My ME Model
by Steve Stockdale
Presented at the Ambassador University
Symposium on General Semantics (1995)
In the three months since I accepted Dave
Maas's invitation to prepare a paper for this symposium, I've had a difficult
time choosing what to write about. My mind has been figuratively spinning
out of control with various thoughts and approaches. I suppose this is
a logical consequence of applying a general semantics orientation in my
life - the more insights I grasp, the more I see there is to grasp. (Sort
of like pulling weeds in the spring - for every one you pull, two pop up.)
I've had many ideas regarding what
I could present here. I gave some thought to expanding on my article which
was just published in ETC. about the general semantics summer
seminar. And I've developed some thoughts about relating Ralph Waldo Emerson's
essay Self-Reliance to general semantics. And I saw some
interesting possibilities in studying how the characters in Joseph Heller's
Catch-22
applied general semantics principles. But on reflection, there was a general
theme which seemed to recur in all my thoughts: What is this general semantics
really all about? Well, I'm going to tell you my answer. And my answer
is, what general semantics is all about is, it's about 'ME'!
And I've spent a long time studying 'ME' - at least twenty years.
Twenty years ago this month, I was
a junior at the Air Force Academy, sitting in my dorm room, facing a creative
writing assignment. Specifically, the assignment was to write a one-act
play. For some reason, I chose to write what I termed a 'morality' play.
The central character was named YOU, and throughout the play YOU
struggled to find himself (or in his terms, "the real ME") after
encountering pressures to conform to The Group and temptations to
yield to the Ways Of The World. The title of the play was The
Unveiling Of Ourselves.1
And now, twenty years later, I, the erstwhile
author, have assumed the role of the erstwhile character in carrying on
the search for "the real ME". To a significant degree, the study
and application of general semantics has enabled me to better evaluate
and analyze ME. In fact, I've developed a model of how ME
works,
which I call "My ME Model". So I'd like to seize this opportunity
to present to you "My ME Model" and to discuss how it applies
within the context of life and general semantics.
The Exercise:
Before I present "My ME Model",
here's a short exercise. Nine words are listed in the box below. Each denotes
what I'll call a 'feeling'. Following are several questions which refer
to the group of words in the box. Read over the words, then consider the
questions.
|
anxiety
|
disappointment
|
embarrassment
|
|
envy
|
guilt
|
regret
|
|
rejection
|
shame
|
stress
|
1. What would your life be like if
you spent most of the time feeling these feelings?
2. What would your life be like if
you spent practically no time feeling these feelings?
3. Would you say that you feel these
feelings more now or when you were first born?
4. Have you learned how to feel more
of these feelings? How did you learn? Who taught you?
5. Who or what determines the circumstances
and the degree to which you feel these feelings?
6. What is it that happens to 'cause'
these feelings?
The Context:
So what was that all about? Well,
as I reminisced about what's happened to me since those undergraduate days
at the foot of the Rocky Mountains, I had several thoughts such as "Boy,
I hope I never have to experience those feelings again." The nine words
in the exercise represent some of those feelings which I'd like to
avoid or minimize in the future, because I've already met my minimum lifetime
requirements of regret, rejection, guilt, etc. Been there, done that.
Having made this commitment to minimize
those feelings, how do I start to follow through and make good on it? The
first step, for me, was to consider a series of questions such as those
in this exercise. And for me, when I thought about those questions, what
occurred to me were not answers, but more nagging questions: Did I really
'learn' how to feel rejected? Was I 'taught' how to feel anxious
and guilt-ridden? Was I not always this way? Can I 'unlearn' what
I've 'learned'? Does this kind of stuff have to be a part of who I am,
the real ME?
Within the context of a general semantics
orientation, these questions led me to develop "My ME Model"
in order to more appropriately analyze and evaluate ME.
The Model:
I often find it beneficial to develop
a model or diagram when attempting to grasp new or difficult relationships.
To me, it's more meaningful to see graphically how something works or is
structured, rather than to just read a description of it. And, for me,
there has been no more difficult relationship to grasp than the relationship
I have with ME.
The field of general semantics certainly
does not lack for diagrams or models. Alfred Korzybski's Structural
Differential was surely the first and most influential. Then S.I. Hayakawa's
abstraction ladder and J. Samuel Bois's semantic transactor
- each had similarities to Korzybski's, but each also had unique aspects
to suit the peculiar purposes of the modeler. For my purposes, for what
I wanted to communicate about the general semantics orientation, none of
these models was quite suitable. So I developed my own, which certainly
bears some resemblance to, and acknowledges, those of my 'time-binding'
predecessors.
