Bandler's poor excuse for his nicotine habit
Michael DeBusk
> "Mr. Richard Bandler, why are you a smoker"
> "Well, I don't really want to give up"
> "Why?"
> "Well, I .. I just don't - it doesn't get more simpler than that"
> "Oh really?"
>
> And some NLPers will never see the point. Get with the right modality
> boys or stay in perceptual filter heaven.
Which specific perceptural filter are you using that tells you, inspite
of what the speaker *says*, that they cannot stop using their substance
of choice?
--
Mike DeBusk North East, Maryland USA Team OS/2
Host of the ILink Psychology and OS_Discuss conferences
Rick Mason
> > "Mr. Richard Bandler, why are you a smoker?"
> > "Well, I don't really want to give up"
> > "Why?"
> > "Well, I .. I just don't - it doesn't get more simpler than that"
> > "Oh really?"
> >
> > And some NLPers will never see the point. Get with the right
modality
> > boys or stay in perceptual filter heaven.
>
inspite
> of what the speaker *says*, that they cannot stop using their
substance
> of choice?
I love it, Mike!
I already responded to your similarly put question in "Installing a
piece of Richie Bandler's mind"
It's good to see you're hot on the trail.
Your other question had an embedded logical word.
Your current question has a similarly tricky nuance. Well done!
Of course, the assumption you casually slip into the equation is in the
words "substance of choice" - Oh you rotter! - you must be a lawyer or
something - what a star!
I contend that an addict does not have a "substance of choice" since
they have no choice. Oh you devil! I hope that explains it.
--
Rick Mason
The World's Biggest Cult = The Church =
The Anti-cult Movement = The Modern Crusades
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Stever Robbins
>"Mr. Richard Bandler, why are you a smoker"
>"Why?"
>"Well, I .. I just don't - it doesn't get more simpler than that"
>"Oh really?"
I've never heard Richard say "Well, I...I just don't" That particular
phrasing builds in hesitation and the impression that he's evading.
I've heard him say rather forcefully that NLP is about choice, and he
hadn't chosen to quit because he enjoyed the nicotine buzz. There was
no sense of hesitation or evading about his answer.
In fact, however, he decided to quit and did so. He doesn't smoke any
more. Nor does he drink. So let's not (a) put words into his mouth,
(b) make implications about those words, and (c) come to conclusions
which can't be substantiated on the basis of sensory evidence, but
only on the basis of rumor and hearsay.
As direct as I can be with the sensory evidence:
I spent several hours with Richard in his hotel room at the Chicago
DHE he did earlier this year. I can assure you that even in private,
unwinding with friends who *do* drink, Richard did not smoke and he
did not drink.
I can equally assure you that several years ago (mid-90s), I saw him
smoking quite regularly at his workshops in Hollywood. I haven't seen
him drink alcohol in a very long time, though I don't know whether
that's just because I wasn't paying attention. His co-trainer, John
LaValle, certainly drinks, but I've never seen John nor Richard drink
more than very casually. They've never gotten anywhere near drunk in
my presence at a workshop or socializing before/during/after a
workshop. (And yes, I hang out with them before, during, and after
workshops.)
I just noticed that the person posting this message (Rick Mason?) was
the same person trying to establish whether or not NLP techniques work
by analyzing Richard's character in the earlier conversation. What do
you have against the man, Rick? To an outsider, you appear to be
spending an awful lot of energy trying to discredit him for no
apparent reason.
- Stever
Michael DeBusk
> > Which specific perceptural [sic]
Sorry. It was late.
> filter are you using that tells you, inspite
There's another won. <g>
> > of what the speaker *says*, that they cannot stop using their
> > substance of choice?
>
> I love it, Mike!
I'm so glad someone can bring a sliver of sunshine into your day.
> I contend that an addict does not have a "substance of choice" since
> they have no choice.
It's obvious to me that addict DO have a choice. They don't know they're
making choices, but they do make choices when they choose to abuse (as
opposed to use) substances. Every "addict" I've worked with so far, when
presented with the structure of their "addiction" as elicited, has
understood this (and been amazed by their own unconscious working.)
I was taught in Practitioner training that modal operators of necessity
indicate a limit of the speaker's map of reality. I wonder if that's so.
If it is, then you've shown us one of yours. I wish I knew which one it
is.
Michael DeBusk
> I've never heard Richard say "Well, I...I just don't"
I've never heard Richard hesitate about anything in training unless he's
demonstrating hesitation.
> I've heard him say rather forcefully that NLP is about choice, and he
> hadn't chosen to quit because he enjoyed the nicotine buzz. There was
> no sense of hesitation or evading about his answer.
I missed that. My first training with him was shortly after he quit.
Thanks for giving me the other side of the story.
> I just noticed that the person posting this message (Rick Mason?) was
> the same person trying to establish whether or not NLP techniques work
> by analyzing Richard's character in the earlier conversation.
I really enjoy it when someone confuses correlation with causation. It's
a common tactic in biopsychiatry, too.
Roger
clients were the only ones to be interested if a counselor drank or smoked
in moderation. I think you would benefit by trying to understand why your
comtinuing to interest yourself in the habits (not addictions) of these
trainers. I am in no ways calling anyone a scapegoat, just talking about
being introspective.
Roger www.hypnocontrol.,com
Rick Mason
Your article was a lovely piece of confabulated truth and fiction and I
answer below.
But friend know this:
When an addict says he has a choice he doesn't mean it - you got to read
thru the lines and get out of your model. Of course you believe he has
choice - that's your right - but he is kidding you - please get the joke
ha ha ha !
In article <381B3507...@dpnet.net>,
Michael DeBusk <debu...@dpnet.net> wrote:
> Rick Mason wrote:
>
> > > Which specific perceptural [sic]
> There's another won. <g>
well done, boyyo - sticking up for yourself, and what a lovely cheezy
grin!
>
> I'm so glad someone can bring a sliver of sunshine into your day.
> Oh, you do!
> It's obvious to me that addict DO have a choice. They don't know
they're
> making choices, but they do make choices when they choose to abuse (as
> opposed to use) substances.
Article of Faith alert!
Every "addict" I've worked with so far,
when
> presented with the structure of their "addiction" as elicited,
wow, you're so cool, you really got to the bottom of addiction problems
- wow, you're the man - you should be on Oprah - no have your own show -
how come we never heard about YOU! oxox!
>has understood this (and been amazed by their own unconscious working.)
Oh yes yes. I am getting amazed what are you doing to me....
> I was taught in Practitioner training that modal operators of
necessity
> indicate a limit of the speaker's map of reality.
Ah so that map was true and this one is a limit...
> If it is, then you've shown us one of yours. I wish I knew which one
>it is.
> Go on you can do it Einstein.
> --
> Mike DeBusk North East, Maryland USA Team OS/2
> Host of the ILink Psychology and OS_Discuss conferences
>
--
Rick Mason
Thanks for your info - its honest and not defensive.
My grandad gave up smoking also - so RB's achievement is only a small
one.
My point is that he could have run the experience of smoking nicotine
without resorting to the dreaded weed for the buzz - and he would have
smelt fresher too - perhaps,
but maybe his legendary NLP skills were not up to it then
What do I have against RB?
Not a lot really - though I might dislike him if I was one of the
patients in his books that he practised some heavy shocking NLP
techniques on...or a client on whom he wasn't so successful...
I understand your concern that he might be being attacked - my interest
is scientific - are Bandler's outrageous claims true?
And to start I look to see if the man measures up.
I am sure RB can take a little bit of a ribbing - I mean he can be quite
pugnacious when he wants to be - which certainly seems to be often and
perhaps that's why I jest so much - I mean the guy ain't Mother Theresa
Rick Mason
Thanks for your info - its honest and not defensive.
My grandad gave up smoking also - so RB's achievement is only a small
one.
My point is that he could have run the experience of smoking nicotine
without resorting to the dreaded weed for the buzz - and he would have
smelt fresher too - perhaps,
but maybe his legedary NLP skills were not up to it then
Rick Mason
For the sake of our audience could you explain what you mean by this?
> I really enjoy it when someone confuses correlation with causation.
It's
> a common tactic in biopsychiatry, too.
>
--
Kim Flintoff
Rick Mason wrote:
>
I mean the guy ain't Mother Theresa
> --
And quite frankly Rick - neither was Mother Theresa. Try reading Roland
Barthes, Michel Foucault, Jacque Derrida and Jean Baudrillard... the
"truth" eludes us all.
