Forum Message

Topic: Re:Unified Field theory and NLP
Posted by: doug
Date/Time: 31/07/2003 05:26:11

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. 


Entire Thread

TopicDate PostedPosted By
Unified Field theory and NLP31/07/2003 03:51:03Renee Levant
     Re:Unified Field theory and NLP31/07/2003 05:26:11doug
          Re:Re:Unified Field theory and NLP31/07/2003 09:58:24Michael Carroll
               Re:Re:Re:Unified Field theory and NLP31/07/2003 14:29:04doug
                    neurological levels31/07/2003 21:41:56doug
                         Re:neurological levels11/09/2003 22:51:31Todd
                              Re:Re:neurological levels12/09/2003 01:04:54Todd Sloane
          Guys......may be u see ToE here.....19/01/2004 16:40:02genius

Forum Home