Going  Deeper:  The  Framing  Tool  Questions  
 

 
The   Framing   Tool   excels   at   helping   you   track   the   two   key   dynamics1   that   humans  
use  to  make  sense  out  of  their  experiences.  When  you  familiarize  yourself  with  these  
two  dynamics  you  realize  that  thoughts,  and  then  the  descriptions  of  those  thoughts,  
don't  just  emerge  out  a  purple  cloud.    
 

1
Time as it relates to causality, and the process of specification and abstraction.

Copyright [Link] – All rights reserved in all media.

For the approved use of customers of Language Guru – Mastering The Meta Model.
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
In   fact,   our   ways   of   thinking   and   describing   are   intimately   tied   to   the   fact   that   we  
move   through   space   and   time,   under   the   effect   of   gravity.   Our   physiological  
structures   are   organized   to   be   able   to   move   and   respond   under   those   conditions  
within  our  environment.  Our  sensory  mechanisms  evolved  in  order  to  better  adapt  
to  changes  in  the  environment.  Eventually  when  our  ancestors  developed  the  ability  
to  make  speech;  that  speech  was  about  what  our  senses  detected.  
 
Sensory  detection  occurs  by  noticing  differences  between  one  thing  and  another.  It  
is   this   ability   to   detect   differences   and   then   to   create   a   special   sound   code   which  
stands  for  those  differences  that  we  call  speech.  Our  speech  acts  have  their  roots  in  
perception,  and  the  foundation  of  perception  is  the  detection  of  difference.  
 
From  early-­‐life  development,  humans  go  through  a  sequence  of  language  acquisition  
that  is  remarkably  similar  around  the  world  and  seems  to  operate  regardless  of  the  
specific  language  being  acquired.    
 
As   we   acquire   labels   for   things,   we   also   slowly   develop   the   ability   to   describe  
relations   between   those   things   with   increasing   sophistication.   We   develop   a   sense  
of   an   operator,   doing   something,   to   something/someone   else.   We   recognise  
collections   of   things.   We   acquire   the   ability   to   hold   duration   and   periods   of   time  
(these   are   abstractions)   and   begin   to   develop   the   ability   to   put   things   into   a  
chronological  sequence.  We  develop  the  ability  to  make  inferences  about  causality.  
We   then   eventually   recognize   that   other   people   have   different   thoughts   than   our  
own;   different   wants   and   different   needs   and   the   theatre   of   human   relationships  
begins  properly.  
 
Over  time,  we  try  and  put  our  experiences  of  the  world  into  some  sort  of  order  –  to  
make   some   sort   of   coherent   narrative   out   of   the   events   and   happenings   on   the  
outside,  and  our  internal  experiences  –  the  feelings  and  judgements  and  conclusions  
we  make  about  the  world  and  our  relationship  to  it.    
 
Eventually  we,  more  or  less,  develop  relatively  stable  ways  of  thinking  about  certain  
things   –   we   judge   certain   things   to   be   good   or   pleasant   and   other   things   to   be  
unpleasant   or   bad.   All   of   these   judgements   and   evaluations   and   beliefs   are  
conclusions   that   we   have   reached,   and   we   use   them   in   comparing   our   on-­‐going  
experience  –  the  novel  and  fresh  experiences  of  our  life  –  to  what  we  already  "know"  
and  what  we  have  already  concluded.  
 

Copyright [Link] – All rights reserved in all media.

For the approved use of customers of Language Guru – Mastering The Meta Model.
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Our   past   conclusions,   and   the   expectations   for   the   future   which   they   entail,   our  
habits  of  finding  some  things  worthwhile  and  other  things  valueless,  the  needs  and  
wants  we  presume  to  pursue,  and  the  actions  we  take  all  become  reference  points  
for  making  sense  out  our  new  experiences.  
 
We  call  the  greater  set  of  comparison-­‐based  referents  for  making  sense,  a  Frame  of  
Reference.  
 
Each   statement   that   is   made   carries   with  it  a   Frame   of   Reference,   which   makes  
sense  out  of  a  particular  statement,  opinion,  thought,  issue  or  problem  as  being  the  
appropriate  way  for  the  person  speaking  to  think  about  it,  given  the  specifics  of  how  
they   are   making   comparisons   –   in   other   words,   if   you   have   'these'   expectations,  
'those'   experiences,   are   thinking   about   the   times   when   'X'   happened,   and   are  
currently   seeking   'Y';   then   Z   is   the   appropriate   thing   to   think   or   feel   –   even   if   from   a  
"totally  objective  and  god-­‐like  perspective",  what  the  person  is  saying  seems  to  be  
total  non-­‐sense.  
 
