| Topic: | ethical milton and grinder |
| Posted by: | Tim Garrett |
| Date/Time: | 30/10/2003 05:35:43 |
|
Ok, stop all this talk about Milton Erickson violating the ethical principal that WITW so brillantly expouses. Milton, like Grinder, never introduces content. EVER! You know why? He has no interest. So even when it looks like he is introducing content (like when he told the impotent man that blood grows stronger when you eat your 'grits' outside the home) he is only speaking in form. How is this possible. because Milton didn't care about the content. That is what makes it ethical. Don't try to protect Milton by saying that he uses metaphor. Not necessary. Milton is protected because he doesn't believe the content he introduces. Same with Grinder. If Grinder believed in all the content he introduced (I'm thinking of examples he gave in the early books), then he wouldn't be ethical. Same with Milton. Acorrding to WITW, it is fine to introduce as much content as you want as long as you don't fall for it as 'truth'. Because if you know it's a lie, then you are just using it for process purposes. So, Matt, when you use your 'massive' amounts of content it all comes down to whether you are lying or telling the 'truth'. Which one? If the former, you are ethical. If the latter, you are violating the most important principal of NLP. I've enjoyed the discussion and just wanted to step up for Milton. There are no grounds to question his ethics. And don't you think Grinder would have mentioned it by now if he thought of Milton as an unethical therapist? Tim |