STRATEGIES OF GENIUS PDF
Strategies of Genius, Volume One [Robert Dilts] on salelive.info *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. The purpose of the series on Strategies of Genius is to. Strategies of Genius Vol III - Chapter 3of3 - Nikola Tesla. Pocea Aureliana. Loading Preview. Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the . Strategies of Genius. | O OR. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's. Sherlock Holmes. Aristotle. Walt Disney. Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart. Robert B. Dilts.
|Language:||English, Spanish, Indonesian|
|ePub File Size:||21.87 MB|
|PDF File Size:||9.20 MB|
|Distribution:||Free* [*Regsitration Required]|
Strategies of Genius Vol I - Aristotle - Free download as PDF File .pdf), Text File ( .txt) or read online for free. Strategies of Genius Vol I - Walt Disney. Strategies of Genius Vol III - Sigmund Freud. Strategies of Genius Vol I - Sherlock Holmes. third volume of Strategies of Genius. NLP developer, trainer and author. Robert Dilts studies the cognitive strategies of Sigmund Freud,. Leonardo da Vinci and.
His personal contributions to the field of NLP include much of the seminal work on the NLP technologies relating to cognitive strategies and belief change. Some of his techniques and models include: Dilts is the principal author of NeuroLinguistic Programming Vol. Pathways to Health and Well Being which describe his work in transforming limiting beliefs and creating functional belief systems. His books Tools for Dreamers and Skills for the Future, explore the applications of NLP to the management and enhancement of creativity. Dilts views his work on the Strategies of Genius as part of the larger mission to utilize NLP to extend the horizon of human capabilities and achievement.
Therefore, as part of the modeling process, we can identify several different levels of strategy. Neuro-Linguistic Programming provides a set of tools and distinctions that allow us to map out cognitive processes underlying the works of creative and exceptional people.
Rather than focus on the content of the work of the particular individual to be modeled, NLP looks for the deeper strucLures that produced those results.
In particular, NLP searches for the way in which someone uses such basic neurological processes as the senses i. According to the NLP model it is the way in which we organize our sensory and linguistic functions into a programmed sequence of mental activity that determines to a large degree how we will perceive and respond to the world around us. Historically, Neuro-Linguistic Programming was brought into existence in California at the same time another importunt technological and social revolution was being born - the personal computer.
As has been true in other periods in history, developments in our understanding of the mind mirror developments in technology and vice versa. In fact, much of the NLP terminology and the name itself incorporn Les the language of computer science. It tells you what to do with the information you are getting, and like a computer program, you can us the same strategy to process xxix a lot of different kinds of information.
A computer program might tell the computer, "take this piece of data and take that piece of data, to add them together and put the answer in a particular place in memory. It doesn't care what content is being put together and moved. Some programs are more efficient than others; some allow you to do more with the information than others; some are designed to take a lot of information and reduce it to very tightly chunked information.
Other computer programs are designed to take some information and make projections with it. Some programs are designed to find patterns and features within information. The same thing is going to be true of human strategies. As an analogy, they are the mental software used by the biocomputer of the brain. In a way, the most powerful personal computer in the world is the one that sits up between your ears. The problem with it is that it didn't come with!
We can b 'software wizards' and encode in a new language some of the software used by people who have learned to operate that computer very well. Micro, Macro and Meta Strategies Strategies occur at different levels - there are microstrategies, macro-strategies and meta-strategies.
If somebody is engaging in a process of remembering a particular piece of information, lets say a telephone number, what do they do with that informa- xxx Lion in order to store it and recover it from within their brain or bio-computer? On this micro-level you might want to know exactly what size that person is visualizing the telephone n umber in his or her mind. Is there a particular color in which that person pictures the number?
Does the person verbally repeat the number internally? Does the person have a feeling somewhere in his or her body? This would be a micro-strategy. It would be like assembly language or machine code in a computer. It might be something that takes place over a much longer period of time. Sometimes it is the more general steps of a process that are important for reaching a particular result, and how specifically you get from A to B to C on a micro-level il: What is important is that you get from A to C regardless of the micro steps.
The way you personally get there is up to you. In a sense, a major part of what you are going to be learning in this book is a meta-model and a set of metastrategies - strategies and models for finding the strategies of exceptional individuals and making practical models out of t.
Modeling Strategies of Genius In summary, the purpose of modeling is not to make the one 'real' map or model of something, but rather to enrich our perceptions in a way that allows us to be both more effective and more ecological in how we interact with reality.
A model is not intended to be reality, but instead to represent certain aspects of that reality in a practical and concrete way. The goal of this book is to show how the tools of NLP can be used to analyze important historical figures to produce practical and effective "strategies of genius" that can be learned and applied in other contexts.
My particular interest - in relation to my own mission - is to apply these genius' strategies to human issues. In other words, to explore how can we apply these strategies so that we can become more intelligent about our own human processes.
Perhaps if we could take Mozart's ability to structure notes into music, Einstein's ability to restructure our perceptions of the universe or Leonardo's ability to form his imagination into a drawing or painting and apply them to restructure the way people interact in social organizations, we might be able to really advance the course of human history.
