The MOL Thread

CSGnet Archive CSG1998
1

snipped

On a personal note, and partly in response to Bill's inquiry of me regarding
my intentions with respect to MOL, I had been angry for several days because
a certain controlled perception was out of kilter. My own way of saying
that is to say that, "I was experiencing a perceived gap between actual and
expected conditions" (both of which are also perceptions).

And so I pondered the concept of conflict between and among my supposed
hierarchy of reference conditions.

snipped

What I don't know is exactly what I did or how it worked. And, frankly, I'm
not sure I really care. Perhaps the method of levels (MOL) is best left as
an exercise in reflective thinking that occasionally produces real
therapeutic benefits.

DW
Years ago, I was teaching a class of of young adults labelled mentally
handicapped. I was using an extensive curriculum with many units. When I
started a new unit, the students all rebelled: THIS IS MATH. WE CAN'T DO
MATH. I infomred them that is was NUMBERS and PATTERNS of NUMBERS. They
gave up protesting and enjoyed it and did surprisingly well.

Fred's piece also reminded me of a Canadian clinical psychologist who
develpped his own approach to therapy. Much of it was based on talking to
oneself .... finding the right words and relabelling. He had many followers
as it proved quite successful. Are reference levels for psychological
states intimately connected to language coding?

I wish you all a happy and healthy New Year and I hope this is the year I
meet many of you at the Vancouver PCT conference this summer.

David Wolsk
Victoria BC (a worthwhile side-trip once in Vancopuver)

David

ยทยทยท

at 11:00 980101 David Wolsk remembered: At 14:26 31/12/97 +0000, Fred Nickols wrote:

2

I have been home with a bad cold for several days now and with not much to
do. So, I began pulling together the MOL thread. My question as to the
meaning of MOL was posted on 12/24 and following the thread forward from
there was easily done. Tracing it backward from there proved more
difficult. Nevertheless, I think I have it pinned down to a post from Bill
Powers on 12/17, in the course of a discussion involving Mark Lazarre, David
Goldstein, and Bill. The topic was originally suicide and, in the course of
the discussion, David Goldstein introduced a book by Schwartz talking about
the "Impartial Spectator" (whom Bill subsequently likened to the guide in
the Method of Levels). I have more than 80 pages of messages compiled now
and will continue adding to it until the thread ends. At some point, it
might make interesting reading.

On a personal note, and partly in response to Bill's inquiry of me regarding
my intentions with respect to MOL, I had been angry for several days because
a certain controlled perception was out of kilter. My own way of saying
that is to say that, "I was experiencing a perceived gap between actual and
expected conditions" (both of which are also perceptions).

And so I pondered the concept of conflict between and among my supposed
hierarchy of reference conditions. I pondered most of the day Sunday. In
the course of my pondering, I tried "going up a level" (which I've always
referred to as "up a click" or "down a click" -- but that's military talk
for levels of generalization and, in particular, the notion of suprasystem,
system, and subsystem). Up a level (or two or more, and which I can't say),
I could see how my reference conditions were every bit as much the driving
factor in my perceived discrepancy and resultant anger as what I also
perceived to be the reality.

When I woke up on Monday morning, the anger was gone. So, interestingly,
was the gap. As I look back upon it, it seems to me that somewhere,
somehow, I let go of an unrealistic (or perhaps simply inappropriate)
expectation. In PCT-speak, I imagine the proper phrasing is that through
reorganization, a reference condition for a controlled perception ceased to
exist (all you experts feel free to chime in and correct my miserable
wording). I have long known that one way of solving a problem (when a
problem is defined as a gap between actual and expected or
desired/wanted/required conditions) is to let go of the expectation and
accept the reality. (I was told years ago that the technical term for this
act is "decathexis" but I can't vouch for that.) In any event, it was an
intersting personal experience and perhaps makes for an interesting anecdote.

What I don't know is exactly what I did or how it worked. And, frankly, I'm
not sure I really care. Perhaps the method of levels (MOL) is best left as
an exercise in reflective thinking that occasionally produces real
therapeutic benefits.

P.S. Once the MOL thread dies down, I'll gladly share the compilation of
message with anyone who is interested.

Regards,

Fred Nickols
nickols@worldnet.att.net

3

[From Bill Powers (971231.1527 MST)]

When I woke up on Monday morning, the anger was gone. So, interestingly,
was the gap. As I look back upon it, it seems to me that somewhere,
somehow, I let go of an unrealistic (or perhaps simply inappropriate)
expectation. In PCT-speak, I imagine the proper phrasing is that through
reorganization, a reference condition for a controlled perception ceased to
exist (all you experts feel free to chime in and correct my miserable
wording). I have long known that one way of solving a problem (when a
problem is defined as a gap between actual and expected or
desired/wanted/required conditions) is to let go of the expectation and
accept the reality. (I was told years ago that the technical term for this
act is "decathexis" but I can't vouch for that.) In any event, it was an
intersting personal experience and perhaps makes for an interesting anecdote.

A nice report on an experience with going up levels (and I agree that this
is what you did). What you consider what was needed for this change to
happen, it turns out not to be very much -- no hours on the analyst's couch
and all that. The basic thing that's needed is to consider the problem from
a point of view that allows you to change your mind. How you get there
matters very little; if there's a short way, why not take it?

A happier New Year than otherwise, I presume.

Best,

Bill P.