Cheerio
Kim
--
||||||||
| ^ ^ |
(| @ @ |)
_________oOOo___(__)___oOOo__________
|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|_|
|_|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|
|__ |_|
| Kim Flintoff - Perth, Australia |
| mailto:ki...@networx.net.au |
Fax/Voicemail: +61 (08) 9264 8869
Rick Mason
> >
> I mean the guy ain't Mother Theresa
> > --
>
> And quite frankly Rick - neither was Mother Theresa. Try reading
Roland
> Barthes, Michel Foucault, Jacque Derrida and Jean Baudrillard... the
> "truth" eludes us all.
Well, it's eluding me but you seem to have some insider knowledge about
'us all'.
> Cheerio
>
> Kim
Does it then follow that Kim isn't Kim?
Cheerio,
Rick Mason
Thanks - I reckon I know why, butI could introspect a bit longer and I
might change my opinion about myself....ad infinitum....
BTW, what's your addiction???
Yes, seriously....go on share with me...I'll tell you mine if you tell
me yours..
--
Stever Robbins
>ps - was that >you< on the cover of that magazine, Stever?
Which magazine? I was in Inc. Magazine's Technology issue cover story
last month, but my picture was on page 44, not on the cover itself.
- Stever
---------------------------------------------------------------
Stever Robbins stev...@eudoramail.com
[To contact me directly, go to http://www.nlp.com/email.cgi.
The email address posted is for SPAM and I rarely check it.]
Accept no substitutes! http://www.verstek.com/stever/
"You're only young once, but you can be immature forever."
Michael DeBusk
> Your article was a lovely piece of confabulated truth and fiction
I believe that's true of everything any of us say. Your point?
> But friend know this:
I don't recall us deciding to be friends.
> When an addict says he has a choice he doesn't mean it
As you've presented it here, if someone is using and they say they can
stop, your model frames them as an addict who can't stop. What if
someone is using and says they can't stop... are they in fact NOT
addicts, but people who CAN stop? Or are we to take THEM at face value?
Should we believe anything an addict says about his addiction?
It looks to me like you've set up a double-bind by which an "addict" is
defined as "anyone who uses a substance." Perhaps that's useful to you,
I don't know.
> you got to read thru the lines and get out of your model.
Please post a perfectly and finely detailed description of my model. If
you miss anything, you have to start over.
> he is kidding you - please get the joke
Prove it to me.
> wow, you're so cool, you really got to the bottom of addiction problems
> - wow, you're the man - you should be on Oprah - no have your own show -
> how come we never heard about YOU! oxox!
How about addressing what I've said instead of trying to present
sarcasm.
> > Go on you can do it Einstein.
You know, I keep waiting for you to make an intelligent response to
something I post. I'm here so someone can turn me inside out and prove
me wrong. You seem interested in doing exactly that. Please, get to it
or drop the whole thing.
Michael DeBusk
> For the sake of our audience could you explain what you mean by this?
If our audience is at all interested in what I mean by confusing
correlation with causation, I'm sure they're bright enough and
resourceful enough to either consult a statistics book or e-mail me.
As you aren't part of our audience, I'm sure you already know what it
means.
Michael DeBusk
> John doesn't drink.
I had the pleasure of dinner with John once. I believe he had a glass of
beer with dinner. I may be mistaken. *Someone* at the table had a glass
of beer, and I think it was John.
> The posting entity labelling itself Rick Mason is not a reliable
> source of accurate information or useful analysis IMHO.
So, what you're saying is, he's good for a few laughs.
Hey, Rick! This changes everything! :)
Michael DeBusk
> And to start I look to see if the man measures up.
One of the most profound spiritual lessons I ever learned was from a
drunk in a public park. I've picked up really great stuff from cartoons
and comic books and toddlers.
Truth isn't dependent on the medium through which it is expressed.
Rick Mason
In article <381BD797...@dpnet.net>,
Michael DeBusk <debu...@dpnet.net> wrote:
> Rick Mason wrote:
>
> > When an addict says he has a choice he doesn't mean it
>
> As you've presented it here, if someone is using and they say they can
> stop, your model frames them as an addict who can't stop.
No, it's an empirical model - so it doesn't say thay can't stop if they
can stop - natch!
What if
> someone is using and says they can't stop... are they in fact NOT
> addicts, but people who CAN stop? Or are we to take THEM at face
value?
> Should we believe anything an addict says about his addiction?
>
> It looks to me like you've set up a double-bind by which an "addict"
>is defined as "anyone who uses a substance." Perhaps that's useful to
> you, I don't know.
No its more simple - an addict is one who is addicted....
>
> > you got to read thru the lines and get out of your model.
>
> Please post a perfectly and finely detailed description of my model
Well your model is enturbulated by your NLP goggles...GIGO
>
> You know, I keep waiting for you to make an intelligent response to
> something I post.
Don't you recognise greatness... I could do a fix on you..
>I'm here so someone can turn me inside out and prove me wrong.
Strange creature ...sounds kinky
> You seem interested in doing exactly that.
Steady on, old man
>Please, get to it or drop the whole thing.
At the double Capt Kirk I going as fast as I can
--
Rick "Give me facts not opinions" Mason
Rick Mason
this?
>
> If our audience is at all interested in what I mean by confusing
> correlation with causation, I'm sure they're bright enough and
> resourceful enough to either consult a statistics book or e-mail me.
>
> As you aren't part of our audience, I'm sure you already know what it
> means.
Spoken like a true trooper but
could you make it MORE explicit just for the hard of hearing?
Rick Mason
Stever Robbins
>That was it
>I'm glad you're not that "shaky" looking in person.
Shaky looking? I'm not sure what you mean. The picture in Inc. was
actually taken in a time lapse, and it took about 5 minutes of my
holding as still as I could. As a result, it does look a bit odd.
"Shaky" isn't the word I'd choose, though.
- Stever
Roger
I think an explaination of my previous comment is needed. I am not talking
about addiction. As a matter of fact addiction implies loss of control and
that is not my intention.
This whole thread reminds me of a incident I had with a patient the other
day. I was testing for thought process and asked the typical question "what
does it mean that people in glass houses should not throw stones?"
You would be surprised to hear some of the responses I get from this
question (from "I do not want to live in a glass house" to " people can see
you"). Well this person answered one of the typical "because you can break
a window."
While a concrete thought process is better than delusional it still shows
rigidity in thinking. So let's change the question from "what is your
addiction" to "what concepts are so distressing to you that your thoughts
become concrete and rigid."
BTW I never asked if people in concrete houses should throw glass?
Roger
Rick Mason <maso...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7vgmf0$nap$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
venus uzynski
Sorry I haven't seen the article yet, but I've just gotta ask:
What was the purpose of taking your photo in this manner?
Thanks,
Venus
Stever Robbins
>What was the purpose of taking your photo in this manner?
You'll have to ask the photographer. He opened the camera shutter, and
illuminated the scene with a flashlight. Where he played with the
light longer (e.g. my face), it gave a really warm glow on the plate.
So he could sculpt pretty carefully how he wanted the light to fall.
It was interesting. It's not my favorite picture, but it's reasonably
good.
- Stever
Michael DeBusk
> I see you're working up a sweat here....
If that was true, how could you see sweat on Usenet?
> > As you've presented it here, if someone is using and they say they can
> > stop, your model frames them as an addict who can't stop.
>
> No, it's an empirical model - so it doesn't say thay can't stop if they
> can stop - natch!
How do *you* know if someone you see using a substance is an addict? You
assert Bandler was addicted, but you haven't told us the specific test
you applied to determine that. The *only* sensory-based thing you've
presented is that he used nicotine.
> No its more simple - an addict is one who is addicted....
Define "addicted" then. And, assuming your definition includes the words
"can't stop" somewhere, describe how you know they can't (as opposed to
"don't yet know how to") stop.
> > > you got to read thru the lines and get out of your model.
> >
> > Please post a perfectly and finely detailed description of my model
>
> Well your model is enturbulated by your NLP goggles...GIGO
Again... please post a perfectly and finely detailed description of my
model. Don't miss anything.
> Don't you recognise greatness... I could do a fix on you..
Describe to me exactly how to recognize greatness.
> >I'm here so someone can turn me inside out and prove me wrong.
