Re: ADD
Ed said:
>I'm looking for information on treating ADD in youths(ages 15 - 19). Does
anyone have suggestions on what are some good NLP reference sources? Any
specific strategies that have been use by others are welcomed.
Now here's a list cross-over: I'm subscribed to the de-clutter's list (don't
ask) and there's been some speculation there about the influence of ADD on
people who clutter. Therefore while not a sufferer myself, Id be interested
too.
Duncan
Forum : Mind/Body Sciences
Section : LearningTech/NLP
Last update: 01-Oct-1996 , 23:19:20
==== Message 1 ==== NLP Where Next? =========================================
Message ID : 35850
Hello all,
Some months ago I attempted to start a serious debate on the development and
future of NLP and related fields of study. For many reasons my postings met
with a mixture of responses ranging from the curious to the defensive and
hostile. Not to be deterred I would like to try again. I would like to invite
all serious users of NLP to help contribute to this discussion. I still believe
that this format is a most useful means of exploring such ideas, so if anyone
out there has any interesting thoughts or views on where NLP is going, how we
can develop the concepts, methods and techniques further then why not post them
for general discussion. Your ideas may not always meet with the approval of
others but good feedback is what helps us develop our thinking.
I look forward to hearing from you
Cheers for now
David
==== Message 2 ==== NLP Where Next? =========================================
Message ID : 36141
David
<<I look forward to hearing from you>>
Count me in, I'm always interested in throwing around new ideas.
Charlie
==== Message 3 ==== NLP Where Next? =========================================
Message ID : 36565
Hi David.
I enjoyed meeting you again last weekend, & enjoyed your workshop too.
<< if anyone out there has any interesting thoughts or views on where NLP is
going, how we can develop the concepts, methods and techniques further then why
not post them for general discussion>>
If we look where NLP is now, then we can extrapolate the trend.
The leading international names in NLP are all rushing out of NLP & trying to
create something different.
Richard Bandler has created DHE & PE
Tad James has 'created' Timelines
Robert Dilts is concerned with 'Health & Well-being'
Connirae Andreas has created the 'Core Outcome' transformation process
John McWhirter has developed DBM & Systemic Counselling
Tony Robbins has 'created' NACS
The poor novice has the almost impossible task of sorting out which of these
are genuine & worthwhile developments, & which are just commodities carefully
packaged for best market appeal.
The NLP practitioner courses seem to be getting ever shorter.I believe Tad
James started this with his 1 week course - provided you paid for his tape &
video course as well. I understand that Richard Bandler is creating an even
shorter practitioner course. I am waiting to see who will be the first trainer
to award an NLP Practitioner Certificate when you collect 6 tokens from a
cornflakes packet.
The last time I visited the (British) ANLP annual conference, I was
underwhelmed by the lack of any new or interesting applications & developments
of NLP. There were a load of bodyworkers & others selling their workshops;
People using NLP to make astrology (!) respectable; Trainers enticing novices
onto their courses. But very little new or interesting to master practitioners.
NLP boasts about its prowess at modelling, but I could see no evidence of this
at the conference.
The problem seems to be that there is no ownership of NLP. Anyone & everyone
can jump onto the bandwagon, with the result that quality has got lost on the
way. There will always be someone to buy a cheaper, nastier product, and NLP is
increasingly being associated with this. I don't know if there is anything
that can be done to restore genuine quality to NLP training. It may be too
late, in which case the future of NLP lies in the 'New Age & Hippie Wannabee'
catalogue, somewhere between 'Navel Gazing' & 'Psychic Energy Development'.
If NLP is to survive in a meaningful way, we need a central organisation that
owns the rights to the name. Stricter quality criteria on NLP courses arer
essential. This means a guaranteed minimum number of training hours. Better
assesment of trainers is vital. The syllabus needs to be updated; why the 6
step reframe is still taught, I have no idea. There are also problems with
other techniques which need resolving.
If these conditions are met, maybe NLP can regain its edge of quality.
Otherwise, the running will be taken up by Ericsonian hypnotists & other
organisations that DO set themselves tough quality criteria & do develop their
teaching.
Yours
Robert
==== Message 4 ==== NLP Where Next? =========================================
Message ID : 36614
Hi David,
For one view of "where next", you may like to look at "Occam's Razor in the NLP
Toolbox" by me and Jenny Clarke (who you may know), which will be in the next
issue of NLP World.
Briefly, we take a view that NLP started out as a relatively simple approach
compared to conventional spycho-stuff for help people get their outcomes.
Modelling was stated to be key. Then lots of "techniques" showed up (allegedly
from some of the early modelling activities) until "NLP" becomes the learning
of these techniques. Then we have people inventing lots of "different"
techniques to sell them (DHE, Core Transformation, DBM, etc etc), and now the
situation is coming to a point where the "NLP" model is as complicated, and as
riddled with nominalisations, experts, terminology etc as more conventional
approaches.
Our view of one "where next" is where Occam's Razor is applied to the whole
shebang. Occam was a philosopher in the Middle Ages who arrived at the
principle that "It is vain to do with more what can be done with fewer", ie
that to invent extra assumptions where they are not strictly necessary to
explain the data is not helpful. It seems to us that NLP is now creating extra
stuff hand over fist, in the no doubt honourable interests of making livings
for more people. Our view of the simplest future is one where "NLP" skills are
taight and used to help people model (or self-model) what works FOR THEM - not
what worked once for some people that some whizz-kid from Califoria interviewed
twenty years ago.
A simpler future might include fewer Models being taught, more modelling, more
self-modelling, explicit valuing of self-modelling (both by the modellers and
the "experts"), less time in training, more time doing, more traditions of
evidence questioning, fewer traditions of reification duelling, fewer
committees taken less seriously by themselves, certificate-free zones,
conferences about successes in modelling rather than sales pitches for "NLP"
formats, and continuous revision and reduction of the "NLP" format content of
"NLP" courses.
We are concerned abou a different future - one where the DSM might have an
entry again "NLPer" which read something like:
"Compulsive training attendee, attempts to communicate using profuse
polysyllabisms about arcane processes, doesn't use these processes other than
to infect other "NLPers" (they call this "training"). Uses the word "meta" a
lot, sometimes in chains of two or even threes. Strong focus on accreditation
and committees (in the UK in particular) - liable to demonstrate their
competence by waving pieces of paper. Talks a lot about respecting everyone's
opinions, often accompanied by evidence of increased affect with verbalisation
of negative attributions inappropriate to social context. Marked humour
deficiency."
Hope this is a useful contribution to your discussion. For info on NLP World,
email G Peter Winnington on 100031,3620 here at Compuserve.
Cheers for now
Mark McKergow
==== Message 5 ==== NLP Where Next? =========================================
Message ID : 36782
Hello Robert,
>>I understand that Richard Bandler is creating an even shorter
>>practitioner course.
Richard's Practitioner course is 10 days. It's being held in LA next
June. He is conducting an abreviated version in the UK next year which will
include the most basic and powerful change techniques. He has coordinated this
course with Michael Breen and Paul McKenna and it goes along with the
continuing support with other trainers and training in the UK for those who
want even more information.
>>The last time I visited the (British) ANLP annual conference, I
>>was underwhelmed by the lack of any new or interesting
>>applications & developments of NLP. There were a load of
>>bodyworkers & others selling their workshops; People using NLP
>>to make astrology (!) respectable; Trainers enticing novices
>>onto their courses. But very little new or interesting to
>>master practitioners. NLP boasts about its prowess at
>>modelling, but I could see no evidence of this at the
>>conference.
