About the forthcoming online newsletter/How I can be an innovation modeling consultant

I am currently planning to start to publish my online newsletter in English, entitled “A Psychonaut’s Monolog.”

In fact, I have been publishing an NLP related online newsletter in Japanese since 2003, and the total number of published issues is 386 to date (you can read the English translations of the initial 12 issues by clicking here).

I have been also publishing another online newsletter in Japanese for the subscribers of the closed membership (the latest issue No. is #48); I therefore already have rather a plenty of materials to translate into English, though I for obvious reasons will not be ready to translate everything I have written in these newsletters.

I would like to enumerate below what kinds of topics are expected to be covered in the forthcoming newsletter:

1) I would like to go through all the pages of the NLP related newsletter (a total of well over 1,000 pages), and pick up important and relevant discussions for translation, if and as necessary, which I will regard as hopefully interesting to the fellow English speaking psychonautical travelers.

2) I would like to do the same with the other more recent newsletter which was started in March 2016. In the different issues of this newsletter, I detailed the epistemological discoveries I had made after I left the NLP industry a few years ago and started to work as an executive life coach for my individual clients.

These discoveries are mainly related to a) how Western “pre-NLP” people (I am especially thinking of the participants of the Human Potential Movement in the sixties) came to recognize that everything they were experiencing may be only projections from the past, and that in-built programmings do exist in their own brains which determine their daily behaviors – I have succeeded in making explicit as a learnable set of exercises this very process which Western people probably are never able to make conscious by themselves – and b) how “pre-NLP” Westerners came to be able to “relativize the reality.”

With regard to the latter finding of mine, I have come to realize that all NLP and related exercises/techniques presuppose the “Choice Point,” a term which John Grinder, a co-founder of NLP and a friend of mine, used in his workshop held in London in 1988, in which I met him for the first time, and was literally flabbergasted by his highly refined epistemological teaching. The choice point is something like an imaginary fixed point of view in a virtual reality museum software in which operating the mouse can navigate you to go forward, to the left or to the right, enabling you to go into various rooms of the museum as you like, to scrutinize the paintings hung in each room, or like a virtual point of view in the Google Map system.

It is interesting to note that, in both cases, you can have a number of alternatives at a certain choice point, but “helplessly” cannot do anything between successive choice points (because there is no recorded data between them in the first place).

Grinder indicated at that time that human beings have a certain number of choice points in their daily life, that the reason why they repeat the same behavioral patterns again and again (possibly as part of their “Karma” repeated reincarnation after reincarnation) is that they have forgotten all the alternatives but one at each choice point, though they were initially available to them, and that NLP is a set of tools enabling its users to flexibly increase the number of alternatives at their disposal at each choice point (he further wisely pointed out that, if one has only one choice, one remains stuck, with two choices, one finds oneself in a dilemma, and, with three choices or more, one becomes free, because if you happen to find yourself in a dilemma, you can always go for the third choice!).

Now, I am now honestly not sure whether what I wrote in the last paragraph above is the literal transcription of what Grinder actually said in the workshop, or whether it is what I later came to understand in my own way after much trial and error – probably the combination of both was the case – but, in any case, this model did bring the most decisive and long lasting effects on me; retrospectively speaking, I even can go so far as to say that the single element that made me eventually decide to dedicate my whole life to NLP was the almost divine-like revelation I came to arrive at in Grinder’s workshop in question that I could become free and liberated in not a philosophical but a practical sense, solely by increasing the number of alternatives I can select – and fortunately three choices should always turn out to be sufficient – at each choice point in my real life.

Incidentally, I can add that the Choice Point model presupposes three things; one, human beings behave on the basis of the TOTE process. This well known “Test – Operate – Test – Exit” model proposed by George Miller, Eugene Galanter, and Karl Pribram, means, simply put, the black box-like behavioral process of “Input – Programing – Output” (this “Input” neatly corresponds with Grinder’s choice point).

