Transontology Semantic Meta-Models

The concept behind Semantic MetaModels is Korzybski’s principle that ‘the map is not the territory.’ That is, the models of the world and our experience we make with our sense perceptions and language are not the world itself, but representations of it. These representations are necessarily abstractions. If we are unaware of the semantic principles of Transontology, the language we use to represent our experience and thoughts can inappropriately delete, distort and generalize elements of our thinking and communication. Semantic MetaModels formalize a richly defined set of linguistic patterns that can facilitate changing and removing the obstacles in a person’s mental map (ontology) of himself and the world.

The specific verbal patterns of the Semantic MetaModels are highly effective in the context of therapeutic change. They are designed for challenging the specific inappropriate deletions, distortions and generalizations in our mental maps, and changing them through the processes of Transontology. With systematic use of the Semantic Meta-Model patterns, we can expand and revise mental maps containing semantic traps, flaws and limitations that prevent us from shifting to more effective and congruent behavior.

Inappropriate Semantic MetaModels are obstacles on the path to success and happiness. Removing an obstacle is not the same thing as traveling the path, but it makes progress possible and reveals something about the territory the path traverses. Some inappropriate Semantic MetaModels can be the result, rather than the cause, of other limiting patterns. “Mind reading,” for example, is not necessarily linguistically originated but is often the linguistic representation of self/other identity confusion, boundary ambiguity and other core state meta-patterns.

Semantic MetaModels are an immensely powerful tool in the therapeutic counseling context and for working on oneself. We can make significant progress quickly simply by acknowledging specific inappropriate Semantic MetaModels (limiting patterns) and suggesting better alternatives.

Different individuals have different numbers and kinds of inappropriate Semantic MetaModels in their thinking and speech. The absence of inappropriate Semantic MetaModels does not indicate that a person has no problems in life. But the presence of inappropriate Semantic MetaModels clearly indicates at least one limiting factor in thinking: language structure that inappropriately deletes, distorts and generalizes thinking and our mental map (ontology).

Deletion, Distortion and Generalization

Semantic MetaModels help us identify inappropriate deletions, distortions and generalizations in our internal thinking patterns and our linguistic interactions with each other, and suggest constructive ways of transforming them or revising their use. The three general categories of Semantic MetaModels are deletion, distortion and generalization. All three may be useful in some contexts, and a source of pain or difficulty in others.

Deletion means that we selectively pay attention to certain dimensions of our experience and exclude others. For example, filtering out the sound of a room full of people talking to listen to one particular person’s voice requires selective awareness or filtering. Deletion reduces the information throughput, so we can handle it in real time without being overwhelmed. The process of deletion used inappropriately may lead a person to ignore important changes in the environment or within himself.
Distortion allows us to shift or remix our experience of sensory data. Fantasy, for example, allows us to prepare for experiences which we may have before they occur. Distortion facilitates dreaming and the human creative process. All great novels, art and music, and all revolutionary discoveries of science require the ability to distort, remix and misrepresent present reality. The process of distortion used inappropriately may lead a person to alter or concoct information about his state or surroundings.
Generalization is the process by which elements or pieces of a person's model become detached from their original experience and come to represent the entire category of which the experience is an example. Our ability to generalize is essential to coping with the world. The inappropriately use of generalization may lead a person to establish a rule such as, “Don't express any feelings,” that may have been helpful in one situation but is generally ineffective.

How to Use Semantic MetaModels

Because of the large number of Semantic MetaModels, it is best to learn them in small chunks. One way to do this is to read this document over once without the intention of remembering it, noticing any patterns that one recognizes in one’s own thinking or communications. For many people, a few will stand out. Focus on learning those few well. Tune your ears to hear them in the speech of others, and catch and transform them your own thinking and speaking.

Some of the most common and problematic inappropriate Semantic MetaModels are: Mind Reading, Modal Operators, Cause and Effect, and Complex Equivalence.

Inappropriate Semantic MetaModels

1a. Simple Deletions (Unspecified Nouns)

Vague nouns or pronouns that create confusion and ambiguity.

