| Topic: | Re: a simple come-back |
| Posted by: | Ernest |
| Date/Time: | 07/12/2002 15:56:30 |
|
To Dr Grinder Re: In your reponse(11/12) to my response on (11/12) 25 days ago- You ask "Where did you get the idea that I am proposing that the conscious mind (or even more precisely the f2 filters) are of little importance?" I say Dr Grinder following some unconcious rendering for almost a month I never assumed the conscious mind was of little importance. I like you do share the assumptions language f2 filters are very useful to keep our sender-receiver message system moving along. You did my assumptions for me John. Thanks. Where did you get your idea of what I was proposing from? And what was I really proposing? Do you really exactly know? If you did know I would appreciate hearing how you arrived at your hallucination. A simple response WILL BE SUFFICIENT. Dr Grinder you go on to write; Who do you think modeled and coded the distinctions you use as the fundamental parts of your activity? I say: How can Grinder make a comment like that? I am just playing on the internet and Grinder does not know who I am and he definitely does not know what or how I do my activities and definitely does not know how I structure what I do daily.. Is this statement Dr Grinder one of your finer demonstrations of your coding distinctions you use as the fundemental part of your modeling activity? You ask Have you ever looked at Whispering? I say Are you asking me Dr Grinder about your book because obviously I can look at the frame of behavior others like an activity.If you are referring to your book John YES I did look at it and yes it has a curious black and white cover. You then proceed with: did I notice the model for modeling? I say Yes I did notice the model for modeling but I have to say to you John is it truly THE model or just your model ? Then you add Did you notice the balanced emphasis on conscious and unconscious process's? And I say Yes I read consciously your five phases model but my conscious mind says so what? And my unconscious is saying How can I make simpler? I do not like to remember so much consciously (list of five items-too much). Yet consciously and unconsciously I know in your thinking there is something there for me to LOOK CLOSER at your list but INTUITIVELY I am always considering doing an activity for myself experientially to integrate learning the model explicitly and well as implicitly. You go on Dr Grinder to describe: Phase 1 through phase 5. I say how can I simplify your list to three steps. My intuition says classify as follows: 1. Find the model 2. do their behavior 3. code their behavior and get easier quicker simpler and better and results than the original model. Then you proceed in your response to me with "Intellectual Antecedents" where you say "Look at the Section Bostic and I offered called Intellectual Antecedents of NLP" where some of the key sources of how you presently and I quote "earn your keep" are detailed and their impact on the creation and development of NLP is explicated. So I look at the section you called "Intellectual Antecedents" John and I applaud you on your efforts here from page 60 to page 119. Giving NLP a systematic baseline is useful. Of course again I question if this information was truly the key sources of impact or just refernces or Johns own take on his creation on how he developed himself. (Yes as a developer you have that priveledge) John you move on with: "Get a clue-perhaps it would assist you to note a model we all seem to recognize as having a deep influence in NLP, Gregory Bateson, pointed out numerous times in numerous formulations: The logics of conscious(f2) and unconscious (f1) are distinct in fundamental nd irreconcilable ways. I say Let me give you a conscious CLUE pal. I would appreciate you adding and expanding on your own thought here as I got lost in your presentation as you jump from Gregory into your own logic on the fundemental use and irreconcilable dynamics of the c-uc process.So you have left me clueless what you are inferring. You then John state: Further that any people(national group)or person who attempts to resolve this "esential tension" by living either completely consciously or completely unconsciously will never produce great art. I say to you John: Can essential tension or the determination of great art be truly resolved anyway so again in my estimation John you are bringing up a "moot point" from my point of view. Art is art and tension is normal and either one never goes away no matter how much NLP you practice. Try having great sex without some tension in your body John. And great sex could be an art form itself could it not? Then you write: This is my paraphrase of Bateson's position. I say yea and so ? Then you add: I subscribe completely to this position and endeavored my entire professional career to not only achieve this ever changing and dynamic balance personally but to design and implement programs that respect and develop such balance whether in our corporate work, training, programs, etc. I say That pressuposition above sounds like a heavy cross to bear John. Why not simply trust your God given process's? I know like us all you have been in search of grace. I wonder where she is? Then the big