The purpose of "My ME Model"
is to graphically portray the process which produces ME. I've studied
and tested this model as it pertains to my own self, and I believe it accurately
applies to me. Feel free to check it out for yourself, to see if it applies
to your own ME.
In its most simplified version, the
model (Figure 1) can be expressed as a 4-step process:
1. Something is going
on
2. I experience what's
going on
3. I evaluate my
experience of what's going on
4. From my evaluation
of my experience of what's going on, I respond to and give meaning
to what is going on
Now this seems pretty straightforward.
But there are a few considerations or nuances which might not be apparent
without some additional comments.
1. "What Is Going On" (or in general semantics
lingo, per J.S. Bois, 'WIGO') could be described as the continually-changing
environment in which I find myself. It's worth a reminder that everything
is changing all the time. I may not be able to detect the changes with
my limited senses, but I trust the theories of quantum mechanics, and recognize
that nothing remains the same.
2. None of my sensing capabilities is capable
of sensing all that's going on. Whatever it is I see, hear, etc., I'm not
seeing or hearing all that's there to be seen or heard.
3. None of my senses is perfect. This should
appear obvious given that I wear glasses. But it's worthwhile to recognize
that whatever it is that I sense, has been, to some extent, distorted by
the limitations and imperfections of my sensing organs and nervous system.
4. I can only detect "What Is Going On"
after it's gone on.
5. Given the preceding factors, I need
to be continually aware that what I've labeled as "My Sensory Experience"
is, in every instance, to some degree, a necessarily distorted and unique
experience within an ever-changing WIGO. If I think about how I function
as a human being, it seems to me that there is not a lot I can do to change
or improve my sensing organs. I can wear glasses to correct some visual
defects, or perhaps enlist the aid of a hearing device if that becomes
necessary. But there isn't much I can do to actually improve the ability
of my eyes or ears or taste buds to physically detect what's out there
in the WIGO. So I'm more or less forced to view my sensing abilities as
an imperfect given, which I can't do a whole lot to affect.
6. Within the process I've labeled as "My
Evaluation", however, there is a myriad of possibilities for individual
determination. Activities such as analyzing, interpreting, measuring, assessing,
inquiring, and many others are available to me in my evaluation of an experience.
7. The output of "My Evaluation"
is divided into two categories of evaluations. Evaluations resulting in
non-verbal, physiological reactions or responses (i.e., 'behavior') are indicated
by the output path leading to the top triangle. Evaluations resulting in
verbal responses are indicated in the triangle below, and are labeled as
"My Meaning". These verbal evaluations could be classified by words such
as "inferences, assumptions, premises, beliefs, judgments, expectations,"
etc. Note the scale labeled "Appropriateness." My evaluations, and my subsequent
behavior and abstracted meanings, can be subjected to a measure of appropriateness.
In this context, "appropriateness" refers to a measure of my evaluation/meaning
compared to what I actually experienced.
That further explains the four sequential
steps to the process model. But there is another aspect to the model
which must not be overlooked. This could be called 'feedback' and is the
aspect which makes the model process a process. Notice that there are output
lines leading out of both triangles. The process, as indicated by
the model, doesn't end with the triangles. Some degree of the behavior
and meaning resulting from the evaluation is abstracted and fed back into
the evaluation process. Some degree of the output is transformed into a
subsequent input.
The "My Evaluation" process
block thus becomes a bit more complicated. This process must now integrate
the sensory experience of "What Is Going On" with the abstracted
feedback of what has already gone on and been evaluated and meant something
before. And here, I suspect, is the stage of the process in which I'm the
most susceptible. When I attempt to integrate the feedback of a previous
less than appropriate evaluation/meaning with an "at-the-moment" experience,
my evaluation of that experience will likely also be, to some degree, less
than appropriate.
To summarize the process model now
in slightly different and more complete terms:
1. "What Is Going On" (WIGO) consists of
continually-changing processes, most of which are not detectable by my
sensory abilities, except in highly abstracted forms.
