Meta talk - is it possible?

It’s possible, it’s rare, I crave it, I get it with a few people.

It’s almost impossible, because we are inside our paradigms.

I’ve had a few experiences, especially at my college. In fact, every dorm at my school has a house board of students representing different roles needed in the house. One of the positions is called a “meta-head” and just like having roles like “eco-head” and “diversity-head,” they tend to be leaders of this kind of needed quality and help encourage it throughout the house.

I have never had this experience with anyone in my family though because they all tend to shut out their emotions. I’m kind of the black sheep because of that difference.

I see and hear it all the time in AA meetings. One often has little knowledge of the circumstances of a speaker, yet there is a base understanding of each other’s view of the world, and a frank discussion of the emotional states one has experienced.

I don’t think I ever have, but I want to. I really want to.

Yes. I volunteer at a thrift shop whose proceeds cover the expenses of a free clinic. My co-workers and I would probably never meet or hobnob IRL, if not for this place where we donate our time. That sort of situation doesn’t always guarantee participants are going to wholly step out of their social status/ awareness— that has happened as well—but the likelihood of it is greater than in other areas.

This is a bit dark, and I apologize in advance: A perfect opportunity for meta-talk would be one where everyone’s lives are equally in danger, e.g. trapped in an elevator. You want to communicate to pass the time and/or to reassure yourself/ your companions—and who cares at that moment if one person is the CEO and another is the janitor? That’ll all change once everyone’s safe, but for that moment you’re all just human beings hoping to get out of your present circumstances alive.

It is most apparent in what I call the universal holy languages. No code required.

Sigh, cry, growl, moan, pffft, hummmm, hmft, ahhh, ha… mean exactly the same things independent of alphabetic languages. They span space and time, and are just as precise with ability to express inflection upon them.

They get past the dirty details of “why” I cry, or moan. They get straight to the meat of the meaning, and it’s a meaning that we all share within our innate being. Chomsky spoke of universal grammar. I believe this is a cousin of that.

Heh, I actually thought I’d need to explain my train of thought again, but I see this is not something completely “me” then :-)

@Simone_De_Beauvoir: who are they? how does this happen for you?

@marinelife: and yet here we are, discussing just that – quite frankly I thought nobody would get what I was talking about here, and then I see all these replies from all of you. Perhaps if people see this is possible, maybe meta-talk can be made more prevalent?

@Carly: I think you’ve touched upon something here – people in everyday circumstances don’t usually consciously think in paradigms, and it can be difficult for them to swich to one such as this. I also did not have much success with my family, wish I knew how to do that. Especially when it comes to older people like grandparents, what a mine of information about life they would be if only they were able to comprehend and switch to meta-head mode :-)

@zenvelo: it must be incredible, I mean apart from the issues discussed of course, that kind of experience sharing. A very interesting example – wasn’t expecting any from “real life” to tell the truth :-) Thank you

@Blackberry: I remember having two such experiences: way back in high school with a group of new friends, we got together one evening on the first day of a class trip to the mountains, and we started discussing the meaning of life, what each thought reality was all about – it was the most amazing talk I have ever had. Another time I met three other people a guy from Netherlands, a girj from Japan and a girl from Canada (I’m Polish btw) – and we met in Ireland ;-) a bit of a different experience there – the “meta” part sort of happpened. It was like four aliens, masquerading as humans, met after a very long tme (I can’t explain the feeling any better). We went to the pub for a beer, talked for hours about… I don’t even remember what, but it felt like we knew each other from somewhere, we all got that feeling at the same time. Really weird, but, again, a fantastic experience.

I suppose what I’m saying here is that sometimes it takes getting together with some “right-minded” people, sometimes it just happens. Hope you experience it at least once before dying, it’s really great.

@peridot: I can see how this might work – have you seen “Cube”? “beings hoping to get out of your present circumstances” – this is probably the key. Think of life as a trap, and people will start ‘helping each other escape’ communicating freely – during a jailbreak nobody asks what your job was, or what you believe in, you’d usually just work together, right?