Inappropriate Models	Positive Challenges (Point to missing specifier)
“It's time for you to face reality.”	“Whose reality?”
“Get a life.”	“What kind of life?”
“This situation is impossible.”	“Impossible exactly how?”
“There are certain things you just can’t get through your head.”	“Which things specifically?”
“Its not what you know, it’s who you know.”	“What’s not what who knows? Whom does who need to know?”

1b. Simple Deletions (Unspecified Adjectives)

Adjectives the meaning of which are unspecified. Unspecified adjectives are a frequent indicator of interpretation rather than observation and often beg the question of lost performatives.

Inappropriate Models	Positive Challenges (Point to missing specifier)
“I attract jerkish behavior.”	“Jerkish in what way?”
“Must you wear that silly hat?”	“Silly in whose opinion?”
“Why the smug look?”	“What kind of look is ‘smug’?”

1c. Simple Deletions (Unspecified Relationships)

Relationships between terms or ideas that are assumed and unspecified.

Inappropriate Models	Positive Challenges
“I need to buy new clothes before I can feel confident.”	“Is there anything you feel confident about that doesn't require new clothes?”
“I've had this problem a long time, so it will be hard to change.”	“What is the relationship between time and ease of change?”
“I can't have a relationship until I lose weight.”	“What specifically connects relationships to your weight?”

2. Comparative Deletions

Phrases and sentences which imply a comparison but delete the object on which the comparison is based, or which do not specify the basis of comparison. Frequent words: even, very, more, less, greater, lesser, bigger, brighter, smarter, etc. (than what? how?)

Inappropriate Models	Positive Challenges
“Even you can understand what I'm about to tell you.”	“Even? Compared to whom?”
“If your tastes were better, people would like you more.”	“Better? Than what?”
“Do you think you could talk less and think more?”	“Talk less and think more than whom?”

3. Unspecified Referential Index

A phrase that deletes who is doing the acting. Using a general subject that doesn't refer to a specific person. Frequent words: a person, someone, people, they, one, we. Also, generalizations that apply to classes or groups of individuals: Americans, Catholics, Jews, managers, workers, men, women, etc.

Inappropriate Models	Positive Challenges
“A person could get really fed up with you.”	“Which person?”
“People don't like you.”	“Which people?”
“One isn't going to learn what one doesn't want to know, is one?”	“Which one?”
“A wife should at least fix a man dinner.”	“Which wife should fix which man dinner?”
“A body has to wonder what's going on in that brain of yours!”	“Whose body?”

4. Unspecified Verbs

Process words that are missing a complete description, and verbs that are unspecified to a greater or lesser degree. Also omitting the verb, the object of the verb, or both.

Inappropriate Models	Positive Challenges (Point to missing specifier)
“Don't force me to get angry with you again.”	“Force you how?”
“You never express your feelings.”	“Express in what way?”
“I wish you wouldn't chatter on like that.”	“Chatter?”
“Oh, stop whining.”	“Whining exactly how?”

5. Nominalizations

A process (verb) that has been converted to a thing or event (noun). A common nominalization is adding -ing to a verb to make it a noun.

Inappropriate Models	Positive Challenges (Convert the back into a process)
“Men have no appreciation for feelings or intuition.”	“What do you appreciate about men?”
“Women like you are not successful.”	“We succeed best at what we love.”
“If only you had a new thought now and then, your understandings wouldn't be so trivial.”	“I wonder if I understand your intentions.”
“You have a hard time with decisions.”	“So that's what you've decided.”

Note: Inductive Nominalizations of Identity: adding -er to a verb to classify an identity by means of a complex equivalence. “I see you walking. Therefore you are a walker.” The process is one of complex equivalence: “I see you walk and that means you are a walker.” The speaker who is unaware of this linguistic pitfall may often believe a ‘meaning’ has been arrived at when in reality the process only has been converted to a class.

6. Modal Operators

Words which dictate or imply what is possible, right and/or necessary.