2. What I can experience by my sensory
organs (My Sensory Experience) is a function of "What Is
Going On", which could be expressed as MSE=f(WIGO)
3. My Evaluation is a function of
my sensory experience, which could be expressed as ME=f(MSE).
4. My Meaning is then a function
of my evaluation, which could be expressed as MM=f(ME).
5. This abstracted meaning is then fed
back to be integrated in subsequent evaluations.
So, after twenty years, with the
application of general semantics I have finally come to the point where
I can claim victory in my search to mathematically derive "the real ME":
ME can be expressed
as a continually-changing function which integrates
my experiences of what
is going on at the moment with my past meanings, or
ME=f(MSE)+f(MM)
The Analysis and Application:
With this model of ME now available, I
can use it to analyze what's gone on in the past, or apply it to what's
going on in the present.
For example, let's go back to one
of those feelings - 'rejection'. Before I was aware of how ME worked,
I would've thought that I had experienced the feeling of being 'rejected'.
In other words, I thought that 'rejection' was something out there
going on in WIGO. Now, having access to the model, it's clear to me that
the feeling of 'rejection' is more appropriately considered as the
verbal result of my evaluation - not something which I physically experienced
with one of my sensory organs.
Here's a real-life illustration.
About two years ago, when I was really into being 'rejected', I was driving
into Dallas about once a week to attend an evening seminar. At one particularly
congested intersection, there was always one of these rose-seller guys.
He'd stand on the side-walk or median while the light was green, then walk
up and down beside the cars while the light was red, selling his roses.
I observed this same guy for several weeks. He always had his Walkman plugged
in, he always seemed to be grooving to the music, he always had a smile
on his face, and he always seemed to be enjoying life. And yet, I never
actually saw anyone buy a rose from him.
One evening, I approached the intersection
after a particularly stressful day with something of a "stay away from
me, world"-attitude. Sure enough, I didn't make the light, so I sat
there stewing in the summer heat and vigorously shook my head when he offered
his roses - he was just smiling and jamming and waving his roses and basking
in the late evening's warmth. Needing to feel a bit superior, I disgustedly
muttered to myself, "That guy has got to be the biggest idiot on earth!
He's out here day after day with that stupid grin on his face, and he's
so stupid he's not even aware that he's getting rejected about a hundred
times a minute!"
About one nanosecond later, as I
sunk down in my seat, I humbly realized that perhaps the rose seller and
I had different ideas about what 'rejection' meant. What I had previously
learned about 'rejection', and what I was ready to rashly project
into this experience as 'rejection', was based on my prior experiences,
evaluations and meanings of what 'rejection' was. Therefore, when
I saw the rose seller in that moment's WIGO, I integrated what I experienced
at the moment with what I had learned in the past about 'rejection',
and developed an evaluation at that moment which was completely consistent
with what I had previously learned. I evaluated the rose-seller as being
'rejected'.
But there was a conflict. My initial reaction was to see 'rejection',
but my second reaction, a nanosecond later, was to question my first
reaction. My second reaction acknowledged that the feedback or what I had
learned did not seem to appropriately apply to this experience. To
resolve the conflict, I had to re-look at what I had previously assumed
'rejection'
was, and change my assumption to conform to what I was actually experiencing
at that moment. In other words, I had to unlearn what I had learned before
about 'rejection'.
Here's another example. I remember
watching a "60 Minutes" segment several years ago about a popular
Soviet beach resort on the Black Sea. There was picture after picture of
Soviet (now Russian, but what's in a name?) citizenry, none of whom was
particularly attractive, all of whom were apparently approaching obesity,
and each of whom was wearing unbelievably tight and skimpy swimwear. I
remember thinking, "Man, that's disgusting! They don't have any shame
at all!" Now, however, applying the model process, I have to ask myself,
"Where
is the disgusting?" Is 'it' out there in WIGO, or is
it my evaluation based on perhaps inappropriate beliefs or judgments about
what people should look like at the beach, and what they should wear?
Here's what I've learned generally
about my evaluations through applying this model:
1) Too often, I confuse my evaluation of
an experience of "what goes on" with the actual experience. When
I say, "Man, that's disgusting!", I'm not describing what I've seen.
I'm stating an evaluation, or opinion, or belief, about what I've seen.
I would be looking for a long time if I was tasked to search for something
out there in WIGO which is, literally, "disgusting". ("Your mission,
should you decide to accept it, is to track down and bring in 'Disgusting'.