Some people just don't stay on top of the latest developments in the
field.
>>The problem seems to be that there is no ownership of NLP.
>>If NLP is to survive in a meaningful way, we need a central
>>organisation that owns the rights to the name. Stricter quality
>>criteria on NLP courses arer essential. This means a guaranteed
>>minimum number of training hours. Better assesment of trainers
>>is vital. The syllabus needs to be updated; why the 6 step
>>reframe is still taught, I have no idea. There are also
>>problems with other techniques which need resolving.
We agree. NLP™ as a technolgy, is owned by Richard Bandler and steps are
currently being taken to rectify all situations that are dubious.
People don't learn because of the time they spend in any classroom, so a
minimum number of hours is not the best criteria to set. The criteria is
according to performance of the skill set, which can be found at
http://www.purenlp.com in the "articles" section.
Be Well,
John La Valle
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
For the latest information copy: nlp@megd.com into address field and ask for
info
NLP™ Seminars Group International
PO Box 424
Hopatcong, NJ 07843
(201) 770-3600
http://www.purenlp.com
Your Brain Works Faster Than You Think™
==== Message 6 ==== NLP Where Next? =========================================
Message ID : 36695
Hello Mark,
Thanks very much for your interesting response, I enjoyed it very much. I have
thought about your comments and here are some initial responses. I hope you
enjoy them.
>>Briefly, we take a view that NLP started out as a relatively simple approach
compared to conventional spycho-stuff for help people get their outcomes.
Modelling was stated to be key. Then lots of "techniques" showed up (allegedly
from some of the early modelling activities) until "NLP" becomes the learning
of these techniques. Then we have people inventing lots of "different"
techniques to sell them (DHE, Core Transformation, DBM, etc etc), and now the
situation is coming to a point where the "NLP" model is as complicated, and as
riddled with nominalisations, experts, terminology etc as more conventional
approaches. >>
I notice that you have connected DHE, Core Transformation and DBM as
""Different" techniques". Having experienced both DHE and in greater depth DBM
(I can't speak for Core Transformation) I would have to say that these two
approaches are very different. DBM is not a technique. I wonder what experience
you may have had of DBM in order to make this connection?
I think that your basic idea of applying Occams razor is a good one. But, how
do we identify what is enough? The basic problem is that the territory, ie:
human subjective experience is amazingly complex and like any complex territory
in order to explore we need maps and models. Now we know that the map can never
be the same as the territory but at the same time we attempt to develop the
most useful maps that more closely map the territory than previous ones. In
this way we can navigate about the territory with greater precision. The more
maps or models that I have at my disposal, all for different purposes, the
greater my degree of flexibility in adapting to a wide variety of situations. I
would not use a weather map to climb Mt. Snowdon but then neither would I use
an ordenance survey map to predict the weather.
So, I think that we need to make a basic distinction between techniques and
models. This does not appear to be a distinction that you have made. I would
agree with you that there the plethora of new techniques around in the market
complicates matters considerably. It is not more techniques that are
necessarilly needed but we do need to constantly update and refine our models
if we are to progress and move ever closer to accurately predicting the
territory.
>>Our view of the simplest future is one where "NLP" skills are taight and
used to help people model (or self-model) what works FOR THEM - not what worked
once for some people that some whizz-kid from Califoria interviewed twenty
years ago.>>
To do this people need to know how to model, in my experience few NLP'ers know
how to model. NLP does not teach us how to model. This is why folk have to keep
going back for the next, trendy new technique.
One concern that I might have for your view of the future is how it might be
understood. Not necessarilly by yourselves but quite possibly by others. The
notion of simple is good, complex is bad is potentially dangerous. As I said
earlier, human subjective experience is complex and to over simplify both
dehumanises and leads to wild and unpredicatble behaviour on the part of
practitioners in attempting to influence others. Ultimately, ecological
problems are bound to arise. I think that NLP has already proven too simplistic
in it's basic approach and I for one would like to see an improvement in the
quality of understanding of what it is to be human. This qualitiative
improvment can surely only come about with richer, more precise models.
To aply Occams Razor we need to be able to effectively evaluate the impact of
our approach. We need to know precisely how our behaviour helps achieve a
verifiable outcome. In my experience of NLP and NLP practitioners this
knowledge is rare and the achievement of specific, verifiable outcomes is also
rare.
Cheers for now
David McNorton
==== Message 7 ==== NLP Where Next? =========================================
Message ID : 36783
Hello Mark,
<<Then we have people inventing lots of
>>"different" techniques to sell them (DHE, Core Transformation,
>>DBM, etc etc), and now the situation is coming to a point where
>>the "NLP" model is as complicated, and as riddled with
>>nominalisations, experts, terminology etc as more conventional
>>approaches.
Which is precisely why people who are genuinely in learning NLP ought to
check out those institutes licensed by The Society of NLP™, and Richard
Bandler. He created the technology and has remained consistent in it's
application.
>>Our view of one "where next" is where Occam's Razor is applied
>>to the whole shebang. Occam was a philosopher in the Middle
>>Ages who arrived at the principle that "It is vain to do with
>>more what can be done with fewer", ie that to invent extra
>>assumptions where they are not strictly necessary to explain
>>the data is not helpful. It seems to us that NLP is now
>>creating extra stuff hand over fist, in the no doubt honourable
>>interests of making livings for more people. Our view of the
>>simplest future is one where "NLP" skills are taight and used
>>to help people model (or self-model) what works FOR THEM - not
>>what worked once for some people that some whizz-kid from
>>Califoria interviewed twenty years ago.
Occam obviously didn't know about generative processes. This includes
deveoloping unlimited possibilities with limited resources, which is what DHE™
is about.
>>A simpler future might include fewer Models being taught, more
>>modelling, more self-modelling, explicit valuing of
>>self-modelling (both by the modellers and the "experts"), less
>>time in training, more time doing, more traditions of evidence
>>questioning, fewer traditions of reification duelling, fewer
>>committees taken less seriously by themselves, certificate-free
>>zones, conferences about successes in modelling rather than
>>sales pitches for "NLP" formats, and continuous revision and
>>reduction of the "NLP" format content of "NLP" courses.
Our main concern is skill development. And people deserve to have the
best information available to them that will be the most useful at that time.
If someone truly finds something that will be more beneficial, then that's what
they deserve to get. To remain status quo is archaic in the area of human
development.
The most useful thing for any trainer to do is to make the distinction
between the skills and the applications of NLP. There are no true models in
NLP, just new applications. Each of these applications use the skills. Teach
the skills, then applications. From the skills, new applications will be
developed. This is a useful approach for the field. If we make these
dinstinctions enough, then the consumer will clearer about the field.
For more information go to http://www.purenlp.com in the "articles"
section where you will find definitions, and explanations for NLP™ and DHE™ by
Richard Bandler.