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies: Agreed. What is interesting for me though btw., (other) animals sometimes also exhibit such behaviour (another hangup most people have – not seeing ouselves for the animals we are). But IMO it’s not just about the linguistic aspect of communication. It’s the thinking, most of all, that needs to change in order to allow the exchange of information on a meta level. Lots of people either never heard of the idea, or don’t seem to be able to grasp the notion. It’s a bit like Socrates’ cave…

That is the responsibility of the visual arts, and the metaphor and analogy of poetry and song.

And the big difference between humans and animals is our unique capacity to invent new languages to express new abstract reasoning. Animals are stuck with their innate language, and it doesn’t evolve, nor can they manifest new ones.

Mathematics may tell me how the sun rises. But poetry is required to express how I feel about that sunrise. We as humans create these language tools for different purposes. Animals cannot do that.

If meta-talk is direct human to human communication, then using words makes the goal impossible. Words are a translation of what we experience into symbols for that experience which we then pass on to someone else who has to translate the symbols back into reality, if they are to understand the message.

Theoretically, metatalk would be talk that bypasses the symbols. In fact, we humans do that all the time. Some of us are more aware of us than others. Some of us know how to make it easier to engage in metatalk.

To engage in metatalk, you probably first need to lose the idea of “talk.” To engage in direct communication, you have to shut your talk-mind up long enough for the direct-experience mind to become apparent. When you are using this mind, you can communicate to people through a variety of mechanisms—usually artistic ones—directly. No translation into symbols, such as words.

Then again, my idea about this may be something completely different from what you had in mind.

Terrence McKenna had a great deal to say upon this subject. You may find what you’re looking for in his descriptions of DMT experiences where self dribbling elf machines attempted to teach him how to create Visual Meaning. They, just like all other self dribbling elf machines, live in a realm where meaning is not spoken, but it is beheld.

Hanging in the chemo ward during an 8 hour toxic drip really promotes this. I don’t recommend it as a method whereby to achieve meta-talk, but it’s very effective.

Is it really difficult, or does it just seem that way to whatever is being called “you”?

Yes, but it’s always been with someone similar to me in age and position in life (live in the same area, same living conditions, same kind of jobs, etc). It would be very interesting to have these conversations with someone dissimilar to me, but the fact that it hasn’t happened makes me wonder if it’s possible, since we’re so far apart in viewpoint. It would seem humans have the same basic emotions and foundational instincts or whatever, but can people so far apart communicate with each other on that level?

I have been able to talk like this with a very small number of people. One of them, my best friend of 25 years.

can anyone else read the link @RealEyesRealizeRealLies put up? I can’t :/

I’ve had a very few people I could have that connection with—almost like we understood each other on a visceral level. It’s the most amazing, beautiful connection possible but it seems like Shakespeare got it right when he said:
“These violent delights have violent ends
And in their triumph die, like fire and powder,
Which as they kiss consume: the sweetest honey
Is loathsome in his own deliciousness
And in the taste confounds the appetite:
Therefore love moderately; long love so;
Too swift arrives as tardy as too slow.”

I think it’s a heady, ethereal moment to have meta-connections or meta-talk, but the only one that I’ve had this connection with and lasted is a female friend I’ve had for 15 years. It might have something to do with the fact we’re both artists, actors and poets! :D

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies Well said! IMO it is broader than that though.
(continued in a response @wundayatta): It is not just about communicating directly what you experience rather than what you think (well that is the next stage at least) – the most important part, initially, is the understanding and the will of both communicators (to use a simple 1 to 1 model here) to actually give up those communication barriers. I think the biggest hurdle in this respect is trust, or lack thereof – wouldn’t you say?

Regarding McKeena‘s Visible Language and VE, take a look at Edward De Bono‘s Language Code I read about it years ago and just remembered about the concept. Simply brilliant for clarifying and very “pro-meta” :-)

@JilltheTooth : Seems like our instinct to form a “tribe” in a crisis. I notice more and more that these types of situations, in which we are forced to rely on others foster a more (truly) honest approach to communication. I think same would ring true of people in a state of shock or with PTSD – I reckon one is more prone to be honest and to meta-talk when in danger, or in extremely stressfull situations. Wonder what the trigger for meta-communication could be for being in calmer states of mind…

@CunningLinguist : I could not agree more :-) The problem IMO boils down to the “person” fearing ostracism of sorts – one of the downsides of organized society I think. People like to forget they are mortal, and cling to whatever seems to make up this “self”, this “person” – in this respect how can you meta-talk with others if you don’t know yourself on that fundamental level?

