Influential Spinning

Kenrick: Welcome, for those of you that are listening to this on CDs. We welcome
you into our classroom and hope that you enjoy your study with us. Join us as if you
were one of the participants and you’ll be thrilled to learn a new technology, probably
the only new advance and new technology to enter this arena in 10 years.

Let’s start with some simple definitions. I always like to define things because I think it
gives us a handle by which to make sense of things. We’re going to talk about primary
states and meta states. We’re dealing with emotions. It’s simple. Let’s make this
simple, keep it simple. I can write this thick of a manual to describe what here you’ll
see in the nearly two paragraphs. So we’re going to keep this nice and simple and very
straight forward.

So a primary state -- primary states typically refer to events, information, people, et

cetera, about something in the outside or external world. I feel happy about being here
with you. I enjoy really beautiful music. I like going fishing with my girlfriend. Very
simple primary states. That just doesn’t sound complex, does it? Like, where’s all the
complexity? I’m going to just take it right out. It’s very simple.

Primary states refer to something in the external environment.

Now, I think or feel anger about cold calling. I think or feel fear about applying for the
new job. Notice that the emotion is oriented externally.

Meta states. What’s a meta state? Well, define the word ‘meta’. Who can define meta?
Above or about. Talking about something is to go meta to it. So a real simple
definition. If I say, go meta to it, we’re going to talk about it.

So for example, if I am a chair, then I experience life as a chair, but if I can talk about
that chair and say the chair is brown, to make distinctions about the chair, I can’t be the
chair, I must be away from the chair talking about the chair. Right?

So I feel fear cold calling. That’s a primary state, yes? But what if we were to talk about
our feelings of fear about cold calling? In order to talk about those feelings of fear, we
have to do what to fear? Go meta. Right. We have to go meta to fear to talk about fear.
Therefore, what are we? Are we actually experiencing fear? No, we’re dissociated from
fear.
One of the rules of meta states is you must dissociate to experience meta states, period.
You must dissociate to experience meta states.

If you have to dissociate to experience meta states, there is a danger. What is the danger
of dissociating to talk about states?

Participant: It’s not real.

Kenrick: Well, it’s real, but it’s what? It’s in your head? Sure, all states are in our
head, so what else is it?

Participant: It’s a representation of the primary state.

Kenrick: No, it is about a primary state or references a primary state. Let’s go a

little further before I answer that question.

Whoo, bingo. We get stuck in the upper state, but why?

Participant: Because you’re afraid of the lower state.

Kenrick: No.

Participant: You’re no longer in the primary experience.

Kenrick: Yes. You’re no longer in the primary experience. You have gone meta.
You have dissociated. Therefore you don’t experience the primary state. You only
experience the state that you have about the primary state and we can do that over and
over and over again, level upon level upon level upon level, and get lost in the ozone
dissociated from our primary experiences thus not have primary experiences.

They can go bye-bye real quick. And thus you walk around like an automaton. You
walk around not emotional, always evaluating emotion without feeling it, sounding
much like the psychiatrist who says, “How do you feel about feeling angry, about
feeling resentful, about your feeling of a lack of empathy towards the lack of guilt that
you have about the crime you committed against your parents?” I mean, how can you
ask that question, but yet I’ve heard them ask it.

What they’re doing is dissociating. Can you imagine taking a client -- imagine taking a
client and dissociating them from their primary states over and over and over and over
and then say, that’s enough for this week, we’ll see you next week? What are you telling
them? What is the message you’re delivering to their unconscious? Your primary
states are not useful. They’re painful, so let’s not have them. When you have a primary
state that feels bad or negative, by all means, don’t resolve it, get out of it.

Can you imagine? You don’t resolve things like that, we just dissociate you from them
and let you walk around like that. My god, a time bomb is ticking and ready to go off.
So what we want to do is we want to understand the structure of this so we don’t make
those stupid kinds of mistakes and hurt people and ourselves if not more importantly.

Meta states distinctions. Let’s read that. Meta states always refer to another state of
consciousness as opposed to a primary state which refers to what? Something outside
of us. I feel happiness about what? About being here with you. That’s not happiness
about being happy, it’s happiness about being here with you. You are external to me,
so if I feel happy about you, that’s a primary state we’re talking about.

But a meta state always refers to another state, always. It always relates to and
referentially stands as about a previous state. I feel depressed about my anger. I feel
afraid of my anger. I feel upset and frustrated about my anger over my fear. My
personal belief is that last statement in particular is the working of someone’s mind
who’s too far into meta. You’ll see why after a while. So in other words, that’s
beginning to sound like much notation about meta states.

This is so important, it’s so important that I’m not going to go forward until you
understand these distinctions about as clearly as you understand how dark it is outside.
It must be crystal clear because this will keep you unconfused and going straight as we
go through this. This took me a week to understand. I’m much reminded of my initial
study in this field when at 18 years of age I’m selling and I’m trying to figure out what
is the salient point about selling that makes selling work? How come some people can
sell like crazy? Everybody they walk into, they look different, they act different, and yet
the salesman somehow seems to inherently know what to say to get these people to
buy. I had a manager in health spas, I think you’ve all heard the story, that was so good
he was incredible. No matter who these people were, old, young, didn’t make any
difference. This guy could go out and sell them, every time they would buy. And I
would ask him, how do you do this? And he would say, “It’s simple. Find their hot
button and push it until they salivate. And once they slobber all over themselves,
they’ll buy.” I went, “Okay, how do you find their hot button?” And I’d get nonsense
answers at that point, “Well, you just know. Like for example -- “ and I’d get a bunch of
examples. “A woman comes in and says she has to lose a little weight or she’s going to
lose her boyfriend. A man comes in and says, hey, I’m not as strong as I used to be.
Well, it’s the weight for the woman and the strength for the man.” And well, okay, how
do you push it? “Well, you keep reminding them of it.”

