| Topic: | Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Dilts Logical Levels! (pseudo-science) |
| Posted by: | John Schertzer |
| Date/Time: | 27/08/2003 15:30:12 |
|
t, Ethical criteria for one's own work is hopefully different from what one may wish to impose on others. I don't believe I would tell a Saudi that it is wrong to make his wife walk several paces behind him, though I don't have that kind of relationship with my wife. We're talking about many different cultures here, and in some cases, very different desired outcomes. A client and therapist have chosen a particular type or relationship that may involve varying degrees of process and content. I don't actually believe that there is a clean delineation between form (or process) and content to begin with, a point at which I may differ with JG and St. Clare. But John even says at one point in whispering that the difference between form and content is one of logical levels, and that what might be form on one level is content on another. Is using metaphorical intervention content free? Is it sometimes, never, always? And if it is at times content free, at what point does it become venturing into content? It is also possible to argue, by nature of the map vs. territory presupposition, that all communication is metaphorical and therefore content free. Depending on what logical level you're working at, as we said before, the language you're using may be transformed from content to form, or vice versa. What if a client comes to you complaining that their pictures are all fuzzy and they want to learn how to make them clear. Then submods, usually considered an aspect of form, have become the content of the conversation. Where do you go from there? A smart psychoanalyst may take any complaint as a metaphor for something else, something inexplicable. Lacan's psychoanalysis, in fact, has a term for this inexplicable aspect. He calls it "The Real," and defines it as something that is the root or source of a complex that can never be known (correct me if I'm wrong), or known only through questionable associations. This is perhaps sometimes even more content free than NLP is. His thinking was very influenced by a different kind of structuralist linguistics, btw. best, JS |