>
> Strange creature ...sounds kinky
It's outside your model, that's apparent. I like to be proven wrong
because I like to be right.
> > You seem interested in doing exactly that.
> Steady on, old man
So go ahead.
> >Please, get to it or drop the whole thing.
>
> At the double Capt Kirk I going as fast as I can
I'd prefer you do it thoroughly and accurately, rather than quickly.
Michael DeBusk
> Spoken like a true trooper but
> could you make it MORE explicit just for the hard of hearing?
If anyone hard-of-hearing is reading this and claims they don't
understand what I write because of their hearing deficit, perhaps they
should consider returning to their reading senses.
Michael DeBusk
> I get it that you want to remain optimistic about their recovery
I have reason to. I've seen too much recovery to believe it doesn't
happen.
> This is the sense I hear he says he can stop I see he doesnt stop
He has stopped. Something like three years ago or so. What does that do
to your perception of either addiction in general or your perception of
Richard as an addict in particular?
> I appreciate the time you are taking on NLPing this but can we bring
> this back to the focu i.e.RB? RB says he can stop but he DOESN'T
He DID. What's the focus now?
> What I get is that you are NLPing this rather than seeing my message.
You've said your message is that Richard said he could stop doing "X"
but doesn't.
First of all, he HAS stopped, some time ago, so your entire thesis
crumbled to dust some time ago and you didn't even know it until now.
Second, there is no requirement whatsoever that anyone who CAN do
something MUST do it. After all, I am entirely capable of shooting
myself in the head, but I have no intention of doing so. And for a more
isomorphic example, I'm a hundred pounds overweight... I can lose it if
I want to, I've done it before and it's actually pretty simple for me to
do. I've chosen to remain overweight, though, for many reasons, not the
least of which is I simply don't want to do what is necessary to lose
the weight. (I believe you can't just want what you want, you have to
want everything that goes with it.)
ava...@my-deja.com
Rick Mason <masonric...@hotmail.com.invalid> wrote:
> In article <381EBDD1...@dpnet.net>, Michael DeBusk
> <debu...@dpnet.net> wrote:
> > Rick Mason wrote:
> > > I get it that you want to remain optimistic about their recovery
> > I have reason to. I've seen too much recovery to believe it doesn't
> > happen.
>
>
> > > This is the sense I hear he says he can stop I see he doesnt stop
> > He has stopped. Something like three years ago or so. What does
> > that do
> > to your perception of either addiction in general or your
> > perception of
> > Richard as an addict in particular?
> > > I appreciate the time you are taking on NLPing this but can we
> > bring
> > > this back to the focu i.e.RB? RB says he can stop but he DOESN'T
> > He DID. What's the focus now?
>
>
> RB said he could quit and didn't for sometime I see the same with
> addicts instead they justify not quitting while hollding the illusion
> that they can quit
>
> > Second, there is no requirement whatsoever that anyone who CAN do
> > something MUST do it. After all, I am entirely capable of shooting
> > myself in the head, but I have no intention of doing so. And for a
> > more
> > isomorphic example, I'm a hundred pounds overweight... I can lose
> > it if
> > I want to, I've done it before and it's actually pretty simple for
> > me to
> > do.
>
>
> I've chosen to remain overweight, though, for many reasons,
> > not the
> > least of which is I simply don't want to do what is necessary to
> > lose
> > the weight. (I believe you can't just want what you want, you have
> > to
> > want everything that goes with it.)
>
wait
> until his healt started to pack up...a bit late for one so
> super-perceptive?
>
> * Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion
Network *
> The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet -
Free!
>
>
Rick,
I've watched this thread develop for a while and think some comments
are in order.
In reference to some posts/comments made by Stever and Peta Heskell
(spelling?)
I second their comments that the ONLY person that could really answer
your questions about Richard Bandler is Richard himself. (Who knows how
HE would respond??)
Since Richard DID smoke YET doesn't anymore, May I respectfully ask
what knowing all this about Richard's (past)behavior will do for you??
Once you have the answer, then what will it mean for you???
I will add that I've personally used the services of a VERY COMPETENT
NLP practitioner in San Antonio(trained by Todd Epstein).This
gentleman has smoked for many,many years, still smokes and yet
perfoms what I consider to be very high quality therapy with patients
many of which are referred to him by MD's on staff at some of Texas's
state psychiatrict centers. He performs what many competent mental
health professionals would describe as a very thorough CLEAN piece of
work. I have personnaly witnessed him working with several
individuals,observing him in action, and seeing first hand how NLP is
successfully applied and comparatively speaking how quickly it works vs
other treatment modalities.
I WAS curious about why this gentleman smoked and questioned him about
it on a couple of occastions and he usually replied that he didn't care
about quitting. Now, You Rick might state that this is the "ravings of
anyone with an addiction" yet it wasn't my place to "confront" him
about this. IN the bigger picture, he is very competent and got HIGH
quality results for me.
Now I'm being somwhat facetious when I ask: is this thread becoming
an "addiction" for you???
Jim R
Houston
Michael DeBusk
> > I've seen too much recovery to believe it doesn't happen.
>
> Sure, it happens..just not on demand..
Actually, "on demand" is the way it most often happens. For example, a
Veteran's Administration study done a few years ago demonstrated that
the single most effective method of stopping alcohol abuse was cold
turkey. OVER HALF of the people who broke that addiction and were still
sober a year later did so just by demanding it of themselves.
> > > RB says he can stop but he DOESN'T
> > He DID. What's the focus now?
>
> The focus is on the events - that's the evidence...
The events regarding Richard were:
Richard smoked, regularly and for a long time.
Richard stopped smoking a few years ago.
What, exactly, is that evidence *of*?
The events here were:
You impugned Richard's character, referring to an alleged "addiction"
which you defined explicitly as "being unable to stop" as evidence of
your assertion.
By doing so, you define for yourself addiction as a flaw in character,
rather than using the NLP model of it as a less-than-useful strategy or
the more popular biopsychiatric model of it as "disease." This leaves
you on a very unpopular and shaky side of the addiction debate, and I'm
wondering if that's really what you meant to imply.
You are faced with the fact that Richard stopped some time ago, and
therefore by your own definition of "addiction" was NOT addicted,
thereby demolishing your characterization of him as someone with faulty
character.
You seem to be far less sure of where you want to go from here. Getting
less and less specific, and you weren't too specific to start.
What, exactly, is that evidence *of*?
> RB said he could quit and didn't for sometime I see the same with
> addicts instead they justify not quitting while hollding the illusion
> that they can quit
How do *you* know, *exactly* how, that it is an illusion? Especially
after seeing people whom you *said* "can't quit" but who DID quit, and
after learning that the single MOST effective method of stopping an
addiction is by simply demanding it of oneself?
> It's OK if you don't want to..
I appreciate your permission. ;)
> So was it really too much for RB to give up smoking that he had to wait
> until his healt started to pack up...a bit late for one so
> super-perceptive?
I know many people who have quit smoking. I don't know of *anyone* who
quit because they were concerned about future health problems.
Richard said he quit because of current (at the time) health problems
unrelated to smoking, the healing of which his smoking would impede. My
dad stopped for social reasons and out of concern for the health of the
people around him (his lungs are in excellent shape despite 50+ years of
smoking.) One lady I know stopped because she wanted to smell better to
others. Another, whom I helped to quit using an NLP-inspired
intervention, just got sick of paying for cigarettes and would rather
spend the money on other things. Another guy wanted to be a good example
to his kids. The warnings are there for legal reasons. Everyone ignores
them. If they were only on every thousandth pack, people might pay
attention to them.
One of the things most people with a destructive habit have in common is
that they are very much in-the-moment. Lots of folks consider that a
desireable state, and it often is. I spend a lot of "time" there myself.
I'm either ten minutes late or an hour early for every damn thing.
People like that don't have a good view of the future, so they can't
(with their current view) see what will happen as a result of their
behavior. They just know it feels good now, so they do it now.
If anyone gives two hoots about addiction while I'm soapboxing on about
it, the nicest model of intervention I've seen is here:
It's based on Albert Ellis' Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy.
