My faith in NLP (and questions about submodalities)
Thomas
something - or for that matter your belief about something. When
thinking about something, you can change the meaning of it, by
changing the submodalities. And some says playing with the
submodalities all you need to change the meaning to the
representation, but then I have some questions:
1) What about perceptual position then. Tom Vizzinin and Robert says,
this is not submodalities. But aren't they still changing the meaning
to what you think about?
2) Thinking about the end result or the starting point, definitly
changes the feeling for me...comments? Isn't this parametre just as
important to creating meaning like submodalities...if not, WHY NOT?
3)I don't understand that movement (movie vs. still picture) in a
representation is a submodality. If you play it like a movie, instead
of having a still picture, you're constantly changing the content in
what you think about...can movie vs. still really be seen as a
submodality??
4) How can the changes stick?
5) It wasn't playing with the submodalities in the first place that
made the belief/meaning. Why should the force of playing with the
submodalities be stronger than the force what originally created the
belief/meaning?
I have a weird time with NLP. It's cool if it works, but *sometimes*
it seems to be a simplified way of thinking. Sometimes I think we just
like it, because it's like playing with a machine with a lots of
buttons and levers. So many parametres to adjust...so "smart"...well,
maybe too smart?
Thomas
Denmark
Rex Steven Sikes
would be different.
If you are associated in one and dissociated in another - right there is
a submo distinction.
And if that is altered you can bet other things will be as well.
The concept is that whether meaning is changed or behavior or anything -
the representation
is also altered. Hence it can not not be submodalities. And submodalities
are also only a ]
means of codifying something hence it is both a liberation and a prison.
But it is a means
for describing what is occurring.
Submodalities are indeed effected with perceptual position changes - that
is in fact why it
is called perceptual - position is a submodality distinction as well.
Considering the process or end result utilizes representations, Any thing
you think about
does.
THe notion of changing is that you get control over the unconscious
process to make the
work and stick. In other words you are no longer a victim of the process.
Kind of like
turing on light in a dark room - you make unconscious concsious and have
it go back
to unconsicous. Yes it cna be laborious too. That's why less is more many
times.
Enjoy!
rex
Thomas wrote:
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Dates fill fast so book Rex Now!!! Call 262-790-1993
http://www.AmazingRex.com
Rex Sikes World's First Motivational Mind Reader - Corporate Speaker
Expert in persuasion & influence, specialist in non-verbal communication
and intuition.
"Mystery is the fundamental emotion that stands at
the cradle of true art and true science." Albert Einstein
Robert
> this is not submodalities. But aren't they still changing the meaning
> to what you think about?
Thats reframing.
> 2) Thinking about the end result or the starting point, definitly
> changes the feeling for me...comments? Isn't this parametre just as
> important to creating meaning like submodalities...if not, WHY NOT?
yes.
> 3)I don't understand that movement (movie vs. still picture) in a
> representation is a submodality. If you play it like a movie, instead
> of having a still picture, you're constantly changing the content in
> what you think about...can movie vs. still really be seen as a
> submodality??
Is it still or moving is a destinction and all submodalites do is to
point to destinctions and some submodalites are more critical meaning
they drive and afefct other modalites into a holografic realm.
> 4) How can the changes stick?
Dunno.
If you state change then it changes.
> 5) It wasn't playing with the submodalities in the first place that
> made the belief/meaning. Why should the force of playing with the
> submodalities be stronger than the force what originally created the
> belief/meaning?
No need to change content if you change the process which you recreate
what was true once then you change.
There is no need to dvelve into past events since all we do is to
recreate the past and our memory is as good as it gets.
Remember that the past isnt what it was it is only our percpetion of
it and if we change the form and process how we think about the past
it changes totaly.
No need to get root cause since it is an old archelogic meta4.
> I have a weird time with NLP. It's cool if it works, but *sometimes*
> it seems to be a simplified way of thinking. Sometimes I think we just
> like it, because it's like playing with a machine with a lots of
> buttons and levers. So many parametres to adjust...so "smart"...well,
> maybe too smart?
Smartness required.
It is simplfly thinking or you must want 4 years of theraphy?
Change when done properly happens fast.
Minuts mostly.
/Robert
> Thomas
> Denmark
Adam Sargant
"Thomas" <gje...@usa.net> wrote in message
news:afc7f435.03022...@posting.google.com...
