|Topic:||Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Deep Trance Identification|
|Posted by:||Clive Alcock|
OK - you've got me. So what is the next step (apart from acting now?)
I flew to San Diego yesterday and finished Whispering along the way, in preparation for a deep immersion in Ericksonian processes. Quite timely, I believe.
We have previously discussed process/content and subtance/form distinctions, however I am curious of your comments around Satir: "If you had Satir's guts". What if you could model Satir to understand and replicate her "intuition" (or tacit knowledge) - and then codify and teach that to others? Isn't this what you have done with multiple perceptual positions - particularly with respect to second position shifts? This move appears necessary for DTI.
Therefore, can one purely model form over substance or content over process? Or is the more intelligent question "how can one determine the appropriate balance between the two and be clear about the noise/patern ratio?" Applying the minimalist approach, one could subtract both content and/or process components to determine the appropriate mix in codifying the patterns.
Your thoughts around these comments?
|Topic||Date Posted||Posted By|
|Deep Trance Identification||19/05/2002 09:16:29||Stephen M. Hawley|
|Re:Deep Trance Identification||19/05/2002 17:28:34||John Grinder and Carmen Bostic|
|Re:Re:Deep Trance Identification||11/06/2002 14:02:13||Clive Alcock|
|Re:Re:Re:Deep Trance Identification||11/06/2002 17:38:08||John Grinder|
|Re:Re:Re:Re:Deep Trance Identification||24/06/2002 13:23:53||Clive Alcock|
|Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Deep Trance Identification||30/06/2002 18:31:00||John Grinder|
|Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Deep Trance Identification||01/07/2002 11:25:12||Clive|
|Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Deep Trance Identification||01/07/2002 18:17:40||John Grinder|
|Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Deep Trance Identification||11/07/2002 01:48:49||Clive Alcock|