6a. Modal Operators of Necessity: must, mustn't, have to

Inappropriate Models	Positive Challenges
“You have to get your act together.”	“What would happen if I didn't?”
“I have to make at least $500,000 a year.”	“According to what criteria?”

6b. Modal Operators of Possibility: can, can't, could, couldn't

Inappropriate Models	Positive Challenges
“You can bring me a beer.”	“What would happen if I didn't?”
“I can't stand your hair anymore.”	“What would happen if you could stand my hair?”
“She could be more intelligent.”	“She could be more intelligent if what?”
“He couldn't be dumber.”	“What prevents him?”
“I can't get the hang of this.”	“Can't? What if you could?”

6c. Modal Operators of Judgment: should, shouldn't, ought to (see also Lost Performative)

Inappropriate Models	Positive Challenges (Same as challenge to Lost Performative)
“You should be a better cook.”	“According to whom?”
“You shouldn't wear those colors.”	“According to whom?”

Note: When “I” is the subject, challenge parts. Example:

Internal Dialog: “I should be better at this.”
“According to whom?”
“According to me.”
“According to which part of me?”

6d. Modal Operators of Contingency: would, wouldn't

Inappropriate Models	Positive Challenges
“Surely you must have realized I would get angry [if you did that].”	“You would? How would you rather get?”
“You wouldn't look natural in a car that expensive.”	“I wouldn’t? If what?”
“I would make a change.”	“You would, except for what?”

7. Presuppositions

Statements in which some unstated element must be assumed (presupposed) to be true in order for the statement to make sense (to be true or false). That is, the surface structure of the statements (the specific words and their meanings) omit or obscure the deep structure of the statements (their underlying message or presupposed truths). In the Semantic Meta-Model, presupposition forms are named for the manner in which the sentences that contain them either delete or obscure them in the surface structure. As you learn about these presuppositions, you will hear people using these on you all the time. It's not that they suddenly learned how to do that, they've been doing it to you all your life, up until now.

7a. Selectional Restriction Violation

Attributing conscious awareness to an inanimate object or a mode of communication to a creature that doesn't have that mode. (“A chair can have feelings.”) Denying conscious awareness in conscious beings or denying a mode of communication or capability to a creature which does have that mode. Excluding complementary categories by definite description (gender, race, religion, etc.).

Inappropriate Models	Positive Challenges (Challenge directly or reframe same structure)
“You have the personality of a stump.”	“Stumps always speak highly of you.”
“Your dress probably wishes you were younger.”	“My dress definitely wishes you were smarter.”
“Men cause wars.”	“Believing men cause wars causes a war between the genders.”
“Women are manipulative.”	“So then, every woman is always manipulative and no man ever is?”
“To my parrot I'm just ‘The Food Lady’.”	“So then, what are you to the food?”

7b. Simple Presuppositions

These are syntactic environments in which the existence of some entity is required for the sentence to make sense (to be either true or false).

Type	Example	Supposition
Proper Name	“George Smith left the party early.”	There exists someone named George Smith.
Pronouns	“I saw him leave.”	Him refers to a person who was here.
Definite Description	“I liked the woman with the silver earrings.”	There exists a woman with silver earrings.
Generic Noun Phrases Noun arguments standing for a whole class	“If wombats have no trees to climb in, they are sad.”	There are wombats.
Quantifiers all, any, each, every, some, many, few, none	“If some of the dragons show up, I'm leaving.”	There are dragons.

7c. Complex Presuppositions

Cases in which more than the simple existence of an element is presupposed.

