| Topic: | Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:ethics |
| Posted by: | Todd |
| Date/Time: | 19/10/2003 03:56:33 |
|
More great stuff here Matt. re: Erickson and content. I agree completely. Metaphor is content. period. And he used this a lot. re: I think it is very very important to keep in mind what Dr. Grinder and Mrs. St. Claire say about content/process; it is merely a question of puncuation in that process is content from a higher level, Here here! I have described this in other posts as well. I do believe that the content/process distinction is relative in nature. re: Even a format like six-step reframing that allows you to work with a problem without knowing the name of the problem and without knowing the way it is being addressed by the unconscious is EXTREMELY content... Some of this section I can't follow especially what you mean by the "out of a very specific historical/cultural/intellectual/etc. context" section. Can you clarify what you mean by this specifically? Also, have you ever done 6-step reframing without the client being aware of their signals? This eliminates having to introduce some presuppositions. The only presupp (i.e. content) that I see as being necessary for the 6-step is that a problem behavior has a positive intention. (I am not including such presupps as "change is possible" "we exist" and other silly and obvious ones :-) Do you or anyone else in the group think there are others that must be introduced? If so, what do you think they are? For that matter does anyone have a take on a way to not introduce this presupp as well? also regarding: "How is your shame doing today" that's content to WITW, but if I say, "How is your experience doing" that's process. But remember, it's process only in relation to not mentioning a member of the class of 'experience'. I got it and I am with you on this one. Have you read "Metphors in Mind"? If not, you might enjoy it. It presents one of the best process for utilizing clients language without introducing content (or very very little) that I have found anywhere. It might make some connections with your grief work as well. Although not linked to this specifically, the authors developed thier model by modelling David Grove who worked with folks on transforming and healing trauma and traumatic loss. Here is a link: http://www.devco.demon.co.uk/book.html It is some of the best modelling that I have seen in NLP since the original work of G&B.; bye for now, Todd |