Be Well,
John La Valle
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
For the latest information copy: nlp@megd.com into address field and ask for
info
NLP™ Seminars Group International
PO Box 424
Hopatcong, NJ 07843
(201) 770-3600
http://www.purenlp.com
Your Brain Works Faster Than You Think™
==== Message 8 ==== NLP Where Next? =========================================
Message ID : 36829
David,
I'm jumping in a little after the show began, however I'm intrigued by your
challenge. NLPers claim access to a form of "practical magic" and you challenge
those of us who will to take up the gauntlet and proceed. As I understand it
the challenge is: Where is NLP going, what's in the future? Good questions for
a gypsy prince or queen.
Well I've consulted my crystal balls and being pure they sing a resonant song
of the future past. Based on some observations and experience and the replied
you've already received no one has felt truely worthy to the challenge. True
they've stepped up, they've looked out to the field, but when they swung the
bat it was to the past. Well not one to buck the trend and complain ... when
you can't beat them, charge them double$$$
Just past the turn of the century an obscure patent clerk got facinated with
the idea of magnetism, a strange attraction, and the invisible power of it. So
seemingly unexplainable, so unsubstantial and yet so impossible to deny ... the
evidence was pervasive and readily available. Some people had already begun
taming it, as in compass and turbine generators, but still what is it??? Well
not being foolish enough to tempt G-D he took up the facination and redirected
to where it might do him some good. Instead of explaining the unexplainable, he
set the task of doing up a few calculations and describing the relative nature
of the universe. In doing this he had himself a theory - Relativity to be
exact, a Special and a General theory just to cover all the bases. The man was
a baseball fan you know.
He understood the practical and the simple to him it was all ... elegant. A
precise and pure description that was self contained. Not dependent on
experiments or the approval and acceptance of others just a nice well-formed
tautology. In itself it was congruent and for him this was enough ... to change
the world. The idea of this ... Relativity ... was so attractive it became THE
metaphor for the 20th century. In fact an Austrian was so peeved that a German
would steal the thunder from the sky and develop the technology to rain down
lightening from heaven that he jumped on the rocket and applied the same
thinking to human consciousness. Imagine that a theory of thinking itself that
was relative. Then in his audacious Austrian way he suggested that this
subjective experience ... after all that's what relativity is subjective ...
even if we use the metaphor of the comos to discuss we all know we're so
egocentric it always all about us ... humans that is ... could be analyzed.
Well you probably know the rest of the story ... it's in all the right books,
and it's taught at all the right schools, however ...
You may be asking the question by now, "Does he digress?", or "What's all this
got to do with NLP anyway?. Actually very little other than I just wanted to
pay homage to history prior to getting on with it, and another lecture on the
history, or unhistory of NLP seemed so inappropriate and BORING especially
coming from someone who wasn't even born yet; and I thought I'd mention that
neither of these two theorists ever trademarked their work, they just did it
... extremely well I might add and it seemed to work for them. Oh yeah, to put
it in NLP terms ... you're aware of the primary sorts: People-Places-
Activities-Information-Things, well they didn't know they could only choose
from these so they sorted for skills.
However, I did say I'd accept and take up the gaunlet being pure of heart, and
strong of arm ... or was that just balls ...
So, let's being officially. The future of NLP is:
WHATEVER YOU IMAGINE IT TO BE!
I don't mean to be facecious but how the h-ll would I know? I mean I am after
all a magician, not a bloody fortune teller. But, I'll give it a go ...
Gregory Bateson and Edward T. Hall set the stage for this challenge years ago.
They each proposed in their own way that the future of NLP (although they
didn't call it that ... trademark infringement and all that) was evolution.
Gregory said that it's all in the patterns and agreed with Sheldrake that there
are morphogenic fields that we are by our very nature's tuned in to. Once a
member of the species takes a step forward, the whole of the species moves with
them. NLP is a way of organizing deep, preverbal cognition, by tracking it
through language ... this is critical (sorry John, it's not language, rather
it's in the language as an information gathering tool). Language itself is too
slow and cumbersome, as well as being to imprecise. However, it is a great way
to build and track a perceptual grid.
Then using this grid develop a generative template which is precisely personal.
The ULTIMATE subjective reality. Instead of creating unlimited, infinite
resources ... one or one hundred at a time ... adding in endless dimensions ...
go for the singular approach. Build a SINGULARITY ... a one dimensional model,
within which everything is contained, and lock into it. Then, for this
unyielding, uncomprimising position gather information and apply it to the task
at hand. In relation to others it's all about them, it has nothing to do with
beliefs, yours or theirs. This is beyond beliefs ... to something much deeper,
much simpler and much more practical ... evidence.
Bateson said the evidence of life is pattern. Hall said we alone (humans) evole
through our extentions.Then I suggest that we build the patterns into to our
suggestions (language is an extention as per Hall and others) that will create
the evolutionary direction we desire. In this way we have our future present.
It's just a question of operating through time ... so that we can function in
time ... and remain between time for the rest of our lives.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that the future of NLP is it's present and
past ... reality building. The tools just keep gettin' better. 'Cause once
we've done it once we can go on and on and on ...
One last point the underlying assumption that I work from is aligned with David
Bohm's view of the universe ... the Implicate Whole. The intent is to move from
fragementation to wholeness. This is in essence a spiritual journey ... where
religion has fallen behind and begun to falter- to science, and science has
become religion ... the SOUL remains. Even the ancients knew that this was the
ultimate journey. Joseph Campbell spent a lifetime exploring the territory and
finished up by saying, "Follow your bliss", good advise. NLP is a set of tools
and an attitude to get ya' there. It's kinda like meditation on jet fuel. One
way will get you there in a few lifetimes or so, the other will let you live a
few lifetimes worth ...NOW.
I know that this territory seems unfriendly ... i.e.: "The Dark Night of the
Soul". But, as they say it's the only game in town. Even Einstein knew a bit or
two ... for his $.25 cents worth ... about playing the game ... you can't
believe G-d is rolling dice with the universe and betting it all on R.B.
In his own words the greatest form of flattery is to go further. It isn't a
question of trademarks and laws ... it's a question of ethics ... a matter of
respect ... giving credit where credit is due ... it's got nothing to do with
eccentricity, a Van Gogh's great art and he was a great artist whether or not
he was liked ... Richard created and innovated and demonstrated great skills
... and he went out and taught the world ... literally ... I for one will say
it Richard's a bloody genius and we all owe him a great deal of thanks and
appreciation for the contributions past, present and future ... you don't have
to like him ... I don't even know him ... but I'll stand and recognize him and
say thanks ... and then go further ...
What do you think??? Did I go on a bit???
Joseph S. Riggio
Founder-ETHONICStm International
"Tools for Personal Evolution"tm
[R.F. ... and thanks for all the fish.]
==== Message 9 ==== NLP Where Next? =========================================
Message ID : 36931
Hi Robert,
Thanks for your lively and controversial response to my question. I hope you
don't ruffle feathers too much too gain other replies. I've taken a couple of
your points and added a couple of my own thoughts.
>>The last time I visited the (British) ANLP annual conference, I was
underwhelmed by the lack of any new or interesting applications & developments
of NLP. There were a load of bodyworkers & others selling their workshops;
People using NLP to make astrology (!) respectable; Trainers enticing novices
onto their courses. But very little new or interesting to master practitioners.
NLP boasts about its prowess at modelling, but I could see no evidence of this
at the conference.>>
I have had similar experiences at the conference. I think that the folk
involved are by and large well meaning. I do believe that they genuinely
believe in what they are doing. One of the issues here is knowing about what
it is that they don't know yet. If you are only aware of a certain scope of
knowledge and, if you do not have the questions/skills to take you beyond that
scope then it is understandable that you will want to remain comfortably within
the territory of the known. NLP does not teach how to go beyond the known.