> Sub-modalities are the only thing you need to change your feel about
> something - or for that matter your belief about something. When
> thinking about something, you can change the meaning of it, by
> changing the submodalities. And some says playing with the
> submodalities all you need to change the meaning to the
> representation, but then I have some questions:
>
> 1) What about perceptual position then. Tom Vizzinin and Robert says,
> this is not submodalities. But aren't they still changing the meaning
> to what you think about?
Perceptual position and association/dissociation are two different things in
my book :-)
Perceptual position is a representation of experience taken from the
perspective of respectively different perceivers. In order to do this, we
employ the submodality distinctions of association/dissocaition, among
others. As such I regard it more as a technique.
When adopting different perceptual positions I do many things depending on
context. I may alter my physiology for example.
>
> 2) Thinking about the end result or the starting point, definitly
> changes the feeling for me...comments? Isn't this parametre just as
> important to creating meaning like submodalities...if not, WHY NOT?
Two different representations, with meaning encoded by two different sets of
submodality distinctions. The state resulting from recalling sexual foreplay
is different to that resulting from recollecting post coital satisfaction.
The NLP model suggests that the submodality distinctions in each
representation is different.
>
> 3)I don't understand that movement (movie vs. still picture) in a
> representation is a submodality. If you play it like a movie, instead
> of having a still picture, you're constantly changing the content in
> what you think about...can movie vs. still really be seen as a
> submodality??
See Robert's illuminating comments on submodality distinctions
>
> 4) How can the changes stick?
See Robert's illuminating comments on how changes stick:-)
>
> 5) It wasn't playing with the submodalities in the first place that
> made the belief/meaning.
Was it not? OK so you weren't playing, but the distinctions are present in
any representation of the original experience (and even in the experience
itself). They result from the state you were experiencing the experience
from, from previous experience and from future anticipation.
> Why should the force of playing with the
> submodalities be stronger than the force what originally created the
> belief/meaning?
It's not a force. It's simply a model of how we encode meaning. It';s
usefulness as a model results from it's ... well, usefulness I guess :-)
>
> I have a weird time with NLP. It's cool if it works, but *sometimes*
> it seems to be a simplified way of thinking. Sometimes I think we just
> like it, because it's like playing with a machine with a lots of
> buttons and levers. So many parametres to adjust...so "smart"...well,
> maybe too smart?
NLP is a model. The purpose of a model is to generalise its application, and
it does this by simplifying to a certain extent. By retaining the most
useful elements of what it is modelling and by discarding those which least
effect the outcome, it becomes able to be applied to broader contexts. It's
usefulness as a model is measured by...
<g>
Adam
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free for your viewing pleasure :-)
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.456 / Virus Database: 256 - Release Date: 18/02/2003
Thomas
> I beg to differ - if you change a perceptual position the submodalities
> would be different.
> If you are associated in one and dissociated in another - right there is
> a submo distinction.
> And if that is altered you can bet other things will be as well.
>
> The concept is that whether meaning is changed or behavior or anything -
> the representation
> is also altered. Hence it can not not be submodalities. And submodalities
> are also only a ]
> means of codifying something hence it is both a liberation and a prison.
> But it is a means
> for describing what is occurring.
>
> Submodalities are indeed effected with perceptual position changes - that
> is in fact why it
> is called perceptual - position is a submodality distinction as well.
>
> Considering the process or end result utilizes representations, Any thing
> you think about
> does.
But I have learned, that you need ONLY to change the submodalities to
change a belief, state, etc.
However, let's say I want to feel "I can handle this" (something). I
then look at the submodalities at something I know I can handle and
note the submodalities. Then I change the submodalities of what I
don't think I can handle, so they are the same as the submodalities
for what I CAN handle...
What, however, if the big difference wasn't in the submodalities, but
the fact, that when I think about what I CAN handle, I see the end
result, while that when I think about what I CAN NOT handle, I see the
starting point...? Then I wouldn't make the change, because I only
changed the submodalities...
> THe notion of changing is that you get control over the unconscious
> process to make the
> work and stick. In other words you are no longer a victim of the process.
> Kind of like
> turing on light in a dark room - you make unconscious concsious and have
> it go back
> to unconsicous. Yes it cna be laborious too. That's why less is more many
> times.
>
> Enjoy!