Well, I want you to know, I tried that and practically got beat. You don’t just tell a
woman, well, gee, what about that weight? I know it’s $40 a month, what about that
weight? You don’t just tell a man, yeah, but you’re a wimp. Come on. It’s $40 a month,
you too weak to lift the pen. It just doesn’t work that way, does it? So it’s a metaphor,
obviously. When we say, push their hot button, it’s a metaphor. Obviously the button
is neither hot, nor is it a real button, nor is it labeled. So how do we find these suckers.

Well, you all know based on the course, how to find them. But, the real issue here is, I
knew for a fact there was fire. I knew it because there was smoke. Smoke doesn’t exist
unless there’s fire. And I found myself gagging and coughing and drowning in the
smoke trying to find where the fire is so I can go out and push that button labeled hot to
get to do what my manager could do and sell people left and right.

That’s what this reminds me of. This reminds me of that same exact scenario. There’s
something here and it’s big and it’s powerful and it’s simple but it’s not written about
like that, it’s not discussed like that, it’s talked about these incredibly wondrous state
upon state upon state upon state, and they all combine into this marvelous thing and
now ask the writer how one might use it and the answers you’ll get will be much like I
was told. Find the hot button and push it.

Meta states refer to what? External things? To states. Therefore they’re always
reference what? The previous state. They always reference another state. They always
reference another state. They’re always about a state, they’re never about the external
environment. A primary state is always about the external environment.

Let me give you a basic rule: you always need to bring people back down to the
primary state. You need to bring them back to the primary state if you are to do them
any real favors. If you leave people dissociated, you’re leaving them in trance in
essence. If you leave people dissociated, you’re leaving them less than functional. It
would be equivalent to splitting their consciousness into parts that are not even
necessarily labeled and leaving them there, like I would induce trance with you by
inducing an altered state and telling you something like, ‘the hand can signal yes or no’
and then never putting it back for you so you run around with ‘the hand’. Imagine if
you couldn’t get back there yourself.

So you need to take people back to the primary state. It’s very important. This will all
make more sense later.

What are meta states? Well, the first most important aspect of a meta state, is that it is
consciousness reflecting back on itself. Again, big words that mean what? This is one
of the distinctions that separates us from animals. My dog is happier than heck to see
me, he’s happy all the time. Or he is sad, or he is desirous of his bone, or he is upset
that he is trapped in his back yard with a fence and he wants out, but it’s always a
primary state. My dog, as far as we know, doesn’t know how to be happy about his
entrapment. He doesn’t know how to be sad about his anger. He just knows one state
at a time.

On the other hand, you and I can say, you know, I’m happy to be with you today. I’m
happy to be with you (primary state). Oh, I’m happy to be with you too (primary state).
Let’s discuss from whence the happiness comes. Where are we going? Meta. Oh, yeah,
we could do that, you know, when I get happy, I have feelings in my body. Yes, when I
get happy, I have feelings in my body too. No kidding, we have happiness similarly.

What we’re doing now is we’re talking about a state. Now we’re starting to tell each
other about the state. We’re no longer in the state, we’ve risen above it to identify it and
discuss it and now we’re talking about the component parts of that state. Make sense?
Okay, that’s called reflexive consciousness. Bateson refers to it as ‘reflexive
consciousness’. Korzybski, same thing. So it’s consciousness reflecting back on itself.
So we say, “I’m happy.” You know, let’s reflect on that. “You know, I am interested in
my happiness.” And now let’s reflect on that. “I’d like to talk about my interest in my
happiness.” See? And we can keep reflecting and that is part of human nature, is we’re
always reflecting back on what we’ve done, who we are, where we’re going, what is
life. The question ‘who am I?’ is ultimate reflexive consciousness. You know, we start
off with, well, I'm a man, I’m a woman, I’m a son, I’m a mother, I’m a father, I am a
Christian, I am a Buddhist, I am a leader, I’m a teacher, I’m a follower, I’m a student,
I’m a friend, I’m a partner. Well, ultimately, who am I? I’m all of those and more. And
ultimately, who am I? Well, who knows?
But this is that reflexiveness that keeps going and going and going and going in circles
and it keeps happening.

So it makes sense that as we reflect back on something, we add to it. Our consciousness
adds to ‘I’m happy to be with you’, something else. Every time we reflect back on it,
we’re reflecting something else back on it and we keep reflecting. So what happens is,
by the very nature of the way our brains work as humans, as we grow, as we interact
with our environment, we start stacking states one upon the other, one upon the other.
We’re going to have a lot of time in this seminar to start pulling these states apart and
looking at what they are.

So you can start figuring out ‘who am I?’ in terms of a complex series of states that
you’ve reflected on over and over and over and over and over all your life and you’ve
done it without even so much as a second thought. Throughout your life, you have
simply grown up. You’ve become who you are and you probably didn’t stop and say,
you know, I am who I am today, I am a computer programmer because I decided early
on that I understand the power of structure in my life and I would like to learn more
about structure, because with the proper structure, any content can be hung easily.
Therefore, I’m going to learn computer programming because it will teach me structure,
and then I can learn to put any content I want -- yeah, that’s the ticket. I’m going to be a
programmer, and I’m going to master structure, and here I am today, I’m 40 years old,
I’m a programmer. By golly, I learned it.

You didn’t do that. It just happened that you became a programmer or it happened that
you became a veterinarian or it happened that you became a sales person or a manager
or a lawyer. It doesn’t matter, but with reflexivity happening along the way, you built
and built and built and built until now, you’ve got a stack of stuff probably about
different kinds of things. You haven’t a clue what all is being applied to what. That’s
what makes it so powerful. It’s outside of?

