Topic: | Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:ethical milton and grinder |
Posted by: | D |
Date/Time: | 05/11/2003 17:01:57 |
I'll get back to this, but for now I just want to say that I agree with WITW in that I don't believe there is actually such a thing as content free therapy. That has never been demonstrated to my satisfaction and certainly six step reframing doesn't fit that criteria- although much more so than, say, TA. So then the question becomes how do we ethically utilize content. I believe Milton Erickson was a master at this. I will address your question further later today. Thanks for asking. I've noticed that there are many people interested in Dr. Grinder's opinion about Milton's work. It sounds like he won't respond until somebody proposes an alternative to his system. "Childish" isn't a word southen Torential languages. For me, it would help me understand what, specifically, Grinder is suggesting by the notion that introducing content to the client as unethical, if he would explain why he considers Erickson an ethical therapist. However, if he comes out and states that often Erickson was practicing unethically, it will tell me that I am understanding his suggestions as intended. If Erickson serves as a general example of WITW's ethical principal, then I need somebody to explain why. Is it really inappropriate for me to ask Dr. Grinder this question. I didn't even start this idea, but I caught onto it because it really spoke to my own questions. D |