If I understand the links RichardKennaway gave, a “control level” has to become active in order for you to become aware of it
It’s active whether you’re aware of it or not. The purpose of MOL is to become aware of things within yourself relevant to the problem but currently outside your awareness. Once you become aware of the conflicting goals (and the higher-level goals for which they are subgoals, and so on, as far as it’s necessary to take it), then you are free to make different choices that eliminate the conflict. According to MOL practitioners, that reorganisation is generally the easiest part of the process. Once the real problem has been uncovered, the client is able to solve it on their own.
We’re using two different meanings of “active”, then. I’m just saying that to become aware of it, you need something that triggers the checking to occur.
According to MOL practitioners, that reorganisation is generally the easiest part of the process. Once the real problem has been uncovered, the client is able to solve it on their own.
I’d imagine so, since that’s basically the same process that occurs in the Work of Byron Katie. Specifically, the parts that ask for “how do you react when you have that thought” and “who would you be without it” seem to be calling for evaluation of one level of control (the “should”) from a higher level of control (the consequences of having that setting). And generally, once you do that, the “problem” just disappears.
I really appreciate the pointer to PCT/MOL, btw. Over the last 24 hours, I’ve been devouring all the material I’ve been able to find, as it’s giving me a unifying view of how certain things fit together, like for example the connection between the Work and Hall’s “executive states” model—a connection I hadn’t seen before. For that matter, some of Tony Robbins’ ideas of “standards” and “values”, and T. Harv Eker’s “wealth thermostat” concepts fit right in.
Even monoidealism and ideodynamics, my own “jedi mind trick” and “pull motivation”, certain aspects of the law of attraction… PCT seems to describe them all, although it seems much easier to get to PCT from those existing things than to develop new things from PCT.
Nonetheless, I intend to do some experimenting to find out how much my methods can be streamlined by focusing on acquiring signal perception and setting high-level reference values directly, rather than operating on lower-level control systems.
In particular, Hall’s executive states model, which previously struck me as vague and superstitious, seems to offer some useful application distinctions for PCT. Or, more precisely, PCT seems like a better explanation for the phenomena he appears to utilize, and his techniques appear to offer ways of rapidly setting up some types of control relationships.
It’s active whether you’re aware of it or not. The purpose of MOL is to become aware of things within yourself relevant to the problem but currently outside your awareness. Once you become aware of the conflicting goals (and the higher-level goals for which they are subgoals, and so on, as far as it’s necessary to take it), then you are free to make different choices that eliminate the conflict. According to MOL practitioners, that reorganisation is generally the easiest part of the process. Once the real problem has been uncovered, the client is able to solve it on their own.
We’re using two different meanings of “active”, then. I’m just saying that to become aware of it, you need something that triggers the checking to occur.
I’d imagine so, since that’s basically the same process that occurs in the Work of Byron Katie. Specifically, the parts that ask for “how do you react when you have that thought” and “who would you be without it” seem to be calling for evaluation of one level of control (the “should”) from a higher level of control (the consequences of having that setting). And generally, once you do that, the “problem” just disappears.
I really appreciate the pointer to PCT/MOL, btw. Over the last 24 hours, I’ve been devouring all the material I’ve been able to find, as it’s giving me a unifying view of how certain things fit together, like for example the connection between the Work and Hall’s “executive states” model—a connection I hadn’t seen before. For that matter, some of Tony Robbins’ ideas of “standards” and “values”, and T. Harv Eker’s “wealth thermostat” concepts fit right in.
Even monoidealism and ideodynamics, my own “jedi mind trick” and “pull motivation”, certain aspects of the law of attraction… PCT seems to describe them all, although it seems much easier to get to PCT from those existing things than to develop new things from PCT.
Nonetheless, I intend to do some experimenting to find out how much my methods can be streamlined by focusing on acquiring signal perception and setting high-level reference values directly, rather than operating on lower-level control systems.
In particular, Hall’s executive states model, which previously struck me as vague and superstitious, seems to offer some useful application distinctions for PCT. Or, more precisely, PCT seems like a better explanation for the phenomena he appears to utilize, and his techniques appear to offer ways of rapidly setting up some types of control relationships.