| Topic: | Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Continued :Habermas and NLP |
| Posted by: | doug |
| Date/Time: | 31/07/2003 14:47:16 |
|
Well, now we agree on absolutely everything! If you would, please give me an example of what you would consider an appropriate use of linear thinking. Or perhaps I should say 'linear speaking' because, as I see it, it is fairly simple (not always that useful) to place any linear statement into a systemic context like you did with submodalities. Everything you pointed out (very interesting analogs)goes to prove that, yes, it can be useful to shift filters when you are trying to approach a more systemic context. I'm sure that we could find each place in Whisperings where Grinder and St. Claire use linear language and then show how that is 'really' a non-linear activity. You said it was nonesense for me to suggest that NLPm, as explicated in "whisperings", is content saturated to a certain degree. I can only assume that you would say it is just as nonesensical for the authors of "whisperings" to suggest the opposite claim. I don't think so. I'm an old timer, I guess, but I do think there is value in knowing what we are saying and I think it is obvious that these aren't just abstract mental masterbations, but concepts that help ground the practice of NLP. My only real problem with new code is the suggestion that the pracitioner should strive for a content free therapuetic ecology check, along with an entire therapuetic process that is content free... |