| Topic: | Re:Re:Re:Re::Re:Re:First Access |
| Posted by: | nj |
| Date/Time: | 22/06/2003 05:45:04 |
|
Hello, Dr. Grinder. 1. You wrote, "Nice!" Thanks. I feel that if term usage were standardized among prominent NLP practitioners and if a dictionary of NLP terms was adopted for use in generating NLP training materials, then NLP application practitioners would be able to more ethically practice NLP. :-) 2. You wrote, "I didn't intend to give the impression that I wished to eliminate the verb 'disassociate' and its minions from NLP - only to call attention to the fact that the vast majority of people using it (with deleted 'from' and 'to' argument haven't a clue. This in part results in the abuses and fail to notice the full set of arguments available in the language." Understood. 3. You wrote, "I regard the ability to know what state the client is in as essential in the ongoing calibration of the client - by complimentarity, this calibration allows the therapist to know with states the client is NOT in. " Let me check with you my understanding of the activity you call "calibration". What I want to check is whether you check state indicators in the client, and sometimes don't give names to the client's state, because you don't have a name for the state. Another possibility is that you name each of a client's possible states with some finite set of names. I'm not trying to be inane, just cautious. If there's one or more reasons why all of a client's states must get a name, I'd like to find out each reason. -nj |