> rex
Seeing the end result vs. the starting point vs. the process in
whole...what is that used for?
Thomas
> > 1) What about perceptual position then. Tom Vizzinin and Robert says,
> > this is not submodalities. But aren't they still changing the meaning
> > to what you think about?
>
> Thats reframing.
I meant: What about perceptual position then. Tom Vizzini and Robert
says, this is not submodalities. But aren't they still changing
the...(?) state, belief...hell, what do you call it??? What changes DO
the submodalities make in the representation/thought/picture? I need
some words...
>
> > 2) Thinking about the end result or the starting point, definitly
> > changes the feeling for me...comments? Isn't this parametre just as
> > important to creating meaning like submodalities...if not, WHY NOT?
>
> yes.
So you say, that thinking about the end result vs. the starting point,
is a consideration to make, when trying to change the feeling/belief,
etc...not only their submodalities?
What is the difference in use between working with submodalities and
thinking about end result vs. starting point. Are both used as a mean
to change belief, state, feel about something?
>
> > 3)I don't understand that movement (movie vs. still picture) in a
> > representation is a submodality. If you play it like a movie, instead
> > of having a still picture, you're constantly changing the content in
> > what you think about...can movie vs. still really be seen as a
> > submodality??
>
> Is it still or moving is a destinction and all submodalites do is to
> point to destinctions and some submodalites are more critical meaning
> they drive and afefct other modalites into a holografic realm.
So is it still or moving is a submodality?
If it's moving like a film, I can view the whole experience, I can't
if it's still. That's touching much more on content than on
submodalities, I think!
>
> > 4) How can the changes stick?
>
> Dunno.
> If you state change then it changes.
Yes, but it changes back to original after a little while! How do I
make it stick?
Thomas
> "Thomas" <gje...@usa.net> wrote in message
> news:afc7f435.03022...@posting.google.com...
> > Sub-modalities are the only thing you need to change your feel about
> > something - or for that matter your belief about something. When
> > thinking about something, you can change the meaning of it, by
> > changing the submodalities. And some says playing with the
> > submodalities all you need to change the meaning to the
> > representation, but then I have some questions:
> >
> > 1) What about perceptual position then. Tom Vizzinin and Robert says,
> > this is not submodalities. But aren't they still changing the meaning
> > to what you think about?
>
> Perceptual position and association/dissociation are two different things in
> my book :-)
>
> Perceptual position is a representation of experience taken from the
> perspective of respectively different perceivers. In order to do this, we
> employ the submodality distinctions of association/dissocaition, among
> others. As such I regard it more as a technique.
>
> When adopting different perceptual positions I do many things depending on
> context. I may alter my physiology for example.
In my book perceptual position is whether you see it from your own
viewpoint, or anothers viewpoint or 3. person. 1., 2. or 3. person.
>
> >
> > 2) Thinking about the end result or the starting point, definitly
> > changes the feeling for me...comments? Isn't this parametre just as
> > important to creating meaning like submodalities...if not, WHY NOT?
>
> Two different representations, with meaning encoded by two different sets of
> submodality distinctions. The state resulting from recalling sexual foreplay
> is different to that resulting from recollecting post coital satisfaction.
> The NLP model suggests that the submodality distinctions in each
> representation is different.
But I have learned, that you need ONLY to change the submodalities to
change a belief, state, etc.
However, let's say I want to feel "I can handle this" (something). I
then look at the submodalities at something I know I can handle and
note the submodalities. Then I change the submodalities of what I
don't think I can handle, so they are the same as the submodalities
for what I CAN handle...
What, however, if the big difference wasn't in the submodalities, but
the fact, that when I think about what I CAN handle, I see the end
result, while that when I think about what I CAN NOT handle, I see the
starting point...? Then I wouldn't make the change, because I only
changed the submodalities...
>
> >
Thomas
process in whole?
I thought the use was to change the belief about something, the feel
about something, etc. JUST LIKE SUBMODALITIES.
But now I guess, that submodalities is used for some purpose, while
thinking in end result vs. starting point vs. the process in whole, is
used for another purpose...
1) What's the difference in use? Two different purposes?
2) Does thinking in end result vs. starting point vs. the process in
whole fall in under the category: Content?
While submodality fall in under the category: Form?