Participants: Consciousness.

Kenrick: It happened automatically. You didn’t plan it. You didn’t try to make it
happen, it just does.

So what if we could reverse time, go back and unpack this stuff and lay it out and say,
would you add this state to this state and then add this state and this state, or would
you keep it simple and just use one? Or would you put different states there to get you
a different result? And that’s the power of the course that you’re in.

When we’re done, you’ll be able to go back and examine any kind of state you have
about anything, pull it apart and look at it and say, do I like the person I have become
as a result of these things stacking one upon the other, and if not, you’ll be able to
change it for yourself and others.

This leads us to the understanding then of how beliefs work. If repetition is the mother
of learning, repetition of meta states, is the mother of all beliefs, so it gives us a massive
new approach to the dealing with beliefs and how beliefs are formed and how we can
un-form and change them at will.

As an example of someone I worked with this kind of material, and in about 10 minutes
flat, I think, we did an enormous belief change that had such a rocketing impact on her
career, that it was amazing. We spent an hour, a couple hours maybe, in which we
were going over marketing ideas and ideas to help her business, then I spent maybe 10
minutes at the end of a session helping her to change a belief that was limiting.
Powerful experience, was it not?

Participant: Yes, it was.

Kenrick: And because this lets me track and identify the way in which beliefs are
formed, we also are coming at them from a new position now, a new perspective. You
all know about submodalities. One of the next things I want to present to you is
submodalities are not sub to anything. That’s wrong. In the previous seminar you
were talking about trying to see, hear, and make these distinctions. Well, let’s look at it
this way. If we take a belief and -- if we take a modality, any modality, visual modality,
okay, and we want to see color, we want to distinguish color, how are we going to do
that? You can’t distinguish color from within color because you’re color. The way to
do it is to step out of it and go, ahhh. Now, what do I see?

You can’t distinguish distance when you’re there associated. All you know is you’re
seeing through your own eyes. Step out. Now how far away is this object from that
object? Oh, that’s easy to tell because we have perspective. Without perspective, you
can’t tell diddely. You step into something, what have you got? Full associated
feelings. Out, dissociated feelings, dissociated whatever, but as ‘out’ and dissociated,
which is necessary to do meta stating, and spinning, we spin out, we look, we make
distinctions.

Participant: So really (inaudible) as opposed to someone else.

Kenrick: Bingo, They are absolutely meta distinctions. The likes of which, having
just explained what I just explained, can you now do submodaliites with about 1000
times the effectiveness of before? I sure can. Yeah?

Participant: So somebody who is completely dissociated and has complete perspective

(inaudible)?

Kenrick: Actually, no, I disagree with that. Let me explain why. If that were the
case, god would have no emotion. He would have lots of perspective but no emotion.
So the purpose of stepping out is to make distinction. The purpose of making finer
distinction is to step back with greater control. See, it’s hard to adjust our internal stuff
when we’re internal. It’s hard for you to get an anchor on yourself, to a certain extent.

In other words, I can show you how to do it, and I’m going to show you how to cheat
and it’ll work pretty damn good, but in reality, I can get it on you much easier than you
can get it on you, because I can see when you start to respond unconsciously, while
you’re kind of having to wait and go, okay, now I’m getting it, see, I can just reach out
and go, plop, and I’ve got you because I can see it coming. Right?

So watch. I’m going to step out. Make distinctions. Register distinctions. Change
distinctions. Make adjustments and go, ah, much better. Step in. Go back down to
primary states. Thank god we can do that, otherwise where would we be? We would
be stuck in primary states or we would be stuck in meta states. Neither one is the place
-- if we’re going to live in one place, we should live in primary states. But, if you live
there all the time and life is negative there, how are you going to change them unless
we can pop out, have some perspective, make some changes, and then hop back?

Participant: And what if you’re kind of stuck in meta states?

Kenrick: I’ll show you how to unstuck it. I’ll show you how to get out of it. That’s
a good question. That’s a great question. And a lot of people are, and especially the
people today, for all of you that have been going through this stuff with me learning
how to become therapists, doing therapeutic work, you’ll have a lot of work upcoming
for you for the people that are reading these manuals.

Seriously. They’re stuck in meta. They’re walking around with their heads up in the
clouds and they can’t come down. You on the other hand will show them how to go
right back into primary states. Simple maneuver. Simple maneuver.

Questions so far?

Participant: When we talk about meta states as it relates to what you’re saying
(inaudible)?

Kenrick: Meta to meta, isn’t it? We’ve gone meta to meta. That’s what I’m saying.
That’s self reflexive consciousness.

Participant: (Inaudible).

Kenrick: It reflects a pawn. So watch this. Here’s a mirror. Let’s reflect on that
mirror. Now we see ourselves. Now let’s reflect on that and we’re going to talk about
our reflection. Now, stop. What you’re experiencing is trance. You’re zooming out.
Because it’s really tranc-y to go, okay, now I see myself, I’m talking about what I see, so
I see myself, but I’m talking about what I see and now I’m going to talk about what I see
about what I see. What would that be? I would be talking about the colors and the
distance and all that, but it’s trancy, it’s trippy to do this. That’s why everybody reads it
and goes, wow, you know, I think there’s something really potent here, man. I mean,
it’s like, wow, I don’t have a clue what it is . . . and then you hear all these people going,
yeah, meta states. It’s some breakthrough stuff there. And then you read on the net
where somebody’s writing, it’s a canopy of consciousness, of which you’re going to
learn to envelope people in this new consciousness canopy stuff and you’re going, yeah,
but it just doesn’t make any sense, does it? You’re reading that and you’re going, man,
what is this stuff? It doesn’t make any sense.