Therefore we have a constant rehashing of the known and, through time the
standards not only do not improve they do, in my experience, diminish. NLP'ers
do not model. They claim to model but they do not have a modelling methodolgy
to work from. In the absence of a methodolgy or higher level of organisation
there is a vacuum. How, where and when to employ the many techniques they
possess? And so they borrow from other sytems that do contain higher levels of
organisation. Spirituality, Astrology, Transactional Analysis, Huna and many,
many more. Over recent years there has been a steady increase in the number of
articles appearing in NLP publications referring to these other systems of
thought. A growing number of workshops teaching these systems. And,
problematically, many of these systems are incompatible with the central pre-
suppositions of NLP. I'm sure that Huna is fine for an ancient Hawaian culture
but what on earth has it to do with us and our current use of NLP? I don't know
if you have checked out Joseph Riggios latest posting to me but a few months
ago he had some interesting things to say about the need to develop a richer
understanding of the underpinning philosophy of NLP (my words not his). I think
that I am in full agreement with Joseph on this.
>>If NLP is to survive in a meaningful way, we need a central organisation that
owns the rights to the name. Stricter quality criteria on NLP courses arer
essential. This means a guaranteed minimum number of training hours. Better
assesment of trainers is vital. The syllabus needs to be updated; why the 6
step reframe is still taught, I have no idea. There are also problems with
other techniques which need resolving.>>
I take your point Robert but these things alone are no guarantee of quality.
Just look at the types of courses run by adult education establishments in this
country. Lots of safeguards and quality control but still the standards vary
enourmously. Maybe we need to review the whole way in which NLP is taught and
learned. Having a standard syllabus means solidifying and pinning down the
content of courses. My fear here would be that the process of updating the
syllabus in the light of new innovations would be too slow. We could end up
creating a dinosaur of a course. Any syllabus would need to be at a large
enough chunk size to allow for innovations. The problem then becomes, the
larger the chunk size the less able we are to standardize and therefore assure
quality.
I think one way forward in ensuring quality is by improving the standard of
trainers. Currently, becoming an NLP trainer seems far to easy. A person, with
enough money can go from novice to certified trainer in a matter of weeks. When
I completed my trainer training it was well over a year afterwards that I was
certified and that followed many hours assisting and working along side a
Master Trainer who himself had worked quite closeley over a period of time with
Richard Bandler. And even now, having been a trainer for several years there
are aspects of NLP training that I would be very careful about taking on. My
concern is the whole plethora of cut price trainings currently appearing
organised and run by people not competent to do so.
Any way, I look forward to hearing more from you.
Cheers for now
David
==== Message 10 ==== NLP Where Next? =========================================
Message ID : 36950
>>> "Compulsive training attendee, attempts to communicate using profuse
polysyllabisms about arcane processes, doesn't use these processes other than
to infect other "NLPers" (they call this "training"). Uses the word "meta" a
lot, sometimes in chains of two or even threes. Strong focus on accreditation
and committees (in the UK in particular) - liable to demonstrate their
competence by waving pieces of paper. Talks a lot about respecting everyone's
opinions, often accompanied by evidence of increased affectation .... Marked
humour deficiency." <<<
<G>
Tony
==== Message 11 ==== NLP Where Next? =========================================
Message ID : 36865
Hello again Joseph,
It's good to hear form you again, firstly can I say how much I enjoyed our last
round of exchanges earlier in the year. I've not seen any postings from you for
some time and thought that maybe you had left the forum. I liked your latest
piece and have taken some time in thinking about the points you've raised
before replying. I thought at first that I would attempt to reply to the whole
piece but this proved too difficult and I was concerned that I might miss some
of the key points you have raised. I have therefore responded to the points in
turn. I hope that this does not mean that I have taken some of the points out
of context. I must admit that your response was challenging and I am not sure
that I understand a lot of what you say. But any way here goes!
>>NLP is a way of organizing deep, preverbal cognition, by tracking it through
language ... this is critical (sorry John, it's not language, rather it's in
the language as an information gathering tool). Language itself is too slow and
cumbersome, as well as being to imprecise. However, it is a great way to build
and track a perceptual grid.>>
This is interesting and perhaps a little controversial. I'm curious to find out
more about what you mean by preverbal cognition and in how you have concluded
language to be too slow, cumbersome and inprecise. It has been my understanding
for some time now that it is through language that we have meaning and
understanding, that it is language that raises us above the level of the rest
of the animal kingdom, that through language we have concsiosness and probably
time, cause and effect and all that goes with this. Is it your belief that
langauge is only about tracking and information gathering, is this what you are
suggesting?
>>The ULTIMATE subjective reality. Instead of creating unlimited, infinite
resources ... one or one hundred at a time ... adding in endless dimensions ...
go for the singular approach. Build a SINGULARITY ... a one dimensional model,
within which everything is contained, and lock into it. Then, for this
unyielding, uncomprimising position gather information and apply it to the task
at hand>>
I'm sorry Joseph, I'm not sure I entirely understand you here. What do you mean
by an 'ULTIMATE subjective reality'? If there can be an ultimate, then clearly
there must be others that are not ultimate. How do these differ? One way that I
could understand your piece is to think of your 'SINGULARITY' as a particular
worldview that is so healthy, generative and inclusive of all experience that
there is no need for the building of resources. The singularity is, for want of
a better word, the only resource needed. If this is close to what you might be
meaning then there are simlarities here with the generative model of change
developed by John McWhirter.
>>In relation to others it's all about them, it has nothing to do with beliefs,
yours or theirs. This is beyond beliefs ... to something much deeper, much
simpler and much more practical ... evidence.>>
If it is ALL about them then it must include their beliefs as well. It must
have something to do with beliefs. And if it is also about wholeism then it
must also be about you and me as well and not just them. So we have to include
our beliefs. I don't understand how moving beyond beliefs leads to a deeper
thing called evidence. Are you drawing a distinction here between belief and
knowledge?
>>This is in essence a spiritual journey ... where religion has fallen behind
and begun to falter- to science, and science has become religion ... the SOUL
remains. Even the ancients knew that this was the ultimate journey. Joseph
Campbell spent a lifetime exploring the territory and finished up by saying,
"Follow your bliss", good advise. NLP is a set of tools and an attitude to get
ya' there. It's kinda like meditation on jet fuel. One way will get you there
in a few lifetimes or so, the other will let you live a few lifetimes worth
...NOW.>>
I think that this is maybe a problem with language but I for one am not happy
about language like 'soul' and 'spirituality'. I am essentially an atheist and
am concerned that when all else fails we have to resort to such inprecise and
potentially dangerous concepts. Without rehashing the very complex
philisophical arguments that suround this area could I suggest the use of words
more in keeping with a wholistic or systemic epistemology.
>>One last point the underlying assumption that I work from is aligned with
David Bohm's view of the universe ... the Implicate Whole. The intent is to
move from fragementation to wholeness>>
I'd also like to hear more of your thoughts on this. By 'wholeness' do you mean
something like ecological or systemic? I think that the universe is already
whole. It is us, humans, who subjectively fragment, both ourselves and the
world around us. And this, like most things must be double edged. There is real
benefit in breaking the world into bits. Our minds have evolved to do just this
in order to negotiate the world and survive. We begin by drawing distinctions
and in this act we begin to break the world into bits. I think however that I
agree with your basic intent. That this fragmented view of the world is only
one way to understand and that we are able to understand in other more
wholistic ways but there must obviously be more to this than simply lumping all
the colours together to form a black nothingness.
