|Topic:||Contextual Fields And Modelling|
|Posted by:||Ex-NLP Person|
I read some more of the articles and excerpts of WITW. One of the things that I have had trouble with in relation to the original NLP code is the idea that by chunking representational systems, submodalities, using VAK patterns etc, that it would be possible for anyone to model anything. This is where I bogged down with the Tony Robbins stuff. The contextualization that relates to a given constellation of skill-sets is developed over a lifetime. So how can genius actually be replicated in its fullness; since the contextual basis that developed in the genius is so complex, and that replicating the skills that evolved out of them is not enough to replicate them in a way that would lead to a qualitative comprehension of how, and in what nuance, these skills should be utilized? The old NLP code would be like having a painting of an object, without any background image, or even any qualitative sense to what the object is. It might be interesting to figure out how to create contextual generators and use them on an unconscious level, in relation to the imprinting of new skill sets that does not depend on the client becoming conversant with NLP over the course of many years to get them to work, and failing because the unconscious was not properly engaged, but rather refracted into a semi-conscious trance experience. NLP should not just continue to model excellence, but also innovate the excellence to even new resonances to what it is modelling.
|Topic||Date Posted||Posted By|
|Contextual Fields And Modelling||12/01/2004 01:09:14||Ex-NLP Person|
|Re:Contextual Fields And Modelling||12/01/2004 16:45:13||Ryan Nagy|
|Re:Re:Contextual Fields And Modelling||12/01/2004 21:39:08||Ex-NLP Person|
|Re:Re:Contextual Fields And Modelling||13/01/2004 12:36:10||GSM|