Philosophy & other kinds of Flow

[amilcarkabral]

What about the 'philosophy' of flow?

I've read a slew of books and authors who in some way, shape and form say much the same for the philosophy of flow (plasticity). Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi's books on Flow state performance being one reference, maybe even Deepak Chopra's Chopra's law of spiritual success so named "defenselessness" are two examples that come to mind.

That is to say i'm really interested in the philosophy and thinking that helps a person understand flow intellectually, which can help them experience it physically. I'm also interested in "flow state experiences" that happen not only body-wise but in other sensory systems like "soft eyes" (and art appreciation) and increasing sensory awareness in all systems, not just kinesthetically.

Anybody game for some intellectual soft and hard-work?

I say this trying to invoke the sense of self-refinement that i've read that Samurai had about perfecting not only swordsmanship but also painting and calligraphy (well, their writing). What about learning to refine the rest of the warrior? Can we get a forum for this or something?

Amilcar

[James Boelter]

I like your signature quote from Byron Wilson!

Regarding your question: I think that the biggest obstacle that any practioner faces in trying to advance and deepen his practice, is in fact 'Fear Reactivity'. While there are no fast and easy answers to dealing with this, I got a lot of help from a book by Steven Pressfield called 'The War of Art', which is a series of short essays about dealing with what he calls "RESISTANCE". I sent Coach Sonnon a piece based on this book a while back, and perhaps he will find room in the magazine for it some time.

But in essence, the best way to face Resistance is to 'turn Pro'. To quote Pressfield, 'Resistance HATES IT when we turn Pro.' We practice our art when we feel like it, when we don't feel like it, when things are going great, when they suck, because that is what we are here for, and that is our purpose in life. We invoke the help the Gods, or The Muses, or whatever entities we feel comfortable with, for the strength and insight to go beyond our tiny, limited egos , and to move into the realm of the Super Natural. We practice because we owe it to the world to develop our gift and to share it with others. Not practicing isn't even an option to us.

It's a great little book - I highly recommend it. It helped me move forward into a career choice that I always wanted to follow but was afraid to 'put up or shut up' and make the jump.

[JClayton]

Amilcar,

You might enjoy reading Chuang Tzu, Basic Writings, translated by Watson. Chuang Tzu predates Csikszentmihalyi by a couple thousand years.

Regards,

[amilcarkabral]

J Clayton:
I've read Chuang Tzu in a class on Ancient Chinese literature along with Mencius, Confucious and the Dao De Ching (my favorite). I think Chuang Tzu's name for the "tao" was "the great block" or something like that which reminisces of the answer to the question "what is the Buddha" as "three pounds of flax". He reminded me of the wise old fool in saturday kung-fu theatre movies. I read it a few years ago but remember it being quite funny.

Chuang Tzu does predate Mihalyi's Flow but they're both good for different reasons. I forget much of what i got out of Chuang Tzu, but i do remember getting something close to what i got out of the the Dao De Ching (a.k.a. Tao Te Ching), which gives one insight on how to reduce your attatchment to the world and its contents, while Flow gives captions of "efficient effectiveness" in a way that allows one to make Flow happen in one's life more often and with more depth.

Nowadays, I would probably prefer the Flow book now as its more grounded and less abstract & philosophical than Chuang Tzu. But Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance gives a nice balance and brige between these two books.

Amilcar

[amilcarkabral]

Reply to James Boelter:

Though it may sound haughty, but i'm almost at a place where "resistance" doesn't exist, just more complex opportunities. To put it in a nutshell, when we start to think about things we put them into categories such as 'success', 'resistance', 'good', 'egomaniacal' and so on. However, if we stay in sensory-based reality then these judgements have very little meaning. Do flies understand 'resistance'? No, because their whole world is sensory-based: visual, chemical, etc. So by me going into sensory-based reality much more often, i don't get 'caught', 'stuck' or anything like that because i realize that (those) labels bottle up ideas and flow.

I'm not saying that the book isn't for me, it sounds like (from the amazon reviews and stuff) i'm already doing most of what he's saying. I'll give it a better looksee at my local bookstore and give it a further once-or-twice over. It looks very similar to one of the books on Flow and Writing that i happened upon a few days ago but forgot the name.