People  don't  merely  "make  the  best  choices  available  to  them,  given  their  map  and  
model   of   the   world"   (as   per   the   NLP   Operational   Presuppositions)   but,   when  
someone   says   "My   life   is   shit.    Nothing   ever   works   out.   Everyone   hates   me   and   I'm   a  
total   loser"   –   that   statement   is   the   correct   thing   to   think   and   say,   given   a   specific  
Frame  of  Reference.  
 
Change  the  Frame  of  Reference;  the  problem  changes  and  goes  away.  
 
Through   use   and   skill   with   Framing   Tool;   you   develop   the   ability   to   know   which  
question  to  ask,  and  when,  in  order  to  create  a  shift  in  the  Frame  of  Reference.  You  
know   what   else   must   be   true   and   what   cannot   be   true.   You   know   what   is   missing  
from  someone's  thinking  and  also  what  can  or  should  be  added.  The  Framing  Tool  
provides  you  with  the  means  to  understand  how  conditions  came  about,  and  how  to  
design  interventions  to  create  change.  The  Framing  Tool  helps  to  direct  your  use  of  
the  Meta  Model  and  the  other  language  tools  of  NLP  so  that  they  create  results.  The  
Framing   Tool   makes   Sleight   of   Mouth   patterns   a   breeze   and,   rather   than   "pulling  
rabbit-­‐language   patterns   out   a   hat";   the   Framing   Tool   allows   you   to   precisely   create  
the   form   of   language   to   match   the   needs/remedy/antidote   of   not   just   the   statement  
someone  has  made,  but  also  perfectly  serving  the  moves  towards  the  Desired  State,    
 
 

Copyright [Link] – All rights reserved in all media.

For the approved use of customers of Language Guru – Mastering The Meta Model.
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
the   transformational   process   of   the   [Link].E.   and   the   relationship   needs   in   the  
moment.    
 
Your  first  task  is  to  become  comfortable  with  the  two  broad  dynamics  which  work  
to   make   up   the   Framing   Tool.   This   will   give   you   a   context   within   which   the   Meta  
Model   patterns   and   their   relations   to   each   other   will   make   sense.   No   more   trying   to  
pound   in   the   language   patterns   by   rote   memory.   When   you   learn   the   individual  
patterns;  they  will  sit  within  a  context  making  them  much  easier  to  learn.  
 
Chronological,  Causal  Reasoning  –  the  Horizontal  Arm  of  the  Framing  Tool.  
 
When   you   look   at   the   horizontal   arm   of   the   Framing   Tool   below,   you   will   see   that   is  
divided  into  three  parts.    
 

 
The   central   part   stands   for   the   present   moment   as   expressed   through   the  
description(s)   made   by   a   speaker.   More   than   one   statement   can   be   there,   as   our  
ideas,   thoughts   and   feelings   often   require   elaboration   to   make   ourselves  
understood.   That   central   box   could   be   described   as   the   issue,   question   (problem,  
challenge,   idea,   goal,   etc.)   under   consideration   but   what   it   represents   are  
conclusions   that   the   speaker   has   reached,   so   far,   given   specific   referents   (the   root  
word  "refer"  gives  you  a  big  clue  –  "given  what  the  speaker  is  using  or  referring  to  in  
making   their   language   choice").   Change   how   someone   draws   their   comparisons   and  
references;  you  change  what  they  can  think  and  feel.  
 
Wherever   we   go   in   the   world,   we   carry   with   us   the   conclusions,   habits,   and  
expectations  which  we  have  acquired  and  developed  in  the  past.  But  more  than  that;  
those  habits  of  thinking,  feeling  and  behaving  set  the  foundation  for  our  reactions  to  
new  situations  and  environments.  Emotions  and  habituated  response  do  not  just    
 
 

Copyright [Link] – All rights reserved in all media.

For the approved use of customers of Language Guru – Mastering The Meta Model.
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
magically   descend   out   of   a   purple   cloud.   They   must   be   "triggered"   by   specific  
aspects  of  the  situations  we  face.  
 