That is my dream; my vision for this work. Considered to be the 'father of modern science', Aristotle is undoubtedly one of the most influential geniuses of Western civilization. His scope of thought covered an incredible variety of subjects including physics, logic, ethics, politics, rhetoric, biology, poetics, metaphysics and psychology. In most cases, Aristotle's discoveries and contributions were so fundamental that they stood as the definitive works in each of these fields for centuries.
Clearly, there was something very special about Aristotle's strategy for organizing his observations of the world around him that allowed him to accomplish such a tremendous intellectual feat. Aristotle's mental processes allowed him to creatively explore and usefully organize information from many diverse areas of life Plato referred to him as "the mind". It was the rediscovery of Aristotle's way of thinking that is credited with bringing Western civilization out of the dark ages into the renaissance.
From the NLP point of view, Aristotle had his own very effective strategy for modeling. He was in fact a 'modeler'. He looked into the most essential areas of human experience and made very powerful models of them. He wasn't a'specialist' in any area; and yet he was able to reach a deep level of knowledge about the different aspects of the world he examined.
What is of greatest interest to us, as 'meta' modelers of Aristotle, is the way in which he thought about his experiences. It is interesting that one of the topics that Aristotle never did specifically address was the topic we are attempting to cover in this book - 'genius'. It is an intriguing question to wonder how Aristotle would have approached understanding this phenomenon. Obviously, Aristotle is no longer around to provide an answer, but he has left many clues and cues in his writings about the type of strategy he would have employed.
It seems only fitting to begin our inquiry into the strategies of genius, and their application, by 'unpacking' Aristotle's strategy for inquiry and analysis and applying it to our exploration. Getting to 'First Principles' Perhaps the most important part of Aristotle's geni s was his ability to discover basic and fundamental patter s or 'laws' in whatever field of experience he chose to explor. As he explains in his book Physics: For we do not think that we know a thing until we are acquainted with its primary conditions or first principles, and have carried our analysis as far as its simplest elements Thus we must advance from generalities to particulars It seems that Aristotle's strategy to get to 'first principles' is to "advance from generalities to particulars" by starting with the largest 'chunks' which are available to sensory perception and to go through an analytical process that chunks this experience down into its "simplest," most basic, content free elements.
If we follow Aristotle's lead, our goal in this study of the strategies of genius would be to 'chunk down' the information we have about genius in order to find its "primary conditions or first principles" by identifying its "simplest elements. Of course, it is how, specifically, one distills these "rather confused masses" of information into their "simplest elements" and first principles that is our challenge.
Asking Basic Questions According to Aristotle, the discovery of these basic elements and principles "become known" through the "analysis" from the Greek analytica meaning "to unravel" of our perceptions. In his book Posterior Analytics Aristotle gives some specific descriptions of his analytical approach. Like his teacher and mentor and fellow genius Plato, Aristotle's process of analysis began by asking basic questions.
Clearly, the kind of questions one asks will determine the kinds of answers one finds. According to Aristotle: On the other hand, when we know the fact we ask the reason; as, for example, when we know the sun is being eclipsed and that an earthquake is in progress, it is the reason of eclipse or earthquake into which we enquire.
Where a complex is concerned, then, those are the two questions we ask; but for some objects of inquiry we have a different kind of question to ask, such as whether there is or is not a centaur or a God On the other hand, when we have ascertained the thing's existence, we inquire as to its nature, asking, for instance, 'what, then, is God?
Rearranging the order of Aristotle's questions slightly, we must ask: Does 'genius' in fact exist? If so, what is the nature of 'genius? What are its 'attributes'? When we have identified what we think are the 'attributes' of genius we must then ask, "Are those attributes in fact connected to 'genius'? If so, what is the reason or cause for the connection?
Aristotle's purpose in asking these four questions was not really to end up with four different answers, but rather to converge upon a single answer - a 'first principle'. It indicates that there is an equivalence between 'attributes' and 'reasons'. In other words, if we say something like "Genius is knowing the right questions to ask" then we should also be able to say, "Knowing the right questions to ask is the reason for genius.
That is, not only does such a principle allow us to understand something, it also informs us how it is brought about and influenced. These basic elements that were both 'attributes' and 'reasons' for something were what Aristotle called the 'middle' - something in between general knowledge and specific instances. Even though Aristotle maintained that we must "advance from generalities to particulars," we cannot simply stop with the particulars.
As Aristotle put it, "perception must be of a particular, whereas scientific knowledge involves the recognition of the commensurate universal. According to Aristotle, "all questions are a search for a 'middle'" which connects the "universal" to "a particular".
Thus, 'Does the moon suffer eclipse? Defining a 'first principle' is establishing such a cause. The Strategy for Finding the 'Middle' Once we begin asking such questions, we need a 'method for arriving at relevant and meaningful answers.
We might well wonder, "How exactly does one go about this business of finding causes, first principles, basic conditions and the 'commensurate universal' within the particulars? In his illustration, Aristotle chooses three individuals to use as examples. While he does not himself state that this particular number of examples is significant, it would seem that if there were fewer, one could not be sure if the set was large enough to produce a similarity that was basic enough.
If one tries to compare too many examples, it becomes confusing and unwieldy.
Once we have found what is similar in our first set of examples, Aristotle tells us: They are not specifically identical, however, in that Lysander was a Spartan military leader and Socrates was a philosopher.
