Six Blind Elephants

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Graham Old on August 8, 2010 at 10:58am

'Have any of you read Steve Andreas' book? What are your thoughts & impressions?'

I have read it and my thoughts and impressions can be expressed fairly simply:

There are not enough out there like Steve Andreas.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steve Andrade on August 8, 2010 at 12:27pm

Hi Walt,
I haven't read the whole thing yet, but can you explain briefly, in your own words or his, what you mean by weaving mathematical concepts into his work? And where abouts, or how, in the book did this reveal itself to you?
Steve

Walt Potter said:

All,
I'm looking at volume 1 for a second time. I like what he says, but I'm careful of how he's weaving mathematical concepts into his work. Some of the time I have to look the other way.
I would enjoy participating in a discussion group.

Walt

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Walt on August 8, 2010 at 3:24pm

Steve,
Very early on he uses veiled set theory when he discusses scope. Two scopes can be nested, distinct or overlapping. It's not clear what he means with these distinctions. Two nested but different scopes are distinct if by distinct he means different. The work week is distinct from the full week as they are different. On the other hand, the work week is nested in the full week. Also notice that the work week and the full week are overlapping as Tuesday is a member of both. So what does he mean here? On pages 16-17 he uses a table to count how many different situations two people may entertain as that talk---81! However, the 9 situations in the table already talk about two different scopes. Nested scopes are used when one has 2 or more scopes. His counting does not make any sense! True there are nine boxes in the table, true 9 times 9 is 81....what is going on with his math? Notice that 9+9 is also 18, maybe he just flipped the digits?

Later in the text he discusses mathematical theorems by Godel, Tarski, Church and Turing( around pages 198-199). From these theorems he draws conclusions. I think that he's out of his league here. It's not clear how he's drawing his conclusions. These are deep mathematical theorems; their application can be very tricky!

In general Andreas has some good things to say. I don't think he needs to mathify what he's doing. Much of his work seems very similar to the work of George Lakoff, Women, Fire and other Dangerous Things, 1985.



Steve Andrade said:

Hi Walt,
I haven't read the whole thing yet, but can you explain briefly, in your own words or his, what you mean by weaving mathematical concepts into his work? And where abouts, or how, in the book did this reveal itself to you? Steve
Walt Potter said:

All,
I'm looking at volume 1 for a second time. I like what he says, but I'm careful of how he's weaving mathematical concepts into his work. Some of the time I have to look the other way. I would enjoy participating in a discussion group.
Walt

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Cheryl Westley on August 8, 2010 at 4:58pm

I definitely WANT to read this book, and would enjoy discussing it. :)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steve Andrade on August 8, 2010 at 6:18pm

Hello Walt,
I'm looking forward to getting back to you. I have just re-read nested, overlapping, and different scopes on pages 8 to 10. As soon as I understand what he uses them for, I'll get back to you. Maybe you are right or maybe there is a better right. Looking forward to taking a position.

In the meantime, I just came back from the store, I have a checker friend who has conditioned herself to being more positive when she sees me. She immediately tells me how much she is looking forward to her vacation. I can see joy in her face. I say, "great, thinking this is Sunday, this must be her last day before her vacation, but I don't assume, I ask, "so when is your vacation?"

She says, "in two weeks."

It reminded me of what I posted earlier today about broadening the scope if living in the moment is sucky. She is at work, but instead of being depressed about what she is doing in the moment, she has broadened her scope to include at least two weeks into the future, and is enjoying those thoughts....she shares that joy, and my scope is broadened also just with her language and I share her joy also.

It's nice to have actual examples right in front of my face. I think it's a better alternative to telling someone to just stop thinking about whatever is bothering them at the moment. To be able to just broaden the scope with words, with language, to include something else that is more pleasant to focus on, and it can be as simple as, "that reminds me of the time I forgot to zip up my zipper last week and couldn't figure out why everyone was staring," or some other thing like that. And no, I didn't forget to zip up my zipper last week.....(I left it down on purpose....just kidding).