>>Richard created and innovated and demonstrated great skills ... and he went
out and taught the world ... literally ... I for one will say it Richard's a
bloody genius and we all owe him a great deal of thanks and appreciation for
the contributions past, present and future ... you don't have to like him ... I
don't even know him ... but I'll stand and recognize him and say thanks ... and
then go further ...>>
I have met Richard, a couple of years ago. I'm not sure if I like him I didn't
spend enough time with him. I too respect what Richard has done and have much
admiration for his work. I'm not so sure I like some of the things he is
currently doing, I think some of his claims are a little outrageous. But I
cannot dispute the huge impact that he has indirectly had on my life.
In posing my original question I had several things in mind. I think that as a
culture we are entirely without a concsious, purposeful direction. Mostly, the
way in which we as humans are now evolving is connected to economics. It is
materialism that currently dictates the future. I think that this is also true
within the world of NLP. NLP is developing that's a fact, but to what end? As
an increasing number of new models, techniques and approaches come into the
market what seems to me to organise their success or failure is more to do with
their economic viabilty than anything else. In this way there is no conscious,
purposeful direction set. One of the ideas I am suggesting is, should we as a
group, system or whatever, begin to identify where we want to take NLP
development and not leave it to the non conscious whims of the market economy.
Anyway I look forward to hearing from you,
Cheers for now
David McNorton
PS: I'm trying out a different fishing bait this time around, one that I hope
works a little more ecolgically.
==== Message 12 ==== NLP Where Next? =========================================
Message ID : 36911
Hello again David,
It's good to hear form you again as well. I also enjoyed our last round of
exchanges earlier in the year. Your new bait is temptation itself. It's a
pleasure to assume the challenge of a well posed intellectual overture. The
seduction of the mind is a delicate affair and the players must not be fair ...
of heart.I've been in and out, in and out ... of the forum, on a self imposed
sabbatical. I'm glad you found that I've RISEN to the occasion. I am an Italian
after all ... and from Newark, New Jersey at that.
I remember the question, "Where is NLP going, what's in the future?". I think
it's appropriate to take a look at the present and past. To put it simply ...
NLP is NOT about modeling ... it's NOT about techniques ... it's NOT about
therapy ... kNOT ... kNOT ... kNOT ... it's about BUILDING REALITIES ...
personal REALITIES ... one at a time ... it's about unraveling the mysteries
... of the mind ... using language as a tool. The structure of language is the
knot ... and NLP is the sword.
Language is the medium ... however it's a bit like ZEN ... a finger pointing to
the moon. The astral body in this case is the pre-verbal structure of direct
experience. This preverbal experience is immediate and instantaneous. Language
must proceed through perception and cognition prior to being formed. In this
process the pure FORM of REALITY is fractured and limited. Is language a unique
and powerful human tool? ... Of course it is ... but an extremely limited one
... and only one of many. It is in combination with the entire repetiore of
human tools that language goes from limiting to revealing. You state ...
>>langauge is only about tracking and information gathering<< ... and I agree
that is one aspect and an under used one at that ... maybe even the most
useful.
Maybe I should speak in terms of more inclusivity ... in opposition to
ultimatums. An all inclusive REALITY would be a h-ll of a position to operate
from. Again, you state it so well ... >>a particular worldview that is so
healthy, generative and inclusive of all experience that there is no need for
the building of resources<<. This is the position of the SOUL. I am sorry that
you don't like my word ... but ... I find very few words dangerous in the right
minds ... and as they say ... if the word doesn't fit don't try it on. I'm
speaking in terms of the subjugation of the spirit to the Gods of SCIENCE. If
one theology won't do ... make up a new one and let the chalice be of PYREX.
I know that some consider this kinda talk controversial ... some even consider
it heresy. It's my intent to question the foundational structure and find where
it is sound. This is the cornerstone to building a SINGULARITY ... a reality so
personal and wellformed that it is immutable and constant ... beyond beliefs.
In this domain it is experience that concerns the individual ... not thinking
about experience ... not thinking about thinking ... and definitely not what
they believe about their experience. This is the subject of 6+ books by Carlos
Casteneda regarding the teachings of Don Juan. Don Juan spent their entire time
together loosening Carlos' "assemblage point" (beliefs) so that he could
experience what was always present and yet unavailable to him.
You proposition me to believe our minds have evolved to "breaking the world
into bits". And further that this is a process of survival ... what do you base
this on ... where's the data and evidence. These are beliefs ... there is no
onging evidence that "we" NEED to break up the world at all. The primatives and
mystics suggest just the opposite and their world is anything but colorless. It
is only in the composition that we can recognize any color at all ... standing
apart every color is the same. The future is to so sensitive the consciousness
is perceived in total sensory form ... a four-tuple red ... or blue ... or
violet ... or black.
NLP is for learning ... NOT limiting. We speak in future sense ... and yet we
are relying on what we already know to frame the answers. If we want to "see"
into the future we had better to be ready to give up our hold on what we think
we have. You know the story about catching a monkey with a bannana in a jar.
Just because we may have common ancestors doesn't mean we should climb the same
old trees.
You suggest a more wholistic metaphor, a more systemic approach. A forest on
the surface appears to be comprised of thousands of individual trees composing
a micro-environment. Each tree belonging to a species and standing as an
individual. And yet beneath the ground there is a root system which is at least
as large as the structure above ground and is never seen. These roots are
completely intertwined forming another structure. One that has for all intent
and purpose no beginning or end, a unified composite whole. Something like the
human limbic system. Now the question is are the trees individuals organisms
comprising the forest, or is the forest the organism made up of trees? If your
a lumberjack it's the trees that count, if your an owl it's the forest. Which
direction are we headed in ... one way acknowledges a limited universe of
limited resources and one in which we have the RIGHT to take what we need
regardless of the consequences to overall structure ... and in the other the
recognition of a limitless future where we already fit and are part and parcel
of a sustainable, renewable universe of experience.
I am not going to play tunes for the organ grinder. I want to breath clean,
fresh air, and drink clean, fresh water ... in the end we will only preserve
that which we honor. If the tune that others follow leads them to the bank ...
I must be traveling on a different river ... because the view from here is
unobstructed ... no one's been this way before. The great comfort is that along
the way I've picked up a few tools for the journey ... and the skills to use
these tools to make any new one I might need until my traveling days are done.
I'm not an aetheist ... I recognize G-d at every turn ... and I see the
evidence and presence in every pair of eyes I meet ... without fail the small,
silent voice inside says ... "Go forth and share and you will be rewarded". ...
so in the end I guess I'm just a craftsman ... a tool and live maker to be
exact ... and I'm plying my trade ... and it feels good to be alive.
I'll save my additional comments on the future of NLP ... Until the next time,
Joseph Riggio
Founder-ETHONICS International
"Tools for Personal Evoultion"
==== Message 13 ==== NLP Where Next? =========================================
Message ID : 37094
Hi John. Thanks for answering my thread.