Amiclar

[JasonE]

I thoroughly enjoyed "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance", it was an excellent introduction to Zen through a perspective I could understand right out of the gate. When I later read "Zen and the Art of Archery", I got more out of it.

"Zen and the Art of Archery" is about a professor of Western Philosophy that moves to Japan to teach for a while. He does a great job of describing his exploration of Japanese philosophy in martial practice, complete with his mistakes and misinterpretations.

One thing that has stayed with me is how he struggled with simply letting the moment of the shot happen. He tried all kinds of things to simulate it and make the process "easier"... but anything other than simply getting out of the way led to failure.

A thought on the Zen concept of simply recognizing things for what they are without placing subjective judgements led me to try a simple pseudo-scientific experiment with many people over the years. The results show me to what an extent people are socially programmed to try and extract a subjective meaning from a statement of fact, or to attach one.

For example:
I shake a martial artist's hand and remark that they have "the hands of a person who trains", with no positive or negative inflection or judgement. If male, they usually take it as a compliment... if female, they may take it as a compliment or negatively as an indicator that their hands are rough or somehow "not feminine."

Tell someone wearing a bright yellow shirt / blouse that it is "very bright" or "very yellow", without inflecting positive or negative, and you may see them trying to infer the "good" or "bad" of it. Few people will simply accept it as a fact.

[Doug Szolek]

Had to jump in on this as I make my humble attempts towards self-taught philosophy.

Flow is on my to read list this summer, even though I think I already have a solid understanding of the practical applications of it based on training with Coach Sonnon for these formative years of my life. (a bit of a tangent I know, but when do the formative years end? Right now it seems silly to suggest that there will come a time when I slow or stop learning and re-learning how to express myself as honestly as possible.)

Anydangway, The War of Art, was instrumental in giving me the cojones to "turn pro" and move across the country to pursue my passion, that which my personality, constitution, etc., make me uniquely able to learn and develop.

Once I got out here I found out that one of my favorite authors, Chuck Palahniuk (author of Fight Club, Choke, et al. if you haven't read it yet do yourself a favor, it ends much better than the movie :wink: ), found influence in the writing of Soren Kierkegaard, among others, so I deliberately tore through, Purity of Heart is to Will One Thing, and found an interesting balance between "flow" (though he never called it that) and thought.

I currently hold the opinion that flow is for the living of life and thought is for the learning of life. Niether to be over emphasized. I mean if we really are the only animals on the planet to hold this gift of self-awareness, subjective thought, etc., then isn't it our duty to put it to use, to some positive contribution to the whole?

Admitedly, I am a beginner in this, and the one thing I regret (sort of) about cutting my college career short is the lack of oportunity to study the philosophies of the world. But it does put me in a fun place to learn at my whim (which is a heavy whim indeed).

Just for some background, I'm currently studying, The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are, by Alan Watts. I greatly enjoy, The Wisdom of Insecurity, by the same author.

Some of my favorite philosophical works studied thus far are:
Soren Kierkegaard's: Purity of Heart...; The Concept of Irony; The Seducers Diary; and Works of Love is on my very near to read list.
Friedrich Nietzsche's: Thus Spoke Zarathustra; Human, All Too Human; Beyond Good and Evil; The Antichrist; and others whose names escape me.
Jose Ortega Y Gasset's, The Revolt of the Masses; this is probably the most dog-eared book in my library, really got me started into my study.
C.S. Lewis', Mere Christianity; The Screwtape Letters
These last two are of a different vein but still worth mentioning as perspective shifters.
Ishmael, by Daniel Quinn
Way of the Peacful Warrior, by Dan Millman

So that some of what has got me here, along with soul searching practice sessions working to control my Bruiser Clubbell beyond the perceived limits of human ability.

I'm open to more suggested reading, so feel free to add, and if you care for my thoughts on any of the above titles feel free to ask.

In faith,

[rbibbs]

<quote> when do the formative years end?

You probably already know my answer bro... "if you're lucky, your last breath".

[James Boelter]

Amil,
Doesn't sound haughty at all...that's terrific and I envy you. Just don't be shocked if it suddenly becomes an issue when you least expect it.

