What Is Metaprogramming?
by Spigot
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 1996 19:43:53 -0400 (EDT)
I've got some doubts about the Metaprogramming Model and Methodology. Before I launch into an critical essay, I want to get clear in my mind what the general consensus on leri is regarding what the Model and Methodology are. This post is my guess on the general consensus. Please reply with yea or nay opinions and why.
WHY METAPROGRAM IN THE FIRST PLACE?
Because one is not content. If one is content, there would be no impetus for change. A person who is completely content would not seek out a methodology like Metaprogramming. So that is the reason to bother with Metaprogramming: because one is not content, and the Metaprogramming Model seems to offer a way to be more content. In other words, for many people, life is difficult. It is not satisfying enough, it causes stress, anxiety, struggle; it feels like one is being spun through the world and it makes one dizzy or sick, unhappy or even anguished. It feels like there should be more than there seems to be. That is the reason people are drawn to the Metaprogramming Model: because it offers a technique for "bettering oneself". In fact, if I may be so bold, there seems to be a feeling among "metaprogrammers" that they are somehow "better" than the so-called Normals, because they actually take control of their lives and try to "make it better". They don't accept the world and their lives as written in stone, and set out to become skilled at "being alive". They are "better" than the Normals because they really do take responsibility for their lives and are not content to be defined by society at large (couldn't help the editorial comment!) So there might be many reasons why a person becomes interested in the Metaprogramming Model. I daresay some people get interested because the social instituions they have been involved in (philosophy courses, the leri community, bohemian yahoos, etc) tell them that its the thing to do: better oneself.GOALS OF METAPROGRAMMING
What are the goals of Metaprogramming then? Well, loosely speaking, they are whatever personal "betterments" the metaprogrammer wants to achieve. According to the Leri FAQ, "metaprogramming has become an umbrella term for any number of approaches to self-improvement/self-refinement." The metaprogrammer decides what they want to improve/refine, and then follows the methodology of the Metaprogramming Model in order to achieve this improvement or refinement. So the "goal" of metaprogramming is the same as the desire of the metaprogrammer for self-betterment. This should be fairly obvious: a person is drawn to the methodology of metaprogramming because they have a desire to improve themselves, and the Metaprogramming Model offers a technique through which a person can better themselves. So the goal of Metaprogramming is the fulfillment of the desires of the metaprogrammer to "be better".WHAT IS THE METAPROGRAMMING MODEL?
What is the Metaprogramming Model? According to the Leri FAQ, "metaprogramming" isthe notion that inasmuch as the brain can be considered the hardware of the mind, the linguistic models that the brain uses to interpret the world -- programs -- can be modified and refined at the discretion of the metaprogrammer.
I find it interesting that this definition stressed the lingual aspect so clearly. I would opt for a more general definition, one that does not restrict itself to lingual programs. Lilly describes a "metaprogram" as "a set of instructions, descriptions, and means of control of sets of programs." And a "program" he describes as "a set of ... instructions for the computation of signals, the formation of information, the storage of both, the preparation of messages, the logical processes to be used... occuring with ... a brain." The idea is that the ways in which we think and operate are the output of programs in the brain, and that these programs are malleable. So a simple example of a metaprogram might be something like the maxim "Think for Yourself". This is a metaprogram because its commands us to examine the programs in ourselves that form opinions, and seek out and examine more fully those opinions that seem to have come from "outside sources". If you seem to form opinions "naturally", then (according to the Metaprogramming Model) you can create metaprograms to "manage" the opinion-forming programs. That's basically what metaprogramming is in a nutshell: Management of programs. It gets a bit more complicated with the introduction of recursion: One can create a metaprogram to manage metaprograms. But underlying all this is the notion that the Metaprogrammer (ie, the person) creates the metaprograms in order to manage programs.
That is the Metaprogramming Model: A person who feels a desire to change themselves can examine themselves through the metaphor of programs, and then create metaprograms in order to organize and manage their inherent programs such that they effect the change in themselves that they desire.
WHAT IS THE METAPROGRAMMING METHODOLOGY?
What is the methodology through which a person creates metaprograms? The Leri FAQ says:Altered states of consciousness are often, but not always, a factor in metaprogramming; similarly, although the psychedelic experience is often linked to metaprogramming ... it is by no means the only ... method for metaprogramming. For example, yogic disciplines, various mystic practices and disciplines, shamanic traditions, meditation, and many other consciously directed forms of concentration are used and discussed on Leri with reference to willful and positive metaprogramming.