As the next step in his strategy, Aristotle finds whatever similarities there are between the individuals of the second group: But if we reach not one formula but two or ore, evidently the definiendum cannot be one thing but must be more than one. As he explains: If they have none, there will be two genera of pride. In summary, Aristotle's strategy for analysis involves an 'inductive' process made up of the following steps: If the unifying quality of group 1 has something in common with the unifying quality of group 2 we have gotten nnother step closer to a 'first principle'.
Each successive comparison should lead us to smaller and smaller chunks composed of simpler and more content free elements. The group of examples is a fairly large 'chunk' size. The quality which unifies this group is smaller and simpler. The quality which is common to the unifying elements of both group 1 and group 2 should be a smaller and simpler chunk still, and so on.
To apply Aristotle's strategy to the study of 'genius' instead of 'pride' we would first identify a set of 'specifically identical individuals' who all share that characteristic. For instance, we might select a set of scientists who are considered to have possessed the quality of 'genius' - such as Albert Emstein, Nicola Tesla, Gregory Bateson; even Aristotle himself We would then consider what 'elements' they have in common, Then, we would repeat the process with anothen set of individuals who are 'generically but not specifically I identical'.
We would then seek to find what these three had in common. The next step would be to find out if the common attributes or elements of the scientists also had something in common with the shared attributes of the creative or artistic individuals. If they don't, we may end up concluding that scientific and artistic genius are in fact two separate 'genera' of genius. If the two groups do share common attributes we will have found a potential 'basic condition or first principle' of genius.
We might then repeat the process with another set of 'geniuses' such as therapists or healers - like Milton H. In many ways the structure of this series on genius has been based on just this strategy. We must also be able to express our conclusions and assess their relevance and usefulness. Aristotle's recognition as a genius did not come merely from what he knew, but from what he was able to express about what he knew.
In fact, his ability to express first principles was as important as his ability to find them. Aristotle's strategy for identifying the relationship between the general and the particular by finding the 'middle' or the cause was the basis of his famous 'syllogisms'. Aristotle formulated the 'syllogism' as a linguistic structure to express the principles which resulted from his analysis.
In Prior Analytics Aristotle explained: Expressed in this way, knowledge becomes an 'instrument' or what Aristotle called organon meaning "tool". Once a principle has been identified through the 'inductive' strategy described earlier, it may be applied 'deducLively' through the structure of the syllogism. A 'syllogism' defines the relationship between 'things' and the 'attributes' that accompany them. Specifically, a syllogism relates the attributes of a general class to the 'particular' members of that class, as in the classic example: All Men die.
Socrates is a Man. Socrates will die. According to Aristotle, "I call that term the middle which is itself contained in another and contains another in itself" The "Middle" "I call that term the middle which is itself contained in another and contains another in itself " Definition of the "Middle" Term in a SYliJism In the Socrates example, being a 'man' is 01 of the attributes that relates the particular individual 'Socrates' to the primary condition of 'dying'.
Stated generally, the structure of a syllogism would be something like: A phenomenon or class of things has a certain attribute or cause. A particular situation or individual possesses that attribute or cause. That particular situation or individual will be an example or manifestation of the phenomenon or class of things. For instance, with regard to the example of the 'eclipse' Aristotle explained, "Let A be the eclipse, C the moon, and B the earth's acting as a screen.
To ask whether the moon is eclipsed or not is to ask whether or not B has occurred. B is an attribute or cause of the general phenomenon A. C is a specific instance possessing the attribute or cause B.
C is an example or expression of A. In terms of our study of genius, if 'asking fundamental questions' is an 'attribute' and 'cause' B of 'genius' A , we could form a syllogism of the following structure: Asking fundamental questions B is an attribute of genius A.
Aristotle C asked fundamental questions B. Aristotle C was a genius A.
Structured in this way, Aristotle believed knowledge could be applied and put into action. Model In many ways, Aristotle's process reflects some of today's most advanced artificial intelligence models. In particular, it is remarkably similar to the S. It was first used to create the computer chess playing programs by teaching the computer how to become a chess expert by learning from its experience through remembering how it solved problems.
These expert chess programs have been the most successful application of artificial intelligence to date. A 'state' is defined in relationship to s! The desired state is reached through a path of ' trans if ion states' which culminate in the goal. A problem space in turn consists of a set of states, which describe the situation at any given moment, and a set of operators, which describe how the problem solver can change the situation from one state to another.
In chess, for example, the problem space would be [the set of parameters which define] "a chess game" [such as the two opponents, the chess board, etc. Model Once the relevant parameters have been defined the problem solver must formulate a guidance strategy in order to find the sequence of operators that will lead from the atar-ting state to the goal state. This takes place through a: These new 'chunks' are then remembered as other condition-action rules.
The S. In a computer, for example, the computer hardware creates a problem space which can produce many different states. Computer software instructions serve as operators which produce changes in these states in order to produce specific results. Another example could be that of preparing a meal. The kitchen defines a problem space in which various stages or states of food preparation take place. The cooking tools and utensils are the operators which produce changes in state of the food.
Each 'operation' leads to a result which operated on again, until the final meal is produced. A example can be derived from the opening passage from Genesis quoted at the beginning of this book.