Participant: So would it be better to term it as a canopy of trance?

Kenrick: Well, if you are to go meta, if you dissociate -- let’s keep the lingo the hell
out. Let’s dissociate. Are you in trance? Yes. If we dissociate you from your primary
experiences, you’re in trance. Now, suppose I dissociate your right arm from the rest of
you. Are you in a deeper trance? Yes, because I split your consciousness further. Is
that a useful way of inducing trance? You bet. You saw me do it repeatedly over the
weekend, the time we just spent together. So yes, yes to all the above. Now, do I want
to leave you there? Like, for example, unlike Richard who will say, go into a trance and
stay there. Do I want to leave you there? No. Is that the right thing to do? No. I don’t
want to say, go meta, go meta again, go meta again, and when you get confused about
how far meta you are, stay there. No. That wouldn’t be very nice because what’s the
point of trance? Narrow the focus. Right? Access the unconscious mind for purposes of
making change. And then come back to normal consciousness again carrying that
change with you.

The point isn’t to dissociate and stay out in la la land acting like a space case. Have you
ever heard someone who’s been dissociated and left there? They talk in
nominalizations and generalizations, they can’t get out of it. One would experience the
concept of involving oneself in a higher level of dissociative discussion that enables one
to have a particular kind of quality of experience -- of course, they can’t name it because
they can’t experience it.

I’m either zoning you or I’m making all kinds of sense.

Participant: Both.

Kenrick: That’s right. And, it’s important and I’m excited to be able to tell you all
this now, it took me a long time to get this. I mean, I’m literally out in ozone land
myself going, man, there’s something here. I’m telling you, just like I was saying, it
reminded me of when I first started and I said, there has got to be fire, because man is
there smoke. Where there’s smoke there’s fire and I’m going to find it if it kills me.
Finally one day when I was about to give up, I sat on it and burnt myself. But I found
it, by golly. And I started figuring out what it was. And slowly but surely over the
years, I found each and every part that now comprises what it is that you folks are
learning and doing so well with, but it took a long time for this. Some of you know,
when I started, I started at the end of our last seminar. I did nothing almost between
then and now besides trying to figure this out and I was off in ozone land for the
longest time, man. My head pounded like yours was going wow, I feel like a student all
over. This is great. This is wonderful. I’m really getting something here. My head
hurts this bad, something is really seriously going on. Really seriously going on.
Because nothing makes me feel like that anymore like that.
So now what I have to tell you is, I’ve got it figured out and I can tell you that if
someone would just go at it real simple like, they can get a lot faster a lot quicker.
Instead, they’re reading this and they’re studying it and they’re presenting it from meta
levels upon meta levels upon meta levels, and all it does is, it would be much like me
jumping you into -- for those of you in the computer programming, into about a second
or third level structural programming class before you had any of the basics. It
wouldn’t make any sense. It just wouldn’t make sense.

Now, if you’re real smart, you’d figure it out eventually and you’d come back and build
the structure you need to understand the rest. Fortunately, I had that. That’s why I was
able to come to make some sense of this.

With meta states, we have a huge opportunity, and the opportunities are as follows.
We can hear when people are doing this kind of thing to themselves when they’re
dissociating, when they’re stacking these states, and we have an entry point now.
What’s the entry point? Any time an emotion is used, we can enter it with another
emotion. That’s getting ahead of myself. What else can we do? We can dissociate.
What else can we do? We can bring them back down to primary states. What can we
do for ourselves? Same thing. We can keep us at primary level thus making sense of
our world -- feeling, seeing, hearing, tasting and smelling, our world. Living each
moment and squeezing all the juice out of it there is. Being alive. Or we can analyze
that living from a meta perspective.

So starting with submodalities, submodalities now become a whole new issue. Man,
when I got this clear in my head, I tell you, I just about cried because all of the sudden
submodalities, wow, submodalities -- they’re not sub. They’re meta. They are a global
distinction, not a little one. You’ve got to stand back to see them. So tell me, when
someone tells you, I’m associated into an image, and it is this far away and it’s this
bright -- bs, bs, bs, your bs filter should be turned on real quick. What are they telling
you? They’re dissociating to give you any of that detail, but they’re doing it real quick.
Pop, pop, pop, pop, they’re going back and forth, back and forth. They’re in it and then
they back out of it to tell you the distinction.

Why let them believe they’re there? Why not just encourage them? Step out. You do it
so well anyway. Isn’t that exciting? I mean, if that doesn’t excite you about making
changes in yourself, I don’t know what will. Because now we can hop out and we can
imagine all these things that we want changed, the structure of our reality can change.

Now, let me ask you another question. How many of you have made submodality
changes mapping across and had them fail? If you don’t raise your hand, you’re a liar,
other than if you haven’t been in class.

No liars here. Her hand’s up. We’ll show you how persuasive (inaudible). Okay, so
look, you tried to map across -- and this is a little advanced for those you that haven’t
been here before, hang with me just a minute. You’ll map across these states and they
don’t work. Take confusion and understanding. You map that across and you get
what? Crap. You don’t get understanding. If you get understanding, you’d be all
understanding everything right now. You’d just map it across. You’d go, I don’t get it.
Wait a minute. Yeah, that makes sense, Kenrick. And you’d do it, right? And that
would be a primary learning strategy. It would be an incredible learning strategy. In
fact, I’d have an anchor, like right here, right. I’d go wait a minute, I’m confused.
Okay, let’s go on. But you don’t do that, you’ve never done that, and it’s never worked.
Don’t tell me that you have.

