Forum Message

Topic: Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:First Access Revisited
Posted by: nj
Date/Time: 22/06/2003 10:42:09

Hello, Dr. Grinder.

1.  You wrote,

"Get me the syntax ... The operational would depend on the syntax and the possibilities it permits."

I'm not planning on revealing such a syntax.  If you asked me questions about it, I'd have no knowledge to impart to you, because I have no such knowledge, period.

I'd like to suggest you research an interesting topic.  The topic I suggest you research is called "Neuro-Ethics", and it relates to the ethics of research work and applications of research work in the study of the brain and human function.  The syntax research you proposed has a direct connection, in its potential applications, to problems of Neuro-Ethics.   

You want the syntax because it will enable you and many others to produce generative behavior.  I don't have a problem with your goal, except I don't think it's important to resolve current problems of humanity.  No amount of research and knowledge will cure illnesses that have ready cures.  The sick just have to take the medicine. 

The current state of NLP-applications, when properly practiced, provides many tools to help people help themselves.  Those ready tools, when applied with thoroughness, can achieve many wonders for society and humanity as a whole.  What's missing, I think, is marketing for quality NLP.  "How to get quality NLP to the masses?", that's the question.

2.  On page 6 of "Whispering In The Wind", Ms. Bostic St. Clair & you wrote,

"...unless the distinctions that we propose (or some equivalent set) are appreciated, accepted and operationalized, the wildfire adventure called NLP (in its core activity, modeling) may smolder and burn out for lack of oxygen.  NLP would then have a quite limited life span on the planet, while the patterns of application as its ashes may be spread on the wind, as minute indistinguishable particles."

Your goal of developing a syntax, may come about by other means, if not by NLPer research.  Applications of versions of such a syntax will appear in media, software, big business, medicine, law enforcement, marketing, and education. 

New developments in research methods and information technology will help you produce knowledge that will belong to no one in particular.  No researcher who publishes his knowledge has any say in how the ashes of his work scatter.  Applications, implications, intentions, those are what will get burned away, while the data remains to be used and misused. 

What makes you think humans will do net good with the data your proposal would produce?  Data is firmly separated from the applications, implications, and intentions of recipients of the data.  It's the recipients of the data who decide how to apply the data.  When the data is knowledge of human function, then the more fundamental the knowledge of human function becomes, the less it will be linked to any particular process or use of that knowledge. 

Too many recipients of the knowledge you're interested in will do poor things with it, so there's no value to its products worth their cost in human suffering.

Data can reach the farthest corners of the Earth while the intention behind it never makes it there.  Information on the internet is especially vulnerable, and within a decade, the internet should be one boiling cauldron of data soup, possibly including every chunk of your research.

Divorcing your communication efforts from your face-to-face interaction with people will dull your ability to apply your triple description model, if you do apply it when you write.  Try typing your name on a piece of paper.  How did it feel, from second position?  The data's not really there, so how can you know.  Now imagine extending that into newsgroups, e-mail, conference calls, virtual reality simulations, chat avatars, software agents, and of course talking machines that really do sound human.  Your perceptual position model will not apply to human decision-making and communicating involving those participants, yet humans will be making decisions while involving computerized participants in the decision-making process.  That is how technologized communication and research will involve you. 

Computers WILL aid your modeling efforts, and those of your students.  But those computers will have played no part in your process of unconscious uptake, and you couldn't convince them to.  

Your students will have no loyalty to in-person learning, nor to in-person teaching.  You wait and see.  An insistence on it for quality of learning's sake won't bend any ears - you'll just lose students.  And you'll not have emphasized that it mattered for the sake of itself, anyway, right now I think you assume it does when it does, and the web's for convenience, and value-added email machine.  Communicating with virtually there people is truly lonely, and rots my communication efforts.  Perhaps you'll notice the same at some point. 

You think that this syntax is producable, so I'm ranting at you.  I know you've encountered a little trouble with NLP, it's turbulent adolescence must have included some misapplications of NLP knowledge.

What will the data of this syntax do that you'd rather it did than the products of you touring?

My next questions would be:

- "How will you have the time to be both a teacher and a researcher?"
- "Quantum-Leap's work has been private for ... ever?  So now that you're public, is teaching your goal, or do you want to encourage research?"

My guess is that the products of this syntax research will be used to enhance software programs, before anything else.  Whatever applications you imagine for it may never come about.  They'll certainly turn to ashes within a few years of their introduction to society in the form of a book, training video, or any other form of media. 