Two, we can ascertain that we have a set of programmings at each choice point, which will be endlessly and forever repeated, unless we can have more than one alternative at each point, in which case the existing programmed patterns are bound to be interrupted. NLP turns out to be a very efficient set of tools which enables us to increase the number of alternative behavioral patterns.

Three, in order for us to become aware of the fact that we have a set of programmings at each choice point, we necessarily need to go into the “Meta Position,” meaning the Observer or Witness position, from where we can look at ourselves in an objective way, not unlike the “Out-Of-Body Experiences.” (The concept of Witness, which ancient Indian Vedanta sages say is the highest possible state of human consciousness, will be expounded in detail in the forthcoming newsletter in due course.)

Incidentally, with regard to this third presupposition, Stephen Covey, a personal development consultant, quotes a very interesting maxim “Between stimulus and response there is space,” in his well known book “The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People” (it appears that the original author of this saying seems to be an Indian guru, whose name I have not yet identified).

According to my own understanding, the more one is in the Meta position, the more space one can find between stimulus and response, and the more flexible alternatives one has in the space in question; this in return means that one is said to be purely like an automated and preprogramed robot, when one finds no space between stimulus and response, while one is said to be an enlightened and liberated person, when one can put infinity in the space in question (!).

Now, although the Choice Point model was the most important single factor in my whole studentship of NLP, Grinder mentioned this model only a couple of times in his London workshop in 1988, and, as far as I remember, I have not heard him mention it any more in his subsequent workshops and courses I took part in during the eighties and the nineties.

This must mean either that he stopped mentioning it because this model had turned out very trivial epistemology-wise, or that it has been so deeply and thoroughly ingrained in the Western NLP practitioners’ mind that they unconsciously have come to take it for granted in a matter-of-course way.

I of course believe that the latter is the case, and indeed I myself have never expounded this model in detail in my own courses and workshops held in Japanese after casually mentioning it a couple of times a la Grinder, because it had already entirely become part of my unconscious and automatized mentation, and also because I sincerely believed, that is, wrongly, that my Japanese students were able to understand the model sufficiently easily to start to take part in the NLP exercises while unconsciously assimilating the model. Of course, I can now say that it was not the case at all.

I came to consciously know that the Choice Point model is a literally crucial aspect of the process of self-transformation, only after discovering that “Japanese people in general believe that their reality is an absolute entity (as something which exists in an a priori way), which they are not supposed to to be able to change in any way (one of my executive clients went so far as to make the comment ‘How can a human being dare to try to change the “sacred” reality given to us by God?’, which, by the way, may be the most aptly epitomizing the attitude of Japanese people vis-a-vis this issue),” as I wrote in one of the recent posts published on this blog site.

Namely, Japanese people who have not gone through any “pre-NLP” disciplines apparently can never conceive of choice points – they typically cannot make head or tail of them, even they are given left brain oriented logical explanation about the model – and this sadly means that Japanese people in general who are devoid of the Choice Point model cannot possibly be made consciously aware of the TOTE process, the existence of the programmings, nor the Meta position, because these three things are something which is presupposed by, and implied in, the model in question alone – while general Western NLP practitioners, whose mentality is amenable to such cognitive expansionist paradigm as Counter-culture, seemingly can accept the model as naturally as they breath air.

In this connection, I can incidentally add that, when I said to Grinder, whom I met again in his workshop in Tokyo in 2016, that he had mentioned the choice point in the 1988 workshop in London no more than a couple of times, he, after agreeing with me about the crucial significance of the model, began, the following day, to very frequently mention and emphasize the model in front of his Japanese students (!). Also, when I indicated to Grinder that, because Western NLP practitioners have been accepting the Choice Point model in a totally matter-of-course manner, they may begin to laugh at me rather in a contemptuous way to hear that I had to dare to make explicit for Japanese people what even kindergarten children in the West may be unconsciously doing, he replied that other Westerners may laugh, but that he himself would like to congratulate me on my epistemological work by saying “Bravo.”

Here, I can conclude that why Japanese people cannot relativize their reality is finally demystified (!).

