| Topic: | Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:ethical milton and grinder |
| Posted by: | Jon Edwards |
| Date/Time: | 06/11/2003 13:06:01 |
|
Ooops! My apologies, Todd Seems I had developed "tunnel vision" in my efforts to understand the content/process distinction! Re-reading Whispering, JG and CB state that BOTH the content/form and content/process distinctions are vital to ethical application. Extending the analogy of grammar, I wonder if it's useful to say - Content = semantics (the words the person uses in a sentence) Form = syntax (the structure of the sentence) Process = language-formation? (the rules and techniques the person used to create the sentence) An intervention using Form (e.g. submodalities shift) invites them to select a different structure for their sentence, selecting from their own collection of structures (and ideally, asking their unconscious to make, or at least ratify, the selection). An intervention using Process (e.g. New Code game) - - teaches them a new technique for sentence formation and invites them to reformulate their sentence using this technique - and/or, puts them in a more resourceful state and invites them to reformulate their sentence using the full range of their existing repertoire of techniques. (And some interventions combine both, eg. 6-step reframe) Both form and process are a logical level above content, but they use two different ordering functions for their respective hierarchies of levels. Sometimes process is a logical level above form - eg. if you use the form to decide which change process to use? Cheers, Jon |