@efritz : It might be possible, I suppose it depends on the level of personal enlightenment openmindedness of whomever it is you are trying to meta-talk with. Usually as people get older, they tend to get entrenched deeper and deeper in their beliefs, there are of course exceptions to that rule, but such truly openminded people are scarce it would seem.

Before attempting to meta with someone new, I like to ask them if they would like it in the form of a zen koan – the cup of tea, people like stories and I always liked this one for its succintness. That is one way of introducing the subject :-)

@downtide : I think the meta-mode of thinking should be taught in schools somehow, along with other interesting tools like the six thinking hats, or mindmapping etc. :-) I’m positive there are plenty of people out there who would welcome the idea, but are either unaware of it, or are too buried in their social-construct, their “person” to try that.

@Carly : no problems here :-) change the browser you are using perhaps?

@linguaphile : Jolly good quote, dear fellow! Pip, pip! ;-) Artists of sorts do tend to be more open-minded about life, and how to interpret it – “There are no facts, only interpretations” as Nietzsche said. Btw. I have such a friend too, but she is also very strongly influenced by religion, so it gets… interesting at times :D

@Everyjelly : Do you think we could get Fluther to include a “MeTalk” category to our question asking? Or, more importantly, would you welcome this new idea?

@fremen_warrior It is not just about communicating directly what you experience rather than what you think (well that is the next stage at least) – the most important part, initially, is the understanding and the will of both communicators (to use a simple 1 to 1 model here) to actually give up those communication barriers. I think the biggest hurdle in this respect is trust, or lack thereof – wouldn’t you say?

I’m not sure it is necessary to understand it in any cognitive way. In fact, I think that is counter-productive. What is important is to do it. If you practice something that removes “thought,” so to speak, there you are. Direct experience. No barrier between you and experience. No translation into symbolic thought. Trust is automatic after that. If you’re really there, than there is no other option except trust.

It’s not an analysis; it just is. You know. There is no question.

Of course, it’s easy to go in and out of this state. Thoughts are constantly intruding. Then again, non-thought is constantly appearing, too.

It is not actually all that difficult to lead people into this kind of experience. But there’s one big thing that’s in the way—self-consciousness. If you think it’s weird or you become self-conscious about whether you are doing the right thing or whether you look stupid, you’re not going to be able to achieve direct communication.

@wundayatta : perhaps you are right. But what I also meant by this was that once you are aware of meta and how to do it, it is much easier to try and stick to it despite the self-consciousness (which, indeed, can be a real issue in this context).

btw. I like how your approach reminds me of some zen ideas on life :-)

@fremen_warrior There’s more than one way to get to the same place. I’m not really good at zen practice. It’s just not for me. But there are other practices. One might not normally consider them to be practices, but they do the trick, I think.

There is another twist on self-consciousness. Once you get good and comfortable at what you call the meta-talk, it is then possible to allow your consciousness to creep into the picture—just a bit—to observe. The point of this is to remember what happened while you were in that state. One peculiar characteristic of meta-talk is that it is hard to remember what happens. Memory requires symbolic thought, I’m guessing. So the trick is to keep consciousness away except for just enough to let you remember without becoming too conscious to maintain meta-talk.

@wundayatta : to what end?

So you can remember your experience, and learn more from it.

When I was a kid, there were many scenes where I’d done something to anger Mom, and she was taking that anger out on me. And I’d disassociate, and it would feel like she and I were playing the “roles,” almost, of Violent Mom and Scared Kid, respectively. And she was so caught up in her own personal hurricane of anger over the way I forgot to change the cat’s water (or something equally stupid) and I would wonder, why is it that we can’t just stop for a minute, step out of our little box, and see this for the ridiculous event that it is?

With this in mind, I went into adult relationships with the hope that I could do this. It never really happened until I met the guy I married. We have a really civilized way of fighting, I think. I mean, the Cause happens (whatever that is), and he and I have a good little while (10 mins? Half an hour?) of blowing up in our little anger paradigm boxes (for lack of a better description). Then, after a little while, we start talking rationally to each other. “From my viewpoint, what I think happened was…” (one of us will start), and the other listens. Then the other explains what happened from their point of view, and some modicum of understanding occurs. This feels more like meta talk.