So, who brought that crap up? Who did that to us? Who foisted that upon the world
thinking that it’s a technique? (Inaudible). Okay, look, I don’t blame him, because
when they first found this out, they were thrilled to have found a whole new world to
play in. Imagine if all you knew of space existed and then all of the sudden you were
told that, by golly, so does the ocean and you can go play there too because a whole
new world opened up when they found submodalities, a whole new world.

Well, what did they do with that world? Well, they went exploring and they decided,
hey, this is the difference that makes the difference. I hate to believe that. I want to tell
you instead I think it’s meta states that are the difference that makes the difference.
Submodalities adds to that -- or modality distinction is more like it as I have come to
know now.

So they’re playing inside this vast world of our five senses and every possible
distinction that can be made there. And they’re saying, you know, this is the distinction
that makes the distinction, so if we were to change one, we can map it all over and it
will make all this difference consciously for us in our primary states. Guess where that
will have a tendency to work?
If submodalities aren’t sub, but if they’re meta, then it is a tool of meta that they
become. You cannot map across primary states and make any sense, but what if we
mapped across meta ones?

Participant: So you map your thoughts at the level of identity or spirituality or belief
(inaudible).

Kenrick: That’s pretty high. We can even go lower than that. Sure, but if we map
across there, now we’re using a tool designed for the basic right level.

Participant: That affects everything below it.

Kenrick: Yes. Yes. But now you see where the tool starts to fit? So it starts to make
a little more sense? Okay? So it just opens up a world to us that heretofore has not
been opened. Heretofore, we’ve all wondered -- you’ve all wondered how come it is I
go tweaking these things like I say you’re supposed to (inaudible) and yet, for others of
you, you’ll go do a swish pattern change, and bang, your life will change, because what
you really did in that swish is you altered a meta level. You brought in a higher level of
consciousness that put a new frame around the behavior you wanted or didn’t want.
And thus, it had the impact.

Is that neat, or what? I mean, again, either you’re in deep trance or you’re trying to
register this. I hope you’re registering the level of power that we’re talking about here.
This goes right off the chart. Are you all getting this?

Participant: Yes.

Kenrick: It’s making sense?

Participant: Yes.

Kenrick: To more than Mac?

Participant: Yes.

Kenrick: Okay, great. Let’s go on.

Participant: I have a question.

Kenrick: Yeah.
Participant: You’re dissociating from the primary emotion --

Kenrick: Yes.

Participant: -- but you can still experience an emotion at that state.

Kenrick: You can talk about an emotion that you can bring into that state, yes.

Participant: (Inaudible)

Kenrick: That’s right. You’re associating with a meta, and then you can dissociate
from the meta and go to another meta indefinitely. That’s reflecting, right? That’s that
reflecting thing. Yes?

Participant: Isn’t emotion, by definition, meta kinesthetic? Because kinesthetic is what

you actually feel physically, but an emotion is what you (inaudible)?

Kenrick: Yeah, however, there’s another way of describing it too besides meta
kinesthetic, and I forget what it is, but a human being has the ability to process an
emotion as different from just a tactile sense, and I forget, there’s two ways of
describing it or defining it. There’s an emotional sense of feeling and a tactile sense.

Participant: Like love.

Kenrick: Exactly.

Participant: (Inaudible)

Kenrick: Perhaps so, yeah. Okay, moving on. What are meta states? Now, let’s
talk about consciousness reflecting back on to itself. The art of thinking, then, is a meta
state, is it not? To think requires meta stating. Once we know something, we’ll reflect
on it, thus going meta, creates things like thinking about our thoughts on -- I’m going to
give you a dissertation today on communication skills as applied to persuasion. Now
there’s a few meta states there, aren’t there? We’re thinking about communicating
about persuasion. Right? Now, rationalizing our decisions. Loving our beliefs.
Fantasizing about our goals. Running our own brain, instead of it simply doing its
thing. All those are meta states, every single one of them.

We’ve talked about, it’s necessary to dissociate to go meta, and we’ve talked about the
dangers of going meta being specifically staying there, going too far, level upon level
upon level upon level of dissociation, and then staying there. How would you stay
there? How would you force someone to stay there if you wanted to? If you wanted to
be a jerk?

Participant: Future pacing.

Kenrick: Bingo.

Participant: Or you could put them in a loop.

Kenrick: Bingo. Very good. Yeah, how do you keep someone at a meta level? Future pace
it. Take you to a meta level and future pace. For those of you that may not be aware of that,
what we do is, put you into an emotional state and then ask you, what would remind you to stay
there or what will remind you of all the things that you’ve just learned in the future? And then I
can bring up things such as, for example, let’s say that you want to be reminded to be really
positive about people that are sort of hard to get along with and you want to say, hey look, when
that happens, I want to just sort of take a break in my mind, a deep breath, and be really positive
because really it isn’t my problem, it’s theirs and why make them worse. So I say to you, how
would you like to really be? How would you like to respond? And you go, take a deep breath
and just be positive, and let them vent and there we go.

So I go, okay, so what does that feel like? Get a primary state. And you know what that feels
like, do you not? And now I say to you, now let’s go to a time in the future when you need that.
Imagine, that now that you’ve got this ability, you’re in a time in the future, and there you are,
and someone comes at you like the way they will, and you instantly access the primary state I
just told you, take a deep breath, and how do you feel?

Participant: Happy.

Kenrick: It feels good, doesn’t it? Happy, right. Absolutely. Excellent. Now let’s go to another
time in the future where if we hadn’t made this change you would have collapsed into your old
way of being, but now happy. One more time. You know how to do it all by yourself -- there you
go. Now I future paced. Now, literally imagine a time in the future and tell me how you respond
differently as a result of what I just did.

Participant: Another time.

Kenrick: Yeah. And now what happens?