Rick Prevatt
everything he knows, that doesnt mean he is not concerned about health, or
that he couldnt do it.
for example, do you eat bacon that is high in fat, do you drink milk that
has calcium that is nonorganic and ill used by the body, do you drink
softdrinks that will eat nails that are left in them, do you use city water
that has chlorine in it, do you eat sugar that has been shown to lead to
over 120 diseases, do you drink coffee that has caffiene in it. The list
goes on and on and on. Health is a continuom, and while he may smoke ,
which CAN be unhealthy (some people smoke and live to their 90s with their
lungs in good shape ) he may be doing 5 other habits that are good for him
that you are not doing. Just because one doesnt stop smoking , does not
mean that he can't. Maybe he could all the time, maybe he couldnt all the
time. Who knows. Just because you eat bacon which is high fat content
doesnt mean you couldnt stop it if you wanted to.
The nlp threshold technique is a fairly simple technique , and I would
ASSUME that if he wanted to quit smoking, then he could probably do it. The
fact is that he probably didnt want to, just as you dont want to quit the
many health habits that are unhealthy for you.news:7vtb9r$nbu$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> Michael,
>
> I'd just like to mention a few things before I dive into your reply.
> Your comments have made me think hard about what I have said. I haven't
> been so intellectually challenged for a long time. I notice that I
> expend a lot effort considering your questions and it seems you are
> 'turning me inside out' rather than vice-versa, but your time will come.
> I am taking longer to reply at the moment your questions deserve that. I
> aim to raise questions specifically concerning NLP and it may require a
> new thread.
>
> More on-topically, I may have to restate my position on 'Bandler's
> addiction' - I am having trouble following all the edits of edits.
>
> In article <38211D8F...@dpnet.net>,
> Michael DeBusk <debu...@dpnet.net> wrote:
> > Rick Mason wrote:
> >
> > > > I've seen too much recovery to believe it doesn't happen.
> > >
> > > Sure, it happens..just not on demand..
> >
> >still sober a year later did so just by demanding it of themselves.
>
> consequence of the 'demands' of the efforts of the therapist - if it did
> then we would have a 100% clear up rate
>
>
> > > > > RB says he can stop but he DOESN'T
> > > > He DID. What's the focus now?
>
> X says he can win the Grand Prix but X cannot drive. Later X learns and
> wins said Grand Prix - his claim was not true at the time
>
> My assertion is if RB said he could give up he must have given it some
> attention - my assumption is that he would have since smoking is a
> mostly undesirable habit
>
> > > The focus is on the events - that's the evidence...
>
>
> > rather than using the NLP model of it as a less-than-useful strategy
> >or the more popular biopsychiatric model of it as "disease." This
> >leaves you on a very unpopular and shaky side of the addiction debate,
> >and I'm wondering if that's really what you meant to imply.
>
> I haven't really tried, however I have worked with addicts and they
> would all say how they 'could give up' - can you not accept that they
> are being 'defensive' and they have no idea if they can give up
> I'd bet Bandler probably believed he could give up, I give him the
> benefit of the doubt, but how could he know for sure until he did..which
> as I have heard came X years later
>
> > You seem to be far less sure of where you want to go from here.
> >Getting less and less specific, and you weren't too specific to start.
>
> being provocative, and now I am much chastened, I will try harder to be
> more rigorous
>
>
> > What, exactly, is that evidence *of*?
> >
> > > RB said he could quit and didn't for sometime I see the same with
> > >illusion that they can quit
>
>
> >
> > How do *you* know, *exactly* how, that it is an illusion? Especially
> > after seeing people whom you *said* "can't quit" but who DID quit, and
> > after learning that the single MOST effective method of stopping an
> > addiction is by simply demanding it of oneself?
>
> do? For every 1 person who claims they can quit and do there are 10
> people who claim they can quit and don't. Is there any causative link
> between the claim and the quitting?
>
> Is there any link between the 'demand' and the quitting? If there is
> then why does it fail some individuals?
>
> > > So was it really too much for RB to give up smoking that he had to
> > > super-perceptive?
> >
> > I know many people who have quit smoking. I don't know of *anyone* who
> > quit because they were concerned about future health problems.
>
>
> > Richard said he quit because of current (at the time) health problems
> > unrelated to smoking, the healing of which his smoking would impede.
>
> BTW Why was Bandler very obese?
>
> > One of the things most people with a destructive habit have in common
> > is
> > that they are very much in-the-moment.
>
> are into healthy habits. Some people argue that if you are not listening
> to the warning signals of your body then you are not in your body, i.e.
> paying attention to it real-time.
>
> > Lots of folks consider that a
> > desireable state, and it often is. I spend a lot of "time" there
> >myself.
> > I'm either ten minutes late or an hour early for every damn thing.
>
> the moment since you are not paying attention to the real time(the
> clock) in realtime (society's world).
>
> > People like that don't have a good view of the future, so they can't
> > (with their current view) see what will happen as a result of their
> > behavior.
>
> people do keep good time.
>
> > They just know it feels good now, so they do it now.
>
>
> You seem to have gone off on new line (but be my guest) - Is your new
> line about painting destructive habits as being part of the 'package'
> which we might colloquially call 'being alive' but sounds more like
> 'being a crazed party-animal'.
>
> Is that how we should reframe Bandler's cocaine addiction?
>
> --
> Rick "Give me facts not opinions" Mason
>
>
>
venus uzynski
You know what I'm wondering? I'm wondering -- once again -- why everybody
pays so much attention to Bandler's personal habits. Is it because we think
NLP can't work if someone is human?
Because I'm afraid that if we continue to search for the "perfect" teacher,
the teacher might never come along. Worse yet, the teacher might decide
we're not perfect enough to learn from him or her. And then where would we
be?
Having said all this, I'd like to pivot to a slightly different viewpoint.
Why is it that Bandler has this "rock star" aura around him that these sorts
of discussions arise around his person and his persona?
I mean, here I am in a conversation about a guy I only know from books. And
while it sounds as if the two of you have some higher level of knowledge
about Richard and his habits, it still sounds as if you're probably not on a
first-name basis with the guy. So why do you think we're carrying on this
conversation at all?
Just wondering aloud,
Venus
Rick Mason
ava...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In reference to some posts/comments made by Stever and Peta Heskell
> (spelling?)
> I second their comments that the ONLY person that could really answer
> your questions about Richard Bandler is Richard himself. (Who knows
>how HE would respond??)
>
> Since Richard DID smoke YET doesn't anymore, May I respectfully ask
> what knowing all this about Richard's (past)behavior will do for you??
What it would do for me IS an 'interesting' question for ME and I am
open to looking at it - but it's off the topic, isn't it?
> Once you have the answer, then what will it mean for you???
It's too early to say. It might mean that either NLP or Richard Bandler
or Rick Mason is nonsense (you'll probably ask me to define 'nonsense').
> I will add that I've personally used the services of a VERY COMPETENT
> NLP practitioner in San Antonio(trained by Todd Epstein).This
> gentleman has smoked for many,many years, still smokes and yet
> perfoms what I consider to be very high quality therapy with patients
> many of which are referred to him by MD's on staff at some of Texas's
> state psychiatrict centers. He performs what many competent mental
> health professionals would describe as a very thorough CLEAN piece of
> work.
It's a valid point but how clean is 'clean'? Or rather how do you know
it is clean?
I have personnaly witnessed him working with several
> individuals,observing him in action, and seeing first hand how NLP is
> successfully applied and comparatively speaking how quickly it works
>vs other treatment modalities.
And 'comparatively' how did it compare?
>
> I WAS curious about why this gentleman smoked and questioned him about
> it on a couple of occastions and he usually replied that he didn't
>care
> about quitting. Now, You Rick might state that this is the "ravings of
> anyone with an addiction" yet it wasn't my place to "confront" him
> about this.
Since you did't find the place to 'confront' him then we may have lost
the chance to get valuable information.
> IN the bigger picture, he is very competent and got HIGH
> quality results for me.
Would you care to say which 'results'?
> Now I'm being somwhat facetious when I ask: is this thread becoming
> an "addiction" for you???
Or did my addiction pattern proceed this thread?
Rick Mason
--
Rick Mason
It was you who posted the 'devil's advocate' thing-gummy to Michael,
wasn't it? I liked it - and it allowed me to take a breather....so I'll
give you the time of day, though, I am not sure how useful your latest
missive is...maybe it needs to be reframed in a more useful way because
you ask some searching questions, they just don't seem to go through my
filters - must of been something you said....or the *how* you said it
In article <38224960...@swbell.net>,
ven...@swbell.net wrote:
> Dear Rick and Michael,
>
> You know what I'm wondering? I'm wondering -- once again
What's that like...you don't have to answer tho' I am curious what
sensations you have....
