Forum Message

Topic: Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Archetypes and NLP epistemology
Posted by: John Schertzer
Date/Time: 22/04/2005 21:39:53

"[E]xperiences at FA of an example of an F2 transform" makes sense to me, and something I hadn't considered.

What I meant by the ball refering back to the word "ball," is that a ball is something made intentionally to fit the transform object; it wouldn't be the same with, let's say, a rock, for instance, unless you really want to stretch the *making* of a thing involved in a perceptual act, which is possible, but we've got to draw a line somewhere, no?

Things starting to make sense... thanks.


Entire Thread

TopicDate PostedPosted By
Archetypes and NLP epistemology13/04/2005 21:35:25Thomas William Heard
     Re:Archetypes and NLP epistemology14/04/2005 16:37:37John Schertzer
     Re:Archetypes and NLP epistemology16/04/2005 21:13:22John Grinder
          Re:Re:Archetypes and NLP epistemology17/04/2005 12:49:56Thomas William Heard
               Re:Re:Re:Archetypes and NLP epistemology18/04/2005 20:17:59John Grinder
          Re:Re:Archetypes and NLP epistemology19/04/2005 20:44:30John Schertzer
               Re:Re:Re:Archetypes and NLP epistemology20/04/2005 20:56:56John Grinder
                    Re:Re:Re:Re:Archetypes and NLP epistemology21/04/2005 17:51:48John Schertzer
                         Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Archetypes and NLP epistemology21/04/2005 18:52:49John Grinder
                              Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Archetypes and NLP epistemology22/04/2005 16:42:23John Schertzer
                                   Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Archetypes and NLP epistemology22/04/2005 19:36:02John Grinder
                                        Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Archetypes and NLP epistemology22/04/2005 21:39:53John Schertzer

Forum Home