At   the   greater   level,   "problems"   don't   just   happen   either.   There   are   sequences   of  
specific  events  leading  up  to  whatever  is  identified  as  "This  Mess",  "The  Crisis",  "The  
Situation",  etc.  When  you  are  listening  to  another  person  describe  anything  at  all  –  
problem,   goal,   desire,   anecdote   or   narrative   –   you   are   hearing   the   result   of   those  
processes   as   influences   ("filters")   or   triggers   and   the   conclusions   that   have   been  
made  about  them.  Through  every  statement  and  every  following  elaboration,  there  
are  inferences  you  can  draw  about  what  must  be  true  and  what  cannot  be  true;  what  
must  have  occurred  and  what  could  not  have  occurred;  the  classes  or  types  of  event  
that   happened   and   those   that   could   not   have   happened;   and   even,   at   times,   the  
specific   events   or   conclusions   that   must   have   occurred   –   and   all   from   the  
presuppositions  in  what  someone  else  is  saying,  and  what  is  missing  from  what  they  
are  saying.  
 
What  this  signifies  is  an  opportunity  to  figure  out  a  bit  of  "the  bigger  picture"  that  
someone   is   carrying   with   them   and   ask   far   more   refined   and   much   better   questions  
than  you  might  have  otherwise.  The  Key  question  for  these  past  influences  carried  
forward  is:  
 
"What  must  be  true  if  what  they  are  saying  is  valid?"  
 
As   you   develop   skill   in   this   calculation   –   which   resources   and   experiences,   both  
personal  and  professional,  that  you  draw  on  and  learn  to  extrapolate  from,  and  how  
you  sort  through  the  types  of  problem  which  tend  to  come  up  given  certain  specific  
precedents   –   the   better   your   questioning   will   become.   This   is   how   you   develop   skill  
to   ask   the   so-­‐called   "killer   questions"   which   penetrate   the   appearances   of   given  
statements   about   a   specific   situation,   going   to   unconsidered   or   ill-­‐considered  
aspects   of   what   has   occurred   which,   in   having   a   light   shone   on   them,   cause   the  
Frame   of   Reference   to   shift   utterly   and   permanently.   This   is   a   skill   and   it   takes  
practice  but  it  is  achievable.  
 
But   beyond   the   past,   we   also   have   to   consider   the   future.   For   many   people   the  
boundary   or   limit   of   their   Frame   of   Reference   goes   to   the   hope,   demand   or  
prediction   that   only   certain   effects   will   occur.    Every   choice   has   both   future   benefits  
and  future  consequences,  many  of  which  are  not  seen.  In  dealing  with  people  and    
 

Copyright [Link] – All rights reserved in all media.

For the approved use of customers of Language Guru – Mastering The Meta Model.
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
their  unique,  living  responses  to  the  world,  and  you  have  a  nearly  incalculable  range  
of  possibilities.    
 
As  Gregory  Bateson  put  it:  
 
"When   one   billiard   ball   strikes   another,   there   is   an   energy   transfer   such   that   the  
motion  of  the  second  ball  is  energized  by  the  impact  of  the  first.  In  communicational  
systems,   on   the   other   hand,   the   energy   of   the   response   is   usually   provided   by   the  
respondent.   If   I   kick   a   dog,   his   immediately   sequential   behavior   is   energized   by   his  
metabolism,   not   by   my   kick.   [...]  the   behavior   of   the   dog   may   indeed   be   partly  
conservative  —  he  may  travel  along  a  Newtonian  trajectory  if  kicked  hard  enough,  but  
this   is   mere   physics.   What   is   important   is   that   he   may   exhibit   responses   which   are  
energized  not  by  the  kick  but  by  his  metabolism;  he  may  turn  and  bite."  
 –   Gregory   Bateson,   (1987)  'The   Group   Dynamics   of   Schizophrenia',   Steps   To   An  
Ecology  of  Mind,  Jason  Aronson  Inc.  
 
In  other  words,  strike  a  billiard  ball  with  a  cue  stick,  and  you  can  calculate  with  a  fair  
degree   of   accuracy   where   the   ball   will   end   up.   Kick   a   dog,   and   you   have   no   idea  
where   the   dog   will   end   up...   or   your   foot,   for   that   matter.   That   goes   double   for  
humans.  
 