Thomas
Robert
> > it seems to be a simplified way of thinking. Sometimes I think we just
> > like it, because it's like playing with a machine with a lots of
> > buttons and levers. So many parametres to adjust...so "smart"...well,
> > maybe too smart?
>
> NLP is a model. The purpose of a model is to generalise its application, and
> it does this by simplifying to a certain extent. By retaining the most
> useful elements of what it is modelling and by discarding those which least
> effect the outcome, it becomes able to be applied to broader contexts. It's
> usefulness as a model is measured by...
A model helps to sort for some destinctions and then you individually
calibrate to the person or persons you are engaged with.
The difference between the model and the individual is what helps you
do good work with NLP.
/Robert
Tom Vizzini
"Thomas" <gje...@usa.net> wrote in message >
> I meant: What about perceptual position then. Tom Vizzini and Robert
> says, this is not submodalities. But aren't they still changing
> the...(?) state, belief...hell, what do you call it??? What changes DO
> the submodalities make in the representation/thought/picture? I need
> some words...
Here is my opnion about submodalities. Just changing the submodality to make
a change does not work all that well. On the other hand. When you change a
belief, the submodalities of that belief always change.
>
> What is the difference in use between working with submodalities and
> thinking about end result vs. starting point. Are both used as a mean
> to change belief, state, feel about something?
Just changing the submodalities does not address ecology or secondary gain.
>
> So is it still or moving is a submodality?
> If it's moving like a film, I can view the whole experience, I can't
> if it's still. That's touching much more on content than on
> submodalities, I think!
No...moving and still are part of the submodalities. If something is moving
anf you freeze frame the picture, it changes the feeling. Same with a
picture you tur into a movie.
>
> >
> > > 4) How can the changes stick?
> >
> > Dunno.
> > If you state change then it changes.
>
> Yes, but it changes back to original after a little while! How do I
> make it stick?
You have to deal with the secondary gain and ecology. There is a state that
gets satisfied by the behavior or belief. Just moving the picture does not
work.
Let me add one more thing to this. Submodalities are a very visual skill.
Unless you are able to creatively visualize then they are just about
useless. Sure you can use auditory submodalities and kinesthetic but still
they have limitations.
Have fun
--
Tom Vizzini
3D Mind Seminar March 8 and 9
http://www.essential-skills.com/3dmindseminar.htm
http://www.Essential-Skills.com
Real Skills for the Real World
Advanced Rapport Mastery-The Secrets of Accelerated Magical Rapport Video
http://www.essential-skills.com/AdvancedRapport.htm
3 Dimensional Mind videos now available
http://www.essential-skills.com/3dmind.htm
Rex Steven Sikes
submodality differences.
And they could be noted - and any number of processes and "issues" can be addressed from many
different levels of working. Again in theory however, all representations would lend themselves to
submodality shifts.
Still one can work with the state - anchor things in which case submos etc. would shift while not
necessarilky being addressed.
Beliefs - my work stresses beliefs as clusters like grapes - one reason why the belief change in nlp
is not the most effective version of change - but people have gotten results. I have a method of
addressing beliefs - busting the ceq and c/e up and resulting in the person chooosing a new beleief
and cluster. Very effective but lengthier that the standard belief change.
Again my suspicion would be that the representation shift. Since we consider the submos the building
blocks of represented expereince.
Hope this briefly helps illiminate - hope I have sufficently understood your post.
Enjoy!|Rex
Rex Steven Sikes
I disagree in part with the notion that smds are very sisual.
That is misnderstanding in principle - not on Tom's part but
by the field in practice. emphasis was placed on visual smd
becasue orgiginal organizers empasized albeit erroneously that
most people were visual. That is why we in presenting
dhe started with the auditory. I em[hasize kinesthetic
in my work - auditory and then visual while presenting
the classical smd work as well. I ahve addressed why visual
submos and swishes etc. don't work well - becasue lack of
Kinesthetic componet.
But in general - submodality work as Tom notes is toguher
to make last - partly becasue of the tediousness nature of the
work and the other issues he mentions ecology and 2nd. gain.
That is what I address in the cluster notion of beliefs and other
elements of my work. And what is very much addressed in
Mind Design(tm) regarding how to live happy, healthy and
effectively. What we do works at higher levels ecologically.
Enjoy!