>- why everybody pays so much attention to Bandler's personal habits.
Gosh, that's a relief I thought I was the only one! What aftershave does
he buy?
> Is it because we think NLP can't work if someone is human?
Do you mean I might think it work better if the practitioner was not
human? An android or a dolphin...I hear they are VERY intelligent...OK,
really? Well, to be honest I'd expect someone who sells NLP, and who has
really tested and lived it, i.e. yours truly Richie B, to be healthy in
mind and body (we'll leave the spirit out for now though I keep hearing
about attempts to 'resurrect' it and install the spiritual dimension in
NLP...but how do you model The Tao?)
> Because I'm afraid that if we continue to search for the "perfect"
>teacher, the teacher might never come along.
True. But it's nice to know that I am getting the best that money can
buy...there are so many gurus to choose that I spend all day
interviewing them (one day I'll start a new thread when I get time which
will assert that having more choice is not necessarily a useful thing)
> Worse yet, the teacher might
>decide we're not perfect enough to learn from him or her.
Oh no, don't say that! Come back, Richard - all is forgiven.
> And then where would we be?
Er..on the set of the 'Life of Brian'?
> Having said all this, I'd like to pivot to a slightly different
>viewpoint.
Phew...thanx...I was starting to feel...no I felt...distinctly silly
because I couldn't get anything useful from what you were saying...but
it was entertaining
>
> Why is it that Bandler has this "rock star" aura around him that these
>sorts of discussions arise around his person and his persona?
Do you mean sex, drugs and rock and roll...or 'frogs into dead
dominatricesses'? Maybe because these issues really are around his halo?
> I mean, here I am in a conversation about a guy I only know from
>books.
Is that a problem for you, i.e. talking about authors?
> And while it sounds as if the two of you have some higher level of
>knowledge
Well, Michael probably has more NLP knowledge than me but I have not
revealed my 'ascended helpers'...yet
> about Richard and his habits,
I don't know if it's high-level knowledge - it's to do with stories
about the co-founder of NLP - some of which seem very likely to be
true...and the rest is speculation..which Michael, in fact, is giving me
a hard time about (until I recant that is)
> it still sounds as if you're probably not on a first-name basis with
>the guy.
It's polite to call him by his last name, in England, at least. Anyway,
am I imminently about to get THE CALL from him?
> So why do you think we're carrying on this conversation at all?
I wouldn't like to speculate...what does your underwear drawer *smell*
like?
> Just wondering aloud,
I hope I haven't disturbed your wondering....and what is that 'wondering
out loud' *like* now and how is it different from when you started
wondering earlier?
ava...@my-deja.com
Rick Mason <maso...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> In article <7vpjp4$v5k$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> ava...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > In reference to some posts/comments made by Stever and Peta Heskell
> > (spelling?)
> > I second their comments that the ONLY person that could really
answer
> > your questions about Richard Bandler is Richard himself. (Who knows
> >how HE would respond??)
> >
> > Since Richard DID smoke YET doesn't anymore, May I respectfully ask
> > what knowing all this about Richard's (past)behavior will do for
you??
>
> What it would do for me IS an 'interesting' question for ME and I am
> open to looking at it - but it's off the topic, isn't it?
>
Its only off topic is you're asking these questions as part of some
random query about Richard B. Are you just asking these questions for
the hell of it OR other??
> > Once you have the answer, then what will it mean for you???
>
> It's too early to say. It might mean that either NLP or Richard
Bandler
> or Rick Mason is nonsense (you'll probably ask me to
define 'nonsense').
>
I'll assume we share the same definition of "nonsense" until determined
otherwise
> > I will add that I've personally used the services of a VERY
COMPETENT
> > NLP practitioner in San Antonio(trained by Todd Epstein).This
> > gentleman has smoked for many,many years, still smokes and yet
> > perfoms what I consider to be very high quality therapy with
patients
> > many of which are referred to him by MD's on staff at some of
Texas's
> > state psychiatrict centers. He performs what many competent mental
> > health professionals would describe as a very thorough CLEAN piece
of
> > work.
>
> It's a valid point but how clean is 'clean'? Or rather how do you know
> it is clean?
>
I can give you my "point of reference" for how I know its clean yet why
don't we just assume it for now.
> I have personnaly witnessed him working with several
> > individuals,observing him in action, and seeing first hand how NLP
is
> > successfully applied and comparatively speaking how quickly it works
> >vs other treatment modalities.
>
> And 'comparatively' how did it compare?
>
>
Superb!!
>
> > I WAS curious about why this gentleman smoked and questioned him
about
> > it on a couple of occastions and he usually replied that he didn't
> >care
> > about quitting. Now, You Rick might state that this is the "ravings
of
> > anyone with an addiction" yet it wasn't my place to "confront" him
> > about this.
>
> Since you did't find the place to 'confront' him then we may have lost
> the chance to get valuable information.
>
Not in the context for which I was really there and probably not for
the context which you are asking because Richard B doesn't smoke
anymore.
> > IN the bigger picture, he is very competent and got HIGH
> > quality results for me.
>
> Would you care to say which 'results'?
>
Respectfully, NO
> > Now I'm being somwhat facetious when I ask: is this thread becoming
> > an "addiction" for you???
>
>
Or did my addiction pattern proceed this thread?
>
venus uzynski
Yes -- it was I who posted earlier. And while I don't feel inclined to take
this any further at the moment, let me just say how much I enjoyed your
politely probing reply.
Sincerely,
Venus
Rick Mason wrote:
Alexander Rose
doesn't feel the need to quit. If it ever becomes an issue, I suppose he'll
quit. It's not his problem, but it IS the problem of the person who posted
the above article! (The problem belongs to he who reports it!)
Garry Knight
0600, ven...@swbell.net (venus uzynski) says...
>Why is it that Bandler has this "rock star" aura around him that these sorts
>of discussions arise around his person and his persona?
Richard came to the Central London NLP Group back in November 1993. The
Commitee had to limit the number of tickets issued to 100 as,
understandably, demand to see Richard in action was high.
The room was hushed with an electric undercurrent as the minutes ticked
by... The feeling of suspense was so palpable that you could feel some
people's abilities to make distinctions draining out of them...
And then in walks a slightly unkempt tubby guy with greasy hair tied
back in a pony tail. Richard.
He kept us amused for a couple of hours with his stories, but all the
time a little voice kept popping into my head saying, "Pay no attention
to that man behind the curtain"...
--
Garry Knight Cert NLP (Pract), MANLP
webm...@nlpgroup.freeserve.co.uk
Central London NLP Group website:
http://www.nlpgroup.freeserve.co.uk/
Michael DeBusk
> Your comments have made me think hard about what I have said. I haven't
> been so intellectually challenged for a long time.
I deeply appreciate your compliment. And out of respect for you and the
group, I'm going to reply later... because I just spent five hours in
the ER wrestling with two teenage guys who decided it'd be fun to try
jimson weed for the first time. I'm going to bed. I need it and I
deserve it.
Ladies and gentlemen, if someone you care about says something about
contemplating the use of jimson, do them a favor: beat the shit out of
them. It's faster, it's cheaper, and the end result is pretty much the
same.
Cripes, I'm tired. Good night.
Michael DeBusk
holding down two very fit and muscular teenage boys high on a
cholinergic hallucinogen, but it's good to know they're doing well. One
of them got out of the ICU today and the other is finally speaking in
words other people can understand.
Rick Mason wrote:
> Your comments have made me think hard about what I have said. I haven't
> been so intellectually challenged for a long time.
Again, I highly appreciate your compliment.
> I expend a lot effort considering your questions and it seems you are
> 'turning me inside out' rather than vice-versa, but your time will come.
I'm glad to know that.
> I aim to raise questions specifically concerning NLP and it may
> require a new thread.
Cool.
> More on-topically, I may have to restate my position on 'Bandler's
> addiction' - I am having trouble following all the edits of edits.
Please do.
> I did not mention the " addict's demand" but the cure coming as a
> consequence of the 'demands' of the efforts of the therapist - if it did
> then we would have a 100% clear up rate
I suppose I didn't mention that the motivator behind most of the
addicts' demands was their doctor telling them to quit. Not asking them
to quit, by the way, or trying to persuade them with lots of scientific
information. Just telling them, essentially, "if you keep doing this,
you'll die."