This tape will self-destruct in ten seconds. Good luck, Steve.") Now,
I clearly 'know' this distinction between the evaluation and the experience,
but sometimes I have difficulty applying the knowledge which I know I 'know'.
2) The feedback loops could also represent
'learning'. In this context, learning refers to the prior meanings,
assumptions, beliefs, etc, which I bring to my current experience. Since
the model indicates that there is a degree of appropriateness to each of
these evaluational outputs, it follows that there is a similar degree of
appropriateness to what I have learned, and what I've been taught. As the
story of the rejected rose-seller illustrates, there is probably a lot
of stuff which I've learned or been taught which I need to conscientiously
question and then perhaps unlearn.
There is a short but very powerful
song from the Rodgers and Hammerstein musical South Pacific
which I think applies in this context. In the story, Lt. Joe Cable, an
officer in the US Navy, is stationed on a remote island in the South Pacific
during World War II. He meets and falls in love with Liat, a young native
girl. In his evaluation of his feelings for Liat, he has to confront the
differences in their cultures and beliefs. He sings the song, "You've
Got To Be Carefully Taught":2
You've
got to be taught, to hate and fear,
You've got to be taught, from
year to year,
It's got to be drummed in your
dear little ear,
You've got to be carefully
taught.
You've got to be taught to be
afraid
Of people who's eyes are oddly
made
And people who's skin is a
different shade.
You've got to be carefully
taught.
You've got to be taught, before
it's too late,
Before you are six or seven
or eight
To hate all the people your
relatives hate
You've got to be carefully
taught.
3) I now recognize that I don't apply everything
that I know, plus I suspect that much of what I 'know' may not actually
be so. I also have to consider the fact that everything I experience has,
to some degree, been distorted by my unique, imperfect and incomplete sensory
organs. Therefore, I think it's prudent on my part to be a bit tentative
and hesitant in assessing what I perceive as going on, rather than immediately
assuming that what I 'see' and infer actually 'is'. So in my talking or
thinking about what I've experienced and evaluated, I need to qualify my
impressions of what happened as uniquely my impressions of what occurred
'to me'.
4) It seems, to me, that the idea of "living
in the moment" is a worthy objective. For me to "live in the moment" and
be totally open to and aware of what I'm experiencing, I have to exercise
control over the feedback of my prior meanings. I have to be careful not
to allow inappropriate prior meanings to unnecessarily distort or dilute
my evaluation of what I'm experiencing at the moment. Another way of expressing
this idea is to say that I need to limit the 'excess baggage' which I'm
tempted to carry around - sort of like the airlines' limit of two carry-on
bags.
How do I do this, how do I exercise
the control required to not carry around 'excess baggage'? It certainly
is not easy, especially during circumstances in which I'm tempted to make
emotional, knee-jerk evaluations. The key, to me, is to not think in terms
of putting the 'baggage' out of my mind. Instead, the key, for me, is to
realize that the 'baggage' exists only in my mind - it's not 'out there'
in what's going on at the moment. Therefore I can exercise some degree
of deliberate control in determining how much of the past I choose
to integrate with what's going on at the moment.
5) What I perceive as going on is a unique
experience which I'm experiencing for the first time, every time. Forrest
Gump not withstanding, I'd make the case that life's experiences are like
snowflakes - every one is different, and one is never repeated.
Speaking of Forrest Gump. Even if
you haven't seen the movie, you probably have some idea of the type
of character Forrest is. Some reviewers have used words like 'slow',
'dim-witted', 'dumb', 'simpleton' to describe Forrest Gump. But think
for a minute about his evaluation processes. He was indeed less capable
in his learning abilities - he clearly did not learn everything his peers
learned. But he did fully experience what was going on around him at the
moment. In his evaluations, he didn't dilute his at the moment experiences
with a lot of inappropriate 'baggage', because he wasn't carrying the 'baggage'!.
What he had been unable to learn, or didn't learn, was the 'excess baggage'
which everyone else learned and carried around in their minds for years.
In my opinion, Forrest Gump exemplified someone who maximizes applying
the knowledge he has, and minimizes applying what he 'knows' that isn't
actually so. As a result, he didn't feel the same degree of shame, or embarrassment,
or expectations, or those feelings which others did. He was, in a real
sense, more human and more sane.
What Next?:
I'd like to conclude with some thoughts
for follow-on contemplation.