For instance, I went through a major 'dead zone' after I graduated from massage therapy school after 9 months of working full time on a graveyard shift and going to school in the evenings. I told myself I deserved a week or two to just work and relax before I took the next step and started the process to test for national certification and earn my license. A week turned into two, and then a month, and then six weeks and I simply could NOT bestir myself to get the paperwork started and start looking for work in my new chosen field...and I realized that Resistance had essentially mounted a last ditch effort to turn me aside from my goal when the end was practically in sight. (Of course, working graveyard shift doesn't help, since you are always dead for sleep).

But now I just got my 'authorization to test' letter in the mail today, and spent more money than I could really afford on a good table, new glasses and some sport coats to wear to chiropractor and salon interviews. I will take the test June 3rd . But damn if Resistance didn't sneak up on me when I wasn't looking!

[JClayton]

Amilcar,

The reason that I suggested Chuang Tzu was because of the obvious connection with Flow. While Chuang Tzu suggest abandoning the affairs of the world to free oneself from suffering, Mihalyi suggests learning to control consciousness so that one is not at the mercy of the vicissitudes of life. While Chuang Tzu describes returning a to a natural kind of existence, Mihalyi discusses the flow state in which one is integrated, focused, and unaware of distractions. What I find more powerful in Chuang Tzu are the ways in which he illustrates this natural existence. There is Cook Ting, who is so skilled at cutting up oxen that he hasn't sharpend his knife in 20 years; and there is the man who swims in the rapids by just going with the natural energy of the river. I find these stories more compelling that Mihalyi's examples of the guy who works in the factory, or the guy who lost his mother to cancer and then decides to become a doctor. Of course, as you said, Chuang Tzu is much more abstract, as he doesn't offer the seven steps to Flow, as Mihalyi does.

I haven't read Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance in over 20 years. Maybe I'll pick it up again and give it another read.

Regards,

[amilcarkabral]

Jason E:
Where was the 'resistance'? The concept resistance is kind of a judgement or measurement in reference to some goal. Instead of 'overcoming', 'breaking through' and 'subverting' resistance, i suggest you analyze where you were or weren't going. So instead of measuring against a pre-determined goal, figure out what you're body and subconscious are doing for and with you (extensive rest perhaps) and get on board with that. If you noticed that you were getting rest, you could have focused on such and been in that flow! Like Pirisig said in ZMM 'half the fun is getting there'. So when you start focusing on just "being there" instead of "doing something" or "going somewhere" . . flow arrives. Life's a river, rafting is more fun than swimming upstream.


J Clayton:
Thanks for reminding me of those anecdotes, i found them remarkably interesting too. While writing a previous post, I thought and was about to write how Chuang Tzu advocated a dissociated approach to life (in coherence with many others) while Csik advocated an associated view (merging of consciousness). I'm not really sure that these are very different. Some of the warrior literature of warriorship talks about separating oneself from one's goals, but on the other hand, one cannot gain mastery without the being fully involved in the activity. I tend to think of the road to mastery as full-awareness without the emtional attatchment to the outcome, but emotional involvement in the process. Actually, what i'm saying seems to be identical to Scott's emphasis on performance goals.

The other main difference i detect between their approaches may be more in the writing than their attitude. Chuang Tzu's book talks about the end goal of mastery while Csik talks about the process of moving towards mastery. I don't think these two are mutually exclusive, just two sides of the same coin. So we can look at these two books as a roadmap (Csik) and a destination (CT).

One of the reasons i really liked Flow was(is) because it is a very comprehensive take on achieving flow. It isn't very abstract like some self-help literature, it's very practical. Not is it just concrete, it's comprehensive in that it touches upon all the sensory systems (sex, art, music, etc) and intellectual subjects (word-lovers, mathematicians, etc). I liked it then as i was looking into 'multiple intelligences' and i like it now because i'm trying to become a 'renaissance man' who is a master of many things and not just a jack of all trades.

Amilcar

[JasonE]

I think you meant James Boelter, but thanks for thinking of me anyway. I have also encountered my own resistance to achieving my own goals. :wink:

[amilcarkabral]

Hey there guy, didn't mean to just kinda leave you hanging, i just didn't really know how to process your post. What i had envisioned on this thread was more of a 'philosophy of flow' and stuff, not so much an investigation of philosophy proper. It seems that your mind is a deep as your chest is girthy.