Not exactly the efforts of a therapist, I know. Most therapists are too
warm, empathetic, and genuine to ever intentionally scare a client.
Fortunately, physicians don't operate under such constraints... rather,
they seem to get specialized training in sending terror-messages to
patients.
Myself, I've frequently refused to help people stop smoking. They come
to me and ask me to make them stop. So I ask them questions about their
motivation, or I ask them what they've tried so far. If, from their
answers, I come to believe they aren't really interested in quitting but
think it's something they "should" do, I tell them to come back when
they want to do it. I don't make demands of someone until I know they'll
meet them.
> We do not know if his claim that he could stop was true at the time e.g.
> X says he can win the Grand Prix but X cannot drive. Later X learns and
> wins said Grand Prix - his claim was not true at the time
It's hardly a fair comparison, smoking vs. driving a Grand Prix. They're
two powerfully different skill sets. All that is truly, fundamentally
necessary for someone to quit smoking is to simply not light the next
one. Most smokers--I'd venture to say the overwhelming majority--spend
the bulk of their waking day not-smoking, so they already have the
necessary capabilities. Even the ones who light their next one off the
glowing end of their current one *probably* don't smoke in the shower. I
suppose there's one somewhere who does.
> My assertion is if RB said he could give up he must have given it some
> attention - my assumption is that he would have since smoking is a
> mostly undesirable habit
I can't say for certain, because I had no experience with Richard until
just after he'd quit. Of course, all it takes for you to give something
your attention is if I mention it in passing, such as the size of the
font you're reading. There've been militant anti-smokers around long
enough that I feel reasonably secure in the idea that one of them,
sometime, looked at Richard as he smoked, and they made a face, waved
their hand in the air, and pretended to cough. You know how they are. I
don't doubt he gave it some attention sometime.
My counter to what your assertion seems to me to imply is that if
Richard gave it some attention and didn't quit despite that, he must not
have had the ability to quit. Your assumption, if my assumption to your
assertion is correct, is that Richard wanted to quit and couldn't do it.
However, having the ability to do something doesn't automatically
require one to do that something.
Richard is the only one who could possibly know if he ever tried and
failed to quit smoking. All I've ever heard him say on the subject of
his smoking as that he didn't want to quit until the doctor "told him
to."
> >I'm wondering if that's really what you meant to imply.
>
> I am not so sure that I gave cast-iron definition of addiction
Without digging back into the thread, I believe you said an addict is
someone who can't quit, and you referred to Richard as an addict. You
also repeatedly referred to questionable values you attribute to Richard
but have yet to name. Leaving that "values" loop open while referring to
Richard's alleged addiction creates an implication. That's why I said I
wondered if that was what you meant to imply.
> I have worked with addicts and they would all say how they 'could
> give up' - can you not accept that they are being 'defensive' and
> they have no idea if they can give up
I won't accept that they are being "defensive" unless they tell me
they're being defensive. I'm a lousy mind-reader. It's a reasonable
assumption, though, I will go along with that.
The issue in my mind is the difference between the capability to do
something and the desire to do it. ANYONE can give up a bad habit or
break an addiction or control their most florid psychotic behavior. I
see the latter on my hospital's psych unit all the time... people will
hallucinate evil beings where the techs happen to be standing and
they'll throw chairs and scream the vilest of insults and finger-paint
with their own shit, UNTIL the day before their competency hearing, when
they'll be as lucid and friendly as anyone you might meet at a party. Of
course, they don't stop and think that their ENTIRE chart is reviewed at
the hearing amd not just yesterday's notes, so they're held, and they go
right back to their old behavior... until the next hearing comes along,
or until they figure out what they've been screwing up.
> I probably wasn't specific to start - I was using common language and
> being provocative, and now I am much chastened, I will try harder to be
> more rigorous
All I'm trying to figure out is what you want from this thread. The
couple of times I think you've said what you want and I offer it to you,
I've gotten something along the lines of "well, that's good, but it
isn't really what I'm talking about."
> > > RB said he could quit and didn't for sometime I see the same with
> > > addicts instead they justify not quitting while holding the
> > >illusion that they can quit
>
> That's what you'd call a correlation, isn't it?
It isn't what I'd call a correlation. If you'll forgive a bit of
NLP-speak, I'd call it your mind-reading of someone else. You can't
refer to it as an "illusion" because you have no way of knowing if it's
true or not. All you can observe is that they say they can quit and that
they don't quit. Not doing something does not demonstrate an inability
to do it.
> Is there any causative link between the claim and the quitting?
There can be no causative link between the claim and either quitting or
not.
You want to know what would lead me to assume someone is addicted? If
they said they HAVE quit, but continue to do it... perhaps in secret. As
long as someone says they CAN quit, all I can reasonably do is agree
with them that yes, they CAN quit, and then ask them what's preventing
them from doing so.
> Is there any link between the 'demand' and the quitting? If there is
> then why does it fail some individuals?
I mentioned the link between demand and quitting earlier. Your next
question I can't answer because I just don't know. You'd have to ask
those individuals and see if there is demonstrated a pattern.
> > I know many people who have quit smoking. I don't know of *anyone* who
> > quit because they were concerned about future health problems.
>
> Well, I do know such people
Good for them. Seriously. Were they addicted before?
> But wouldn't it have been wiser to follow a more healthy lifestyle?
Of course it would have been wiser. It's easy to Monday-morning
quarterback a life, especially someone else's.
> BTW Why was Bandler very obese?
He wasn't what I would call "very obese." *I* am what I would call "very
obese." I am very obese because I eat fatty foods and don't exercise a
lot. My guess, not being privy to his personal life, is that he was
overweight for the same or similar reasons. He is certainly slim now,
and quite a vibrant man as well. One of the few people I've ever seen
who can be very animated while sitting still.
> > One of the things most people with a destructive habit have in common
> > is that they are very much in-the-moment.
>
> That's a correlation.
Yes, it is, and by itself doesn't imply causation. However, timeline
work with people who were addicted seems to reverse their addiction.
Give them a view of their future, assuming their habitual use continues,
and they usually become highly motivated to change. Tony Robbins calls
it "the Dickens pattern" in reference to Dickens' story "A Christmas
Carol."
> Perhaps, the people who are really in real-time are into healthy habits.
I think one can choose healthy habits no matter your orientation to
time.
> Conversely, I heard that punctuality problems arise from not being in
> the moment since you are not paying attention to the real time(the
> clock) in realtime (society's world).
First, there *is* no "real" time. Time (in the context we're using the
word now, and not in the sense a physicist would) is a neuro-linguistic
construct, and a very useful one. We made it up. We can slow it down and
speed it up and waste it and throw it away and invest it and manage it
and keep track of it.
Second, punctuality problems arise from not seeing yourself in relation
to where you are in time. You can't know where you are in time unless
you can compare yourself with something else in time. People associated
into "now" have no frame of reference for time's passage in any other
than an academic sense.
Realize I'm speaking from personal experience. :)
> I don't see how that prevents them from keeping the correct time - many
> people do keep good time.
Perhaps you'd appreciate Tad James' book, "Time Line Therapy and the
Basis of Personality." It goes into far more detail than we can here
reasonably.
> > They just know it feels good now, so they do it now.
>
> And ignore the correct time? - How is that necessary?
It isn't necessary, it just is. Our brain "understands" things by
comparing them.
You can't know what you look like as you sit in front of your computer
right now; you have to either look into a mirror (which, obviously,
distorts the image because of your change in position to see the mirror
rather than the screen) or you have to dissociate from yourself, pretend
you're standing over there in the doorway or whatever and looking at you
here... also a distortion because you obviously aren't there, you're in
front of the computer, so you see what you think.
Along those same lines, you can't know where you are in time until you
step back and look, giving yourself something to compare where you are
and where you wanted to be.
> You seem to have gone off on new line (but be my guest) - Is your new
> line about painting destructive habits as being part of the 'package'
> which we might colloquially call 'being alive' but sounds more like
> 'being a crazed party-animal'.
I haven't, really, gone off on a new line, just introduced a tangent
which we may follow knowing the circle will be there when we get back.
(I nearly failed geometry in high school, though, so I may fall off the
line occasionally. <g>)
> Is that how we should reframe Bandler's cocaine addiction?
Does he have one?
Michael DeBusk
> You know what I'm wondering? I'm wondering -- once again -- why everybody
> pays so much attention to Bandler's personal habits.