Participant: I take a deep breath, (inaudible).

Kenrick: Notice they’re doing it right on the spot. Because she’s what? Associated to
what? Primary state and we’ve transferred it into the future for her giving her a chance to
experience something. Now, for those of you that -- you know, so she’s new. She has to see this
work, but you see how fast that works? I mean, was that fast or what? That’s why I’m saying,
you don’t have to mess with this stuff. You can just get right to the point and do it. And if --
literally, would you be honest. Tell me exactly how you feel right now.
Participant: Curious and I feel good.

Kenrick: Curious because you’d like to learn more about how that just happened or
different?

Participant: Well, (inaudible) but the whole gamut.

Kenrick: Curious about the whole gamut and you just were able to do something cool.

Participant: I just feel like I learned something. I felt something new, but now I really know.

Kenrick: Absolutely. That’s great. Well said, well said too. Well said. Okay, so you get
that? Cool, huh? I mean, like right now, off into the future we go, and we can make changes.
Now what if you went around, if you said to yourself, today I’m going to take five people and I’m
going to do that for them. I’m just going to simply make them feel good in a situation they
haven’t been able to. Would it take any time out of your day? Not really. And look at what you
just did for them. My word. That’s powerful stuff.

So what do you do to keep people meta? If you want to, put them in a meta state and talk about
how as they think about life, they’ll think of it from this perspective all the time. Future pacing.
That’s being a very serious jerk, I might add. I don’t want to see any of that kind of stuff. That’s
going to piss me off if I see it, so don’t do it around me.

Participant: You’re absolutely right. It is taught in traditional schooling, psychology, for

people to do it all the time. I’m going through school and as you know, I’m getting my bachelor’s
degree in psychology, and in applied psychology we’re taught, as we’re explained right now, to
send people meta and leave them. Every time that you go out and think about being happy, go
and think about that happiness and what does it mean to you and give some meaning to that.
Oh, that’s right, I have to go --

Kenrick: Dissociate. Off in the ozone you go, and yeah, and you’re really messing with
people bad.

Participant: In all of academia. We’re always thinking about thinking about thinking.

Kenrick: Listen to that. Higher learning. Higher than what? Higher than -- primary.
Therefore we have secondary school, which is thinking about thinking, and we have -- what’s
above secondary? Post secondary. Meta secondary. And meta secondary thinks about thinking
about thinking. And then we have post graduate school. We graduate from secondary and we
go to post. We keep posting ourselves higher and higher and it’s true, do we not abstract further
and further? Or, post doctorate, yeah. Or we go deeper and deeper into a field, perhaps as we
go out, but by the same token, in order to do that, we’re also going meta, meta, meta. We keep
thinking about thinking about thinking about the ramifications about the ramifications on
down. And that’s what advanced education is. We forget that we got to come back down to the
primary to really live in the now and experience a happy life. It’s interesting, yeah.

Participant: (inaudible) What procedure was it --

Kenrick: Oh, with her. What I did is, I elicited a state that she -- I did it by just suggesting
that there’s a certain type of person she would want to do better with, and that she knows how
she would like to do it better with, and I suggested that that would involve a pleasant state of
mind and a deep breath that would give her a moment’s pause so she would be able to respond
properly and that the signal would be this unpleasant person being unpleasant or any
unpleasant situation in which she was experiencing unpleasantness.

And so I said, the way to respond to that would simply be a deep breath, not personalizing it but
realizing it’s their issue, and so we can just let them vent and be positive ourselves, and thus
maintaining good relationship. She agreed. And so I said, let’s just go to a time in the future
when you didn’t have that ability before and do it now. And she goes, yeah, wow. And as she did
it, she went, yeah. So I knew she was doing it because she unconsciously followed the
suggestion right along as she went and then I did it again, I did it again a third time, then I asked
her to do it on her own for the fourth to verify, and not only did she do it, but she said it this
time. I’m going to take a real deep breath, and let it out slow -- so it was really wiring in that
that’s the answer for her, is to slow down, so give herself a chance to remember what she used to
do and then respond appropriately in the positive way.

Participant: So have you effectively suggest an anchor --

Kenrick: Absolutely.

Participant: (Inaudible)

Kenrick: Sure, I don’t want to (inaudible) being the anchor, I want the anchor to be the
negativity which she would have responded negatively in the past, now it fires a deep breath and
a new thought process.

Participant: (Inaudible)

Kenrick: Where does it come in here?

Participant: You didn’t demonstrate that.

Kenrick: I didn’t demonstrate that. I demonstrated simple future pacing.

Participant: Oh, okay.

Kenrick: I demonstrated keeping her at primary states and transferring them. Do you get
it? Do you get it? Are you still kind of pondering that?

Participant: It’s fine. You’re saying, how do you keep someone at a meta level, and you said
future pace them and loop them over and over.

Kenrick: And then I said, for example, let’s show you another way we’re not going to do
that. We’re going to do it the right way by doing it like this. Look how fast it can be done. And
to do it right, I just went zip, and did it. The benefit of which is, I’ll show you how fast this
works.
We’re going to cover one more thing tonight and then we’re going to break and that is some
simple concepts about these frames. Meta levels set a frame. They set the framework for the
lower levels that go beneath them. I’m happy to be here with you today because I really value
learning experiences. I value learning. I’m happy to be here with you today, because in the
context of learning more, I’m learning by teaching you this. Thus I’m happy to be here today
with you.

Participant: (inaudible)

Kenrick: Happy, present state; achieving, meta state. Achieving forms the canopy of
consciousness over the primary state, thus it rules the primary state and colors it, colors the
primary state.

Participant: (Inaudible) modality distinctions.