Type	Example	Supposition
Relative Clause Noun followed by a phrase beginning with who, which, or that.	“Several of the women who had spoken to you left the shop.”	Several women had spoken to you.
Subordinate Clauses of Time Clauses identified by before, after, during, as, since, prior, when, while	“If the judge was home when I stopped by her house, she didn't answer her door.”	I stopped by the judge's house.
Cleft Sentence Beginning with It [was/is]	“It was the extra pressure which shattered the window.”	Something shattered the window.
Psuedo-Cleft Sentence In the form, What [Clause] is [clause]	“What Sharon hopes to do is to become well liked.”	Sharon hopes to do something.
Stressed Sentence Voice stress	“If Margaret has talked to THE POLICE, we're finished.”	Margaret has talked to someone.
Complex Adjectives New, old, former, present, previous	“If Fredo wears his new ring, I'll be blown away.”	Fredo had/has an old ring.
Ordinal Numerals First, second, third, fourth, another	“If you can find a third clue in this letter, I'll make you a mosquito pie.”	There are two clues already found.
Comparatives -er, more, less	“If you know better riders than Sue does, tell me who they are.”	Sue knows [at least] one rider.
Comparative As As x as . . .	“If her daughter is as funny as her husband is, we'll all enjoy ourselves.”	Her husband is funny.
Repetitive Cue Words Too, also, either, again, back	“If she tells me that again, I'll kiss her.”	She has told me that before.
Repetitive Verbs and Adverbs Verbs and adverbs beginning with re-: repeatedly, return, restore, retell, replace, renew	“If he returns before I leave, I want to talk to him.”	He has been here before.
Qualifiers Only, even, except, just	“Only Amy saw the bank robbers.”	Amy saw the bank robbers.
Change-of-Place Verbs Come, go, leave, arrive, depart, enter	“If Sam has left home, he is lost.”	Sam has been at home.
Change-of-Time Verbs and Adverbs Begin, end, stop, start, continue, proceed, already, yet, still, anymore	“My bet is that Harry will continue to smile.”	Harry has been smiling.
Change-of-State Verbs Change, transform, turn into, become	“If Mae turns into a hippie, I'll be surprised.”	Mae is not now a hippie.
Factive Verbs and Adjectives Odd, aware, know, realize, regret	“It is odd that she called Maxine at midnight.”	She called Maxine at midnight.
Commentary Adjectives and Adverbs Lucky, fortunately, far out, out of sight, groovy, bitchin’, innocently, happily, necessarily	“It's far out that you understand your dog's feelings.”	You understand your dog's feelings.
Counterfactual Conditional Clauses Verbs having subjunctive tense	“If you had listened to me and your father, you wouldn't be in the wonderful position you're in now.”	You didn't listen to me and your father.
Contrary-to-Expectation Should	“If you should [happen to] decide you want to talk to me, I'll be hanging out in the city dump.”	I don't expect you want to talk to me.
Selectional Restrictions	“If my professor gets pregnant, I'll be disappointed.”	My professor is a woman.
Questions	“Who ate the tapes?”	Someone ate the tapes.
Negative Questions	“Didn't you want to talk to me?”	I thought that you wanted to talk to me.
Rhetorical Questions	“Who cares whether you show up or not?”	Nobody cares whether you show up or not.
Spurious Not	“I wonder if you're not being a little unfair.”	You are being unfair.

8. Universal Quantifiers

Words that are absolute generalizations without a referential index. Frequent words: always, never, every, all, none, etc.

Inappropriate Models	Positive Challenges (Open the universal quantifier to question)
“You always wear that shirt.”	“Always? I never wear anything else?”
“With you, it's always something.”	“Always? Without exception?”
“She's that way all the time.”	“So she's never not that way?”
“He's never on time and never dressed properly.”	“Never? Not once?”
“Every time I try, I fail.”	“Every single time? Without exception?”
“None of my efforts have ever succeeded.”	“None? Not even one?”

9. Cause/Effect

The implication or direct claim that one thing causes, or is caused by, another when there is no well-formed logical support or demonstrable, sensory-based evidence to support a causal connection. Frequent words: makes, because, if...then, as...then, then, since, so.

Inappropriate Models	Positive Challenges
“Look what you made me do.”	“How exactly did I make you do that?”
“Whenever you come along, our team loses.”	“So our team always wins when I am absent?”
“It's your own fault she left you because you didn't like her music.”	“No woman has ever left a man who liked her music?”
“I'm not responsible for my actions because my parents were abusive.”	“Children of abusive parents behave in different ways.”
“If it weren't for the economy, I'd be doing fine right now.”	“I could be doing fine right now, regardless of the economy.”
“I didn't call, so he killed himself.”	“Who have I not called who hasn't killed himself?”