< Some people just don't stay on top of the latest developments in the field.>
It gets a bit worrying when a national NLP conference shows so little
innovative work. The running with innovative work in the UK has been taken by
John McWhirter with his 'Developmental Behavioural Modelling'. (I can't comment
on work in the US.)
< We agree. NLP™ as a technolgy, is owned by Richard Bandler and steps are
currently being taken to rectify all situations that are dubious.>
Good - glad to hear it.
< People don't learn because of the time they spend in any classroom, so a
minimum number of hours is not the best criteria to set. The criteria is
according to performance of the skill set, which can be found at
http://www.purenlp.com in the "articles" section.>
I couldn't find the "articles" section on your home page, so unfortunately I
don't know exactly how you sugest measuring performance. In principle I agree,
but I have met people on further training courses who seem to have limited
mastery of basics - like rapport skills. So somewhere along the line this isn't
happening. Training hours is not a SUFFICIENT criterion, but if you have a more
reliable one, this could be helpful. I guess that there could be some
'cheapening of the currency'. If a trainer gets a reputation for maintaining a
high 'pass mark' on his courses, this could encourage students to search out an
easier option.
Yours Robert
==== Message 14 ==== NLP Where Next? =========================================
Message ID : 37058
Hello again Joseph,
I think that I am begining to understand your position a little more clearly
although I am obviously reliant here on language and conceptual thinking to do
so.
You seem to be suggesting an approach that separates language from ongoing
experience. That allows us to experience the world pre-verbally. I am probably
greatly over simplifying here. I too have read the Castaneda books and they are
very thought provoking, but surely they, like your postings rely entirely on
language, all be it at a level of reporting other ways of experiencing.
I suppose my main question to you here Joseph is WHY? Why would I want to
reduce myself to the pre-verbal animal? How would this benefit me? What could I
gain from experiencing the world in this pre-verbal way?
So I have attempted to answer these questions, intellectually, using my tools
of reasoning and language. I cannot accept the benefits on faith alone. This is
because of my beliefs, models or maps of the world. I use these, or rather I am
these and I must neccesarilly view the world selectively.
If, like Castaneda, I can turn off the dialogue, experience the
world......directly? Wait a minute, there is something wrong here. I cannot
experience the world directly but only through my senses. The images of the
world that I perceive are not the world they are merely a representation of the
world. The evidence for this is substantial. I learn to sense the world at a
very young age. I literally learn to make sense. So the sensing is already an
abstraction of information of the world. Is language not just a continuation of
this process, maybe not separate from sensing at all. If it is then how can it
be possible for a thinking reasoning, language using being to experience the
world pre-verbally. Are we not simply deluding ourselves into believing (we're
back to beliefs) that we are experiencing the world pre-verbally whilst all
along our language, reasoning and conceptual thinking operates and organises
our experience outside our conscious awareness?
But let's accept for a moment that we can. So I'm back to my original question
of why? Maybe by doing this I learn different ways of sensing, more wholistic
(at one level) ways of sensing. I re-organise my input channels so that I learn
to sense the world differently. Now I can see real benefits in doing this but
how do I know/decide which are more useful ways of doing this. Or is your
position that there is one (is this what you mean by singularity?) ideal way of
sensing the world?
This seems to me very close to the Zen Master or the Schizophrenic.
So having done this how do I now use my language to make sense of this new way
of sensing the world?. Because surely for me to be human I must do this, I can
not, not do it and remain a part of the human race. Will my language then
fragment the world once more?. I don't know if I am doing you a dis-service
here Joseph but for one who uses language so poetically you seem to have a very
poor opinion of language as a tool.
I believe that everything is double edged. Bateson often talked of double
description. Langauge is both impoverishing and enriching. It depends on how it
is used. Yes, the use of language often subtracts from the world as sensed and
there are times when sensing is enough but equally there are times when
language adds tremendously to the world of sense to develop a richer more
meaningful experience.
I am a little concerned that the approach you propose may be as fragmentory in
it's own way as those approaches that rely overly much on intellect alone. To
be truly wholistic we have to consider both extremes as one whole. It is not
the world of sense alone that is most usefully worked with. That helps create
more useful input to the system. Neither is it the world of language alone that
needs to be worked with. That helps create more useful reasoning. It must
surely be both working as one because in reality there is no separation between
the two. It is your language Joseph that creates this. Should we not be working
with both hemispheres of the brain together both consciously and unconsciously
through language and sense?
One final piece for now in order to clear up a possible misunderstanding.
You made the statement >>Just because we may have common ancestors doesn't mean
we should climb the same old trees.>>
I am sure I agree with you on this point. What I was attempting to explain with
my comments about using language to break the world into bits as an evolved or
adaptive device was not intended to mean that this was the only way to be. This
was, if you like, my reference to history. To the way I believe we have become
what we are. As for evidence, I think that the evidence is all around us.
Through breaking the world into bits we have risen above the rest of the living
world to become the most successful, in terms of survival, creatures ever to
walk this earth. I'm not advocating this as a moral or philosophical position
I'm simply explaining what is. Understanding this allows us to move on and not
just climb new trees but maybe move beyond trees altogether. To paraphrase the
biologist Richard Dawkins, I maybe a Darwinian in terms of understanding how I
came to be but having understood Darwinism I should renounce it's evil.
Well that's all for now
I look forward to hearing from you
David
==== Message 15 ==== NLP Where Next? =========================================
Message ID : 37031
<G>
Tony
Hi Tony, yes, thanks. <g> indeed. And yet....
Cheers
Mark
==== Message 16 ==== NLP Where Next? =========================================
Message ID : 37142
Hello Robert
>>I couldn't find the "articles" section on your home page, so
>>unfortunately I don't know exactly how you sugest measuring
>>performance.
Got to http://www.purenlp.com. If you're using Netsscape, just click on
the "articles" icon in the left margin. If you're using another browser that
doesn't show the icons, then just go to http://www.purenlp.com/artlist.htm then
look at Practitioner Certification requirements and Master Practitioner
certification requirements.
Thanks and Be Well,
John La Valle
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
For the latest information copy: nlp@megd.com into address field and ask for
info
NLP™ Seminars Group International
PO Box 424
Hopatcong, NJ 07843
(201) 770-3600
http://www.purenlp.com
Your Brain Works Faster Than You Think™
==== Message 17 ==== NLP Where Next? =========================================
Message ID : 37119
David,
By far your most challenging, provokative and delightful piece yet. I am
thoroughly enjoying this latest go around as I am being enriched by it ... both
by the direct input from you (and the others) ... and by the desire to respond
at a level that is worthy of input received ... thereby holding myself to a
standard that is as challenging as it is rewarding ...
One last thing before my "OFFICIAL" response to this latest message ... you
have given me a HIGH compliment ... you call me a poet ... I accept ... and
feel honored to be included in the ranks of the warrior-poets of the past and
present ... the bards of Israel, Ireland, and Italy to mention a few ...
So, let the games begin!
>>I suppose my main question to you here Joseph is WHY? Why would I want to
reduce myself to the pre-verbal animal? How would this benefit me? What could I
gain from experiencing the world in this pre-verbal way?<<
While these may be good questions in an 'intellectual' forum among learned
collegues, you have posed them to a simple man. I instead ask what's your
option? You are experiencing the world this way, and you (in the General sense)
don't know or acknowledge it ... if it's not in the head (i.e.: consciously and
cognitively structured) than it isn't.