If   you   change   the   scope,   in   terms   of   time,   and   the   range   of   impacts   a   certain  
behavior  will  have;  almost  every  Frame  of  Reference  will  change.  
 
Consider   the   consequences   of   staying   on   the   present   course,   with   the   present  
behaviors,   and   the   "problem   statement"   unresolved...   and   you   will   get   one  
possibility.  
 
Consider   the   consequences   of   changing   the   present   course,   modifying   the   present  
behaviors,   changing   or   resolving   the   "problem"...   and   you   will   get   another  
possibility.  
 
Consider  the  broader  impact  that  the  issue,  challenge  or  problem  is  creating  and  you  
have...  a  vast  range  of  possibilities.  
 
 
 
 

Copyright [Link] – All rights reserved in all media.

For the approved use of customers of Language Guru – Mastering The Meta Model.
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The   questions   you   must   connect   from   the   past   precedents,   through   the   present  
"issue  statement"  into  the  future  is:  
 
"What  will  the  most  likely  consequences  (or  benefits)  be  if  the  present  situation  
is  unchanged?  
 
"What  will  the  most  likely  consequences  (or  benefits)  be  if  the  present  situation  
is  changed  in  X  manner?  
 
"What   else   is   the   present   situation   likely   influencing   or   effecting   which   is   not  
part  of  the  "issue  statement?"  
 
Through  skill  with  drawing  valid  inferences  about  causality  and  consequence;  your  
ability   to   ask   the   "spot-­‐on"   question   goes   up   by   orders   of   magnitude.   At   times,   it  
even   appears   psychic   but   it   is   not.   You   ability   to   create   credible   and   persuasive  
arguments  which  change  minds  also  increases.  You  are  beginning  to  think,  outside  
of  what  is  presented  as  "reality".  
 
Later  in  the  next  section  of  this  course  you  will  be  given  various  assignments  to  get  
you  practicing  using  these  questions  and  understanding  the  powerful  role  of  causal  
reasoning  and  casual  language.  
 

Copyright [Link] – All rights reserved in all media.

For the approved use of customers of Language Guru – Mastering The Meta Model.
Specification  and  Abstraction  –  the  Vertical  Arm  of  the  Framing  Tool.  

How we identify and connect ideas through

associations, for example, what we might choose as
a specific and concrete example of an idea, or how
we group and think about the experiences in our life,
or how we define what we believe to be necessary or
essential – any time we say or think “X is an
example of Y” or we arrange a number of examples
into an equivalent grouping or family – each of these
involves how we “chunk” and sort the data that we
call our experience.

This process of chunking has a number of aspects

but a key aspect with regards to how we use the NLP
language models and how we think about which
questions to ask, and what statements to make is the
spectrum of Specification – Abstraction. In other
words, “the what and how” of connecting the
concrete and sensory, to our conclusions,
generalizations and thinkings/feelings-about. This
also includes how we leave out information, data
and aspects of our experience, in order to form a
coherent view of whatever seems to be arising.

These processes become habituated and, thus,

patterned and they are crucial to how we choose
which questions to ask and how to map the
communications that others make. Just as
importantly, these patterns reveal how we hold our
view of the world together, how we sort what is
important to us from what is not, how we judge
whether we are on-course or off-course.

Copyright [Link] – All rights reserved in all media.

For the approved use of customers of Language Guru – Mastering The Meta Model.
The ability to find the “edges” or “boundaries” of the rules under which someone’s
assertions about their life or how the world is; their asserted statements of what is
important and what is not; their expectations regarding ideals and much more, all live
under the spectrum of thinking and languaging relating to Specification and Abstraction.
This is how you find out how their rules function on classes of experience… but also how
to change them.

Rather than merely being right and attempting to pull someone else over to your right
way thinking, when you learn to use the processes of Specification and Abstraction, you
discover where else to look for resources, alternate pathways, choices not perceived,
meanings unexplored – it’s how you can find the room for change from within their map
or model of the world. You make change far more elegant and less potentially bloody this
way…

Top down contains bottom up, and bottom up infers top down

We can group aspects of our experience in many ways, depending on how we identify
what things are, what we compare them to, and how we choose to sort them
(Good/Bad/Neutral/Uncertain/etc., or any other schema you can imagine). The mental
groupings – the labels and descriptions we use and all of the “thinking about” is at a
higher level of abstraction than events in the world.