I'm going to try to purposely broaden scopes tomorrow as practice. Not just for myself, but anytime I come across someone who is working at not enjoying his or her moment.

Thanks for you precise language about Andreas' work....like I said, I look forward to adding an opinion as soon as I get one.

Steve

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Walt on August 9, 2010 at 2:30am

Steve,

Nice example of broadening the scope. I'm learning to do it for myself also.

Andreas has lots of good ideas.

Walt

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steve Andrade on August 10, 2010 at 3:43pm

Hello Walt,
You’ll be happy to know, I do have new opinions which include one on the math thing.

After re-reading the math part, I felt like I think you may have felt. The first time through, I too ignored the math. Some people are math oriented and others like myself can just get a sense about things, all is good.

But after you brought it up, I felt like something is bringing me back to what I didn’t understand completely the first time.

Like you, (and I do), I thought the same thing, 9 plus 9 is 18. If you have 9 different possibilities and two different people can have them, it comes out to 18.

And then it came to me.

The first person starts with one of his nine possibilities, and the second person can have nine different scope combinations for every single one of the nine that person one can have. So if it’s nine possibilities for each one of the nine for the first person, that would be a combination of 81 different combinations between the two. I was shocked for me to be able to see the math part, I usually ignore the math parts.

Again, like you, I don’t feel the math is all that important. What I think he is saying here when he says, “Perhaps it is understandable that we so often misunderstand each other.” (Page 17), is that not only can it be confusing when we have different perspectives about a single event, that by understanding that scope has an order to it, and by changing the scope we can experience different things, maybe in the up coming parts of the book, by understanding scopes we can start to understand not only where each other is coming from, but also be able to purposely or intentionally with known results, reframe our own scopes as well as others who are seeking change, for more or better clarity about reaching a goal.

I don’t know if I worded it as well as I think I understand it inside, but it’s exciting to have new opinions about things that help.

I like the next stuff on pages 18 and 19 about the words, “just” and “only,” and how those words create tunnel vision or a trap, like with the sentence he gives, “You just care about sex,” and that if you are not aware what the word “just” does, you can fall right in the trap, and I like how he explains how to expand the scope back out and not be trapped with your answer.

And there is a good part on page 22 about when it is good to procrastinate.

Hungry and learning,
Steve


Walt Potter said:

Steve,
Very early on he uses veiled set theory when he discusses scope. Two scopes can be nested, distinct or overlapping. It's not clear what he means with these distinctions. Two nested but different scopes are distinct if by distinct he means different. The work week is distinct from the full week as they are different. On the other hand, the work week is nested in the full week. Also notice that the work week and the full week are overlapping as Tuesday is a member of both. So what does he mean here? On pages 16-17 he uses a table to count how many different situations two people may entertain as that talk---81! However, the 9 situations in the table already talk about two different scopes. Nested scopes are used when one has 2 or more scopes. His counting does not make any sense! True there are nine boxes in the table, true 9 times 9 is 81....what is going on with his math? Notice that 9+9 is also 18, maybe he just flipped the digits? Later in the text he discusses mathematical theorems by Godel, Tarski, Church and Turing( around pages 198-199). From these theorems he draws conclusions. I think that he's out of his league here. It's not clear how he's drawing his conclusions. These are deep mathematical theorems; their application can be very tricky!

In general Andreas has some good things to say. I don't think he needs to mathify what he's doing. Much of his work seems very similar to the work of George Lakoff, Women, Fire and other Dangerous Things, 1985.



Steve Andrade said:

Hi Walt,
I haven't read the whole thing yet, but can you explain briefly, in your own words or his, what you mean by weaving mathematical concepts into his work? And where abouts, or how, in the book did this reveal itself to you? Steve Walt Potter said:

All,
I'm looking at volume 1 for a second time. I like what he says, but I'm careful of how he's weaving mathematical concepts into his work. Some of the time I have to look the other way. I would enjoy participating in a discussion group. Walt

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Walt on August 10, 2010 at 5:22pm

Steve,
You got it right on the counting if in fact each person has 9 possible choices. Then there are 81 combinations. It the people have independent choices.....