Aristotle's approach to knowledge acquisition was very similar to the S. Physics, logic, rhetoric, politics, etc. Aristotle set out to define those problem spaces by identifying the "principles, conditions and elements" from which they were made.
The phenomena which make up each field would be the various states within the problem space. Like the basic learning process of the S. The "middle terms" and "causes" that Aristotle sought are similar to the operators which determine and influence the states within the problem space. Aristotle's syllogisms are like the 'condition-action' rules through which knowledge is accumulated in the S. It must ulso include how they identified and 'chunked' the relevant desired states and transition states within that space.
Finally, and most importantly, we must identify the operators they used to create their paths through the problem space to uchieve their desired states. When we ask, "What was the 'cause' of Einstein's genius, or Mozart's genius, or Leonardo's genius, or Aristotle's genius," we are essentially asking "Which operators or operations enabled them to achieve the intellectual and artistic feats for which they are known? According to Aristotle Posterior Analytics there were four basic types of causes: Formal Causes Formal causes essentially relate to fundamental definitions and perceptions of something.
The "formal cause" of a phenomenon is that which gives the definition of its essential character. We call a bronze statue of a four legged animal with a mane, hooves and a tail a "horse" because it displays the form or 'formal' characteristics of a horse.
We say, "The acorn grew into an oak tree," because we define something that has a trunk, branches and a certain shape of leaves as being an 'oak tree'. Identifying formal causes involves uncovering our own basic assumptions and mental maps about a subject. When an artist like Picasso puts the handlebars of a bicycle together with the bicycle seat to make the head of a 'goat' he is tapping into 'formal causes' because he is dealing with the essential elements of the form of something.
Even choosing our examples of 'prideful' people implies that we have the intuition that these individuals are examples of what we are looking for. As Aristotle pointed out: For example, we could say, "Aristotle was a genius because we define people who have influenced our society in such a basic and widespread fashion as 'geniuses'.
Antecedent Causes Antecedent or precipitating causes relate to past events, uctions or decisions that influence the present state of a thing or event through a linear chain of 'action and reaction'. This is probably the most common form of causal explanation that we use to describe things.
For instance, we say, "The ucorn grew into an oak tree because the man planted it, watered it and fertilized it. For instance, applying this kind of cause, we might say, "The acorn grew into an oak tree because there was no significant competition for water and light from the trees surrounding it. For example, we could Hay, "Aristotle was a genius because he was given both the opportunities and the focus to follow his interests by the Athenian system of government and by his position as a tutor to Alexander the Great.
He had no significant competitors because only a few people had even begun to think xcientifically during that age and education was still rare nxcept for the upper class. Many of his key works were recorded from his lectures and written and edited by his ul. Final causes involve the motives or 'ends' for which something exists. In this sense, final causes often relate to a thing's role or 'identity' with respect to the larger system of which it is a part. In his biological researches especially, Aristotle focused on this type of causation - the intentional aim or end of nature - which he held to be distinct from the mechanical causation also operative in inorganic phenomena.
Thus, while Aristotle tended to seek antecedent causes in cases of mechanical and non-living phenomena, he found final causes more relevant for mental and biological phenomena, claiming, "mind always does whatever it does for the ke of something, which something is its end.
Thinking in terms of this kind of cause we might say, "The acorn grew into a tree because its nature is to become a tree. It would also involve considering the individuals' perceptions of their own identity within the environmental and social systems they were operating. For example, we could say, "Aristotle's genius was caused by his constant desire to discover and share the first principles which united and brought balance to all of the phenomena of the natural world.
In today's science we look mostly for mechanical causes or what Aristotle referred to as 'antecedent' causes. For instance, we say "Our universe was caused by the 'big bang' which happened billions of years ago.
Identifying the formal causes of the "universe," a "successful organization" or "AIDS" would involve examining our basic assumptions and intuitions about the phenomena. What exactly do we mean when we talk about our "universe" or about "success," an "organization" or about "AIDS? Identifying constraining causes would involve examining what holds a particular phenomenon's current structure in place, regardless of what brought it there.
If the universe has been expanding after the 'big bang', what determines the current rate at which it is expanding? What constraints will cause the universe to stop expanding?
What are the current constraints or lack of constraints that could cause an organization to fail or suddenly take off, regardless of its history? Searching for final causes, would involve exploring the potential aims or ends of these phenomena with respect to the rest of nature.
For instance, is AIDS simply a scourge, is it a lesson, or is it an evolutionary process? Is God "playing dice" with universe, or is it heading toward something? What are the visions and goals that make an organization successful? These same kinds of considerations are rel t to study of genius.
Attempting to find the formal genius leads us to view it as a function of the definitions assumptions we apply to a person's life and actions. LHlo; for precipitating causes leads us to see genius as a result of special events and experiences within a person's life.
Seeking constraining causes leads us to perceive genius as something brought out by unique or extraordinary conditions within which the person was living. Considering final causes leads us to perceive genius as a result of a person's motives or destiny. Antecedent causes relate to the 'past' while final causes relate to the 'future'.
Constraining causes relate to the 'present'. Formal causes are the only ones not directly related to time. For Aristotle, the perception of 'time', like other concepts, was a 'tool' to be used in different ways. In fact, in his book, Physics, he even somewhat humorously questions the existonce of time: One part of it has been and is not, while the other is going to be and is not yet. Yet time - both infinite time and any time you like to take - is made up of these.