Furthermore, when we think about doing or creating something that doesn’t exist in the
world, that thinking is more abstract and less concrete than an object, say a table, which
already exists in the world.

Our understandings and the maps we make of the world are at a higher level of
abstraction than the world itself. But even though most often these subtler, non-concrete
aspects of a person’s existence are “hidden inside”; clues are given through language and
through non-verbal signs of what may be “behind” statements someone makes or the
thoughts they think.

For example, let’s use an example that everyone might have heard of, the notion held by
some New Agers that one can “manifest” your strong desires by thinking hard and long
concentrating only on the thing you want to “manifest”. Now, we don’t want to burst
anyone’s balloon or bring someone down; at the same time, those sorts of assertions carry
with them certain assumptions, which can be tracked from the statement.

Copyright [Link] – All rights reserved in all media.

For the approved use of customers of Language Guru – Mastering The Meta Model.
Starting from most basic and ubiquitous presupposition – the presupposition of existence
– anytime someone labels an experience or part of experience, or asserts that something
happens; anytime someone uses a form to verb ‘to be’; a presupposition of existence
underpins the statement. It implies “There exists an… [object, experience, name for an
object or experience, etc.]. This is not terribly interesting as far as it goes. When the
statement is made about something that is not immediately verifiable to someone; it also
invokes a requirement for specifying where and how (the context) within which the
presumed objects or experience exists.

In other words, “stuff” in our Universe doesn’t just happen all by itself. Complex
processes create everything and, according to current scientific understanding nothing is
destroyed; only transformed. When you or someone else makes a statement, especially
one about your experience of reality; you also assert that there is a way or process for
what is being described to occur.

Every statement is made within an implied, asserted reality. Some of those “realities” are
shared. Some of them cannot be shared. Which set of “rules for asserting realities” you
choose to play by, determines how you will deal with any particular statement.

Your “model of the world” will include “in-bounds” and “out-of-bounds” rules. Some
statements will not be allowable under the rules you play by. Some people’s rules assert
that there is only one possible way to experience reality and everyone else who says that
they have another way is wrong, or evil, or idiotic.

But the war over whose interpretation of reality is superior to everyone else’s does not
concern us. What we are interested in are the games rules that must exist in order for your
or someone else’s statements (or thoughts) to be valid within the internal worldview they
relate to. In other words, the question is “If what someone says is true; how does the
world, and their relationship to it, have to be in order for the statement to be
valid?”. What we seek are the rules that make the statement function for the person
making the statement.

Now, let’s return to the notion that one can “manifest” your desires by thinking hard and
long concentrating only on the thing you want to “manifest”.

If this is so; then the Universe must be organized in such a way that the Universe
somehow (unstated) creates the multitude complex processes and manipulates
circumstances by which the things most strongly desired by people can manifest. The

Copyright [Link] – All rights reserved in all media.

For the approved use of customers of Language Guru – Mastering The Meta Model.
notion carries with it the requirement that the Universe behaves in this way. Interesting. If
this were true; then there would be other things that would have to happen as well.

The person who makes the statement has within their “model of the world”; implied
statements of cosmology (not the stars and big objects in space, but how the whole
Universe must behave) that are “bigger” and more comprehensive than their own life and
experience (in this instance, the whole of space-time and everything in it.) That’s a big
map with a lot of missing detail, which must be so, if what they are saying is true.

Look at the diagram:

Cosmology
The way the Universe must behave
in order for a worldview (and
statements that are consistent within
that worldview) to be valid

Worldview containing
many “rules” including…

“You can ‘manifest’ your desires

merely by thinking about them
long and hard”

Copyright [Link] – All rights reserved in all media.

For the approved use of customers of Language Guru – Mastering The Meta Model.
In the “desire creates reality” notion; the Universe creates circumstances based on how
strongly you want something, that’s quite a Universe don’t you think? What an
extraordinary place (for good or ill) that would be. Aside from your beliefs about the
statement; someone who holds this to be true and takes actions as if it were true, and
interprets what they experience in terms of that assertion, will demonstrate certain
predictable consequences as a result. On most occasions there will be a vast amount of
additional information about how “the rules” of the assertion operate, which then tell you
how to find counter-examples which force a revision in the statements and the thoughts
behind those statements.

Different Meta Model questions will generate different classes of result. Let’s use the
“Quantifier” – Universals (all/none; every/never”, etc.) to find out about exceptions to the
general rule, and finding counter examples, to test the rule.