Personally, I don't care if he smokes, drinks, juggles cats, picks his
nose and eats the boogers, country-line-dances, wears a leather thong to
bed, scratches his armpit and then sniffs his fingers, or helps little
old ladies across the street even if they don't want to go. Well, OK...
I draw the line at the armpit thing. ;)
> Because I'm afraid that if we continue to search for the "perfect" teacher,
> the teacher might never come along. Worse yet, the teacher might decide
> we're not perfect enough to learn from him or her.
Beautifully said.
> Why is it that Bandler has this "rock star" aura around him that these sorts
> of discussions arise around his person and his persona?
Dunno... maybe it's the long hair, outrageous attitude, leather boots,
and the keyboard he keeps next to him onstage. ;)
> while it sounds as if the two of you have some higher level of knowledge
> about Richard and his habits,
I only can relate what I've heard him say and seen him do.
> it still sounds as if you're probably not on a
> first-name basis with the guy.
The only time I've spoken to him was in Austin; I called him "Dr.
Bandler." Habit from working in healthcare for twelve years, I suppose.
We were walking side-by-side toward the seminar room, so I don't even
know how he responded outside of his words. He's never called me
anything, though at my first Persuasion Engineering class he mentioned
to the class that I looked like I needed a Harley. I've trimmed my hair
and beard since then. ;)
> So why do you think we're carrying on this conversation at all?
Why am I? Curiosity, pure and simple. I'm wondering how it will end.
Will Rick reach his goal, whatever it is? Will I help him reach it? Am I
hindering him? He certainly seems forward enough that he could tell me
to lump it if I was bothering him, but that seems not to be the case. I
don't know if Richard is the real subject of the conversation, when it
comes down to it.
Michael DeBusk
> thing-gummy
Thing-gummy? Never heard that one. Where are you from?
> how do you model The Tao?)
Heheh... you cannot not model some aspect of it. :)
> Er..on the set of the 'Life of Brian'?
Now you've done it! How can I sleep while running through my head are
bits of dialogue such as "Where's the fetus gonna gestate, you gonna
keep it in a box?!" I hope you're happy.
> Well, Michael probably has more NLP knowledge than me but I have not
> revealed my 'ascended helpers'...yet
I consider myself a beginner.
> the rest is speculation..which Michael, in fact, is giving me
> a hard time about (until I recant that is)
Recant. There's an interesting word. Recant. Cant again. Cannot again?
Oh, I know, I know, but it's fun to play with. :)
> I wouldn't like to speculate...what does your underwear drawer *smell*
> like?
Wood?
Michael DeBusk
> Yes -- it was I who posted earlier. And while I don't feel inclined to take
> this any further at the moment, let me just say how much I enjoyed your
> politely probing reply.
He's damn good at distraction, isn't he? It's one of the other things
I'm getting out of exchanging posts with him. I hope to learn how to do
that as in as subtle or not-so-subtle a manner as he.
venus uzynski
I've often found distracting someone to be a very useful too. But I'm sure I can
always learn more about it -- so, carry on!
I'm hoping to learn a little something, too!
Take care,
Venus
venus uzynski
I think you're right...perhaps Richard *isn't* the real topic of discussion, but
stands as a metaphor for all NLP "trainers" out there. Personally, I think it's
good to know he's a human being and, like the rest of us, is far from perfect.
Because, to me, that means doing good, effective NLP is in the world of
possibility for all of us.
And, as for you, Michael DeBusk, I like your questions...
Michael DeBusk wrote:
<snip>
> Why am I? Curiosity, pure and simple. I'm wondering how it will end.
> Will Rick reach his goal, whatever it is? Will I help him reach it? Am I
> hindering him?
So keep up with the great questions and you're wonderfully "curious" attitude! I
love it!!
Sincerely,
Venus
P.S. Are you married?
Michael DeBusk
> I think you're right...perhaps Richard *isn't* the real topic of discussion, but
> stands as a metaphor for all NLP "trainers" out there.
That's another thing it might be.
> And, as for you, Michael DeBusk, I like your questions...
Thank you.
> P.S. Are you married?
No, I'm not. Why do you ask?
venus uzynski
Michael DeBusk wrote:
> venus uzynski wrote:
>
> > I think you're right...perhaps Richard *isn't* the real topic of discussion, but
> > stands as a metaphor for all NLP "trainers" out there.
>
> That's another thing it might be.
>
> > And, as for you, Michael DeBusk, I like your questions...
>
> Thank you.
>
> > P.S. Are you married?
>
> No, I'm not. Why do you ask?
>
Just curious...
If you ever find yourself at loose ends in St. Louis, I'd like to buy you a cup of
coffee to get to know you a little better.
That's all,
Venus
Mort
I have tried to get a hold of you but my mails were rejected. I want to ask
you something in private email if possible.
Thanks
Michael DeBusk wrote in message <38253682...@dpnet.net>...
>venus uzynski wrote:
>
>> Yes -- it was I who posted earlier. And while I don't feel inclined to
take
>> this any further at the moment, let me just say how much I enjoyed your
>> politely probing reply.
>
>He's damn good at distraction, isn't he? It's one of the other things
>I'm getting out of exchanging posts with him. I hope to learn how to do
>that as in as subtle or not-so-subtle a manner as he.
>
synaptix
smoking is a question really meaning "Why don't you stop this habit?"
And that response could be motivated by not accepting the non-verbals
presented with the question - non-verbals that present the complex
equivalents of scary, bad things like "addiction", "health problems"
etc.
"I don't want to stop" or "I like it" makes perfect sense if "Bandler"
didn't accept those equivalents or the context assumed by the
questioner. They may be implicit in the model of the questioner but
not valid for Bandler. (And there could be lots of ways this could be
true. For example, what if "Bandler" somehow knows he's going to die
anyway next week or next month? Or maybe he thinks he's never going to
die? In either case his response is perfectly valid. Or maybe
"Bandler" knows something about the power of consciousness that we
don't. (A distinct possibility in Richard's case.) Rather than
confronting the presuppostions of the questioner, it is a good, if
somewhat lazy, reply just to say. "I don't want to."
In fact, "I don't want to" is an indefeasible argument. It presents no
reason, and therefore cannot be challenged by any reason. (Ben
Franklin pointed this out in his discussions of negotiation a long time
ago. Hmmm, just the sort of observation a friend of David Hume WOULD
make.)
It comes to this - the questioner wants a reason, and "Bandler" doesn't
give one. Why does he have to?
Michael DeBusk
> > No, I'm not. Why do you ask?
>
> Just curious...
Curiosity is a beautiful quality.
> If you ever find yourself at loose ends in St. Louis, I'd like to buy you a
> cup of coffee to get to know you a little better.
Make it hot chocolate and you've got a deal. I don't do coffee. And it's
just a nine hundred mile drive... ;)
venus uzynski
Hot chocolate it is, then!
Venus :-)
ava...@my-deja.com
Rick Mason <masonric...@hotmail.com.invalid> wrote:
> In article <7vv06f$ru9$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, ava...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > In article <7vt811$l00$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > Rick Mason <maso...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > In article <7vpjp4$v5k$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > > ava...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > >
>
> > > > Since Richard DID smoke YET doesn't anymore, May I
> > respectfully ask
> > > > what knowing all this about Richard's (past)behavior will do
> > for
> > you??
> > >
> > > What it would do for me IS an 'interesting' question for ME and
> > I am
> > > open to looking at it - but it's off the topic, isn't it?
> > >
> > Its only off topic is you're asking these questions as part of some
> > random query about Richard B. Are you just asking these questions
> > for
> > the hell of it OR other??
>
> Bandler's behaviour...actually I'd like to know about his present
> too...even his future...isn't it Richard Bandler position that good
> NLPing comes from an attitude of curiousity?
>
>
Yes it does come from an attitude of curiousity yet YOU ARE the WHO has
raised questions about Richard with a FOCUS on a behavior that Richard
no long DOES and then possibly equating that with his achievements
since them. The thing is you probably will not find very satisfying
answers because none of us can speak for Richard. My original point
which I assumed was obvious was that an NLP practitioner(such as the
one I had personnaly dealt with) (whether fat or a smoker or for that
matter someone who might even look at......porno magazines) can
produce very high quality results.