Rex
Tom Vizzini wrote:
--
Thomas
> In theory how we represent the thought "I think I can " versus 'I think I can't' would have
> submodality differences.
Yes, but maybe other differences as well! The thought "I think I can"
can be focusing on end result, while the thought "I think I can't" can
be focusing on starting point!
> And they could be noted - and any number of processes and "issues" can be addressed from many
> different levels of working. Again in theory however, all representations would lend themselves to
> submodality shifts.
But other things as well, maybe...(?)
> Still one can work with the state - anchor things in which case submos etc. would shift while not
> necessarilky being addressed.
But I'm thinking the other way around - from a viewpoint on making
changes USING submodality shifts, not causing them to occur using
other techniques.
> Beliefs - my work stresses beliefs as clusters like grapes - one reason why the belief change in nlp
> is not the most effective version of change - but people have gotten results. I have a method of
> addressing beliefs - busting the ceq and c/e up and resulting in the person chooosing a new beleief
What is busting the ceq and c/e up?
> and cluster. Very effective but lengthier that the standard belief change.
> Again my suspicion would be that the representation shift. Since we consider the submos the building
> blocks of represented expereince.
>
> Hope this briefly helps illiminate - hope I have sufficently understood your post.
>
> Enjoy!|Rex
Thanks.
My problem is from a therapeutically position using submodality shifts
as a mean for change. I think: "Hey, while I sit here and help my
client to adjust his submodalities, maybe I'm missing the real point
that would make the changes...what if it isn't adjusting the
submodalities, but adjusting the way he looks at his problem IN OTHER
WAYS. For instance, what if I made him look at the end result, not the
starting point. Then I didn't focus on shifting his submodalities,
rather on something else - content maybe. But hey, of course that
wouldn't work, 'cause I've been told that all you need to do is
changing the submodalities. They all say that that's what is necessary
to change a feel/belief about something".
So what I'm really doing, is adressing other ways to change the feel
about something, not just adjusting submodalities, but maybe adjusting
the content...
Thomas
> Hi Thomas,
>
> "Thomas" <gje...@usa.net> wrote in message >
>
>
> > I meant: What about perceptual position then. Tom Vizzini and Robert
> > says, this is not submodalities. But aren't they still changing
> > the...(?) state, belief...hell, what do you call it??? What changes DO
> > the submodalities make in the representation/thought/picture? I need
> > some words...
>
> Here is my opnion about submodalities. Just changing the submodality to make
> a change does not work all that well. On the other hand. When you change a
> belief, the submodalities of that belief always change.
I thought the way to change a belief was to change the submodalities.
>
>
> >
> > What is the difference in use between working with submodalities and
> > thinking about end result vs. starting point. Are both used as a mean
> > to change belief, state, feel about something?
>
> Just changing the submodalities does not address ecology or secondary gain.
What is changing the submodalities good for then?
> >
> > So is it still or moving is a submodality?
> > If it's moving like a film, I can view the whole experience, I can't
> > if it's still. That's touching much more on content than on
> > submodalities, I think!
>
>
> No...moving and still are part of the submodalities. If something is moving
> anf you freeze frame the picture, it changes the feeling. Same with a
> picture you tur into a movie.
I can not grasp that. If I represent my whole day with one picture,
maybe I see myself going to school, I do NOT have the same content as
if I saw a film of me going to school, going to work, eating
breakfast, etc.
> >
> > >
> > > > 4) How can the changes stick?
> > >
> > > Dunno.
> > > If you state change then it changes.
> >
> > Yes, but it changes back to original after a little while! How do I
> > make it stick?
>
> You have to deal with the secondary gain and ecology. There is a state that
> gets satisfied by the behavior or belief. Just moving the picture does not
> work.
I thought the key was in adjusting the submodalities - then changes
would occur. Why change the submodalities then, if they change anyway
when doing other techniques?
> Let me add one more thing to this. Submodalities are a very visual skill.
> Unless you are able to creatively visualize then they are just about
> useless. Sure you can use auditory submodalities and kinesthetic but still
> they have limitations.
>
> Have fun
Thanks.
But there're still something I do not understand. Here is my problem:
1) When thinking about something, you can change the feel about it by
changing
the submodalities, yes?
2) BUT, is that all that is needed to change the feel about whatever
you think
about (now I do not talk about making it stick).
