Did the theory for MORPH come from NLP or from Creative Processing? I see a lot of similarity to both. In either case, or neither case, it's great stuff!
I have read very little NLP. The first time I tried Creative Processing was around 1974. But it only involves manipulating images or copies of relatively innocuous items, not starting with a highly charged topic and making changes to that. My first use of that was when receiving R3X sessions in 2004, using the 6-direction process - putting a charged topic above one's head, below one's feet, in front of one etc.
I realized the excellent results of doing that came from one being at cause over the mental/emotional images instead of being at the effect of them, to the extent that one could be at cause over them anyway. At first there would be very little one could change about the topic, but as one worked at it and discharged it bit by bit it would be possible to do more and more with it. The idea for Morph came one day maybe six months ago when I was working on a new PaulsRobot module and realized that there was a whole lot more one could do with a topic than the 6-direction process. Plus I think there is a bleed-through effect, where an increased ability to manipulate the components of one topic would also increase the general ability to manipulate other untouched topics. In other words, one would be more in control of mental/emotional images generally, even ones not yet specifically addressed.
If you think of any aspects that are not covered and should be added, do let me know.
I see from your profile that you have done more than 20 PaulsRobot sessions. If you have any genuine worksheets you could add here, that would be appreciated. Edit out any personal stuff you need to as long as it doesn't change anything significant. :)
Here's one you might want to add - Physical Body Position while thinking of the item. Face - smile, frown, no expression, wrinkle up face as much as you can. Breathing - breath slow and deep, fast and shallow, fast and deep. Tension/ relaxation. Laugh while thinking of it. head position - bend head down, head back, turn over left shoulder, turn over right shoulder, tilt over left shoulder, tilt over right shoulder. eye position. while moving eyes (eye movements could be a seperate Morph). moving / very still, etc.
Interesting. That would be a whole different angle. Apart from the body motions involved with Rub & Yawn, the only physical actions I have the user perform in Core, HeavyDuty, R3X, Dipoles and Morph are with the Dipoles items, where the user "acts out" the items with bodily gestures etc. The rest of the time the manipulations are done using the imagination only. Also, the idea is basically to try a variation, a manipulation (more usually a pair), and if it doesn't discharge the topic at all then dump it quickly.
Do your suggestions come from NLP? I'll try them out and see if I want to add them.
There is a presupposition in NLP that goes something like "Mind and Body are part of the same cybernetic system, therefore anything that happens in one will influence the other."
One class of NLP intervention is adjusting and shifting physiology say from shoulders slumped over to shoulders up and back. This class of intervention is most effective for rapidly shifting one "beingness" to being more resourceful.
Here's another possible morph option -- various ways of destroying the image. "destruction metaphors". For instance, burning it, ripping it up, sending it off to outer space, putting the image on an imaginary glass pane and imagining shatter the glass, putting the image on a still lake surface and having the wind slowly increase and watching how the wave alter the image as the wind gets stronger and stronger, putting white out all over the image, or blacking the image out, crumpling up an imaginary piece of paper with the image on it, watchign lightning strike it, putting bombs in, on or around it, acid, etc.
Do those destruction metaphors work at all? I would think that the person has been trying to get rid of the image for ages anyway, and just formalizing the procedure would simply be same old same old. Although the current Morph variations do involve making some creative change to the image, most of them have a corresponding variation where the original is recreated, which I consider to be very useful in discharging it - taking over the automaticity and all that.
Sometimes that's all you need for a bothersome image. Approx 20 % of the time.
The reason I offered this as a suggestion for Morph is that it seems to fit so well with what people experience when it works, which that have a way to be at cause over the image. A lot of people are at the effect of their mental images.
Sometimes they work, but only for a short while. In this case the destruction metaphor functions only temporarily to start to shift the person over to cause over the image. Usually this kind of thing would happen if the person has some substantial history with the image. Which is actually a whole bunch of "mental image pictures" if you will. In this case what often works is the to repeat the process (the destrution metaphor) with the other images. Sort of like running a chain of engrams. You just keep applying it with whatever related images come up. Sometime it takes repitition for it to "stay destroyed".
The other predictable time it doesn't work, is if the person has some payoff, ( a serv fac like situation, but not necessarily just the buttons from R3SC ) for the image, or it serves some purpose or has some function for them in their life. In which case the person will in some way balk or resist at doing the exercise or have trouble doing it, until the serv fac / pay off has been resolved in some other way. Once that has happened it would probably work quite well.
I wouldn't necessarily expect moving from effect to cause to involve a lot of discharge. Not that it wouldn't or doesn't, but when going after the outcome of being cause over a mental picture I think there are various ways to approach it. Discharging the image is certainly one way. Another is just boosting cause / control while it's still charged. Probably not the optimum scenario. However, still workable, at least to some extent.
I have different types of module at PaulsRobot. Morph is a "discharge" type, aimed at discharging harmful energies from specific memories. There may well be an increase in ability attendant to that, but boosting the ability is not the main concern. Hence the instruction to stick with an option, or pair of options, as long as it is discharging one's topic and when it doesn't happen - or doesn't happen any more - then dump that option and try another.
There is a definite place for module options that aim at increasing ability, but they need different criteria for deciding when a particular option is flat. Preferably criteria that are relatively easy to see even when the user is not especially experienced in that sort of thing. Something I would need to put in further time on in the research and development department. :)
Morph Theory
Thanks, Robert. Glad you like it.