Kenrick: Modality distinctions happen naturally -- this is so important. Listen. Happen

naturally because the meta state that covers it, colors it automatically. Stop. Listen to me now.
Would it be possible to design meta states, to design a way of talking to someone so that we give
them a framework that colors or controls their level of thinking down here such that if that is
possible, and I’ll tell you it is, then the natural chain of events, if we can establish this, is that the
outcome goes our way. The outcome of the conversation goes our way just like before we had to
use binds and commands and all that kind of stuff, and we’re throwing this language pattern at
people hard and fast because we’re trying to influence them at every step. Go this way, go this
way, go this way, go this way. Now, what if I could just go, (inaudible) frame overrides
everything and now we’re going to just move through and as a natural consequence of our
conversation, it’s going to go my way.

Think about it, just think about that, because that’s possible and that’s where we’re headed.
That’s the power of these kinds of things. Just take a simple one, okay? I'm happy to be here
with you. The reason I’m happy is because the frame that this is in, we’re in a seminar room
thus, what is the environmental variables that are here? Well, I’m here because I really value
learning. As such, for me, learning is the overriding frame and because this gives me an
opportunity to learn, I’m happy. Learning colors my primary state of happiness in a particular
way because it makes me happy to learn.

Does that make more sense to you? Now let’s use a different one. Let’s say that we’re here today
because we’re being punished and we have to be here. We have no alternative. We were sent
here by the state to undergo four hours of lecture, or driving school or anger management, there
we go, something like that, and it’s a punishment you’re having to go through. Now what’s your
primary state? Mine is resistance because what’s overriding is punishment. See what I’m
saying? So what’s the overriding state?

Participant: Everybody paid to be here so we’re all motivated.

Kenrick: You paid to be here, now let me ask you. What’s important about being here?

Participant: Learning skills that are useful in my business.

Kenrick: Learning skills that are useful. Useful learning. What’s important about useful
and learning?

Participant: It gives me the ability to make more money.

Kenrick: So we put money over the top of this, put you inside that canopy, so that you
believe, since it’s overriding, that you’re going to have a chance to earn more money and guess
what? You perceive this as being real enjoyable, don’t you?

Participant: (Inaudible)

Kenrick: Now, are you starting to get the point? I’m also demonstrating to you something
that you’re going to just flip over tomorrow. When you understand something that we can now
bring into this scenario that is so quick and so easy, it’ll just add a whole new meaning to the
concept of criteria and values.

Participant: How is this concept different from the concept of setting the frame (inaudible)?

Kenrick: Setting the frame of what?

Participant: How is this concept different from the reframe?

Kenrick: It’s not.

Participant: Then what’s the big deal then?

Kenrick: Can you do it?

Participant: Why?

Kenrick: What did you just say? Don’t you pull that shit on me? Friend, I’m up here for a
reason.

Participant: How does your happiness influence me in a predictable way?

Kenrick: It does not, necessarily, although let’s jump to a whole new model of the world for
a minute. New model, and that is that we don’t communicate in a vacuum, and so the only way
that my communication has meaning is because you respond back to me about something, so as
you’re responding back, we enter the cybernetic system, as we respond back to each other, my
words take on meaning based on your feedback to me. And therefore, my happiness will in fact
have an impact on you, but that isn’t anything about this frame. This model. We’ll leave that
model behind now, but you asked how that’s possible so I just told you.

Now, let’s go back to the other one. My happiness has nothing to do with influencing you in this
case. What does have to do with it is, how can I get a frame of reference over the top of you that
you buy into that will affect your happiness? So imagine for a moment that you’re here under
the frame of punishment like we were talking about a moment ago. Are you happy?

Participant: No.
Kenrick: Why not?

Participant: I resent.

Kenrick: Yes. Supposing then, I as a persuader could come along to you and arbitrarily
somehow wave a magic wand and remove the punishment frame and put the frame of beneficial
learning over the top of you so that your lesser states are all subject to that. If I can do that,
would I then be able to make you happy?

Participant: Yes.

Kenrick: Okay, the question is how.

Participant: Exactly. How?

Kenrick: Well, it’s only reframing, you tell me. If that’s all it is, it’s simple, right?

Participant: Well, okay.

Kenrick: I’m just playing with you.

Participant: I’m caught up in my own loop now, right?

Kenrick: I don’t know what you’re caught up in, friend. Okay -- what’s that?

Participant: He’s been talking to (inaudible).

Participant: Doesn’t this all go back to getting their criteria and grading that frame based on
that?

Kenrick: It sure as heck can, can’t it?

Participant: Yes.

Kenrick: And we’re going to talk about that as being one of the most potent methods of
utilizing this new skill, this new way of doing it.

What I want you to know is this, this may help you really powerfully. It isn’t that this is all
together new, it’s a slant that I didn’t have before, that you didn’t have before, trust me. If I
didn’t have it, you didn’t have it probably, so it’s not like it’s a new window. And the window has
been there sort of, we just couldn’t see through it because we had a glare on it or something. So
we turned I a little bit and now we can see through it. It’s a new way of -- it’s an additional way
of taking something that we sort of had our hands on before but we couldn’t quite maneuver it
very well, it wasn’t quite graspable, if you will, and now all of the sudden we can hang on and we
can make an immediate and powerful difference in ourselves and others by using it. It’s a new
twist, a new way of thinking --

Participant: It’s evolution.

Kenrick: It’s evolution, and you know what that evolution is, reflection. But if I explain it
to you like this and you can track that, then you could come to the same conclusions I have and
you can also use it in the same way, which is another way of saying good teaching. I hate to be
so simple, but that’s true, that’s really true.

So what I’m wanting you to get at is that this is just a new twist, but isn’t that what just a little
reframe is? Yes, it’s just a little reframe. What makes a (inaudible)? Context and content
reframing. Are you real good at it?