3) I would say NO. Changing the submodalities are not the only way to
change
the feel about whatever you think about. You can do it by other
means as
well.
4) What about changing the content of whatever you think about? You
could look
at the good times you had in your day, instead of looking at the
sad times,
for instance.
What about looking at the end result instead of having a picture of
the
starting point (at whatever you're imagining).
5) Why is there such a great emphasis on submodalities? Why is
submodalities
claimed to be THE WAY how you change the feel about whatever you
think
about??? You could as well change other things (some of them named
in 4.)
Robert
> submodalities
> claimed to be THE WAY how you change the feel about whatever you
> think
> about??? You could as well change other things (some of them named
> in 4.)
Any NLP Model are mapping out some aspects of human interaction it
might be internal aspects like submodalites who also somehow appear on
the outside to read for those who train to see them.
Submodalites is a model to give destinctions. It can be used to change
things like problems or make solutions like inventions and so on.
You can calibrate trough submodalites what change is needed to be
altered and using other NLP models and NLP techniques to change.
When people say they feel small and down they have a overlap between
size and the analoge relationship between feeling and visual
modalites.
You can then switch size and down into the other way around so when
they go back into the same situation where they felt small and down
they now feel big and up.
If you listen to what people say then it is possible to read
submodalites on the outside to figure out whats on the inside and
since also submodalities seems to be one mayour way we think it shows
in our language also.
(The above sentence is made up with - Listen, read, outside, figure
on, think, shows.)
Why do you exist?
Why do we destroy our planet?
Why do we need to understand?
Why...you get the idea I hope?
Ask to much why and you end up chasing your tail.
Any NLP model map out some aspects of humans.
It isnt complete and will be updated and refined.
When you have done NLP Modeling you can then after demonstarting the
skill as Grinder and carmen suggest then map out things consiously
into explicit consiousness.
I would suggest you get good NLP Training first before you try to
understand something.
Expereince first hand knowledge and then second hand explicit
knowledge.
/Robert
www.svensknlp.nu
Where magic begins your thinking is late.
Rex Steven Sikes
differences in submodality representations - or larger piece modality representations. For example the K
on the end result may be one thing + while the K on the beginning point is - or less than glorious.
Shifting what is being paid attention to er or bp
or from K of either to V or E, or a criteria etc could effect change. And submodlaities still may also
alter.
At least something different occurs. The key to find out is what is it that actually changes. we can
theorize - but during changework that can actually be determined. And many things may change outside of
awareness.
Anyway - nicely put and nice questions - what leads us to be better is not the answers we come up with
but having better quality questions to start with. Hmmmm now that statement tacitly mentions end result
and bp.
Enjoy!
rex
Michael DeBusk
> I have a weird time with NLP. It's cool if it works, but *sometimes*
> it seems to be a simplified way of thinking.
Thomas, are you actually doing it, or are you merely sitting around
wondering why we call something by whatever name we call it?
As the man said, NLP is about experience, and therefore you have to
experience it first. Once you do, you'll realize it doesn't matter
whether perceptual position or movement is a submodality or not.
You're making this so much harder than it is.
Stop talking about it and do it.
--
Same old web page, new location: http://home.earthlink.net/~debu4335/
Michael DeBusk
> I thought the way to change a belief was to change the submodalities.
That's one way to do it.
> > Just changing the submodalities does not address ecology or
> > secondary gain.
>
> What is changing the submodalities good for then?
A hammer doesn't drive screws or cut boards, but that doesn't mean it
isn't a useful tool.
Addressing ecology and secondary gain come BEFORE you start working
with submodalities. You have to decide what change you want before you
start changing stuff.
> > Same with a picture you tur into a movie.
>
> I can not grasp that.
Wrong representational system.
> I thought the key was in adjusting the submodalities - then changes
> would occur. Why change the submodalities then, if they change
> anyway when doing other techniques?
Why change submodalities? Because it's one choice of many. Sometimes
it's all I have to do, and the job is done. It depends.
When you change the submodalities of a representation of experience,
changes DO occur. You said so yourself. You said they change back; they
can't change back unless they change in the first place.
Your unconscious mind is a lot more capable than your conscious mind
regarding balance, wholeness, ecology, and so on. I've seen it
repeatedly... an inappropriate change will fail at some point. Because
it doesn't take into account the entire system, and the entire system
is more powerful than any single aspect of it.