@wundayatta that is beyond the point – or, rather, that is a whole other discussion, you are going offtopic slightly here – but yeah, once you’ve achieved ‘the Meta’ the next step would be to do that I reckon – try and benefit the most from it by, amongst other things, retaining a vivid memory of how it went down and what it felt like

@laureth that is a great example and it’s cool you could actually find and apply this IRL. Yeah, the angry parent/scared kid scene seems all but too familiar. As a dear friend of mine once said: “People often get caught up in their silly little lives as if they were watching their favourite tv show” i.e. they don’t realize just how blind they’ve become.

Dylan Moran once said, there is a lot of (unnecessary?) fear in the world and I believe that is part of the problem why people can’t, or even won’t just outright meta with others…

I just went to a 10 day vipassana meditation retreat. The first 9 days we were not allowed to talk, not speech, nor hand gestures. But i was around twenty other women, eating, sleeping in a small room with 6 bunk beds, etc. Everyone mostly focused on themselves, and I sensed an incredible sense of freedom.
On the 10th day we were allowed to speak; and it was incredibly weird to have someone ask you things like, “so what made you want to come here?” ... It made me realize how much we had interacted without a social self, and well… it was a bit like putting clothes after being purely ourselves, in the moment.

I’m a zen man wannabe myself, almost made it to a retreat but there was some miscommunication so I never got there. Forgot about the idea since. I’d heard before that the experience can be quite mind changing indeed. Thank you for reminding me of this :-)

Taking your observations a bit further, I think this kind of communication is what “the mystics” speak of as that real kind of love. Not based on a desire to have, but on recognizing the similarities. One sentience touching another without the hangups of classification, personality; just recognition that they are there, alive, exploring the world.

I envy your experience :-)

@fremen_warrior I read this thread when you first posted it—but a lot has happened in the past 10 months to me… a lot—and rediscovered this thread and it read completely different than it did in August. Wow—it’s amazing how an intense life experience can change how you read things, even in just a few months. I enjoy those kinds of perspective shifts/growths!

I had a meta-moment with someone recently. I met a person who has been through a lot—drug addiction, divorces, abuse, full-scale reputation destruction, is losing a parent to Alzheimer’s and emerged with a different perspective of humanity. He’s less judgmental, very religious, wants to give to others and yet very guarded. During one of our conversations, after he opened up and shared something intense, we sat and looked at each other for a good 3 minutes, not saying anything. There was a quiet sense of recognition, respect and friendship—

We might not be able to return to that sphere because he feels very strongly about his Evangelical Christian viewpoints and I stay as far away from Evangelical as I can get. I really hope our earthly viewpoints won’t prevent a repeat meta-occurrence.

@linguaphile Thank you for the story, glad you are finding more opportunities to experience this kind of connection. Imho it’s moments like this that make life worth living, even if they’re few and far inbetween. I for instance have but two fiends, however these are people who I can naturally go into meta mode with almost instantly – however we do meet perhaps once or twice a year for a few days max. There were two more, but they too have become consumed with religious dogma and the connection faded.

Seems unless you share belief systems, religion can hamper this kind of communication, think about it, if you were also of your friends faith there would be a bigger meta potential there :-)

The question I hear is ” Can you know what I mean even if I were unable to effectively articulate my thoughts?”

The answer is yes!

This type of communication stumbles upon the fact that I may not want to accept your true meaning of your communication…
...or you in your communication also denies it true meaning.
So we measure our words so as to maximize gain and minimize loss to ourselves ( this gain/loss can be tangible/intangible). And the person to whom the communications is directed is directly or indirectly responsible for that gain/loss. This is the basis for the class structure of our society.

Meta Talk can strive only when the all becomes as one…that when gain belongs to all just as one and loss belongs to all just as the one.

But the beginning of this the you as the one must become as the all, first accepting that there is a risk that you will not gain but lose.
Only after losing all one realises that he has not lost but gained.

For many is of the opinion that the enemy of all things is nothing, but it is not so….
The biggest enemy to all things is many things, and he with many things will concerning himself about not losing it. thus creating a false mindset within himself, which is projected onto everyone else which is the beginning of all mis-communications.