 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
Saturday, June 25, 2005
Found out a coupla weeks ago that in communicating your words count for only 7% of the effectiveness. Your voice constitutes 38% but it's your physiology which hits 55% of the message's impact home. Debatable, perhaps, but it does confirm the weariness and dreariness of LOTS of wordy concepts against the power of a simple story delivered in style and gusto.
Truth and Reality. One is intellect, the other imagination. One breezes past emotion, the other engages it. One is all words, the other full meaning. One is abstract, the other physiological (i.e. even your body responds). One creates boundaries and exclusivity, the other opens up new worlds of experience. In a word, one is logic, the other life.
Should we then embrace falsehood just to get a high? No, but it does mean that one may add imagination to truth to make it more real in our lives.
I'm still thinking through all the hype on neural-nets, neurochips, neuro-linguistic programming, triggering, 'fast phobic cures' and ideas involving treating one's negative emotions/fears/depressions via the use of imagination. It's imagination, so these people say, which allows you to transform those mental re-presentations which have been the cause of much anguish (e.g. a 30-yr old adult triggered into hysteria by the sight of a lizard due to a childhood incident). They say you can't control your emotions, but you can control that which triggers the emotions i.e. neural-nets of mental images. Want to repair the emotion? Change the image.
The above is basically a summary of Greg Boyd and Al Larson's book, Escaping the Matrix: Setting Your Mind Free to Experience Real-Life in Christ, the subject of a cross-fire I've gotten myself in. See this critical review by Dr. Mike of Eternal Perspectives (which contains a good overview of what it's about). I've tried to critique his review in Comment no.12 and also at my website. (Honestly, I expect to get whipped as this is one subject I'm a self-confessed dodo at...)
I'm looking forward to more information about the whole NLP-cum-imaginative-therapy gig, its basis in neuroscience, its relevance (or lack of) to Biblical Christianity and so on (fyi, Dr. Mike, a full-blown 5-point Calvinist has a rather detailed piece on this subject). Any ideas? Lemme know!
Posted at 11:40 am by alwynlau
 | | | Alwyn
July 8, 2005 02:57 PM PDT
Hi Yew Khuen,
Did u read my blog on your wedding?? :))
Anyway, thanks for replying. Even Dr.Mike hasn't said anything (which is strange as he replied quite substantially to less vigorous critics). Still, I'd like to address one comment you made:
"It does seem to take the focus away from dependence on God and towards the self."
I tried to respond to this in my write-up as I think that when we 'unpack' this statement things might become clearer. E.g. if I'd like to get the salt, I reach for it. Surely nobody will say this REJECTS dependency on God. Or if I'm a little fat (which I am, haha), I do a workout. *This* will also likely NOT be seen as 'works of the flesh'. So what's the 'striking' issue about exercising our imagination to help cure our phobias, fears, bad habits, etc.? (This is the start of how I view it, so any input on your part would be great - thanks!) | |
| | | Yew Khuen
July 8, 2005 11:38 AM PDT
Hey Al. Just read the amazon comments, Mike's review and then your response. Just to add my own thoughts. Personally, I've always been sceptical about neuro-linguistic programming since becoming a Christian, but it could be a reaction to my earlier infatuation with such literature pre-conversion. It does seem to take the focus away from dependence on God and towards the self. But in this case it's applied to imagining images of Jesus in our mind. So maybe not so clear.
There's also this underlying mistrust of visual imagery as a medium for apprehending truth amongst evangelical Christians - I think due to reactions against popular media and also earlier Christian traditions. I think this colours a lot of the response to Boyd/Larson's book. Personally, I think the popularity of The Passion should make people reconsider their positions.
Also, the language used in this book may not sit so well with those who have a bias against the whole NLP literature genre. I have such a bias and I admit that I'm not comfortable with the packaging. But I'll reserve my judgment till I've read it. It's easy to tar them all with the same brush, especially since (in my opinion) NLP books have had a pretty trashy history, which the word-faith movt has latched onto - thus compounding the likelihood of negative response from the conservative camp.
Personally, I'm still more comfortable with the Willard approach to disciplines for spiritual formation. While in Christian history, we've borrowed much from pagan culture, I'd rather go with methods that've been tried and tested within the collective community/generations of Christ followers. I'll wait and see where NLP leads.
| |
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
|