One would naturally suppose that what is made up of things which do not exist could have no share in reality. The way in which one organizes and places events in time can greatly influence tile effects they are perceived to have. In the same way that Aristotle distinguished between the relevance of different types of causes with respect to organic versus mechanical process, he appears to have had different WHyS in which he perceived the influence of time with regard 1.
For mechanical causation, Aristotle tended to apply the traditional view of time as Homething linear. Antecedent causes, for instance, formed a I inear sequence of reactions. He explains: Now we mark them by judging that A and B are different, and that some third thing is intermediate to them. When we think of the extremes as different from the middle and the mind pronounces that the 'noios' are two, one before and one after, it is then that we say there is time For what is bounded by the 'now' is thought to be time For time is just this - number of motion in respect of 'before' and 'after' It fact, "time lines" have become the primary mode of thinking about time in Western Society.
In the basic model of NLP, there are two fundamental perspectives one can have with respect to time: Exploration of other forms of time perception took place in the early 's by individuals such as Richard Bandler and myself.
Specific applications of time lines in the form of techniques began in the mid to late 's; most notably by Tad James and Wyatt Woodsmall , Steve and Connirae Andreas and my own work involving the physicalization of time lines From this perspective, the 'time line' is typically viewed such that the 'before' and 'after' are lines extending off to the left lind right, with the 'now' being somewhere in the middle.
Perceiving an event "in time" involves taking a vantage point associated within the event that is unfolding. From this perceptual position, the 'now' is one's current physical position with the future represented as a line extending off in the direction one is facing and the past trailing behind - such that one is walking into the future and leaving the past behind.
The "through time" perspective is effective for quantitative analysis, but is more passive because it is disassociated. The "in time" perspective is more active and involved but makes it easier to "lose sight of the whole. He considered the influence of time with respect to biological and mental phenomena in a different way: This is because all other things are discriminated by time, and end and begin as though conforming to a cycle; for even time itself is thought to be a circle So to say that things that come into being form a circle is to say that there is a circle of time; and to say that it is measured by circular movement.
However, time that relates to more organic processes involving the "natural movement of coming into being and passing away" may be best represented in the form of circles and "cycles.
The 'through time' li me line, for instance, leads us to perceive antecedent or precipitating causes. A cyclic time line would tend to bring out final and formal causes. Similarly, different types of time lines tend to be more appropriate for different levels of processes.
For instance, preparing to enact physical behaviors can be best done via an 'in time' time line. Planning a course of action or considering one's capabilities requires the broader perspective of the 'through time' time line. Processes related to beliefs and identity are often best represented in the form of cycles, as they tend to involve recurring patterns rather than one time linear events.
In our study of genius, it appears that it will be important to consider the relevance of time from all of these different perspectives. A "through time" time line will enable us to identify and describe specific and discrete seq of steps. An "in time" time line will aid us to more easily step the shoes of the geniuses we are modeling and see their in history as they experienced them.
Perceiving events in "circle" or "cycle" of time will help us to recognize recurrent patterns, view processes as whole and to identify how the different steps relate to the "natural movement" of the whole. ARISTOTLE 35 Evaluating One's Premises Searching for different types of causes leads us to reaching different types of conclusions; and considering events with respect to different ways of representing time will alter our perceptions of them.
Thus, it seems clear that one needs some way to assess or evaluate the conclusions that one arrives at through one's explorations. According to Aristotle, the key to the effectiveness of our conclusions about a principle is the strength and 'universality' of the relationship between a phenomenon and the attributes or causes that we have discovered. This relationship is what Aristotle called the "premise" of the conclusion.
For example, we can say that a human being is an n nimal, and a human being is not a vegetable. With respect to the second type of premise, we can state that a human being must have the capacity for language, and 11 human being must not have a tail.
In the third type of premise, we can say that some human beings may be able to sculpt statues, or some human beings may not be able to speak Greek. These different types of premises are essentially the first two terms of a 'syllogism' - A the general phenomenon and 13 the 'middle' or the causes and attributes associated with that phenomenon. The validity of these two terms determines the validity of any conclusions drawn from them.
The first test for these various premises was in what Aristotle called their "convertibility": However, the validity of the conversion had to be backed up by observation. Aristotle believed the only effective 'proof' of a first principle was through "demonstration. In other words, the map must be shown to be useful by the degree to which it helps us navigate the territory.
As Aristotle claimed in On the Generation of Animals, "credit must be given to observation rather than to theories, and to theories only insofar as they are confirmed by the observed facts. Thus, if we say, "All birds have wings," then we should not find any birds that do not have wings. But we may find animals with wings that are not birds.
Ifwe say, "No birds are featherless," then we should not find any featherless creature that is a bird. The essential structure of finding counter examples through the principle of conversion involves checking the strength of ARISTOTLE 37 the relationship implied by the premise. For instance, a premise will be something like: Is there any A that does not have B?
N ext we would 'convert' the terms and ask: Is there anything that has B that is not A? For an attribute to be truly definitive, we should find no counter examples.
