Topic: | Re:Re:Exemplars and Modelling |
Posted by: | John Grinder |
Date/Time: | 20/12/2002 02:18:39 |
Harlan Where do you get the idea that Erickson was resistant to the idea that he could be modeled" The nut and shell metaphor has a ton of intrepretations - my favorite being the one posted on an earlier thread by some worthy whose name presently escapes me: of course, we got the shell (the form) as that is precisely what we went after and not the nut (the content - that is, his own beliefs and values). I never had any communication from Erickson that indicated that he ever had any difficulty with the idea that we would model him. I supose that in the midst of this speculation it is perfectly natural to pass over the one unambiguous statement he publicly made about the work Bandler and I did in favor of hallucinating your favorite response from a man you never met. All the best, John |
Topic | Date Posted | Posted By |
Exemplars and Modelling | 19/12/2002 09:06:39 | Loren Larsen |
Re:Exemplars and Modelling | 19/12/2002 10:58:35 | Lewis Walker |
Re:Re:Exemplars and Modelling | 20/12/2002 05:38:37 | Loren Larsen |
Re:Re:Re:Exemplars and Modelling | 20/12/2002 15:05:40 | Lewis Walker |
Re:Re:Re:Re:Exemplars and Modelling | 20/12/2002 19:48:41 | Loren Larsen |
Re:Exemplars and Modelling | 19/12/2002 18:01:25 | John Grinder |
Re:Re:Exemplars and Modelling | 20/12/2002 03:41:22 | Loren Larsen |
Re:Exemplars and Modelling | 20/12/2002 00:45:46 | Harlan Kilstein |
Re:Re:Exemplars and Modelling | 20/12/2002 02:18:39 | John Grinder |
Re:Re:Re:Exemplars and Modelling | 20/12/2002 03:40:25 | Harlan Kilstein |
Re:Re:Re:Re:Exemplars and Modelling | 20/12/2002 06:38:59 | John Grinder |