Have you ever read a wine review ... as these highly trained? ... experts? ...
discuss the finer? points of a varietal??? They use language like reminescent
of the soil, with chocolate overtones, and notes of almonds and berries ...
blah, blah, blah ... first things first who wants to drink soil, and pay for
the privledge? ... next ... it's interesting that they use auditory terms to
describe gustatory experience ... do you think it's because all wine drinkers
experince a synesthesia in this way ... or does it 'enhance' or 'enrich' my
gustatory and olfactory experiences to think of them in terms of auditory
submodalities???
For my $12.95 I want to taste and smell the wine that I drink and not "hear" it
... although at $100+ a bottle it would seem appropriate to get a little song
and dance thrown in ...
David Abrahm in "The Spell of the Sensuous" describes a pre-verbal experiencing
of the world from which all language flows ... as an attempt to reconstruct our
fleeting but imtimate connection with the physical reality of our existance
which we do know directly through our senses ... this is what defines and
seperates NLP from all other models and approaches to enriching the human
experience ... the exquisite technology of the senses ... yes we use languge to
DESCRIBE the sensory experience ... but even we speak of this a SURFACE
structure ... and defer to and respect the DEEP structure as the value of human
experience wherein all sensory ... 4-tuple experience is stored ... this is not
the map ... this is the territory ... your hand touching the rough bark of a
weather old tree or the smooth flesh of a lover's thigh ... this is direct
experience ... mano a mano ... with the real world ... the territory itself ...
drawing from the work of the pragmatists like Merleau-Ponty, Abrahm speaks of
how when we touch the world ... it too is touching us ... mano a mano ...
This is true of all direct sensory experience ... when you see the viewed is
viewing you ... and on ... this is poetry as well ... the poetry of life ...
can it be described in language ... probably not ... there are no words that
will ever for me equal the glory of the leaves changing colors on the rolling
hills of New Jersey ... I'd exchange ten thousand books and poems about it for
one minute in it's presence ... direct sensory experience ... I love to read
and immerse myself in learning ... especially in literature ... to learn from
the human condition as described by an especially gifted writer ... however I
would not exchange one kiss for ten thousand books or sonnets on or about love
...
So for these reasons and others that match and fit in this domain of
consideration is why I would give up language in a second if I could only have
one or the other ... I think a person with language and without experiencing
life is far more impoverished than the intellectually limited individual who is
living each moment immersed in the act of living ... truth be told it is
interesting that I write these words as I take the time to write these words
given what thet are saying ... but that my friend is a poem of another time ...
let me not digress ...
>>So I have attempted to answer these questions, intellectually, using my tools
of reasoning and language. I cannot accept the benefits on faith alone. This is
because of my beliefs, models or maps of the world. I use these, or rather I am
these and I must neccesarilly view the world selectively.<< [See above] Why
must you "view the world selectively"? Can you not be at least open to the
possibility of seeing the world fully to bath in the glory of one moment on a
sunlit hill of flowers, or looking into the face of a child ... or of hearing
the childrens laughter ... or the lifetime of experience in an old women's
words ... or the unspeakable pleasure in the touch of a loved one's hand in
yours ... WHY must you limit yourself ... isn't this what Generative Experience
is all about ... bypassing all limitation ... this is the singularity of
wholism and unified experience ... a 4-tuple synestesia so to speak ... which
is the way we do ti anyway ... why not GO FOR IT ... ALL ...
>>But let's accept for a moment that we can. So I'm back to my original
question of why? Maybe by doing this I learn different ways of sensing, more
wholistic (at one level) ways of sensing. I re-organise my input channels so
that I learn to sense the world differently. Now I can see real benefits in
doing this but how do I know/decide which are more useful ways of doing this.
Or is your position that there is one (is this what you mean by singularity?)
ideal way of sensing the world?
This seems to me very close to the Zen Master or the Schizophrenic.<<
YES ... YES ... YES ... it is and they are very close ... well maybe not a
Schizophrenic who would seem at least on the surface to have at least two ways
of sensing the world ... but YES ... of satori or samhadi ... or bliss ... the
way that is best for you is the ONE that most matches and fits with the
underlying FORM of who you are ... a state of Being ... that is your intent of
how to Be in the world ... and then from this position operating in relation to
the world of sensory input organized perceptually and linguistically to be
congruent with the underlying FORM ... so we get to it hear is where language
plays a role ... in organizing the perceptual experience in relation to FORM
... and manifesting ... as speech acts that either fit and match with the FORM
... and are therefore structurally and functionaly wellformed ... or not and
are therefore illformed ... representing the causal limiting factor ... in the
'deep' structural awareness ... which is enough to tear assunder any hope at a
singular worldview ... wellformed and congruent ... and leave in it's place a
sense of longing and desire ... for something ... more ... whole ... and in the
clutches of a dilema of undue proportion ...
It is in the application of the linguistic tools that this can be elicited ...
and exposed ... and healed ... by the practitioner with the skills and
relentlessness to DO 'IT' ... so I do not think that language impoverishes us
in itself ... it's in the illformedness and misappropriation of language that I
object and for which I have distain ... as a tool in the mouth of a skilled
practitioner language can be the path to salvation ... as I state in another
message ... this road is a long and unforgiving one ... once begun ...
impossible to retrace ... and very few are willing to walk it long enough to
uncover the secrets and joys it holds ... fewer still are willing to walk it
long enough to become a familiar and guide for others ... this is not an
intellectual experience ... this is where the leather meets the road ...
>>Through breaking the world into bits we have risen above the rest of the
living world to become the most successful, in terms of survival, creatures
ever to walk this earth. ... Understanding this allows us to move on and not
just climb new trees but maybe move beyond trees altogether.<<
The most successful based on what criteria??? SURVIVAL??? Check out you local
neighborhood roach for a comparison ... his progeny is very likely to be here
after ours are long gone. Or maybe you want to speak in terms of the ability to
break the world into bits literally as in atomic theory ... and bombs ... you
see I'll willing to go to any extreme to make THE point ... I've walked and
continue to walk the path ... and on a good day I'm honored to have someone
allow me to show them the way that I've found ... not to replace anything they
already have found for themselves ... but rather to add something in ... maybe
this will require putting something aside to lighten the load ... but then we
all have our priorities ... I've chosen mine ... to live and let ... (remember
I am an American) ...
Thank You, until the next time through ...
Joseph S. Riggio
Founder-ETHONICStm International
"Tools for Personal Evolution"tm
==== Message 18 ==== NLP Where Next? =========================================
Message ID : 37207
Hi again Joseph,
This has taken some time and thought, I hope it moves us closer to a mutual
understanding.
You say......
>>however I would not exchange one kiss for ten thousand books or sonnets on or
about love ...>>
But, one kiss with who Joseph? Anyone? When I was a younger, enjoying the
hedinistic pleasures of life someone pointed out the difference for me between
having a good fuck and truly making love. Was this difference in the sensory
experience? If it was then let us reduce love to sensory experience and see
what happens. Or let us take any number of other human emotions and reduce them
to sensory experience and see what happens. Let us take excitement and anxiety
and reduce both to the sensory, what then is the difference between the two?