For instance, not all birds fly, but all birds have wings. However, not all animals with wings are birds; insects bats and some dinosaurs also have or had wings. We can apply this same assessment process to our study of the strategies of genius. After posing a hypothesis based on f nding 'common elements' within a number of examples. So, if we find that "All geniuses ask basic questions," then we should see if there are any examples of geniuses that do not ask fundamental questions.
Did Mozart, lor example, ask fundamental questions? If so, which ones? We should also find out ifthere are people who ask fundamental qu stions who are not geniuses. The fewer counter examples there are, th more 'universal' the attribute or cause is. And according to Aristotle's prescriptions, we must look for the "simplest elements.
Clearly they have to do with the 'mind'. And while Aristotle did not write about genius specifically, he had much to say about the nature of the mind.
In many ways, in fact, Aristotle was the first person to do NLP. Certainly he was the originator of many of the basic principles behind NLP. He was one of the first people in history to try to define and categorize the various aspects of the "mind" and the thinking process. In his book On The Soul, for instance, Aristotle maintained the way you know that something is alive, and thus has a 'soul' or 'psyche', is because it can sense things and it can move under its own power.
He wrote: These basic distinctions fit well with the information processing model proposed by NLP - that the brain is like a microcomputer and functions via inputs and outputs.
Movements are originated and directed by the mental discriminaLions we make about our inputs. Unlike modern behaviorists, however, Aristotle did not thin k of this process 8S bing a simple reflexive action. As a result, sensing and discriminating differences in what we sense is always done in relationship to some goal. All sensing is given meaning in terms of this relationship to a 'goal'.
In other words, for Aristotle, psyche meant the ability to have a goal, to be able to sense your relationship to your goal and to be able to vary your behavior in order to achieve the goal. William James the American psychologist who is usually considered the father of cognitive psychology similarly defined the mind as having the ability to have a fixed future goal and very broad choices with which to get to tha "The pursuance of future ends and the choice of means for their attainment are thus the mark and criterion of the presence of mentality in a phenomenon.
It also complements the S. A particular T. In this sense, the T. Model 41 T. It defines the basic feedback loop through which we systematically change states. According to the T. Model, we generally operate on a state to change it in order to reach a goal. We continually test the ongoing state against some evidence or criteria to find out if we have achieved that goal. Depending on the result of this test we adjust our operations accordingly. That is first you test your relationship to your goal.
If you are not reaching your goal, you operate by varying your behavior in some way. Then you test the result of that movement again, and if you have been successful you exit to the next step.
If not, you vary your behavior again and repeat the process. Evidence for Achievement E. Feedback Loop Thus, in terms of the T. In relation to Aristotle's definition of the 'soul of animals' , a living creature organizes its activity around the T.
It 'discriminates' by testing its progress towards its goals or 'ends' through evidence provided by the process of sensory perception.
If it is not achieving its goal or end, it 'moves' or operates to do something to try to reach that goal. This is a profoundly different concept than the HLU'UCL" Skinner and Pavlov, who defined the process behind as being that of reflexes and stimulus-response chains. For Aristotle mind is not reflex. The 'psyche' operates at a different level than that of simply receiving a stimulus that makes one respond; rather, stimuli are more or less irrelevant unless they relate to the goal or 'final cause'.
In Aristotle's model, behavior is not stimulus driven, it is goal driven. Aristotle's view certainly matches my own observations of my son when he was first learning how to move his body at a few months old. Rather than reflexively and mindlessly reacting to external stimuli, his movements centered around things that he was internally interested in.
For example, there were some toys he exhibited preferences for from the outset and others he completely ignored initially. He only began to interact with them when he became interested in them as a result of relating them to some sort of inner goal or end that he had.
Then he would interact with them through this T. When he wanted to get something, he 'tested' by looking at his hand in relationship to it, 'operated' by sort ARISTOTLE 43 of swiping his hand at it, missed, 'tested' again, swiped his hand again this time a little closer, and basically continued to test and operate until he got it.
Then he 'exited' on to his next interest. Rather than stimulus-response, it was a goal driven feedback loop. Studies of very young infants Bower, in the first weeks and months of life, also tend to confirm Aristotle's view of behavior. In a typical experiment a child is sat in front of an "attractive" toy, such as a mobile. The toy moves intermittently depending on the child's activity. To stop the mobile the child has to lower his or her foot, breaking a light beam and preventing the mobile from turning.
To start it again, the child has to lift his or her foot out of the light beam. Most babies become interested in the stopping and starting of the mobile, analyze the situation quite rapidly, and then notice the movement is caused by something they've done with their foot.
They play around with both feet, and quickly realize what to do to make the event - the starting and stopping of the mobile - occur. In the past, theorists assumed that the child was most interested in the event: But researchers became convinced it wasn't the event, it was figuring out how to control what was going on that was important to the child. Learning itself was reinforcing - the reinforcement was realizing how to interact with and influence the outside world.
By adjusting the experimental parameters researchers were able to test whether the child really was interested in his or her own control rather than the event itself. For instance, if the child's control is made less than perfect, so that by moving his or her foot the child doesn't always stop or stnrt the mobile, then the child will carryon and on until he 01' she has solved the problem.