10. Mind Reading

10a. Believing one knows the thoughts, feelings, intentions, meanings, motivations, or other internal processes of another person, with no basis in reasonable, logical grounds for interpretation or direct, sensory observation.

Inappropriate Models	Positive Challenges
“You are just trying to make me look foolish.”	“How do you know what I'm trying to do?”
“You are deliberately annoying me.”	“Are you sure you know my intentions?”
“I'm sorry to bore you with my story.”	“So you think you will bore me?”
“They're probably thinking how foolish I look.”	“I have no idea what they're thinking.”
“I knew she was going to say that.”	“I thought she might say that.”
“I'm boring her.”	“I notice her eyes wandering. I wonder what that's about.”

10b. Believing that another person knows, doesn't know, or should know the thoughts, feelings, intentions, meanings, motivations, or other internal processes of oneself without direct communication.

Inappropriate Models	Positive Challenges
“You know how I feel about you.”	“So you know what I know? That's impressive. How do you do that?”
“You always knew I would leave you eventually.”	“When do you believe I began to always know that?”
“You know what I'm going through!”	“So that's what you think.”
“They can all tell I don't feel confident right now.”	“They may not perceive how I'm feeling right now.”
“She should know I want to be left alone for awhile.”	“She can't know I want to be left alone for awhile.”
“When I think of something, he always picks up on it!”	“We often have very good rapport with each other.”

10c. Believing one knows that another person doesn't know or understand what is apparent to their sensory observation, what has been or is being expressed or explained, or what their capabilities are to understand.

Inappropriate Models	Positive Challenges
“You wouldn't understand.”	“How do you know that?”
“I already told you.”	“Are you certain?”
“You don't know how hard I'm working.”	“So you think I don't know how hard you're working.”
“Even if I told him, he couldn't appreciate it.”	“If I told him, I'm afraid he wouldn't appreciate it.”
“She just can't understand despite my efforts to communicate.”	“She doesn't seem to understand what I've been trying to communicate.”
“If I wait, eventually they'll figure out what I want.”	“If I wait, eventually they might figure out what I want.”

10d. Crystal Ball Gazing: Believing one knows an unknowable future for oneself or others.

Inappropriate Models	Positive Challenges
“I'll never find a man who loves me.”	“So you'll be surprised when he shows up?”
“He'll always be an addict.”	“How can you be so sure?”
“My future is dark and full of pain.”	“How can you tell so far ahead of time?”

Stacked Meta Model Violations with Mind Reading includes claiming any of the above types of knowledge about another person's internal processes plus using other Meta Model abberations (stated or implied) as evidence (cause-effect, complex equivalence, missing referential index, universal quantifier, lost performative, etc.).

This category includes armchair psychology, such as presuming the ability to diagnose mental disorders or claiming to know or understand another person's unconscious processes without either professional expertise or the ability to back up the claim with reasonable and widely accepted standards of observable behavior and criteria.

Inappropriate Models	Positive Challenges
“You don’t know what I'm going through! [but you should]”	Stacked MetaModel Violations are less accessible to productive interactive challenge since, if one aberration is challenged, the other presuppositions are tacitly accepted. Yet, to challenge all of the stacked aberrations is cumbersome in natural conversation.
“You burned the vegetables [and that means] you don’t love me.”
“You wouldn’t understand because men never do.”
“If you weren't so neurotic you’d do what I say.”
“You always forget where you put the car keys. You’re obviously getting senile.”

11. Complex Equivalence

Statements where complex situations, ideas, objects or their meanings are equated as synonymous. Frequent words [which are often omitted from the surface structure of the sentence]: that means, that just means, it must be that, [rhetorical] what else could it mean?