I'm afraid (metaphorically of course) that someone reading Kierkegard and Nietche (spelyng csux) is much deeper than I am. But i don't want to stray from this opportunity, so let me pose a starter question to you and e'eryone else:


Is "flow" affected by a person's belief system? I.e. could two people with opposite belief systems get the same access to flow? For example, some traditions advocate fighting for self-perfection whilst others may advocate fighting for honor, family and other things. Can either of these types of thinking help or hinder one's access to flow?


Amilcar

ps: I did just receive C4 today and was remarkably surprised when i noticed that i have been doing the Cross Bow 'intuitively'! I'll get back to you when i cosntruct my workout regimen

[Doug Szolek]

Is "flow" affected by a person's belief system? I.e. could two people with opposite belief systems get the same access to flow? For example, some traditions advocate fighting for self-perfection whilst others may advocate fighting for honor, family and other things. Can either of these types of thinking help or hinder one's access to flow?
Don't forget the belief systems that advocate not fighting at all. Perhaps they have got the market cornered on flow by simply allowing life to happen and doing their best not to judge it one way or the other... perhaps, but it's not what I've come to learn thus far.

Anyways, I didn't mean to go too far with my post, it's just not often that I get to discuss this hidden passion of mine. :?

Anydangway, what I'm finding right now is that at the heart of many different belief systems, are underlying parallels of balancing, Flow and Thought (my words for the ideas).

The system of belief to me seems unable to bind flow, but rather the individuals application of that belief system, can set the stage to either bind or free Flow.

So getting back to your idea, We've got two men, one believes it's ok to fight to defend his life and life of his family and friends and perhaps even his countrymen; the other believes that the only justification for violence is a sense of honor (to what we need not specify).

In what context do you see Flow being allowed by each of these men?
What do each of them benefit by it?
How could their individual justifications for violence influence their Flow?

I'm curious to get your thoughts on these questions. Let me know and I think we can get this thread back to the original track that you intended for it.

In faith,

[amilcarkabral]

Well, i'm smirking at you're redirecting of the question back at me. I agree that a person's application of a belief system can bind or let flow flow more freely. For example, if a person would fight only if X or Y conditions etc. Otherwise i don't think belief systems have much to do with a person's flow.

I think regardless of how a person comes to justify, rationalize or think about their performance, their performance is kinda self-referenced. In other words, if i suck period, no belief system can change that. However, fuller and total commitment to the moment may enable me to surpass, undermine, bust through and dissolve former blocks to flow, but that's more a characteristic of the flow-state than a person's belief system and how that belief system surrounds and leads into a flow-state.

So in my limited body-flow practice and ROSS experience (2 sessions) my personal take is When Coach Sonnon says you "get out of your own way" it means that instead of taking sensory experience ("pain") and interpreting it ("injury") that we stay in sensory experience ("pain") and just think of it as a different kind of experience or method for experience. The judgements we make and apply to our experience hinders the great flowing (well, it used to), regardless of what you believe.

I am hestitant to say, but i think it's true, that beliefs have nothing to do with flow. Understanding of principles (biomechanics for movement, spatial perception for architecture, harmonics for music, etc) and their variants lead to deeper flow states. The understanding i'm talking of has less to do with intellectual 'know-about' than actual know-how. I also think that one can increase their awareness through visualization (preparation) as much as experience. Sometimes the preparation-visualization phase is more educational because you can slow-down your internal movies to find out what's happening (soft-work visualization). Enough tangents for now.

By the way, are we talking about a person's body-flow, their flow-state performance or simply the flow of life? I think all of these apply.

Amilcar

ps: The flow book (which i just picked back up), think of it as flow-state performance applied to all areas of your life.

ps: i got the quote from a bumper sticker, don't know who Byron Wilson is . . . but the name seems remarkably familiar :wink:

[Doug Szolek]

Well, i'm smirking at you're redirecting of the question back at me. I'm not playing with you, it was however noticable that you already knew the answer to your question, and now I've got some direction to offer my opinions :wink:
I agree that a person's application of a belief system can bind or let flow flow more freely. For example, if a person would fight only if X or Y conditions etc. Otherwise i don't think belief systems have much to do with a person's flow. What I've found is that not too far below the surface, most (perhaps all) belief systems are designed to cultivate flow. To give the believer/follower something of an out (in the case of meeting certain criteria before violence is justified), or a means of surrendering to a higher power and let life happen without judgement. Not to try and talk down to individual belief systems, I hold to mine with the open mindedness that it's what works for me right now.