There are two important points in this example; 1 the successful exercise of the "faculties" of "discrimination" and "originating local movement" is inherently self-reinforcing, and 2 the wayan individual learns to influence the world is by interacting and adapting his or her own reactions in response to feedback. The T. The general structure of a computer for instance, could be described in terms of a specific T.
A spell checking program, for example, has the goal of insuring correct spelling. It goes through all of the words in a body of text testing to see that each one meets the criteria it has been provided to determine correct spellings.
If it detects an incorrectly spelled word, it operates to inform the writer and change the word. In establishing the macro strategy for preparing a meal, the goal may be defined in terms of the particular kind of meal to be produced - say a holiday dinner. The food is tested for compatibility and taste, etc.
Strategies of Genius Vol III - Nikola Tesla
Giving money as a 'reinforcement' to someone won't motivate him or her unless the person's objective is to get more money. For instance, Mother Teresa would pursue her mission just as dilligently whether she was paid or not.
Nothing is a reinforcement unless it is perceived in relationship to a goal coming from inside the person or animal. There is even a macro strategy in the example provided by the opening quotation from Genesis. Each day is a kind of T. Modeling the 'macro strategies' of genius, involves identifying the way in which the individuals we are studying used the various elements of the T. Answering these questions will give us the 'macro strategy' of the individual. For example, based on what we have examined so far about Aristotle, we could define his macro strategy in the following way: In the model of NLP, micro strategies relate to the way in which one uses his or her sensory 'representational systems', such as mental imagery, internal self talk, emotional reactions, etc.
Like NLP, Aristotle identified the basic elements of cognitive process as intimately associated with our sensory experience. Aristotle's basic premise then was that, in order to fulfill their various goals, animals had to move order to move they needed sensory contact with the outside to guide that movement in relation to their goals.
As he describes it in Posterior Analytics: But though sense-perception is innate in all animals, in some the sense-impression comes to persist, in others it does not.
So animals in which this persistence does not come to be have either no knowledge at all outside the act of perceiving, or no knowledge of objects of which no impression persists; animals in which it does come into being have perception and can continue to retain the sense-impression in the soul: Aristotle outlines the fundamental process of 'thinking' as being an inductive process by which 1 "sense-perceptions" leave impressions in the 'soul'; 2 the impressions which persist become "memories"; 3 the frequent repetition of memories of a particular phenomenon become systematized or chunked into a "single experience" or "universal"; 4 collections of these universals form the foundation for "skill" and "knowledge.
While in NLP we would substitute the term 'nervous system' for the 'soul', much of what Aristotle describes mirrors the essential conceptualization of mental process in NLP. For instance, the "universal" which is made up of a number of memories - "the one beside the many which is the single identity within them all" - reflects the basic idea behind the concept of logical levels in NLP.
Groups of behaviors form the basis for a capability; groups of capabilities form the basis for our belief and value systems; groups of beliefs and values form the basis for our sense of identity. All of these levels of perception, however, are founded on the micro level through sensory perception. In On The Soul, Aristotle categorized the senses into the five basic classes of sight, hearing, touch, smell and taste. Aristotle's five senses correspond directly with the five 'representational systems' employed in the in NLP modeling process - Visual, Auditory, Kinesthetic, Olfactory and Gustatory.
According to Aristotle, the five senses provided the psyche with information about qualities in the outside world that fell into a certain range: This problem finds a partial solution, when it is recalled that in the case of the other senses more than one pair of contraries are to be met with, e.
Our visual modality, for instance, can perceive such qualities as color, brightness, shape, depth, etc. Each sub-modality registers qualities that may range between two opposites: For Aristotle, it was the relationship between these qualities that determined how we responded to the objects or situations we are experiencing.
This implies that the sense itself is a 'mean' between any two opposite qualities which determine the field of that sense Aristotle implied that it was these "ratios" of perceptual qualities, not the objects themselves, that determined how we respond to something - i.
As Aristotle put it, ''[I]t is not the stone which is present in the soul but its form. And these 'submodality' qualities are the fundamental "formal cause" of our mental models of the world. According to Aristotle it was the ratio between these polarities that determined what was pleasurable and what was painful, and thus what was to be approached or avoided and how much it was to be approached or avoided.
If something was too much at either end of the polarity it became uncomfortable. There was a certain range of balance in which one experienced comfort.
For example, a fire is, in and of itself, neither good nor bad, pleasurable nor painful. If one gets too close to the fire the ratio of hot-to-cold is too much on the hot side and it becomes uncomfortable. If one gets too far away from the fire, and it is cold weather, the ratio of hot-to-cold gets too much on the cold side and it also becomes uncomfortable.
Perception of pain and pleasure has to do with the ratio, the balance point of the senses. Thus, in Aristotle's view, we are constantly seeking to keep these ratios in balance.
In other words, pain and pleasure are a communication about the degree of balance within the system. These qualities have obvious significance in relationship to artistic processes such as painting and music where the dynamic balancing of qualities such as colors and tones are the essence of aesthetics. However, these qualities can have tremendous significance in other fields as well. Consider the impact of the ability to represent 'perspective' in regard to bringing about the European Renaissance.
Further, it is not difficult to imagine that it would be a very different experience to try to conceptualize Einstein's theory of relativity by visualizing it in the form of flat, still, black and white mental images than to use three dimensional imagery that is moving and in color.