Inappropriate Models	Positive Challenges
“The boss has his door closed. He's planning to fire me.”	“You mean every time your boss closes his door somebody gets fired?”
“You’re not eating your vegetables. What's the matter? You don't like my cooking?”	“If I liked your cooking, would I have to eat my vegetables?”
“You bought me white flowers instead of red ones. You don't love me like you used to.”	“So only red flowers mean I love you?”
“I don’t know what to do. I must be really stupid.”	“I don’t know what to do. What resources do I need in order to have a better idea?”
“I’m getting frustrated. I can’t do this.”	“I’m getting frustrated. Perhaps I’ll take a break and see if there’s a better approach.”
“They’re succeeding and I’m not. I just don’t have what it takes.”	“They’re succeeding and I’m not. What specifically are they doing differently?”

12. Lost Performative

Value judgments made without specifying who is making the judgment (the performer of the judgment is deleted from the statement).

Inappropriate Models	Positive Challenges
“It’s a good thing your head is attached (or you'd forget it).”	“According to whom?”
“You have lousy taste in clothes. It needed to be said.”	“Who needed to say it?”
“Your ideas are stupid.”	“Says who?”
“I’m no good at relationships.”	“Sometimes I think I'm no good at relationships.”
“I’m a slow learner.”	“I notice that, compared to Jim and Kim, I'm faster at learning some things, slower at learning other things.”
“I’m a computer dummy.”	“Working with computers is not currently one of my top skills.”

13. Either/Or

Statements or questions that engage one's attention on a consequence that presupposes something else. It creates what Erickson called “an illusion of choice,” and directs attention to consider only the two possibilities mentioned.

Inappropriate Models	Positive Challenges (Outframe the limitation in choices)
“Are you doing that on purpose or can't you help it?”	“Are those my only two choices?”
“Do it now or do it later.”	“Aren’t you forgetting something?”
“Are you dense or just naïve?”	“Are those the only two options you can think of?”
“Either we win or lose.”	“Could we win in one sense and lose in another? What would have to be true if we did neither?”

14. Over/Under Defined Terms

Terms that rely on purely abstract definitions that do not reference anything or anyone specific. Such terms rely on multiple levels of indirection and tend to produce trance (positive or negative). They are over-defined when we treat the words as ‘real’ in themselves, when in fact they are abstractions, and they are under-defined in the sense that they do not use sufficient specific facts and details that clearly extend to actual referents we can point to or perceive with our senses.

Inappropriate Models	Positive Challenges
“I married him because I thought he’d be a good husband.”	“If he became a good husband, what specifically would be different?”
“Crime is caused by problems in socialization.”	“What part of socialization causes which specific crimes?”
“I get impatient because I’m not being productive.”	“What do you want to produce?”

15. Delusional Verbal Splits (Elementalism)

Using language to compartmentalize and dichotomize elements of a whole so that we think and talk about them as if they actually exist apart from the whole. Maps created with elementalism do not accurately represent the territory and prevent us from thinking systemically. Common delusional verbal splits include: ‘mind’ and ‘body’, ‘space’ and ‘time’, ‘thoughts’ and ‘emotions’.

Inappropriate Models	Positive Challenges
“My mind wants one thing, but my body wants another.”	“Does your mind really stand alone?” “What context does your mind occur within?” “What would it be like if your mind-body wanted something?”
“Rationally, I know it’s not true but my emotions still believe it.”	“If your thoughts and emotions merged into an attitude, what would it be?”
“Part of me wants to stay, and part of me wants to leave.”	“Who will you be when those parts merge into one?”

16. Multiordinality (a type of nominalization)

Over-generalizing the meaning of words to the point where a word has a multiplicity of meanings and can be applied, ad infinitum, to itself. For example, “I have a thought about that thought (and a thought about that thought about that thought),” etc.

Deleted in multiordinal terms is the level or dimension of abstraction being used in the generalization. Example words include: mankind, being in love, marriage, job, thought, education, ethics, religion, sanity, insanity, object, etc. These terms are infinitely valued stages of processes with a changing, ambiguous content.