The general methodology that I have seen in Leri is a multi-step process that proceeds somewhat as follows:
1. The process of "getting to see the programs". This is the stage that lends itself well to psychedelics and other "mystical practices" as mentioned above. Anything a person can do to "step back" from the world and see themselves as "programs" helps, and can be used in this step of the Metaprogramming Methodology. In fact, I daresay that this is where most of the focus on metaprogramming is -- using altered states to gain new perspective on the forces behind one's actions and thought processes. But there is more after this step:
2. Examining the programs for "dissonance". It is a given that the person who is involving themselves in the Metaprogramming Methodology is doing so because they want to change something. The way they go about it is to examine the thing-they-want-to-gain from the "zoomed out" perspective of the Metaprogramming Model. By seeing aspects of oneself as programs, one feels more "objective" about self-examination. By dissociating the programs from their emotional and instinctual content, and by taking the time to look at the inter-relationships of the programs, one can often come to see "the problem" they want to solve in new ways. Usually, the problem is one of dissonance between programs -- meaning, programs that "fight" each other, or of "irrational programs" -- meaning, programs that, when examined, don't make sense and/or are "groundless".
3. Correcting via a metaprogram. After all this self-examination, the metaprogrammer should (in theory) be in a position to do something about the dissonances they discover. This "doing something" is the creation of metaprograms (doing something about programs). What is done can vary widely. Perhaps a person makes a decision to attempt to form a "new habit" in daily life that will ease the dissonance. Maybe they decide not to "follow" the feelings of a program they feel is "irrational", whenever said program occurs. Maybe they "redefine terms" such that the dissonance is contained. A perons who achieves an insight that "changes their mind" about something might be said to have activated a metaprogram, but, in practical terms (from what I've seen), people tend to see metaprograms as sctive and ongoing. They willfully create them and "put them in motion", and then "keep on eye" on them over time to make sure they are doing what they are supposed to be doing. This is the "managerial-style of metaprogramming. It seems to be assumed that once a metaprogram is set up, the job is not done. One needs to maintain it (next step), and/or, one needs to be vigiliant for further dissonances and opportunities for further "improvement".
4. Maintainance. People often seem to think that it is not enough to decide to "do something" about themselves and then forget about it. They feel a need to "check up" on themselves, to maintain their "metaprograms" and seek out new problems to solve. In a sense, this is natural, especially if one of the axioms the metaprogrammer is working with is "always seek to better yourself". In effect, that maxim is a metaprogram that causes the metaprogrammer to return again and again to "problem-solving the self". However, the final stage of the Metaprogramming Methodology, as I see it in people I know, tends to be:
5. Make it Second Nature. Its a lot of work to metaprogram, but, with time, it becomes easier. Its like riding a bike. If you do it long enough, it will become semi-automatic. At this point, the process of "bettering oneself" is theoretically complete. Not only has this mature metaprogrammer achieved an ongoing technique for bettering themselves (and therefore fulfilling the original desire that got them into this in the first place), but can do it so effortlessly that they are now free to get on with living life.
WHAT IS A METAPROGRAMMER?
I should point out now that I see a big difference between a person who uses the Metaprogramming Model and Methodology to solve a problem, and a person who identifies themselves as a Metaprogrammer. In the first case, a person is using a technique in order to achieve something. When they are done, they can, if they want, forget all about metaprogramming and go on with whatever they were doing before they had to solve this problem. In the second case, a person identifies themselves with an ongoing process, a process with no well-defined end. This is the case of the person interested in eternal self-betterment. A "chronic metaprogrammer" is one who does not believe that the job is ever done, that there is always room for more self-exploration, examination, and problem-solving. It is a person who feels the need to be active in their inner workings, to be a causitive force in their Selfhood. A person who feels the need to be "at the helm", directing the course of their existance.
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 20:05:38 -0400 (EDT)
Ok, since no one had any problems with my summary of what metaprogramming is, and Scotto personally told me to forge ahead, here it goes.
I already alluded to the problem I have with metaprogramming in the first post -- that it doesn't go far enough, that it "drops the ball on the goalline" as an ideology. To be sure, I have no problems with metaprogramming as a tool. If you got a problem, the Metaprogramming Model and Methodology can probably offer help in solving it. But metaprogramming, like psychoanalysis, is often touted as more than a tool, but as an ideology. And you know what they say: "When you've got a metaprogramming hammer in your hand, the world looks like a programmatic nail."