Participant: No.

Kenrick: You sure will be in a little bit. Okay? So yes it is just a little reframe, it’s like
having just another little million dollars. Just another way to persuade the (inaudible) every
time, I don’t know, but yeah, it is just a little twist, but I’m telling you, as I was going through
this, I kept going, god, why are all these words this big used to talk about this frigging concept
that seems to me to not be like that? I thought, well, I don’t know. And my head would hurt and
I’d sit there in pain going, what is this? I woke up one morning and went, oh. (Inaudible) she
said in my sleep. She said, you’re talking all night long to your students. You were telling your
students what was going on. I couldn’t understand a word you said, but I woke up the next
morning having clarity. And I went, oh, it’s a switch, it’s a twist, it’s a reframe. Oh, it is a
reframe. And I got it, and man, did that make sense, but it’s not a reframe in the sense of a
definition that says, say it like this, it works like that. It’s an internal switch that all of the
sudden I saw through different eyes.

And, all of the tools that I’ve been using like submodalities and things like that, all of the sudden
fell into perspective and all of the sudden the concept of a frame setting the control on
everything beneath it made sense. I also want to show you on the next page why I’m going to
disagree with myself and I’m going to tell you that frames do not set the control for everything
that comes underneath it always. If it did, I’d rule the world. You’d be my subjects and that’d be
all there was to it. I’d just simply walk in and say, the frame for you today is, I’m god and you’re
my servants. Okay, now how should we interact? And that would be our interaction, so there is
a BS factor somewhere there that your brain kicks out and says, no that’s not true.

So the question is then what is the difference that makes the difference in terms of setting the
frame? Ah, and I’ve got that answer too, and we’ll share it with you tomorrow. In the meantime
I want you to think about it tonight.

Participant: What I’m thinking about right now is it’s like a meta state about persuasion as a
whole, so we look at it differently but our role as powerful persuader is to find the criteria which
will set the frame for that person, and our job is to find the fastest way to outcome but at the
same time it depends on that person.

Kenrick: I can say yes, that’s absolutely right, and now there’s a lot of -- so overall, that’s
absolutely true. And now what we’re going to do is find all sorts of cool little ways in to first
ourselves, because if we don’t take control of our own internal states -- if I didn’t have absolute
up time, external presence when I train, I wouldn’t be a good trainer. You all wouldn’t still be
sitting here, okay? If I didn’t have command of certain types of my own states, it would be the
difference between a really enjoyable activity and something that, gee, you can live without.

So we need to control our own states first and then we need to go do the same as it relates to
others, and by learning how to interact and get inside of our own, we’re going to learn how to get
inside of others. Beliefs, states, meta states, and the whole bit, and that’s exactly the
introduction I wanted to give you tonight. As you dream and sleep and coalesce this material,
and wrestle with it, grapple with the techniques and ideas, as you struggle with it or just
naturally accept it and easily work with it, whichever -- sneezing out any resistance, is simply
this. It is both profound and simple. It’s both amazing and easy.

Participant: (inaudible)

Kenrick: Absolutely. It’s the same as hiding in the open. It’s the same as -- you know, it’s
so profound on the one hand that you’ll sit here and marvel and you’ll just go, I’ve never, ever
seen anything like this. This is absolutely outrageous. On the other hand you’ll go, and it’s so
simple. I mean, it’s so simple.

Now, once you get the tools in line and you’ve used it, you’ve seen how you can open up your
own states, change them, modify them, put them back together, and live a different life, when
you see that I can show you a belief change that I can do in less than 10 minutes with you, that it
even works on me -- I mean, I’m immune to a lot of the NLP stuff, I mean, it just doesn’t matter.
I’ve tried, but there must be something wrong with some of it, but this works -- I’ve never seen it
not work. When you can start effecting yourself and others fast, and you have a new way in,
another method of influencing people, a way that literally puts a big, huge velvet glove on a real
big iron fist, let me tell you something you’ll come to appreciate this just as I do now, which is a
phenomenal new way in and a whole new way to orient an entire persuasive situation in which
the natural and obvious outcome must be for you, must be judged in your favor. And I’ll also
show you how to try to avoid situations where you can’t do that and it’ll become obvious to you
situations that you go into every day that are stacked against you that you can’t win and you’ll
learn to get out of those things and either make them a situation where you can win, or don’t go
there if you can. And it will open up a new array, just like submodalities did for the originators
back so many years ago. It opened up a new world that they didn’t have before.

So tonight when you sleep, your new world is the in road to emotions. And how they’ve stacked
up to form canopies of consciousness, over activities that you do on a daily basis that may
impede you, that you may not like, that may imagine for a moment if you set one negative thing
on top of another negative thing and reflect on it. It’s like eating yourself up.

So what if we intervened and stopped that so you’re not eating yourself up anymore? Your anger
about your procrastination. Your acceptance of your anger. What if we start modifying those
things? Your anger of your fear because you procrastinate. I have that. That sucks. What
would that do to you? I’m angry because I’m afraid that I’m going to keep procrastinating, so I
procrastinate, I'm fearful that I won’t have enough money, so I get angry with myself. What a
horrible, horrible spin you’ve put on your own self. That’s the equivalent in my mind, if we say
this back in terms that might make a lot more sense 100 years ago, you put a spell on yourself, a
negative one, a bad one.
Why don’t we enchant ourselves? Not only that, but everyone else? And not only that, but there
are some ways to do it that are just slick and easy, smooth and comfortable, as surely as we can
just make a slight adjustment and see things in a new way, and that’s the power of what we’re
talking about here, and that’s why we’re dealing with nine pages instead of 900.