I think regardless of how a person comes to justify, rationalize or think about their performance, their performance is kinda self-referenced. In other words, if i suck period, no belief system can change that. However, fuller and total commitment to the moment may enable me to surpass, undermine, bust through and dissolve former blocks to flow, but that's more a characteristic of the flow-state than a person's belief system and how that belief system surrounds and leads into a flow-state. How so?


So in my limited Body-Flow™ practice and ROSS experience (2 sessions) my personal take is When Coach Sonnon says you "get out of your own way" it means that instead of taking sensory experience ("pain") and interpreting it ("injury") that we stay in sensory experience ("pain") and just think of it as a different kind of experience or method for experience. The judgements we make and apply to our experience hinders the great flowing (well, it used to), regardless of what you believe.The true displeasure of pain doesn't usually come from the stimulus for it, but rather our desire to be seperate from it.


I am hestitant to say, but i think it's true, that beliefs have nothing to do with flow. Understanding of principles (biomechanics for movement, spatial perception for architecture, harmonics for music, etc) and their variants lead to deeper flow states. The understanding i'm talking of has less to do with intellectual 'know-about' than actual know-how. I also think that one can increase their awareness through visualization (preparation) as much as experience. Sometimes the preparation-visualization phase is more educational because you can slow-down your internal movies to find out what's happening (soft-work visualization). Enough tangents for now.Yup, plenty of tangents :) but no worries. Sounds like you've given this plenty of thought. I think the best understanding of the matters will come from working in Flow. Let me offer a quote from Alen Watts,
"Free from clutching at themselves the hands can handle; free from looking after themselves the eyes can see; free from trying to undertand itself thought can think. In such feeling, seeing, and thinking life requires no future to complete itself nor explanation to justify itself. In this moment it is finished."This to me really sums up Flow, and to answer your next question,
By the way, are we talking about a person's Body-Flow™, their flow-state performance or simply the flow of life? I think all of these apply.What's the difference?

Ok so now that we've got a few things out in the open to be discussed, where to from here. Why Flow? Why Freedom? Why the Tribe? Just a few questions to keep you thinking through your flow :wink:

Let me know how this finds you, and if you need me to clarify and further. And I know I'm not the only one with philosophical tendencies on this forum so speak up folks :wink: :D

In faith,

[amilcarkabral]

Well, let me center my comments on this:


I think regardless of how a person comes to justify, rationalize or think about their performance, their performance is kinda self-referenced. In other words, if i suck period, no belief system can change that. However, fuller and total commitment to the moment may enable me to surpass, undermine, bust through and dissolve former blocks to flow, but that's more a characteristic of the flow-state than a person's belief system and how that belief system surrounds and leads into a flow-state. How so?

Well i've learned from NLP (neuro-linguistic programming) that our bodies use five sensory systems plus another one that we call language. We usually operate through one of our sensory systems. When we want to sing, we can't improve by visualizing the notes, we can only improve by using our auditory system (both singing and listening). Whenever we have to do something we need to use the appropriate sensory (or language) system. Body-flow is a kinesthetic exercise, and therefore we need to access our feelings of our movements to improve. Beliefs and thoughts operate through language. So structurally, in terms of using the right tool for the right job, using beliefs to improve performance is just like trying to screw something in with tape.

I did like the alan watts quote. I say that people can't draw because they can't see, they can't sing because they can't hear and they can't move because they can't feel. All improvement happens when we learn to 'purify' our attention to use the right sensory system and make sure 'the left hand does not know what the right hand is doing'.


By the way, are we talking about a person's Body-Flow™™, their flow-state performance or simply the flow of life? I think all of these apply.What's the difference?

Well, the difference is much one of context. A person can have great body flow but 'suck' at life, or be great at life and suck at body flow. I really consider them different legs on the same table (for a bad metaphor). Body-flow is specific to our kinesthetic system (bear with me). Flow-state performance goes into how we interact with the challenges we face (expertise) whether in sport or even figuring out how to set your Tivo, allthewhile the flow of life is geared more toward the long-term aspects of life and living (tao, enlightenment, etc).

