| Topic: | Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Same Definition of NLP by co creators? |
| Posted by: | Stephen Bray |
| Date/Time: | 28/08/2003 06:57:58 |
|
Dear Venus, My hear sang when I read your words: "However, when it comes to NLPers' desires to see RB and JG back together again I always think that's more about us and less about them. I mean, I, too, have done good work with folks in my past, but that is no reason that I must be linked with them forever in the future. I'm sure JG and RB are both contented with their lives and the work they've done without each other." The statement summoned up the following question: What is the relevance of whether or not Bandler and Grinder work together, in relation to you and I, (and any other NLPers to whom their story connects)? I use a really specific definition of relevence here: "I would assume that any A is relevant to any B if both A and B are parts or components of the same 'story'. We face connectedness at more than one level: First, connection between A and B by virtue of their being components in the same story. And then, connectedness between people in that all think in terms of stories" (Bateson, 1980 p 23). The next part of that quotation is sheer poetry . . . . Love, Stephen Bateson, G (1980) Mind and Nature. London, Fontana. |