minds, metaphors and (ethical) manipulation
How Many “You”s Could There Be?
I’ve been reading a couple of fascinating books which both draw attention to the idea that “we contain multitudes” – and seem to me to have massive implications for who we think we are.
You’re probably way ahead of me with The Biology of Belief by Bruce Lipton, already a classic of the personal development world.
“Imagine a population of trillions of individuals living under one roof in a state of perpetual happiness. Such a community exists – it is called the healthy human body.”
But it seems I’m ahead of the curve with Why Everyone Else Is A Hypocrite by Robert Kurzban – so new, it’s not even out in the UK yet.
One of the things I love about this book is that it still makes the point that we contain multitudes, but at a scale I can handle. I can’t really get my head round trillions! But I needed significantly more than the duality of “right brain, left brain” to explain what I was observing in my clients.
Kurzban convincingly argues that the mind can usefully be thought about as being made up of modules, with each module specialising in doing a different job. Its an idea that makes sense: if nature “wants” to get stuff done efficiently, specialisation just works.
But here’s the big point. The modules don’t know all about each other. One doesn’t necessarily know the others exist, let alone what they are perceiving, or what they are doing. In fact, a lack of information flow between the modules is the default.
Which means that… <drum roll> “the part of the brain that’s doing the talking doesn’t have access to the relevant information.”
Kurzban says: “We should be wary of the notion that conscious modules are necessarily going to have really big roles to play in what the brain, as a whole, is up to. It might seem like they should, but it might be that we only feel this way because consciousness is the only thing the brain does that feels like something. My guess – and I think the evidence of psychology is with me on this – is that whatever the conscious modules actually do constitutes relatively little of what the mind, in total, does.”
The implications of this are pretty huge – I’m still trying to process them.
But in terms of my work with clients, it gives things a different perspective. Clean Language coaching seems to help people bring aspects of themselves that were unconscious into consciousness. There might be “parts negotiations” or something resembling the old six-step reframe. There might be sequences of insights and revelations, all from inside the client’s mind.
As the process continues, it seems to help people change in a big way.
But in fact, is it only scratching the surface of the multitude that’s there?
And if so… then what happens?
While my head keeps spinning, may I offer a couple of possibly-relevant videos?
As always, your comments are most welcome below!
| Print article | This entry was posted by Judy on 19/02/2012 at 7:08 pm, and is filed under Clean Language, The Mind. Follow any responses to this post through RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback from your own site. |










about 2 months ago
Hmmm.
You’re maybe going to hate me for saying this, Judy, but as far as I know the ideas on the “modular mind” are aonly defended by a relatively small part of the neuroscientific community and are criticised (for reasons that I can’t go into here) by many other good neuroscientists as “just so stories” that don’t have serious scientific support and also doesn’t explain much, if we look more closely…
And then, it’s let’s say an imaginative jump to equate “modeules” and “selves” or “yous”…
If you would follow this line of thinking, how about “how many its do you have?”
about 2 months ago
Hi Judy,
Great blog and very thought provoking. I also concur with the multi-modular idea and there’s also a series of green flags waving with the idea of bringing things into consciousness because then they have form, as opposed to the formless.
Not for the first time you’ve stimulated my comparatve metaphorical thinking around “maps of the world” (in the NLP sense) and my early love of geography. This has lead me to an article called “Atlas”, where I have explored the idea that all our maps of the world (or modules) are collected into one referential index.
Big thanks as always!
Peter
about 2 months ago
Thanks for the comments both!
Peter, where can I read your article? By the way, love the one about the Cleanish team talk, http://pjwhypno.blogspot.com/2012/02/off-wall.html
about 2 months ago
Oops, it’s here, I see http://haveamindto.wordpress.com/2012/02/20/atlas/
about 2 months ago
Hi Judy a very interesting article I have read Lipton and will look for the other book. I think you would be pleasantly surprised by the books of British writer Anthony Peake who is a binary mind theorist and in his book The Daemon puts together the very convincing argument that we are made up of two separate beings, the Eidolon which operates in the everyday world and the Daemon which is how higher self. Peake using the latest research from science argues that we are in a simulation that keeps repeating itself and we experience the same life over and over again, this is Eternal Recureence and has been written about by such luminaries as Joyce, Nietzsche, Dostoyevsky et al.
Peake points out that in all computer simulations you have bugs and glitches and he believes that he has discovered such with the phenomena dubbed Deja vu which is memories from our future. Peake seems to have been heavily influenced by the late sci fi writer Philip K. Dick and Gnosticism. He is well worth checking out in fact his book The Daemon was so stimulating so well argued and researched that I do what I hardly ever do I just had to read it again.
Terry
http://www.anthonypeake.co.uk/index.php
about 2 months ago
Hi Terry, many thanks for the suggestion – The Daemon is winging its way to my Kindle right now!