|Topic:||when is something|
|Posted by:||Patrick E.C. Merlevede, MSc. (jobEQ.com)|
To John Grinder:|
This mail addresses the "proces-content" distinctions which are so important to you to decide whether something is "ethical" (both in Whispering and on this discussion forum).
A/ In one of your first replies to my original mail on meta-programs (see the tread called "are") you wrote:
"Roger Bailey's work is pure content - there is no NLP, no process work involved. He has managed to take process distinctions and convert them into content categories."
I interpret this statement as "for John Grinder, meta-program descriptions such as the one given by Rodger Bailey are not part of NLP. At best they are an NLP inspired application."
When I discuss that interpretation with other NLP trainers, (including those involved at NLP institutes you work with such as Jules Collingwood, Brian van der Horst, ...) I often hear as reply that you also dismiss (dismissed) submodalities as "content".
Given I have no satisfactory description of when you define something as "content", I'm trying to find the underlying pattern. I adapted the following "pattern description" from what someone who calls himself (herself?) "The Propagandist" wrote in the "are meta-programs part of NLP?" tread :
"Meta-programs distinctions such as for instance “self” VS “other” are evaluations rather than sensory based descriptions of an experience. You cross over from process into content when you move from sensory based to evaluations."
Would you agree that this is a good way of saying that something is content?
If not, what would be a better approach to define "content"?
B/ I would like to test the pattern description.
Do you agree that saying that
the sentence 'I want to quit that organization' contains a nominalization
would be an "evaluation" typically made by NLPers
How does that differ from saying:
the sentence 'I want to quit that organization' is "away from"?
Both evaluations end up the NLP practitioner in "content"? Right?
PS/ sorry that I start a new tread for this - I did so because I thought I see a pattern that my mails are no longer answered by you if they are buried too deep in an existing tread. (e.g. examples of unanswered questions are in the treads "Reconstruction of history (continued)" and in the tread "are"). I don't know if you din't answer those questions because you didn't want to do so, or because you never saw them. Feedback on this PS would be appreciated, so that I can adjust my question asking strategy so that it elicits responses... (for instance, if you don't want to reply, it would be helpful to tell that - then I know I don't have to ask the question again)