Topic: | Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:First Access Revisited |
Posted by: | John Grinder |
Date/Time: | 22/06/2003 19:00:12 |
nj Couple of comments: 1. You write, "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" I am completely baffled by this statement - surely, there are thousands of cases where research and the generation of new knowledge have produced "cures" beyond the wildest dreams of previous practitioners - perhaps I misunderstood. 2. You write, "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." Wow, so, I should never have done the research and generated the knowledge now called NLP? 2. You write, "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?" Where does the presupposition that I intend to divorce my "commumication efforst from my face-te-face interaction with people come from, nj? You present your statement as if there were something inherent in research into syntax that leads to this situation - I have lost me entirely here. nj, the whole end piece is pure hallucinatory ranting - get a grip. John |