Inappropriate Models	Positive Challenges
“I’m having second thoughts about our relationship.”	“What thoughts are you having?”
“I’m in love with being in love.”	“What kind of love are you talking about?”
“This isn’t a marriage.”	“If this were a marriage, what would be different?”
“I’m afraid I’ll use poor judgment again.”	“When can you determine that a judgment will be poor?”
“My goal is to be happy all the time.”	“If you break your leg, do you want to be happy about it?”

17. Static Words (a type of nominalization)

A fixed or rigid meaning applied to a multiordinal term. Static expressions sound like pronouncements from heaven, made as if by an all-knowing deity or inaccessible legislator, or spoken with an attitude of, “Everyone knows that…”

Static expressions map reality in absolutist and dogmatic terms and phrases, assumed (or intended to be taken) as true without challenge.

Inappropriate Models	Positive Challenges
“That’s just the way life is.”	“Life? What do you mean? For whom?”
“Kids are a pain.”	“Which kids are a pain when they do what?”
“You’ve got to be together to be together.”	“If I were together, how would I know it?”
“It’s lonely at the top.”	“Is that always true?”
“Money can’t buy you happiness.”	“What kind of happiness are you talking about?”

18. Pseudo-Words (a type of nominalization)

Linguistic maps that reference nothing either in the mind (including abstract logic) or the external world. These can be nouns, adjectives, verbs, adverbs, expressions, etc. They are either names of things which do not exist, or fictions based on false or idle theories. As such, they may be context dependent. For example, ‘unicorn’ references nothing in the external world, but does reference something in mythology. Example words: heat, space, infinity, ownership, awful, horrible.

Inappropriate Models	Positive Challenges
“It’s terrible being alone.”	“What don’t you like about it?”
“The violence of truth oppresses me.”	“If I could experience the violence of truth, what would I see, hear or feel?”
“Scientists may have found the edge of the universe.”	“If the universe is the whole of everything that physically exists, its ‘edge’ forms the boundary between it and what else?”
“We can’t finish building your house. We’ve run out of inches.”	“Where did you get the inches you already used?”
“Before time began, there was nothing.”	“Are you referring to a time before time began?”
“I have a sense that I am flawed.”	“Flawed as opposed to perfect? Please show me perfection.”
“I can’t recapture my motivation.”	“Perhaps I can help you find it. Can you show me a photo of it?”

19. Identification (a type of nominalization)

The root of the word ‘identity’ is the Latin ‘idem’, meaning “the same.” No two things are ever exactly the same in all respects, so no two things can be identical. No one thing is even the same from moment to moment. Therefore, identification is abstract, resulting from deletion of distinctions. Example words: is, am, are, an, was, were, be, being, been, like, etc.)

Inappropriate Models	Positive Challenges
“I am a loser.”	“What, specifically, have you lost?”
“You are high maintenance.”	“How are you maintaining me?”
“This car is so ‘me’.”	“How is it like you?”
“I am not the type of person who can succeed.”	“How is it useful to identify with a type?”
“I don’t like who I am.”	“How are you different from the ‘you’ you don’t like?”

20. Emotionalizing

Using our emotions for gathering and processing information: “I feel it, so it must be true.” Emotionalizing confuses internally generated and externally generated experience, so that instead of simply experiencing an emotion, we use it as evidence of a corresponding negative external situation. Emotions arise in response to differences or similarities between our maps and the territories they represent.

Inappropriate Models	Positive Challenges
“I got fired today.”	“What words did your boss use to fire you?”
“The world is a hopeless place.”	“So you are feeling hopeless?”
“He loves me, I can tell.”	“How can you tell?”
“What a sad life this is.”	“What about it makes you feel sad?”

21. Personalizing

Interpreting events, especially the words or actions of others, as specifically targeted toward us and/or as an attack on us. This process inaccurately connects external events to our self-image, self-opinion and self-definition, and ultimately relinquishes response-ability for our own choices and actions. Example words: I, me, mine.