For example, with “desire creates reality” as the worldview pointing to a cosmology,
there are so many questions – Does every desire become real?… some people use
expressions frequently like “I wish they would curl up and die”? or “I wish I was never
born”? or “If I were in charge things would be different around here”? – Do those
become real or only some desires? Do everyone’s desires become real or just for some
people? Do you always “get what you want” or are there other rules? Etc.

Cosmology
The Universe is organized to respond to
human congruent desiring, and… (?)

Does
Does the Every
Universe Desire
respond to Manifest?
everyone’s
desires? Worldview including…
“Desire Creates reality”

“You can ‘manifest’ your desires

merely by thinking about them
Do all of long and hard”
your
desires
manifest? Copyright [Link] – All rights reserved in all media.
For the approved use of customers of Language Guru – Mastering The Meta Model.
It’s a relatively simple matter, in this case, to generate clarification questions which test
the rule behind the statement “You can manifest your desires merely by thinking about
them long and hard”, using Universals. The replies generate a new rule that is added
and… as a general rule… one could say that “All generalizations break down at some
level”, in including that one. The question is, where are you going to look to find the
exceptions which break the rule? Onwards…

“You can ‘manifest’ your desires merely by thinking about them long and hard”

If we change our intent (going from finding the abstractions “above” which must function
in order for what the person is saying to be true); we can move to Specification and ask
for examples which “fill in the blanks”, in order to find more about the elements or
components of statement.

Worldview including…
“Desire Creates reality”

“You can ‘manifest’ your desires

merely by thinking about them
long and hard”

How do Can you give me an What kind

you know example of a desire of desires
that this you manifested have you
is so? merely by thinking manifested
about it long and this way?
hard?

Copyright [Link] – All rights reserved in all media.

For the approved use of customers of Language Guru – Mastering The Meta Model.
Each reply gives you new possibilities for finding the boundaries of the assertion,
statement, belief, etc.

There are many possibilities for using this practically in finding out what might be
“behind” or “within” a particular statement. With practice; you will discover that there
are inferences that you can draw that are quite common to many people and also some
that are absolutely unique.

Let’s start with some common ones:

Generally, when someone is pursuing a direction – whether that be a plan of action, a line
of questioning or thinking, or a communication; the specifics of what they say sits within
a purpose for the activity. That purpose may not be stated overtly or it may not even be
held uppermost in someone’s mind put the purpose is there. That purpose sits at a higher
level of abstraction than the statements and actions made in pursuit of it.

At it’s simplest level; even having a drink with a friend may have several purposes, not
explicitly stated. For example, some purposes might be:

• to enjoy their company

• to have someone to share experiences with
• to entertain one and other
• to have a ritual of completion to the day or a period of time
• etc.

They may not be stated but if they are held; they will influence how a person interprets
the events that occur in pursuit of the purposes.

A simple drink with a friend is one thing; when purposes are pursued which influence the
perception of survival; these purposes can have a profound effect on how one goes about
one’s activities.

Copyright [Link] – All rights reserved in all media.

For the approved use of customers of Language Guru – Mastering The Meta Model.
 Worldview

Purpose

Actions

This becomes relevant when someone has difficulties with their actions not fulfilling their
intended purposes. Through mere habituation; one can become “possibility blind”. The
greater the level of abstraction; the more possibilities there are for creating fulfillment of
that purpose. For example, there are more ways to eventually feel free… by having
money… than to pursue a job you hate but which pays you well. Many people mistake
money (a means) for the end that is desired (freedom, happiness, etc.). The purpose of
eventually being free can be pursued in many ways beyond money. Money is but one
means to that end. Far too many people go the way of career burnout before they discover
that. Just as many people pursue money above all else and then, usually in mid-life,
discovering that having got the money; they feel empty.

You see it isn’t an all-or-nothing scenario. Purposes can be fulfilled (usually) through a
variety of means.

Copyright [Link] – All rights reserved in all media.

For the approved use of customers of Language Guru – Mastering The Meta Model.
Knowing what someone’s purpose behind a plan, course of action, statement, etc. can
open the doors to possibilities not seen before.