Now for the however, what does the table mean? Are there 9 possible choices? What's a concrete example of a nested space and a nested time? Looking at one 9 by 9 table, I believe that you'll see two people or perspectives are already involved.....or maybe not. What does that darn table mean anyway?

Here the author has pulled a table out of the thin air....

Making a table does not make it so...

Walt


Steve Andrade said:

Hello Walt,
You’ll be happy to know, I do have new opinions which include one on the math thing.

After re-reading the math part, I felt like I think you may have felt. The first time through, I too ignored the math. Some people are math oriented and others like myself can just get a sense about things, all is good.

But after you brought it up, I felt like something is bringing me back to what I didn’t understand completely the first time.

Like you, (and I do), I thought the same thing, 9 plus 9 is 18. If you have 9 different possibilities and two different people can have them, it comes out to 18.

And then it came to me.

The first person starts with one of his nine possibilities, and the second person can have nine different scope combinations for every single one of the nine that person one can have. So if it’s nine possibilities for each one of the nine for the first person, that would be a combination of 81 different combinations between the two. I was shocked for me to be able to see the math part, I usually ignore the math parts.

Again, like you, I don’t feel the math is all that important. What I think he is saying here when he says, “Perhaps it is understandable that we so often misunderstand each other.” (Page 17), is that not only can it be confusing when we have different perspectives about a single event, that by understanding that scope has an order to it, and by changing the scope we can experience different things, maybe in the up coming parts of the book, by understanding scopes we can start to understand not only where each other is coming from, but also be able to purposely or intentionally with known results, reframe our own scopes as well as others who are seeking change, for more or better clarity about reaching a goal.

I don’t know if I worded it as well as I think I understand it inside, but it’s exciting to have new opinions about things that help.

I like the next stuff on pages 18 and 19 about the words, “just” and “only,” and how those words create tunnel vision or a trap, like with the sentence he gives, “You just care about sex,” and that if you are not aware what the word “just” does, you can fall right in the trap, and I like how he explains how to expand the scope back out and not be trapped with your answer.

And there is a good part on page 22 about when it is good to procrastinate.

Hungry and learning,
Steve


Walt Potter said:

Steve,
Very early on he uses veiled set theory when he discusses scope. Two scopes can be nested, distinct or overlapping. It's not clear what he means with these distinctions. Two nested but different scopes are distinct if by distinct he means different. The work week is distinct from the full week as they are different. On the other hand, the work week is nested in the full week. Also notice that the work week and the full week are overlapping as Tuesday is a member of both. So what does he mean here? On pages 16-17 he uses a table to count how many different situations two people may entertain as that talk---81! However, the 9 situations in the table already talk about two different scopes. Nested scopes are used when one has 2 or more scopes. His counting does not make any sense! True there are nine boxes in the table, true 9 times 9 is 81....what is going on with his math? Notice that 9+9 is also 18, maybe he just flipped the digits? Later in the text he discusses mathematical theorems by Godel, Tarski, Church and Turing( around pages 198-199). From these theorems he draws conclusions. I think that he's out of his league here. It's not clear how he's drawing his conclusions. These are deep mathematical theorems; their application can be very tricky!

In general Andreas has some good things to say. I don't think he needs to mathify what he's doing. Much of his work seems very similar to the work of George Lakoff, Women, Fire and other Dangerous Things, 1985.



Steve Andrade said:

Hi Walt,
I haven't read the whole thing yet, but can you explain briefly, in your own words or his, what you mean by weaving mathematical concepts into his work? And where abouts, or how, in the book did this reveal itself to you? Steve Walt Potter said:

All,
I'm looking at volume 1 for a second time. I like what he says, but I'm careful of how he's weaving mathematical concepts into his work. Some of the time I have to look the other way. I would enjoy participating in a discussion group. Walt

• ▶ Reply

▶ Reply to Discussion

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page