Bandler makes shameless, and often very humorous attacks at Freud, but I don't believe he is representative (if that's what he really feels) of the entire group.  I've been arguing with NLP trainers perhaps for years about this stuff, and have a close friend who is a Freudian analyst, and have made use of a therapist who combines aspects of Freudian training with a lot of other things, including Ericksonian therapy.  In a section of Christopher Bollas' book, Being a Character, he speaks of a process that transforms *trauma* to what he calls *genera* (a generative internal object - this is object relations - what NLP might call a part, strategy, whatever...) that involves *free association* (very similar to the conversational metaphorical conversations in Ericksonian therapy which relies on trusting one's unconscious signals). btw my Freudian friend is the best matcher I've ever met, and he isn't even aware of it! Freud is responsible for the unconscious as a concept, as something that can be observed through language and behavioral patterns, that is differentiated from voluntary conscious choice.  It's been a long time, so I don't remember a lot. It could be what makes the biggest difference between a lot of what goes on in analysis (using the term loosely), and some NLP therapy, is what John Grinder describes as his focus on form over content.  Freudian theory is possibly taken too literally by many of his disciples.  He was constructing ways of tracking patterns, and one of them was Oedipus, borrowed from early theater, which he overobsessed about and then later refuted.  Another metaphor. best, JS