Like many other things in life; even the different purposes behind the actions we take will
often summarize into a kind of durable intent, which crosses several areas of life. Some
people become fixated on what they call “survival” (when what they mean is maintaining
their lifestyle in a specific way). This collection of purposes brought together and thought
about as “survival” will have consequences. Sometimes these “intentions” will be
revealed. At times; “the problem” isn’t so much what is happening, as how things are
interpreted with regards to the more abstract and internalized “Intention” and thus various
dramas play out.

Worldview

Intention(s)

Purpose

Actions

Copyright [Link] – All rights reserved in all media.

For the approved use of customers of Language Guru – Mastering The Meta Model.
As you see, we can move up the levels of abstraction to cover more and more ground but
please note… the more we move away from the sensory level of embodied experience
into these more interiorized, interpreted, generalized mappings; the greater the likelihood
that vast amounts of deletion of contradictory information; part-for-whole
transformations; and a variety of other distortions have occurred.
 
The  questions  we  use  to  map  abstractions  of  Purposes  and  Intent  are:  
 
"What  is  the  function  of  X  behaviour?”  
 
“What  is  the  intention  trying  to  be  fulfilled?”  
 
When you understand the function/purpose a given behaviour is seeking, you have many
ways of helping a person map out a different/better/new way of fulfilling it. Knowing the
intention gives you insight into motive behind the behaviour.

Let’s go up another possible “rung” of the ladder of abstractions to the aggregated

experiences that are judged one way or another – Values. Values is one of those
wonderful weasel words which people trot out to mean a variety of things but for us –
there are no such “things” as values. “They” don’t exist and never have. Values refers to
the act of valuing, creating criteria and weighting them and the process of sorting one
thing from another. As such, when we take those processes and turn them into a
noun/object that can only exist in the mind; we have the ability to hold or posit certain
categories that we have created and assert them as being more important or trivial; good
or bad; etc. but these “values” have no objective life outside of the mind asserting them.

One of the secrets of values is that there will usually be differences between what is
asserted overtly as a value; and then what is lived. This is a consequence of acting from
within a mind and simply not perceiving what one has learned to exclude (rather than
being the product of some latent evil or “character flaw”.

To  identify  the  values(s)  behind  a  given  behaviour  we  ask:  

 
“How  is  X  behaviour  important?”  

The following diagram shows you the higher “levels” of abstraction, followed by a
review of the questions that we use for each level.

Copyright [Link] – All rights reserved in all media.

For the approved use of customers of Language Guru – Mastering The Meta Model.
 Worldview

Values

Intention(s)

Purpose

Actions

Copyright [Link] – All rights reserved in all media.

For the approved use of customers of Language Guru – Mastering The Meta Model.
“Levels” of Abstraction Framing Tool Question
 
Universe “What   can   we   understand/must   be  
true   about   the   Universe   in   order   for  
the  said  statement  to  be  true?”  

 
Worldview (Map of the world) “What   can   we   understand/must   be  
true   about   the   speaker’s   model   of   the  
world?”  

 
Values “How  is  X  behaviour  important?”  

 
Intention “What   is   the   intention   trying   to   be  
fulfilled?”  

 
Purposes “What   is   the   function/purpose   of   X  
behaviour?”  

 
Actions “What  is  the  verb?”  (The  doing)  

Each “level” includes as examples, incidences or demonstrations, the “levels” beneath.

We’ve explored the impact of the south axis of the Framing Tool which is concerned
with sensory detail, evidence and examples. Our question to map at the sensory “level”
is:

“What   instances   or   examples   can   be   drawn,   created   or   found   to   support   the  

issue  in  question?”  

As you will read in “Becoming More Skillful With The Framing Tool”, the south axis is
where we find instances that support the conclusion uttered by the speaker, and the
examples that help support their worldview.

Copyright [Link] – All rights reserved in all media.

For the approved use of customers of Language Guru – Mastering The Meta Model.
While there are many other possibilities for mapping but specification to abstraction,
these are a sufficient set for beginning to train your mind to the inferences “behind” and
“within” any particular statement and thus, ask much better and more targeted questions.

The magic, as you will discover, is in the systematic use of the Framing Tool questions in
combination with the Meta Model. Combined you have the “Swiss Army Knife” of
linguistic tools to help you transform limitations, overcome problems and be able to help
yourself or others re-map a more enriched model of the world.

Copyright [Link] – All rights reserved in all media.

For the approved use of customers of Language Guru – Mastering The Meta Model.