Some of you may be familiar with
the work of psychologist Abraham Maslow and his hierarchy of needs. Maslow
theorized that humans were motivated to satisfy different categories (or
levels) of needs, according to a determined order. This hierarchy has been
depicted as a pyramid, with the lowest, most basic level of needs on the
bottom, and successive levels of needs depicted above.3
 According to Maslow, humans are first
motivated by physiological needs, such as food, water, air, etc. Only after
these needs are satisfied are we motivated to seek the safety and security
of shelter and protection against the environment. With these needs met,
we can seek the human needs of love and belongingness, then self-esteem,
and then ultimately what Maslow terms "self-actualization". In his words,
a person who is self-actualizing is one who "makes full use and
exploitation of his talents, capacities and potentialities....who has
developed or is developing to the full stature of which they are capable."4
He also refers to this as "full-humanness".5
Maslow devoted himself to the study
of these people whom he classified as "self-actualized". I'd like to list
a few of his findings regarding their observed behavior patterns and personality
characteristics:
-
They had "a more efficient perception of
reality and more comfortable relations with it....they live more in the
real world of nature than in the man-made mass of concepts, abstractions,
expectations, beliefs and stereotypes that most people confuse with the
world...they are therefore far more apt to perceive what is there rather
than their own wishes, hopes, fears, anxieties, their own theories and
beliefs or those of their cultural group."6
-
They "accepted themselves as they found
themselves at the moment."7
-
"They did not allow theories, fads, names,
the unverified opinions of other people - all higher order abstractions
- to distort what they could taste, smell, feel."8
-
Their "behavior is marked by simplicity
and naturalness."9
-
"Their ease of penetration to reality,
their closer approach to an animal-like or child-like acceptance and spontaneity
imply a superior awareness of their own impulses, desires, opinions and
subjective reactions in general."10
-
They "have the wonderful capacity to appreciate
again and again, freshly and naively, the basic goods of life, with awe,
pleasure, wonder and even ecstasy, however stale these experiences may
have become to others....this fresh appreciation of the most common moment-to-moment
business of living..."11
-
They "tend to be good and lusty animals,
hearty in their appetites and enjoying themselves mightily without regret
or shame or apology."12
-
"They waste less of their time and energy
protecting themselves against themselves."13
Now, it seems to me that there is some
connection here. The behavior and attitudes of these people observed by
Maslow to have manifested "full humanness" must seemingly have resulted
from more appropriate evaluations, both past and present, than the evaluations
of other people who were observed to have not achieved "full humanness".
Could a greater consciousness or awareness of how I generate evaluations/meanings
lead to a more fully human life?
As a final exercise, Figure 2 depicts
a re-oriented Maslow's hierarchy of needs alongside "My ME Model"
Could this possibly represent how applying a general semantics orientation
constitutes a step towards more sane evaluations, or 'self-actualization',
or 'full humanness'? It seems, to 'ME', that's what general semantics
is all about.
1 Steve Stockdale, The Unveiling of
Ourselves, A Morality Play in One Act, as published in ICARUS,
A Magazine of Creative Writing, Vol. XI, 1976, Department of English and
Fine Arts, USAF Academy, pp. 38-50.
2 Oscar Hammerstein II, "You've Got To
Be Carefully Taught", Music by Richard Rodgers, from the musical South
Pacific, Columbia Records recording, original Broadway cast, 1973.
Musical adapted from James A Michener's Tales of the South Pacific.
3 Lyle E. Bourne, Jr. and Bruce R. Ekstrand,
Psychology:Its
Principles and Meanings, The Dryden Press, 1973, p. 179.
4 S.I. Hayakawa, Symbol, Status,
and Personality, Harcourt Brace Jovanich, 1963, "The Fully-Functioning
Personality", p.54.
5 Abraham H. Maslow, Toward A Psychology
of Being, Second Edition, Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1968, Preface
to the First Edition, p. vi.
6 Harry L. Weinberg, Levels of Knowing
and Existence, Second Edition, Third Printing, Institute of General
Semantics, Englewood, NJ, 1991, p. 164.
7 Weinberg, p. 164.
8 Weinberg, p. 165.
9 Weinberg, p. 165.
10 Weinberg, p. 166.
11 Weinberg, p. 167
12 Hayakawa, p. 63
13 Maslow, p. 141
|