(By the way, my current impression I have after having taught a certain number of Japanese people my own new techniques developed by modeling Western NLP Practitioners is that they seem to need to be further taught how to apply these “one-level up” (i.e., more abstract) techniques to their inner reality. Namely, those who find themselves in a vicious circle seem not to be able to get out of it, even if they are explicitly taught subdivided or fractal (i.e., more abstract) versions of the escape method; they will always encounter a new situation where they come across something they cannot figure out in a still more subdivided or fractal way. Also, it is very interesting here to note that Western “cognitive expansionists” may begin to willingly try to comprehend the whole situation when they encounter what is totally new and ungraspable to them, while Japanese people in a similar circumstance may typically begin to shrink back, and may remain at a loss and immobile in a totally disoriented state.)

 

I indicated above that I have successfully developed my own unique exercises by modeling “how Western ‘pre-NLP’ people […] came to recognize that everything they were experiencing may be only projections from the past,” as well as “how ‘pre-NLP’ Westerners had come to be able to ‘relativize the reality’.” This reminds me of the fact that native English speakers more often than not have great difficulties to logically explain the syntactic structures of the language they speak, while I, as a non-native foreigner who started to learn English as late as at the age of 12, later came to be able to logically analyze all the syntactic and grammatical aspects of the language in a, say, quasi-perfect way.

I believe that this IS the strongest USP (unique sales proposition) of mine, in the sense that I can give, say, unheard-of and/or out-of-the-box advice to Western masters of NLP as a Japanese epistemologist well versed in NLP, as well as to Western executive businessmen as a unique Japanese consultant well versed in cross-cultural communication.

My unique greatness, if any, can be found in the very fact that I can go out of the box to always look from outside at what the already innovative and/or genius Westerners are doing in a totally unconscious way, in order to successfully model it so that I may be able to provide them with an explicit set of learnable tools – they intrinsically cannot make their unconscious patterns explicit from within the box they find themselves in – which in turn will not fail to enable them to endlessly become more and more innovative and/or genius, through my further assistance with incremental modeling work given to them.

No wonder why the Japanese students I have so far taught my innovation modeling methodology in my courses and workshops have apparently not been impressed by it at all, all the more because they themselves were not up to the level of the targets of my modelings, e.g., native English speakers, Western NLP masters, etc., and were utterly unable to make sense of what these Westerners are doing within their heads in the first place.

Also, I feel that the fact that my works have turned out not to be so effective to Japanese people in the last 15 years is, as far as I am concerned, something like a valuable “medal of honor” for me, all the more because, paradoxically speaking, I have rather succeeded in making what the Western masters and/or geniuses do unconsciously and/or automatically transparent as a learnable set of psychological tools, SOLELY by contrasting the behavioral and psychological patterns of Japanese people (i.e., non-masters and/or non-geniuses) with those of the Westerners in question. It is very clear that, without my ill-fated but inevitable failure to “wake up” the sleeping Japanese people, I would have never been able to arrive at my recent important epistemological discoveries, which I hope will turn out to be both of great value and seminal to serious Western epistemologists, including both NLP masters and visionary business entrepreneurs seeking to become more and more innovative and ingenious.

Be that as it may, I might hopefully prove to be an exceptionally unique person who would be in a position to provide international VIP people with such an innovation modeling work.

I personally and stealthily am inclined to believe that the real values of my high level unique “innovation consulting services” might be properly grasped only by such visionary and genius entrepreneurs as the CEO’s of Microsoft, Apple, Google, Amazon, Facebook, and Tesla (!). I further clandestinely desire to be part of a think factory of such enterprises, so that I may exclusively work for them as an innovation modeling consultant.

If you happen to be interested in my consultancy work as described above, then please consider having personal coaching sessions offered by me, and contacting me through the Contact page of this site.

3) In the online newsletter in Japanese for the subscribers of the closed membership, I introduced the works of such important thinkers as Neville Goddard, Robert Scheinfeld, and Fumio Nishida, whose works I would like to elaborate on in the forthcoming newsletter in due course.