I'm sure there are people for who this does not hold true, but my general impression is that someone who identifies themselves as a "metaprogrammer" is creating an insolvable problem for themselves. The same holds true for anyone who gives themselves over to an ideology of "self-betterment". People seek out a myriad of methods and techniques for "consciousness expansion", they want to "better understand themselves", and so they take up "non-recreational" drug use (what a terrible term, non-recreational? ie, this is work, this is important), they take up martial arts to get better discipline, higher education for better thinking, various spiritual explorations for better "spirituality". They go to psychoanalysists, psychiatrists, tarot-readers, gurus, doctors, anyone who gives them the feeling that they are doing something about making their life "better". Metaprogramming falls into a very old tradition in that it offers not only a tool, but a whole way of thinking and being for those who are looking for such things. Metaprogramming promises, to those who are asking, to give the initiate "eternal betterment": With this technique, you can continue to better yourself forever. Psychoanalysis offers the same promise, more or less. In fact, most consuling and education do.
Granted, many institutions talk about goals. A person in psychoanalysis is seeking to be "cured". A person in education is seeking "graduation". A person in consuling is seeking release from trauma. And these institutionalized organizations do claim to work toward these goals, but how often are they achieved? The individual released from trauma is so rare as to be a pipe-dream. Are not we all traumatized in one way or another. Simply being alive in modern society is pretty high on the trauma meter right there. How many people end up seeing shrinks for their entire lives? How many end up striving to learn as much as they can until the day they die? The Metaprogramming Ideology is far worse than most of these institutions -- it doesn't even pretend to have the goal of "cure". Metaprogramming is self-exploration, and it is open-ended. If you seek the ultimate in consciousness-expansion, you've set yourself an infinitely high mountain, and as long as you continue to climb, rest assured that you will die before even perceiving the top.
This is the weakness of the Metaprogramming Model, as I see it: It leaves out the last step. Once you have mastered metaprogramming, once you "got it down", once its second nature, there is still a problem: there is still an ego floating unattached to reality. And if the ego has identified itself as a metaprogrammer for a significant amount of time, the easing of the passion of being a metaprogramming can leave the ego cold and alone. This is the weakness: the Metaprogramming Model says that there is a programmer, there is an ego. Like psychoanalysis, it actually supports the very social entity it has been treating so abstractly all along. Metaprogramming asks the person to observe the various aspects of self dispassionately, seeing them as programmatic, malleable -- that the self can change itself without destroying itself. But at the same time it affirms the supremacy of the ego. In this way the model is contradictory.
Metaprogrammers might speak of the self and the ego as being "just another program", and under the influence of drugs, they can seem to be. But in practice, people seem to feel as if they are in control of their programmatic lives. As if their metaprogramming achievements came about because they caused them to be so. They say: "I have made my life a better place for me to be". Although they might also say: "What do I do now?" This is because the Metaprogramming Model does not place enough emphasis on the non-specialness of the ego "as a program". In fact, the Model even supports the idea that the ego is responsible and causitive. That the ego is the self, and that metaprogramming is a great tool that helps the ego "get control" of "all that other stuff" that unfortunately makes up a person.
It is unfortunate, because the Model could so easily incorporate the idea that all aspects of a person are programmatic. The model could suggest that the conscious, point-of-view, ego-based programs are no better, no more "in control" of the entity than are other types of programs. To say that the ego is more important, more causitive of behavior and action, is a bald assertation. And it is an assertation that has come under pressure for more than a century now. As long ago as Freud it was seen how the "unconscious" can exert powerful and deep forces upon the being. Identifying oneself with the ego and saying "I am in control (more or less)", is akin to taking sides in a battle that one cannot win. The best that can be hoped for is stalemate.
And so the last, unsaid, advice of the Metaprogramming Model should be something like this: Once you feel you've "got metaprogramming", forget it and live. Apply similar advice to all models: Once you've got something, you got it; any more time spent dwelling in the speculative, abstract world of models is time not spent in the world. Thinking about models is fine and dandy, but the danger is in being tricked into thinking the traits of the models are real. And we think we are too clever to be fooled, but we've all been fooled into thinking the ego is in control. Models and abstract thinking are briars, even the most intrepid pioneer is going to get caught up now and then.
Maybe Asimov's rule applies here: After "getting" a model or a style/mode of thinking, don't think about it for a year; then see how its been. Odds are, you will have incorporated your thoughts into yourself in a deeper way. If you really want to know your models, you have to egotistically let them go, so they will sink down. Once again, the price for a soul is the apparent sacrifice of the ego. The sacrifice is only apparent because the ego isn't actually going to up and leave, its a part of you. But by holding onto it, one focuses on it, to the detriment of all the other parts of oneself. By letting go of the ego, you release it from a clenching grip and allow it to flourish in glory. The war is over.