I have read very little NLP. The first time I tried Creative Processing was around 1974. But it only involves manipulating images or copies of relatively innocuous items, not starting with a highly charged topic and making changes to that. My first use of that was when receiving R3X sessions in 2004, using the 6-direction process - putting a charged topic above one's head, below one's feet, in front of one etc.
I realized the excellent results of doing that came from one being at cause over the mental/emotional images instead of being at the effect of them, to the extent that one could be at cause over them anyway. At first there would be very little one could change about the topic, but as one worked at it and discharged it bit by bit it would be possible to do more and more with it. The idea for Morph came one day maybe six months ago when I was working on a new PaulsRobot module and realized that there was a whole lot more one could do with a topic than the 6-direction process. Plus I think there is a bleed-through effect, where an increased ability to manipulate the components of one topic would also increase the general ability to manipulate other untouched topics. In other words, one would be more in control of mental/emotional images generally, even ones not yet specifically addressed.
If you think of any aspects that are not covered and should be added, do let me know.
I see from your profile that you have done more than 20 PaulsRobot sessions. If you have any genuine worksheets you could add here, that would be appreciated. Edit out any personal stuff you need to as long as it doesn't change anything significant. :)
Paul
Morph Addition???
Makes a lot of sense.
Here's one you might want to add - Physical Body Position while thinking of the item. Face - smile, frown, no expression, wrinkle up face as much as you can. Breathing - breath slow and deep, fast and shallow, fast and deep. Tension/ relaxation. Laugh while thinking of it. head position - bend head down, head back, turn over left shoulder, turn over right shoulder, tilt over left shoulder, tilt over right shoulder. eye position. while moving eyes (eye movements could be a seperate Morph). moving / very still, etc.
Robert
www.wisdomstrategy.com
Morph addition?
Interesting. That would be a whole different angle. Apart from the body motions involved with Rub & Yawn, the only physical actions I have the user perform in Core, HeavyDuty, R3X, Dipoles and Morph are with the Dipoles items, where the user "acts out" the items with bodily gestures etc. The rest of the time the manipulations are done using the imagination only. Also, the idea is basically to try a variation, a manipulation (more usually a pair), and if it doesn't discharge the topic at all then dump it quickly.
Do your suggestions come from NLP? I'll try them out and see if I want to add them.
Paul
Yes, from NLP, and EMDR for
Yes, from NLP, and EMDR for the eye movements.
There is a presupposition in NLP that goes something like "Mind and Body are part of the same cybernetic system, therefore anything that happens in one will influence the other."
One class of NLP intervention is adjusting and shifting physiology say from shoulders slumped over to shoulders up and back. This class of intervention is most effective for rapidly shifting one "beingness" to being more resourceful.
Here's another possible morph option -- various ways of destroying the image. "destruction metaphors". For instance, burning it, ripping it up, sending it off to outer space, putting the image on an imaginary glass pane and imagining shatter the glass, putting the image on a still lake surface and having the wind slowly increase and watching how the wave alter the image as the wind gets stronger and stronger, putting white out all over the image, or blacking the image out, crumpling up an imaginary piece of paper with the image on it, watchign lightning strike it, putting bombs in, on or around it, acid, etc.
www.wisdomstrategy.com
Do destruction metaphors work?
Thanks for the data re NLP.
Do those destruction metaphors work at all? I would think that the person has been trying to get rid of the image for ages anyway, and just formalizing the procedure would simply be same old same old. Although the current Morph variations do involve making some creative change to the image, most of them have a corresponding variation where the original is recreated, which I consider to be very useful in discharging it - taking over the automaticity and all that.
Paul
when destruction metaphors work
They work, usually.
Sometimes that's all you need for a bothersome image. Approx 20 % of the time.
The reason I offered this as a suggestion for Morph is that it seems to fit so well with what people experience when it works, which that have a way to be at cause over the image. A lot of people are at the effect of their mental images.
Sometimes they work, but only for a short while. In this case the destruction metaphor functions only temporarily to start to shift the person over to cause over the image. Usually this kind of thing would happen if the person has some substantial history with the image. Which is actually a whole bunch of "mental image pictures" if you will. In this case what often works is the to repeat the process (the destrution metaphor) with the other images. Sort of like running a chain of engrams. You just keep applying it with whatever related images come up. Sometime it takes repitition for it to "stay destroyed".
The other predictable time it doesn't work, is if the person has some payoff, ( a serv fac like situation, but not necessarily just the buttons from R3SC ) for the image, or it serves some purpose or has some function for them in their life. In which case the person will in some way balk or resist at doing the exercise or have trouble doing it, until the serv fac / pay off has been resolved in some other way. Once that has happened it would probably work quite well.
I wouldn't necessarily expect moving from effect to cause to involve a lot of discharge. Not that it wouldn't or doesn't, but when going after the outcome of being cause over a mental picture I think there are various ways to approach it. Discharging the image is certainly one way. Another is just boosting cause / control while it's still charged. Probably not the optimum scenario. However, still workable, at least to some extent.
Robert
www.wisdomstrategy.com
Destruction metaphors
OK, thanks Robert.
I have different types of module at PaulsRobot. Morph is a "discharge" type, aimed at discharging harmful energies from specific memories. There may well be an increase in ability attendant to that, but boosting the ability is not the main concern. Hence the instruction to stick with an option, or pair of options, as long as it is discharging one's topic and when it doesn't happen - or doesn't happen any more - then dump that option and try another.
There is a definite place for module options that aim at increasing ability, but they need different criteria for deciding when a particular option is flat. Preferably criteria that are relatively easy to see even when the user is not especially experienced in that sort of thing. Something I would need to put in further time on in the research and development department. :)
Paul