|Topic:||Re:Re:More of the same more of the same more of the same|
At this point the evidence has been lacking as to any breakthroughs. You didn't say that, but I was glad you brought up the question of Finbar Nolan. If the modeling project had been a success there would have been somebody who spread a farily explicit model that would woo the world. What John and Richard did with Erickson did have a profound effect on the world of psychotherapy. But I'm starting to get that it wasn't what we call "NLP" that did the trick. They were courageous and observant and they believed that they could get some incredible stuff from this guy- they believed that 'something' was there to be gotten.
Maybe NLPm is simply unspeakable- so far, it seems to be because the moment somebody tries to put words to it, it goes away. Remember, there have been others who had met Erickson and took away equally powerful learnings. Is anybody really arguing that Grinder and Bandler are the "BEST" at doing Erickson? I don't think so. It doesn't matter.
And James, I'm with you too. I also am looking forward to some constructive posts, but we must keep in mind that NLP is intrinsically a Nit-Picking phenomena; Nit-Picking was embedded in the creaters (read their early books; all they do is tear apart other people for what they say)from the get go. Nit Picking is a meta-program that will be with NLP for its life. That's fine, just as long as there are some really wonderful collaborations and discoveries along the way.
|Topic||Date Posted||Posted By|
|More of the same more of the same more of the same||22/10/2002 12:34:19||James|
|Re:More of the same more of the same more of the same||22/10/2002 15:59:20||Exit|
|ReRe:Re:More of the same more of the same more of the same||23/10/2002 01:27:52||James|
|Re:Re:More of the same more of the same more of the same||23/10/2002 04:27:16||Pulsed|
|Re Re:Re:Re:More of the same more of the same more of the same||23/10/2002 14:05:33||kc|