In brief, I found that Goddard’s claim that you are within the godly consciousness, whenever you imagine as if your desire was already fulfilled, while you live within the sinful consciousness, whenever your desire is not fulfilled, and that to achieve the godly consciousness by imagining that your desire is already fulfilled does mean your redemption, is simply fascinating.

He further advises us to “think from [something],” instead of to “think of [something].” In the latter case, according to him, you are outside of what you desire, and therefore will never be able to obtain it, because you are continually sending your unconscious mind – or the whole universe, for that matter – the presupposed message that you don’t have what you desire in the first place, while in the former case, you are already inside of what you desire, and therefore will not fail to obtain it, because you are continually sending your unconscious mind the presupposed message that you already have what you desire in the first place. I found that this position of Goddard must be very valid and extremely useful.

Also, when I read “Busting Loose From the Business Game” by Scheinfeld, I was simply stunned to know that a simple mantra (or affirmation) he devised can be used to deprogram, rather than reprogram (a la NLP), our behavioral patterns, so that we may approach the so-called divine consciousness which is intrinsically devoid of all programmings.

I have been using my own version of mantra based on the original version a la Scheinfeld since I came to know about his method a couple of years ago, and have been ascertaining that once the old programmings are gone through the mantra, they would never come back to me. It is true that, when I used to extensively practice NLP exercises during the nineties (when I was staying in the UK), I had a similar feeling that the old programmings never would come back to me, but I tangibly realize that Scheinfeld’s “deprogramming method” has an “additional vertical” aspect; namely, while NLP, as a “reprogramming method,” can enable me to achieve, so to speak, horizontal self-transformation, it seems to me not to be able to make me devoid of more and more of old programmings to approach the pure divine consciousness, that is, upward, like in the case of Scheinfeld’s method.

Also, I am glad to say that I have succeeded in integrating NLP with Scheinfeld’s method to create a magick-like new technique so that the phenomenal world and the noumenal (yonder) world may be vertically transcended and fused in a cyclic and endless way.

By the way, Scheinfeld regards the phenomenal world as a holographic world, following another important thinker, Michael Talbot, who wrote “The Holographic Universe,” etc.

I will discuss the works of these holography oriented thinkers in the forthcoming newsletter.

Also, I happen to come across a quite interesting Japanese sports consultant, Fumio Nishida. I read nearly all of his books written in Japanese, mainly in oder to understand how the mind of ordinary Japanese people works, and came to know that unless one’s “amygdala” begins to feel pleasure, none of one’s efforts in the fields of sports, art, business, language learning, meditation, diet, desk work, etc., can bring any positive and enduring outcomes.

Unfortunately, Nishida never mentions any sources of his ideas either in the footnotes or in the bibliographies of his books – which I thought is quite unethical on his part and is not academic at all (he seemingly even goes so far as to recommend a kind of plagiarism to the readers (!); I think that his books would never be translated into foreign languages) – therefore, I had to begin to try to identify by myself who the worldwide authority in the study of amygdala is, and this search eventually led me to discover the name of Joseph LeDoux whom I will mention in the next paragraph.

4) I have published a total of seven recently written essays on my Japanese site. They mainly covered the topics related to my recent study of influential neuroscientists like LeDoux and Stanislas Dehaene, as well as to the important history books “Sapiens” and “Homo Deus” by Yuval Noah Harari.

I intend to translate these seven essays in my forthcoming online newsletter in English, as faithfully as the original texts possible.

 

PS: I have been encouraged by an adviser to write a several thousand pages long book in English, bound in sheep-skin, about human consciousness. Well, I now think that I would like to write an at least several hundred pages long book on the history of human consciousness, in which the contents of the forthcoming newsletter will certainly be incorporated in some form or another. For this purpose, I may need to dedicate myself to scholarly research hopefully with some kind of sponsorship, which also should cover my current work as an epistemological modeler and/or innovation modeling consultant.

This entry was posted in Innovation Modeling Work, Online Newsletter. Bookmark the permalink.