| Topic: | Re:Re:Re:Continued :Habermas and NLP |
| Posted by: | doug |
| Date/Time: | 31/07/2003 02:39:52 |
|
Of course linear thinking has a useful context. What surprises me is how fashionable it has become in the NLP community to talk about linear as if it is less than or 'worse' than some other type of thinking. Yes, when linear thinking is applied to contexts in which it provides too narrow a scope, we should, hopefully, have the tools to switch to a more appropriate type of thinking; that is the gift of such thinkers as Bateson and Grinder- they have mapped out various territories (and maps)which benefit from being engaged with systemic or non-linear thinking. Take submodalities; they function in both linear and non-linear contexts. We shouldn't be embarrassed to take note that changing a simple submodality can have a profound effect. And when we observe such a linear sequence, it is just fine to use language that represents it as such. In fact, if you wish, I can point out numerous instances in "Whisperings" in which the authors use linear language in just such contexts. Thank God they aren't limited to such language, recognizing the framworks within which such language works. Clearly NLPa is full of "whys"; I doubt anybody would argue against this. As I read it, NLPm includes "whys" in certain aspects of its articulation, but explicitly excludes 'whys' in other aspects. No time for details, but would be happy if you wish. Ryan, I don't think you intended it as such, but I take it as a compliment that you are clear when I am speaking linearly. I only wish that many in the NLP community would feel more comfortable admitting when they do too. Hey, linearity is nothing to be ashamed of, right? Now let me go to bed SO THAT I can get some sleep. Dougt |