Check your competition!  If it's TV's, virtual reality, gigabit-pipe home internet, behavior modification chips, or some predictable applications of your syntax, you'll lose to the competition.  Misapplications of knowledge of human function will hold attention, convince, motivate, teach, everything you might want to do (and Ms. Bostic St. Clair, too) as a teacher and leader of the NLP community.

3.  You wrote,

"...generate sequences possibly never experienced by our species that would yield consequences we can only at the point historically guess badly at."

Guess historically badly?  I think not. 

4.  In post 13/06/2003 18:24:12, you wrote,

"Now, unfortunately as you well know, there are vast numbers of the living dead wandering the countryside. These are people who disassociated from 1st years ago and failed to disassociate to a new full kinesthetically grounded state - they're floating - mildly teathered to and feeding on memories of kinesthetic experiences that they call emotions.

We could capture this phenomena by using the null value in the phrasing,

'They disassociated from a natural 1st position (to nothing/nowhere).'"

New knowledge of human function will generate more of the same, maybe someday fitting you right in with the walking dead.  Thinking about it, I'm more afraid of contributing to that world's development than pleasing you, so no, you won't have me get you your syntax.


Entire Thread

TopicDate PostedPosted By
First Access08/05/2003 00:41:42Ryan Nagy
     Re:First Access08/05/2003 03:55:03richard
     Re:First Access08/05/2003 07:48:53John Grinder
          Re:Re:First Access08/05/2003 16:33:32Robin Manuell
               Re:Re:Re:First Access08/05/2003 17:27:18Tbone
                    Re:Re:Re:Re:First Access08/05/2003 17:36:15Robin Manuell
               Re:Re:Re:First Access08/05/2003 18:10:08John Grinder
                    Re:Re:Re:Re:First Access09/05/2003 11:47:09Robin Manuell
                    Re:Re:Re:Re:First Access11/05/2003 03:40:28Ryan Nagy
                         Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:First Access12/05/2003 05:18:56John Grinder
                              :Re:Re:First Access13/06/2003 06:31:39Ryan Nagy
                                   Re::Re:Re:First Access13/06/2003 18:24:12John Grinder
                                        Re:Re::Re:Re:First Access13/06/2003 23:47:53nj
                                             Re:Re:Re::Re:Re:First Access14/06/2003 01:30:47nj
                                             Re:Re:Re::Re:Re:First Access14/06/2003 17:49:48John Grinder
                                                  Re:Re:Re:Re::Re:Re:First Access22/06/2003 05:45:04nj
                                                       Re:Re:Re:Re:Re::Re:Re:First Access22/06/2003 18:45:38John Grinder
                                                            Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re::Re:Re:First Access22/06/2003 23:57:55nj
                                   Re::Re:Re:First Access16/10/2003 04:59:57Todd Sloane
          Re:Re:First Access08/05/2003 16:55:33Robin Manuell
     Re:First Access10/05/2003 04:02:26Chee Tan
          Re:Re:First Access10/05/2003 17:52:30John Grinder
     First Access Revisited11/05/2003 20:43:02Ryan N.
          Re:First Access Revisited12/05/2003 18:10:33John Grinder
               Re:Re:First Access Revisited13/05/2003 20:27:05Ryan N.
                    Re:Re:Re:First Access Revisited14/06/2003 18:56:19John Grinder
                         Re:Re:Re:Re:First Access Revisited22/06/2003 05:27:54nj
                              Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:First Access Revisited22/06/2003 07:10:36John Grinder
                                   Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:First Access Revisited22/06/2003 10:42:09nj
                                        Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:First Access Revisited22/06/2003 19:00:12John Grinder
                                             Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:First Access Revisited22/06/2003 23:52:55nj
                                                  Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:First Access Revisited25/06/2003 05:40:35nj
                                                       Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:First Access Revisited25/06/2003 16:44:35John Grinder
                                                            Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:First Access Revisited11/10/2003 23:52:29nj
                                                                 Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:First Access Revisited12/10/2003 18:05:48zhizhichien
                                                                      Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:First Access Revisited14/10/2003 01:11:31nj
                                                                 Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:First Access Revisited14/10/2003 01:28:04John Grinder
                                                                      Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:First Access Revisited14/10/2003 21:40:40nj
                                                                           Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:First Access Revisited15/10/2003 16:30:00John Grinder
                                                                                Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:First Access Revisited15/10/2003 23:47:34nj
                                                                      Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:First Access Revisited16/10/2003 22:35:19nj
                                                                 Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:First Access Revisited03/11/2003 04:05:06Pete West
                                                                      Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:First Access Revisited03/11/2003 07:08:30nj
                                                            Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:First Access Revisited17/05/2004 07:20:28nj
                              Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:First Access Revisited22/05/2004 02:34:23nj

Forum Home