|Topic:||Re:Unified Field theory and NLP|
Dilt's 'Unified Field Theory' would be considered content filled, very filled. It's bedrock is 'logical levels', which Grinder and St. Claire point out violates their basic understanding of what makes something NLP.|
However, based on one of the most important criteria elucidated in "whisperings", Dilt's work can be seen as falling under the category of excellence. I know many people who have found Dilt's SOAR model as brilliently helpful in organizing their modeling and therapuetic efforts.
I count myself as one. No matter how NLP something is, if it isn't useful it doesn't really matter. Of course there are those who don't like, or can't use, Dilt's models (same with Grinder's), but the fact that many skilled, intelligent and competent people can point to Dilt's work as making a major difference for them, says quite a bit.
|Topic||Date Posted||Posted By|
|Unified Field theory and NLP||31/07/2003 03:51:03||Renee Levant|
|Re:Unified Field theory and NLP||31/07/2003 05:26:11||doug|
|Re:Re:Unified Field theory and NLP||31/07/2003 09:58:24||Michael Carroll|
|Re:Re:Re:Unified Field theory and NLP||31/07/2003 14:29:04||doug|
|neurological levels||31/07/2003 21:41:56||doug|
|Re:neurological levels||11/09/2003 22:51:31||Todd|
|Re:Re:neurological levels||12/09/2003 01:04:54||Todd Sloane|
|Guys......may be u see ToE here.....||19/01/2004 16:40:02||genius|