The wine tasting you described, and I did enjoy your description. (In the UK we
have a well known TV winetaster who talks of wines tasting of grass cuttings
and saddlesoap. For one, who has ever tasted these things? and for two, how
could they possibly taste good?). Is enjoying wine simply in the senses?. Is
drinking a glass of cheap Beaujolais from the local supermarket the same as
drinking a glass of Claret bought as gift by a close friend and loved one. Is
drinking a glass of wine alone over a lonely lunch the same as drinking a glass
of champagne over a romantic meal with a lover?
Using language to talk about experience is only one way in which language is
used. It is not the only way. The books and sonnets about love you describe are
not simply describing love in a detached abstract way they are also defining
love and in doing so they are prescribing how we love. Love exists at a higher
level that the senses and so do other human emotions. It is the meaning an
experience has for me that determines whether I intepret my sensory experience
as anxiety or excitement not the sensory experience itself. As a human it is
through the tool of language that I construct such meaning. Emotions exist
because we are able to create meaning and be aware of the meaning sensory
experience has for us.
>>yes we use languge to DESCRIBE the sensory experience ... but even we speak
of this a SURFACE structure ... and defer to and respect the DEEP structure as
the value of human experience wherein all sensory ... 4-tuple experience is
stored ... this is not the map ... this is the territory ..>>
There is no real distinction between surface structure and deep structure this
is a distinction brought about by the use of language. It was a useful
construct that NLP took from transformational grammer. The whole process of
making sense of the world is a continuum of abstraction from the senses through
language to conceptual thinking. This is not just a simple intellectual theory,
it is the whole basis of a constructivist epistomolgy. We can never know the
territory directly. Everything, even at the level of sensing is construct to
quote Von Foester:
'.....for indeed "out there" there is no light and no colour, there are
only electromagnetic waves; "out there" there is no sound and no music, there
are only periodic variations of the air pressure; "out there" there is no heat
and no cold, there are only moving molecules with more or less mean kinetic
energy, and so on. Finally, for sure, "out there" there is no pain.' (Von
Foerster H. 1973)
This direct sensing you describe, is more descriptive of the territory but it
is still not the territory. But then, some language is more descriptive than
other language.
>>[See above] Why must you "view the world selectively"?>>
Because I am an individual, with a unique history and a unique relationship
with my environment. "The map is not the territory" and the map is not just the
linguistic representation it it also preverbal representation that you
describe.
Let's look at sensory experience a little more closely. Try this simple,
optical illusion. Take two squares of the same dimensions, one black the other
white. Place the white square within a larger black square and then place the
black square within a larger white square. Now place these two next to each
other. Look, at them, which of the two original squares appears the bigger. For
most, the white square appears bigger than the black. For others it is the
other way around. Which is right? This is a question of submodalities. It is to
do with foreground/background. Some pull the the white to the foreground and
make the black background others do the reverse. When we observe something as
foreground it appears bigger and this is how the illusion works. So where is
the direct, deep structured sensory experience here? where is the territory
that we are sensing directly? Our previous learning is already shaping how we
percieve at this deep sensory level.
Submodalities are not just within our internal sensory representations. They
are qualities of our sensory perception of the world. Moods, emotions,
thoughts, higher level functioning, etc all play their part in organising the
submodality organisation of my experience. They can not be separated. We are
already whole, all levels of processing working as one integrated whole. If I
am thoughtful and refelective, my attention on my thoughts, the world of
sensory experience is turned down. These are submodality shifts. If I am
attentative to the world, concentrating hard on a challenging, delicate piece
of work, my senses are hightened, they become more vivid. Another submodality
shift. There is a time and a place for both.
So I think that it is important, before we even begin to talk of pre-verbal
experience, to have a more accurate understanding, a more precise model of what
it is we are talking of. We do this through language and reasoning. You decide
that this pre-verbal way of being is valuable, you do it through your conscious
mind reasoning, you use language and the tools of language to help you do that.
I, am not so sure, I remain open minded, I use my conscious mind reasoning to
explore further, does what we are talking about make sense to me? And maybe
after considering this for some time I will decide that to answer this question
I need to experience what it is you are talking of. But I will do so from a
position of understanding, from an epistemolgy that more accurately maps the
territory. In this way I will not become caught up in nonsense and magic. I
will also remain whole and not split myself in two.
Cheers for now
David
==== Message 19 ==== NLP Where Next? =========================================
Message ID : 37246
>> The last time I visited the (British) ANLP annual conference, I was
underwhelmed by the lack of any new or interesting applications & developments
of NLP. There were a load of body workers & others selling their workshops;
People using NLP to make astrology (!) respectable; Trainers enticing novices
onto their courses. But very little new or interesting to master practitioners.
NLP boasts about its prowess at modelling, but I could see no evidence of this
at the conference. <<
Robert,
with no pretence at false modesty, I wish you had attended MY workshop at the
last ANLP Conference in London (or the one before or the one B4 or ....). I
ran a workshop linking NLP, Covey's 7 habits of highly effective people and the
Enneagram.
I have also conducted (and continue to do so at conferences and elsewhere)
workshops which incorporate NLP with other models and and approaches. For
example
I ran a workshop last year on NLP and Community Action. This involved using NLP
to 'shift' the perspective, motivation and possible action of those who
actively oppose your social vision (hopefully benign) from antagonistic to
actively supportive.
I regularly run workshops on Managing Diversity, exploring issues of difference
(race, gender, ability, age) as a basis for celebrating difference. I also
run Anti Racism workshops for various organisations and Companies.
I am currently designing a programme for adoptive (and probably foster) parents
who are looking after children who have been abused. This links NLP, the
Enneagram, Transactional Analysis (TA) and some techniques for helping children
who suffer from attachment deficit disorder.
I have given talks to large groups of legal eagles on issues relating to the
less positive psychological and social effects of Transracial Adoption (I do
not deny the fact that some transracially adopted people have positive
experiences). Next month I am running a workshop for Inter country adopters on
helping their children to grow up with the inner resources necessary for
handling the inevitable racism they will face when they are not so young.
I have designed, and currently run, programmes entitled Empowering Managers
Empowering People (EMEP). This links NLP with Management NVQs and principles
from A Course In Miracles (ACIM).
At the next Conference in London I shall be running a session on NLP and
Leadership. It will link a range of ideas, in particular the thinking
techniques of Edward de Bono.
I am involved in a mentoring project with adolescents in London schools. I
teach NLP and thinking skills to the teenagers and their adult mentors. I also
work with their teachers running a programme called New Learning Patterns
(geddit?).
I am also designing a workshop called TYPE CASTING which links NLP and the
Enneagram for creative writing.
As a therapist, I link NLP with TA and many of the techniques and concepts from
Co-Counselling.
I am running a 3 day sesssion on Negotiation skills on a Master Practioner
training next year (Realisations in York), and on the Marlin Master
Practioner, I'm doing a weekend on the Enneagram.
I am by no means an original thinker (and this is not false modesty - I
perceive my limitations as spring boards for growth). What I have is a talent
for synthesis of ideas and an ability to regurgitate the product in a way that
is accessible and entertaining, often illuminating and sometimes empowering.
I believe that I am, in the most banal way, using NLP in a the real world to
make a real difference. I LOVE NLP (witness my book The Power to Use NLP),
but, after all is said and done, it's just a way of talking about what people
do!!
The above, I think, demonstrates how NLP can be applied (or how I apply it) to
real life situations in ways that take it beyond mere NLP.
Happy to discuss
Michael J Mallows
Social Effectiveness Training