(*Coach Szolek speaking) Ok so now that we've got a few things out in the open to be discussed, where to from here. Why Flow? Why Freedom? Why the Tribe? Just a few questions to keep you thinking through your flow :wink:

(*Amilcar speaking) Let me get my thoughts around this and hit up the topic in another post.

(*Coach Szolek speaking) Let me know how this finds you, and if you need me to clarify and further. And I know I'm not the only one with philosophical tendencies on this forum so speak up folks :wink: :D


Sorry folks, I guess i'll have to learn to use the quote function better because some of this text is really Coach Szoleks

Amilcar

[Scott Sonnon]

Body-Flow is not specific to the kinesthetic sense, but rather addresses increased awareness of the proprioceptive sense - which conducts much more than just movement - and includes using that awareness to influence one's state.

Flow-State Performance-Spiral is not separate from Body-Flow, but rather the mental tools of how to influence one's state through Body-Flow.

Stop thinking of Body-Flow as "grace" or "poise." These are just by-products of successful application of the Body-Flow methodology. Body-Flow and the Flow-State Performance Spiral are a behavioral modification strategy using one's physical culture as the vehicle and stress, trauma and fear as the means.

Let's not muddy my work by confusing it with 'cerebral' approaches out there such as Csikszentmihalyi.

[amilcarkabral]

Sorry for the mixing of paradigms Coach, let me try to clarify my position.

Body-flow, as you say, deals mainly with propiroception (sp?) not just the kinesthetic movement. If i am correct in my distinction, propiroception has more to do with judging spatial relationships (distance, movement, etc) than simply movement of one's body. If that's right i do digress (alway wanted to say that). When i commented that body-flow is mainly kinesthetic, it was rather to highlight its focus on the increased awareness of movement as differentiated from the increased awareness of other kinds of spatial relations such as sighting things at a distance, hearing movement for rate, direction and so forth found in art such as painting, musicianship, choreography and directing. I didn't mean to imply that i thought of body-flow as pigeonholed into one sensory system, but rather as one branch of a larger system of self-awareness, self-expression and self-discovery.

As for the stuff about flow-state, i was referring to Csik's "flow-state" as i've yet to see your tapes on flow so i can't speak as an informed person on that. So in the case of Csik's work, his stuff is definitely 'cerebral', as psychology is his discipline, but the insights he gives are about flow-states that are both cerebral (math geniuses) and visceral (music appreciation and mountain climbing for instance).

Though i do understand how you say your flow-state performance spiral is a mental tool in a symbiotic relationship with body-flow, i also think that there are marked parallels if not identity between your system and his research. I think the main distinction is that he researches and reports what it is, you teach how to get there. It's as if he only talks about the performance spiral while you both talk about it and teach one how to move up and down it. More kudos for you, and thanks to you.

I do think that learning body-flow or how to flow in other sensory systems (the 'high' of painting well, 'jammin' in jazz, etc) are also paths to increase the depth and breadth of one's flow-state in general. So i'm thinking that learning body-flow or any other activity that induces and expands flow can generalize to the mental aspects of flow. That is to say that i think of your flow-state performance spiral as the mental complement to body-flow as well as other kinds of flow (whether sweeping dirt, swiping clubs or building houses).

Apologies if I'm still confusing the two systems. But i don't know enough of the nuances enough to distinguish what you call the flow-state performance spiral and Csik's flow. I'd appreciate some guidance in distinguishing the two.

Amilcar

[Scott Sonnon]

Amilcar,

You must read Body-Flow again. Mechanoreception, only one aspect of Proprioception, involves 3 senses: force/tension sense, movement (or kinesthetic) sense, and position sense. Proprioception also involves more subtle senses such as the biochemical, electro-magnetic, and thermo.

One cannot differentiate Proprioception from the later senses, since it holds priority and seniority over them. Even the paralyzed corpus still moves - if it is alive.

Also, before drawing parallels between my "somatic engineering" approach and Csikszentmihalyi's "cerebral engineering" approach (or any of his contemporaries), you need to have at least studied my Flow-State Performance-Spiral. FSPS is useful without Body-Flow, or in other words, it's a hammer without nail, wood, without even the carpenter.

