|Topic:||Re:How to allow innovation in an inherently conservative system?|
|Posted by:||John Grinder and Carmen Bostic|
Your concern about the institutions proposed in Recommendations in Whispering is, in our opinion, misplaced. You are concerned for example, that such institutions will "become an essentially conservative system". And further, you state,
"How can we make space for tomorrows mavericks, the ones who are so far ahead of the field no one else has caught up with them yet?
We offer the following comments - such institutions are essentially and appropriately conservative (at least after a discipline has developed a well coded and accepted set of patterns - it's an open question whether NLP has yet achieved this or not). This is the standard in scientific communities - the majority of would be paradigm breaking research and theoretical suggestions turn out to be resolvable within the current paradigm. If the quality control group for a discipline were anything but conservative in such cases, there would be no coherency and little continuity in the discipline involved. We recommend Kuhn's brilliant commentary ("The Structure of Scientific Revolution" and "The Essential Tension" in particular). This conservative attitude makes possible what Kuhn refers to as normal science.
Continuing this thought and turning to your second comment - we propose that mavaracks neither need (nor in most cases want) space made for them - for their very activity (revolutionary) they perform better in an adversarial context. If what they bring to the party is excellent, the free market in ideas will prevail. Yes, we are perfectly aware that the conservative elements in every discipline retard movements that are brilliant, forcing innovators to demonstrate their material impeccably, and that the funding agencies often are unwilling to back new movements - so what, it makes the game more interesting.
Historical note: after completing the writing of The Structure of Magic, Vol. 1, Bandler and I generated and submitted a research grant proposal to HEW (around 1976) to do what we had already done in Magic. The grant proposal was denied with the comment that what we were proposing to do was impossible - that is, The Structure of Magic, which we had already completed.
We assume that such institutions will be the focal point for an ongoing struggle between those elements in a community that are pursuing the implications of the patterning already coded and those who are generating new patterning and challenging the previous material - how would you want it otherwise?
John and Carmen
|Topic||Date Posted||Posted By|
|How to allow innovation in an inherently conservative system?||27/05/2002 16:21:10||Robin|
|Re:How to allow innovation in an inherently conservative system?||27/05/2002 17:58:50||John Grinder and Carmen Bostic|
|Re:Re:How to allow innovation in an inherently conservative system?||28/05/2002 10:03:55||Robin|