# Method of levels; love and respect

**URL:** <http://discourse.iapct.org/t/method-of-levels-love-and-respect/6939>\
**Category:** CSG1995\
**Created:** [August 29, 1995, 11:37am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/method-of-levels-love-and-respect/6939 "1995-08-29T11:37:41Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![William\_T\_Powers4](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/w/977dab/32.png) [@William\_T\_Powers4](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/William_T_Powers4)\
**Post date:** [August 29, 1995, 11:37am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/method-of-levels-love-and-respect/6939/1 "1995-08-29T11:37:41Z")

</div>

[From Bill Powers (950829.0500 MDT)]

Martin Taylor (950828.1530) --

Thanks for the post on your experiences. It was a poignant reminder that  
we human beings, as conscious entities, share something that transcends  
all our petty differences. We inhabit a brain and body of which we know  
very little and which, when they become more than usually visible to us,  
remind us of our isolation. Yet somehow we can know that others like us  
exist, and recognize their experiences in ourselves through the "layered  
protocols" of communciation, which are as often barriers as channels.  
WHAT we think then becomes far less important than knowing THAT we  
think, and that there are others who also think. Could this be what  
Descarte was struggling to communicate about his own self-examination?

> **···**
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------  
> Rick Marken (950828.1400) --
> 
> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Of course I won't really go away.
> 
> Whew!
> 
> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;But I think PCT also shows that it is important to distinguish  
> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;HAVING respect FOR others from DEMANDING respect FROM others.
> 
> An excellent point. It's very much like having love toward others as  
> opposed to demanding love from others. At the moment when you demand  
> respect or love, you are displaying neither one; the expectation of  
> getting back either one is then rather unrealistic.  
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------  
> David Goldstein (950829.1210) --
> 
> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;I still am trying to find a way of doing the method of levels which  
> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;does not sound, feel so strange or unnatural.
> 
> One thing that will make it seem less strange is to concentrate on  
> grasping what the other person is talking about with each sentence or  
> expression. This means that your own thoughts and attitudes fade into  
> the background, and the other person takes center stage while you play  
> only a supporting role. This in itself can feel strange because you're  
> not constantly analyzing and diagnosing the other person, or trying to  
> steer the other person toward some conclusion that you're aiming for.  
> You're basically not even trying to help; just to understand.
> 
> When people talk normally, they aren't separating their thoughts into  
> levels; which is superordinate and which subordinate isn't even noticed.  
> If you listen carefully to what people say, particularly in spoken  
> informal conversation, you will see that there is usually a main subject  
> with little remarks showing up now and then that are not ON the main  
> subject, but ABOUT it or the speaker [I hope I'm saying this clearly].  
> Ordinarily, we hear such side-comments but let them pass, because  
> they're not the main thing the other person seems to be talking about.  
> By unspoken agreement, we "stick to the subject."
> 
> In the method of levels we don't stick to the subject, but instead  
> explore those side-remarks. Even though I've done this quite a few  
> times, I'm not quite sure how I pick which side-remarks to follow up on  
> and which to ignore. Being too selective amounts to putting your own  
> bias on where the process will lead, but I have a feeling that trying to  
> follow up on \_every\_ remark could just lead in circles. That could be  
> wrong. It could be that every side-remark indicates something that has  
> become important, at that moment, at a higher level. The fact that the  
> other person spontaneously puts the background thought into words may  
> show that just at that time the person wants you to know something about  
> what is going on behind the scenes. If you express an interest in it,  
> that could be enough to encourage more descriptions of the backgound  
> thoughts, and a transition to a higher level. But I haven't had enough  
> experience to know if there's any generalization about this that would  
> always work.
> 
> It occurs to me that in ordinary conversation, we often do acknowledge  
> the side-remarks, but only to the extent needed to let the main course  
> of the conversation go on. If I interject "I hope I'm saying this  
> clearly", you may just nod, or say "Sure, fine." I express a concern and  
> you briefly reassure me in words or by body language about it -- but  
> just enough to get back to the point.
> 
> The method of levels, however, requires not just letting the side-remark  
> pass by and not just dealing with it to get beyond it. Instead, the  
> side-remark is treated like a fork in the road. Instead of staying on  
> the main highway, you turn off onto what seems a side-road. Instead of  
> reassuring the person, you say "Are you concerned about not expressing  
> yourself clearly?" This, of course, feels like an abrupt change of  
> subject, something that people don't normally do. If you do it too  
> eagerly, the other person feels that you're pouncing. This feels  
> unnatural to both parties. There's a strong tendency on both sides to  
> return immediately to the main point and let the "digression" pass. As  
> the guide in the method of levels, however, you have to be a little  