Feel free to discuss whatever you wish, but if you're going to entertain discussions regarding my work, first get the courses, then study them, then apply them, then form judgments, then share your thoughts on them in comparison/contrast to other approaches.

You can't think your way to Body-Flow... and I don't want my work to have any association with that 'mentality' so common among pop psychology culture.

[mushtaq]

Greetings all,
Even though I am about to take off from Africa and head back to the States in a few hours I just couldn’t pass this conversation up being as I have been thinking on this a great deal of late.
===============================================
(Amilcar said) Well i've learned from NLP (neuro-linguistic programming) that our bodies use five sensory systems plus another one that we call language.
===============================================
It might be more accurate to say that NLP and some other disciplines make frequent use of the Aristotelian “Five Senses” model when talking about human experience and that NLP often adds to this a “digital mode” of speech which talks about experience without direct reference to the “senses”, but I think it would be a misapprehension to say that most NLP practitioners (at least the first few generations of them) think of language as a “sense” but rather as a representational tool that can model both sensory and digital modes of thought.
It should be noted that the Aristotelian “Five Senses” is not the only useful model for talking about, and understanding what is given to perception. I suspect that a somewhat different model is being developed through Coach Sonnon’s work with Bodyflow.
==============================================
(Amilcar said) We usually operate through one of our sensory systems.
==============================================
This is also somewhat inaccurate. Most people operate through a complex of sensory experience, though most people also tend to favor one sense a bit more for most things.
People who exhibit “mastery” of a given skill set very often use very sophisticated combinations of sensory representations to do their skill set. Milton Erickson M.D. (who Bandler, Grinder, et al got a great deal of their model from) is a case in point.
==============================================
(Amilcar said) When we want to sing, we can't improve by visualizing the notes, we can only improve by using our auditory system (both singing and listening).
==============================================
This is a good example of what I am talking about. To sing well, A person might engage the “auditory remembered” and the “auditory created” systems, the first to model how the song has been heard before, the second to decide how the song should be performed this time. They might engage parts of the “kinesthetic rep system to “feel” if the song is right. And in the case of a “shape note singer” the visual system would also be involved.

==============================================
(Amilcar said) Whenever we have to do something we need to use the appropriate sensory (or language) system.
==============================================
I think that this is too simple an understanding of the process. Real world experience is, in my experience very rarely limited to the use of just one representational system.
==============================================

Body-Flow™ is a kinesthetic exercise, and therefore we need to access our feelings of our movements to improve. Beliefs and thoughts operate through language. So structurally, in terms of using the right tool for the right job, using beliefs to improve performance is just like trying to screw something in with tape.
==============================================
I have to disagree with you here. Body-flow (in so far as I understand it) should not be limited to just a kinesthetic realm. My experience with the body of Coach Sonnon’s work tells me that the process is most useful when all of the senses are engaged at deeper and deeper levels of sophistication. While the kinesthetic is no doubt be the lead system for most people, I think you have to view what Coach Sonnon is trying to accomplish as a “synergy” to get the most out of it.
Of course I need to ad a cravat here, in that of all the people who post here I may be the least knowledgeable and experienced, and just might be talking out my ear.

Mushtaq Ali
Arusha, Tanzania

[Scott Sonnon]

Mushtaq,

Everything you have stated corroborates with my research and experience.

The human never operates through one sense (even if those other senses have been surgically removed) but through a sophisticated and idiosyncratic organizational array of sensory "mapping."

And the most basal sense, the most fundamental, with the largest network of receptors is the "sixth" sense - Proprioception. Body-Flow utilizes this network as a somatic engineering approach to synergistically impact the entire organism.

Safe travels over here, amigo. Let me know if you're up our way for a meal with our family.

[amilcarkabral]

Well, thanks Coach and Mushtaq! I apologize to both of you for my loose use of language.

Mushtaq: I was aiming for a gist rather than a detailed analysis of NLP info and principles.

Coach: I stand (rather, rolling around on the ground) corrected.

I called this post "ooh goodie" because most of the time people let my mistakes go. Rarely am i corrected (mostly because i write so much my mistakes are so many) and even more rarely am i corrected with much insight and authority. I'll have to get body-flow and grind it out before i come back and teach you a thing or two (cough).

thankfully,
Amilcar