Aristotle also related these sensory qualities the perception of pain and pleasure. Certainly, geniuses take pleasure in what they do. Their attraction to their work may come as a result of the cognitive micro structure with which they represent their particular subject matter. For instance, through NLP, these subtle perceptual qualities have been found to be at the basis of phenomena such as phobias, compulsions and addictions.
Very effective techniques for treating these kind of problems have been developed that involve teaching a person to directly manipulate their internal experiences in order to adjust the 'ratios' of key qualities. These qualities can even be shown to playa significant role in a person's ability to distinguish "imagination" from "reality" and "memory" from "fantasy.
In Aristotle's model of behavior, the 'psyche' used internal mental replications of sensory experiences to determine what to approach and avoid. These impressions took the form of "imagination" and "memory.
Strategies of Genius Vol I - Aristotle
As he maintained: These associations of sensory impression were the basis for all thought. To Aristotle, the process of "thinking" began when "impressions" became connected together through the 'law of association' which he described in his work On Memory: Acts of recollection, as they occur in experience, are due to the fact that one movement has by nature another that succeeds it in regular order.
If this order be necessary, whenever a subject experiences the former of two movements thus connected, it will invariably, experience the latter; if, however, the order be not necessary, but customary, only in the majority of cases will the subject experience the latter of the two movements. Whenever, therefore, we are recollecting, we are experiencing certain of the antecedent movements until finally we experience the one after which customarily comes that which we seek.
As Aristotle men association may, and often does, take place in a single trial. When a series of sensory representations become associated with each other in a particular sequence it forms the basis of a cognitive "strategy. For example, Mozart's phenomenal and practically instantaneous memory for music is often cited as both an 'attribute' and a 'cause' of his musical genius. One important question relating to the study of strategies of genius involves whether or not such capabilities are "innate" or "genetic" or can be developed.
In the NLP view it is believed that, while certain individuals may possess genetic proclivities, these abilities can be enhanced via particular skills and techniques. It is therefore relevant to explore, if possible, the micro processes by which geniuses facilitate their ability to remember and associate sensory experiences together.
For instance, in the model of NLP, there are certain micro behavioral cues that are generally overlooked in the study of genius, which serve as 'accessing cues'. An accessing cue may range from idiosyncratic cues like snapping ones fingers, ARISTOTLE 53 mumbling "hmmm" or scratching one's head, to deeper and more universal cues like unconscious lateral eye movements and breathing patterns.
Observing and tracking these subtle cues can provide clues to how an individual is thinking, and can be used to help facilitate associative processes. For example, one of the most effective NLP strategies is the 'spelling strategy' in which an individual facilitates the process of visually representing and remembering a spelling word by moving his or her eyes up and typically to the left while learning or recalling a particular word. In summary, Aristotle believed sensory input from the outside world would leave impressions which could become associated with one another, or with constructed impressions caused by an internal activation of the sensory system i.
These associations formed mental 'ideas' or replicas of sequences of sensory input and internally generated experience. The main depended on nonfiction sequence out there, Eyewitness Books supply an in-depth, accomplished examine their matters with a different integration of phrases and photographs. Eyewitness Universe is DK's vintage examine black holes, galaxies, and different extraordinary beneficial properties of the universe, now reissued with a CD and wall chart.
Dimensions of Personality. This can be the unique paintings on which Hans Eysenck's fifty years of study were outfitted.
It brought many new rules concerning the nature and dimension of character into the sphere, comparable character to irregular psychology, and tested the potential for checking out character concept experimentally. Healing Together: Your soul has responded your hearts wish with the phrases you will discover on those pages. No a part of the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram exhibits a extra reported range of stellar varieties than the higher half, which includes the main luminous stars.
Can one visualize a bigger distinction than among a luminous, younger and very sizzling Of megastar, and a funky, developed pulsating massive of the Mira variety, or an S-type supergiant, or - back on the different facet of the diagram - the compact nucleus of a planetary nebula? Therefore I will do to you what I threaten, and because I will do this, O Israel, you should prepare to meet your God.
The virgin Israel is fallen and shall not rise again. She is forsaken in her land and there is no one to raise her up. For who can be sure that it is too late to turn and repent, to leave a blessing behind you, and to offer grain and meat and wine to the Lord your God? Sound the shofar and sanctify the fast. Call a solemn assembly and gather the people in conclave.
Bless the congregation and call the elders together. Gather the children, even the nursing infants, and let the bridegroom leave his new house and the bride her nuptial chamber.
- ROHONC CODEX PDF
- IL VANGELO SECONDO GESU CRISTO PDF
- DIE KUNST DES KLUGEN HANDELNS EPUB
- THE MAGICIANS SERIES EPUB
- ABC COLORING BOOK
- PROGRAMMING IN SCALA EBOOK
- KOMIK AO HARU RIDE PDF
- ANESTHESIA EQUIPMENT PRINCIPLES AND APPLICATIONS PDF
- NCLEX RN EBOOK
- ESSENTIALS OF ECONOMICS 7TH EDITION PDF
- WPF IN 24 HOURS PDF
- CHICKEN SOUP FOR THE INDIAN ARMED FORCES SOUL EBOOK