Topic: | Re::Re:Re:First Access |
Posted by: | Todd Sloane |
Date/Time: | 16/10/2003 04:59:57 |
Ryan, You write.. "Disassociation, to me, has often meant "not associated" or "lack of/minimal kinesthetics." I believe this distinction is implied in many NON-New Code NLP trainings." Absolutely and thank you for putting this so succintly. How this myth got created and spread I have no idea and I don't care, but let's put it to bed now! "Your post and WITW is essentially saying, "Disassociation is associating into another set of V/A/K distinctions." Utilizing triple description in this "re-associative" way seems much more useful than assuming a lack of kinesthetics." More useful and more accurate. In fact, if we weren't experiencing K's here, we would just not be paying attention! And not paying attention to internal K is certainly not useful in third position! (I know I wouldn't hire a consultant who didn't attend to his internal kinesthetics, let alone TRY TO MAKE THEM GO AWAY ?!) "After all, how could we ever truly have no K?" This may (qualifiying this since it would depend upon how/where you define "no K") be possible and useful. However, only in very specific contexts. Most of the time the old adage is true, "We aren't given experiences, NOT to have them." BTW, your post points out a serious flaw in the S Andreas "review" of WITW. He certainly believes his own press on this point which is unfortunate considering the influence he has to teach MORE choice. At present, he appears to be sticking to his one-size-fits-all (or should I say no-size-fits-all) theory. But hey, it IS HIS after all ;-) Todd |