| Topic: | Re:Please, correct me if I am wrong. |
| Posted by: | Hello Propman |
| Date/Time: | 08/11/2002 15:26:54 |
|
Hello Propman Well, perhaps you can appreciate my hesitation in attempting to "respond" to the various pieces of fluff that float by on the wind. I believe that your point is a general one: you wrote; "Honestly, I can not provide an explicit SENSORY BASED description... The only thing that I have been able to offer is Hall's theroretical definiton of logical levels and Meta-levels to define a Meta-State. (Though admittedly it is not Sensory Based.)" I respond - Propman, honestly, neither can I. In Whispering, as a direct suggestion about how to improve the quality of the work in NLP, Carmen Bostic and I proposed a three element format for the reporting of pattern. The intention behind this proposal and especially the relatively sensory grounded description it demands is precisely to avoid endless cycles of exchanges that lead nowhere. From our point of view, it is the professional responsibility of the presenter of a pattern to use the patterns of clarity and effective communication available to ensure that she or he succeeds in stimulating in the reader the experiences that most closely correspond to the what the presenter is referring to. It is difficult to take seriously someone who consistently igores or refuses such a minimal requirement, and to us it is a waste of time to enter into a dialogue with someone unwilling or unable to meet the minimum requirement. The Meta-Yes and Meta-No "pattern" that you referred to is quite easily translated into a sequence using state manipulation, achieving of congruity, outframing... Perhaps there is something new here but I was unable to find it. Perhaps someone who has the ability and the experience could offer the alleged "pattern" in an explicit and sensory grouned enough format for all of us to participate. Thanks for your efforts. John Grinder |