statement by John (the climax): My personal observation is: Westerners spend the vast majority of their lfe spinning in TIGHT little circles of internal dialogue and obsessive cyclic repetitions of images and feelings that have little to do nothing with their present circumstances- they are rarely present and in those flashes where actual present experience brings through to shake into the present, they nearly reflexively scramble to escape present experience (fa) and seek again the masking oblivion of repetitive thoughts (that is non experiential experience activity)to reassure themselves that what they thought the world was like before this VIOLENT interruption of their cacconed existance still is what is the world is like. They spend significant time and energy constructing and defending maps that are nearly ENTIRELY DETACHED from experience. They FINALLY succeed in positioning enough filters in a feedforward configuration that they will never again be troubled by experience as the filters allow only material to pass that confirms what they truly believe. I say I enjoyed your self generated hypnosis above John. But you used alot of generalizations. Should we explore them all specifically? So then John you write; WHILE I SUSPECT WE MIGHT AGREE THAT THE QUALITY OF THINKING(THE F2 MAPPINGS) ARE SHODDY AND OF PRIMITIVE NATURE(AND THEREFORE REQUIRE UPGRADING) THE ISSUE FOR WESTERNERS, AT LEAST, IS NOT LACK OF CONSCIOUS ACTIVITY, BUT-THE-DEARTH-OF-DIRECT-SENSORY-EXPERIENCE-THE ONLY CORRECTIVE SOURCE FOR THESE STRANGE MAPOS WE CALL REALITY. I say Doesn't the unconscious process's count in your equation? Every westerners senses are working. They just might not have John Grinders senses or criteria. Hey maybe we need to just turn off TV'S (f2-f1 social learning function)in the western hemisphere. That might do it. We proceed with Johns quote "Your use of the phrase running your own brain" is revealing. So Neuro-Semantics is the art of running your brains. Enjoy, you are demonstrating that you have yet to appreciate one of the most fundamental distinction required for an intelligent approach to the study of humans." I say: This is interesting statement above considering your criticizing Michael Hall and he is not present here with me and I have zero to do with Neurosemantics and Michael Hall. I never met the man. Never care to. A weak distinction on your part Dr Grinder? But lets play and go on and run with your following concurrent statement in your response: The verb "run" in the sense you use it is a verb that proposed a mechanical process:you run a machine, do you run a person. I say your right Dr Grinder: we do run and when we do we run and make a quick decision based on limited information sometimes we run into a dead end mentally as we mechanically "think" we know who we are talking to or who we are going to dominate. Where is the mind police when we need them? Then we get intellectual don't we Dr Grinder when you write: The ENTIRE POINT made CLEARLY(yea sure all westerners can exactly understand John Grinders thoughts) in both Turtles All the Way Down and in WITW is that rules that dominate the world of mechanical process's(physics) are in significant part distinct from the rules that dominate living biological systems and to apply one to the one is to COMMIT THE MOST EGREGORIOUS TYPE OF THINKING ERROR- A LOGICAL TYPING ERROR. I SAY: YOU MIGHT SAY I AM BABBLING HERE BUT I DO AGREE with your statement even though I do not understand completely as I am a westerner also so you can understand my lack of abilty to understand your thinking. Next Dr Grinder you go with the following: You suggest some sort of anti-intellectual bias on my part. Great God, I have patiently in Different Worlds (as well as other places) offered a detailed and formal presentation of precisely how some one interested might add to the meta model usefully. I say: I read Differnt Worlds a number of times and I did not see any EXPLICIT precision in adding to the meta model. I saw alot of words and emotion. We all already knew the unconscious is a key to creativity. Bandler has been talking about its power for years while you were off the seminar and book circut. Go model Richard you might save yourself some time John Grinder. You then say: I have repeatedly along with Carmen Bostic invited Hall to be explicit, sensory grounded and formal enough to allow others to understand what he is proposing- he continues top cycle fluff. Various people have with the best of intentions attempted on this web site to offer an intelligible representation (you know sensory grounded-explicit) of meta states- meta - how specifically? No one yet has come even close. Look to yourself Ernest and keep your personal halluciantions about me there as well. I say I cannot speak for Hall and yes I do have personal hallucinations and inaccurate thinking and inaccurate feelings at times just as you do John Grinder. I call that process you badgered me about in your response above the process of "being a sentient human" and having a "conscious will." Sorry if you are offended as I have challenged your previous western cacconed existence here. Maybe you might even lose control again here. Your response and nonresponse is welcome Merry Christmas (not Michael) |