internal representations should represent the structure of the territory as accurately as possible as determined by the sense organs. That is to say the structure of our language should match as closely as possible the structure of our neurology otherwise our mental and physical health may suffer as a consequence of tension created from the misalignment.

Think of it this way. A two dimensional road map can be laid upon the ground and oriented to north. By careful observation and comparison we can locate points on the map that correspond with objects on the ground. But if we copied the street names onto a separate piece of paper then deleted all the street names from the map would the map and the list of names be of any use? And to take this analogy to the extreme if we replaced the street names on the map with words chosen at random from the dictionary, would the map be an accurate representation of the territory? Would we be able to use this map to navigate the territory? And yet a number of models in common usage today are as absurd as this.

Now let's do a simple linguistic analysis on a health problem. A thin woman visits a medical practitioner and receives a diagnosis of anorexia. Grammatically the word 'anorexia' belongs in a class of nouns known as nominalisations. Nominalisations are process words that have become frozen and place her at the effect side of the equation. If she accepts the 'thing' called anorexia she will have to utilise whatever medical treatments are prescribed.

Using linguistics, however, the situation changes. Once she denominalise the noun 'anorexia' and turns it into a verb - 'anorexing' - then the so called illness becomes a process which moves her to the cause side of the equation. From this new perspective she can discover how she actually does the process of anorexing herself and then change the process at key steps to build a new strategy for health and well being.

___________________________

The origins of western language patterns (and thought) can be traced back 2500 years to a  Greek philosopher by the name of Aristotle. His style of thinking is a two valued system that has created divisory categories such as mind and body, nature and nurture, and 'yes' and 'no'. Yet other systems of thought treat mind and body as one, view nature and nurture as being interrelated on a cosmic level, and in response to a direct question can give at least five answers: 'yes', 'no', 'yes and no', 'neither', and 'that which cannot be said'.

The Aristotelian system misaligns our neurology with that of the territory. Non Aristotelian systems aim to structure language in such a way as to heal division and to build wholeness. In the case of the mind body division it may be more accurate to use the term 'body' to stand for both body and mind, and to think of intellect as being a higher functioning of the body. The actual process of thinking can be reduced to the process of manipulating information with one or more of our senses. Contrary to popular belief internal dialogue is not necessary for thought. In some cases talking to yourself on the inside can be a liability. In fact during expressions of peak performance martial artists, dancers and athletes think primarily by manipulating body sensations.

The reader is invited to explore the notion that that our mind and senses aren't separate from our body but are just features of an 'organism-as-a-whole', and that our intellect may be just be the one feature that we identify with most.

Return to NLP FAQ Menu