> insistent about trying the side-road. Not too insistent; just enough to  
> see if the route is open.
> 
> Maybe the selection factor is the guide's judgment as to whether the  
> side-remark leads upward or sideways. If I remark "Is rain coming in  
> that window?" I think you could safely treat this as an intrusion from a  
> parallel thought, not a higher-level one. I guess that the judgment I  
> make is whether the side-remark or intrusion expresses an attitude  
> toward, feeling about, or thought about the main line of conversation or  
> the person doing the talking. But maybe not. Only more experience will  
> tell us what matters.
> 
> Another thing that's needed, I think, is patience. A person can get so  
> wrapped up in a subject that there aren't any side-remarks. I have  
> learned to wait as long as it takes for some comment to appear that  
> clearly leads into new territory at a higher level. Of course that could  
> also mean that I'm just too dense to pick up on all the hints that are  
> being dropped, but that's life. Doing this takes a high degree of  
> concentration, and it's still easy to miss things.
> 
> That's especially true if your own background thoughts are intruding too  
> much. Have you ever wondered how I dare to demonstrate the method of  
> levels in front of an audience? And usually with a stranger? "Oh, God,  
> all those people are sitting there waiting for something to happen in  
> this demonstration; I hope this isn't one of those tough cases so the  
> whole thing will bomb out. I think they're getting bored waiting for  
> some big phenomenon to occur. I don't think it's going to work." That  
> sort of background material is really distracting. If you haven't had a  
> lot of practice yourself in popping out of such thought-trains, the job  
> can become impossible. Basically you just have to think "Well, it's  
> either going to work or it isn't, so I might as well get on with it and  
> do my part right."
> 
> One nice thing about dealing with a nine-year-old is that you're not  
> going to have to face a person who thinks like a lawyer or a scientist  
> and can't be budged out of the level he or she is in. People with great  
> verbal facility are the hardest ones to deal with, especially if they're  
> used to interacting with other people who pounce on misstatements or  
> admissions of weakness. They've had too much practice with NOT letting  
> other people know their background thoughts. I've run across such people  
> now and then, especially in academia. A couple of times the process  
> simply hasn't accomplished anything I could detect. In the successful  
> instances of that kind, what I've done is to stop the process and just  
> explain exactly what I'm trying to do and why. Basically I say, "Hey,  
> you're smarter than I am, and if you don't want to go along with this I  
> can't make it work." If I can get a committment to give it a try,  
> experimentally (Hi, Ed Ford), it usually works. Of course maybe that's  
> an up-a-level thing too.
> 
> I hope you read this before trying the following:
> 
> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;I will start with something we have talked about: You are upstairs  
> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;with me. Your mom/dad is downstairs. You hear a door open and  
> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;close. Tell me what this is like for you. Give me as much detail  
> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;as you can so that I can experience what you are experiencing.
> 
> This is you deciding what's important to the kid. This is not likely to  
> work very well. It's too focused on \_your\_ goals, too impatient. If you  
> look at my demo on the tape, with Erling, you'll see that I started with  
> whatever was on his mind right then. If we did it again, we'd start in a  
> different place. It doesn't really matter what you start talking about.  
> It doesn't have to be about any big problem. The problems at the higher  
> levels aren't going to go away just because you start talking about  
> soccer. If you just get interested in whatever the kid wants to talk  
> about, pretty soon one of those side-remarks will show up, and you can  
> do a gentle test to see if the conversation can be turned onto that  
> road. If there's much resistance, you just relax and go on with the  
> conversation. Something will show up; one of the roads will be open.  
> That's sort of a mantra you have to keep in mind. One of the roads will  
> be open; you just have to maintain a kind of background alertness so  
> you'll see it when it shows up. You don't have to watch for subtle  
> hints; it will be obvious, if you're looking. The only hard part is to  
> keep looking and waiting and at the same time paying intelligent  
> attention to what's being said. Maybe that's not as easy to do as to  
> say.
> 
> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;I will, following the advice of Alvin Mahrer, a favorite sage  
> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;psychotherapist, audio tape the session so that I can relisten to  
> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;it later.
> 
> If you're really focusing on what the kid is saying and meaning, you  
> won't need a tape recording. The danger in using a tape recording is  
> that the next time you meet, you'll want to steer the conversation so  
> you can say all the things you realize you should have said -- and then  
> you won't be paying attention to what the kid wants to talk about and  
> you'll miss opportunities to find an open side-road, or notice the  
> ladder leading to the next level. If you just want to hear yourself  
> making mistakes, to avoid making the same mistakes again, fine. But you  
> can't go back and redo any session better; every new session is a new  
> session, not like any other.  
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------  
> Best to all,
> 
> Bill P.