Inappropriate Models	Positive Challenges
“I’m under constant attack by society, finances and relationships.”	“Is someone attacking you right now? Can you point them out to me?”
“They make hamburgers too big, out of disregard for my health.”	“If they make a hamburger, what do you have to do to get fat from it?”
“She doesn’t want me here. She asked how long I’d be staying.”	“How do you know she wasn’t just planning her time?”
“He abandoned me. Every football season he was glued to the TV.”	“How do you know when to take that personally?”

22. Metaphors

Understanding and experiencing one kind of thing in terms of another. Metaphor is different from simile. Metaphor: “My love is a rose.” Simile: “My love is like a rose.” Metaphors are an important feature of language, but they can create negative states when we take their meanings, and the fact that they are metaphors, for granted without examination. Like identification, they delete differences. Example clue words: is, are, were, be, etc.

Inappropriate Models	Positive Challenges
“She is damaged goods.”	“How was she injured?”
“We are swimming in a sea of man-made toxins.”	“The ‘sea’ is similar to what in your experience?”
“Time is money.”	“What else is time?”
“He’s a pain in the neck.”	“What does he do, specifically?”
“Life sucks.”	“Is that all that life does?”

Tag Questions

A question added at the end of a statement, which changes the focus of the listener's attention to answering the tag question, away from the preceding statement. Tag questions are sometimes accompanied by a temporal shift.

Inappropriate Models	Positive Challenges (Return focus to the statement)
“You always manage to turn the tables on me, don't you?”	“Is that what you believe?”
“You've really done it this time, haven't you?”	“Done what as opposed to which time?”
“You'll never learn, will you?”	“Is that today's lesson?”

Conversational Postulates

A “yes or no” question to which the listener is expected to respond by actively doing what is implied. The simplest example is: “Can you tell me what time it is?” (Most people will look at their watch and tell you the time, answering with behavior rather than answering the actual question.)

Inappropriate Models	Positive Challenges
“Will you please stop telling me that?”	No action. A simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answer, or no answer at all if presuppositions are embedded -- without doing what is implied.
“Would you mind not looking at me like that?”
“Can you move your fat duff over a bit?”

18. Ambiguity (selected)

18.3 Syntactic Ambiguity
Where the function of a word in the immediate context is ambiguous.

Inappropriate Models	Positive Challenges
“The Smiths are visiting relatives.”	“Is ‘visiting’ a verb or an adjective?”
“Frank is a training consultant.”	“Is Frank in training, or does he do training?”
“The peasants are revolting.”	“Do you mean the peasants are disgusting, or launching a revolution?”

18.4 Scope Ambiguity
Where the scope of the linguistic context can't be determined. Using a modifier in a linguistic context where it is unclear which other part(s) of the sentence the modifier refers to.

Inappropriate Models	Positive Challenges
“I noticed your messy habits and towels on the hanger.”	“Are the towels messy? Are the habits on the hanger?”
“Speaking to you as a person of intelligence, language isn’t always clear.”	“Is the speaker a person of intelligence, or is the listener a person of intelligence?”
“There is a time and a place for everything and this is one of them.”	“Is ‘this’ a time or a place?”

"Transontology is to the 21st century what Relativity was to the 20th."

Transontology Programs
Consciousness-enhancing Software for Your Mind

Presentation
Ontology of Consciousness

Download
8MB PowerPoint presentation

Free MP3s

Vedic Ontology of Consciousness

OWL File

Axioms

Structural Assumptions

Abstraction & Consciousness

Semantic MetaModels

Transontology Processes

Ontology of Consciousness

The Calculus of Consciousness

Vedic Ontology

Scientific Vedanta

Consciousness Theory

Quantum Physics and Vedic Metaphysics

Ontological Commitment

Your Perfect Body Podcast

The Esoteric Teaching

German Site

Protege

Welkin

Vyasa

Sri Isopanisad

Bhagavad-gita

Krsna Book

Teachings of Lord Caitanya

Nectar of Devotion

Srimad-Bhagavatam

Sri Caitanya-caritamrta

more..