If you haven't found any of my previous rationalisations on this matter
> then I am sure we could come up with a few more
> When I say its off-topic that means the focus of this thread is on the
> co-founder of NLP...not me...I am only the founder of this thread and
> since it has organically grown I am not responsible for it...we all
are
>
> > > > Once you have the answer, then what will it mean for you???
> > >
> > > It's too early to say. It might mean that either NLP or Richard
> > Bandler
> > > or Rick Mason is nonsense (you'll probably ask me to
> > define 'nonsense').
> > >
> > I'll assume we share the same definition of "nonsense" until
> > determined
> > otherwise
>
> Phew..I like a co-worker that doesn't work too hard (when I am tired)
>
> > > > I will add that I've personally used the services of a VERY
> > COMPETENT
> > > > NLP practitioner in San Antonio(trained by Todd Epstein).This
> > > > gentleman has smoked for many,many years, still smokes and
> > yet
> > > > perfoms what I consider to be very high quality therapy with
> > patients
> > > > many of which are referred to him by MD's on staff at some of
> > Texas's
> > > > state psychiatrict centers. He performs what many competent
> > mental
> > > > health professionals would describe as a very thorough CLEAN
> > piece
> > of
> > > > work.
> > >
> > > It's a valid point but how clean is 'clean'? Or rather how do
> > you know
> > > it is clean?
> > >
> > I can give you my "point of reference" for how I know its clean
> > yet why
> > don't we just assume it for now.
>
> Why not develop it?
>
> > > I have personnaly witnessed him working with several
> > > > individuals,observing him in action, and seeing first hand how
> > NLP
> > is
> > > > successfully applied and comparatively speaking how quickly it
> > works
> > > >vs other treatment modalities.
> > >
> > > And 'comparatively' how did it compare?
> > >
> > >
> > Superb!!
>
> Could you add a bit more detail?
> > >
Is it really scientifically necessary for you to know the complete
clinical case history of someone's sessions with an NLP practitioner in
order to determine the whether its "
clean" or not?? the claim is that an NLP practitioner( in this case
someone that I know personally) who smokes can produce good results as
a basis for the effectiveness of the model. that's different than the
craftwork of any particular practitioner whether they are NLP,Gestalt,
or some other brand
> > > > I WAS curious about why this gentleman smoked and questioned
> > him
> > about
> > > > it on a couple of occastions and he usually replied that he
> > didn't
> > > >care
> > > > about quitting. Now, You Rick might state that this is the
> > "ravings
> > of
> > > > anyone with an addiction" yet it wasn't my place to "confront"
> > him
> > > > about this.
> > >
> > > Since you didn't find the place to 'confront' him then we may
> > >have lost
> > > the chance to get valuable information.
> > >
> > Not in the context for which I was really there and probably not
> > for
> > the context which you are asking because Richard B doesn't smoke
> > anymore.
>
> Well, one of my things is - when I am 'confronted' with a someone who
> claims to have a wonderful therapy/way of life/enlightenment - is how
> does it manifest in their life - if they are doing something which is
> bad for their health - do they avoid dealing with it - make excuses
etc
> > > >
Your query than perhaps isn't so much about the NLP model than as to
particular individuals who may practice it. I know NLP practitioners
who smoke and who don't. If you're sincere about researching NLP, I
know 2 NLP practitioners in Houston who will fit your criteria(have no
addictions and produce good work). if you want I'll email you their
phone numbers. I've no idea how receptive they'll be to your queries
yet if you want to really know I'm happy to oblige. In fact if you want
I'l give you the number of the practitioner in San Antonio that I saw.
let me know if that would be helpfull
IN the bigger picture, he is very competent and got HIGH
> > > > quality results for me.
> > >
> > > Would you care to say which 'results'?
> > >
> > Respectfully, NO
>
> OK, then we won't chase that one up...but so far I can't look into
your
> claims....religion often presents the same anti-Popperian
> unfalsifiability scenario
>
> Rick "Give me facts not opinions" Mason
>
> * Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion
Network *
> The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet -
Free!
>
>
Rick Mason
ava...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > > > > Since Richard DID smoke YET doesn't anymore, May I
> > > respectfully ask
> > > > > what knowing all this about Richard's (past)behavior will do
> > > for
> > > you??
> > > >
> > > > What it would do for me IS an 'interesting' question for ME and
> > > I am
> > > > open to looking at it - but it's off the topic, isn't it?
> > > >
> > > Its only off topic is you're asking these questions as part of
some
> > > random query about Richard B. Are you just asking these questions
> > > for
> > > the hell of it OR other??
> >
> > I could ask what it would do for you to know why I am interested in
> > Bandler's behaviour...actually I'd like to know about his present
> > too...even his future...isn't it Richard Bandler position that good
> > NLPing comes from an attitude of curiousity?
> >
> >
>
> Yes it does come from an attitude of curiousity yet YOU ARE the WHO
has
> raised questions about Richard with a FOCUS on a behavior that Richard
> no long DOES and then possibly equating that with his achievements
> since them.
You meant 'then' I'll assume, if so, I am equating it with his CLAIMS
throughout his entire history including the present. For example,
there is a claim that is not necessary to take a drug more than once,
since one could replicate the experience. So I'd ask why would Bandler
engage in damaging, criminal, costly and anti-social behaviours like
cocaine-abuse and smoking if he could do it legally, cleanly and
constructively with NLP. The relevance is: maybe he CANNOT do what he
claims, maybe he could not find a good quality life, maybe NLP was not
enough for his happiness, maybe NLP can only take a person so far.
There is good in NLP, but has that good been exaggerated. Interestingly,
there's another thread going on a.p.nlp, 'Does Bandler lie to get
results'.
Someone is sure to say 'what does it matter if it gets results?'. Or
they might say don't worry about the limitations of NLP, or don't
concern yourself if Bandler lied. That argument is valid perhaps for
those individuals who want to push their human potential to their limit
irregardless of the costs. But it's not good science or history. I want
to know what the results have been for real not what it is suggested
they could be.
At the end of the day I'll listen to the mechanic who will tell me how
much load a ship can safely take than a profiteer who will overload it
and cause a disaster.
If you wonder where a few 'white lies' can get you to push people along
then look at the Jasmuheen fiasco. This Australian ex-model, whose
partner is a apparently a convicted con-man, publishes a best-seller
called 'Living on Light' in which she says she doesn't eat or drink. She
says others can do the same. What is the result? No more food bills, the
end of starvation, more room in the fridge? No - DEATH. According to the
news: 3 people have died. We don't know how many others have suffered
irreversible problems. So I think lying isn't always good for everyone's
health.
>The thing is you probably will not find very satisfying
> answers because none of us can speak for Richard. My original point
> which I assumed was obvious was that an NLP practitioner(such as the
> one I had personnaly dealt with) (whether fat or a smoker or for that
> matter someone who might even look at......porno magazines) can
> produce very high quality results.
They could produce good results, I don't doubt it, and their vices might
not impinge upon their treatments - though it could. Of course,
therapists are expected to have worked through so much stuff to be in
a resourceful position to help others.
> > Well, one of my things is - when I am 'confronted' with a someone
who
> > claims to have a wonderful therapy/way of life/enlightenment - is
how
> > does it manifest in their life - if they are doing something which
is
> > bad for their health - do they avoid dealing with it - make excuses
> etc
> > > > >
>
> Your query than perhaps isn't so much about the NLP model than as to
> particular individuals who may practice it. I know NLP practitioners
> who smoke and who don't. If you're sincere about researching NLP, I
> know 2 NLP practitioners in Houston who will fit your criteria(have no
> addictions and produce good work). if you want I'll email you their
> phone numbers. I've no idea how receptive they'll be to your queries
> yet if you want to really know I'm happy to oblige. In fact if you
want
> I'l give you the number of the practitioner in San Antonio that I saw.
> let me know if that would be helpfull
Thanx, go ahead with the numbers/emails.
Rick "Give me facts not opinions" Mason
Rick Mason
Michael DeBusk <debu...@dpnet.net> wrote:
> venus uzynski wrote:
>
> > Yes -- it was I who posted earlier. And while I don't feel inclined
to take
> > this any further at the moment, let me just say how much I enjoyed
your
> > politely probing reply.
>
> He's damn good at distraction, isn't he? It's one of the other things
> I'm getting out of exchanging posts with him. I hope to learn how to
do
> that as in as subtle or not-so-subtle a manner as he.
I am not sure how I do it. Am I good or not then?
Rick Mason
Michael DeBusk <debu...@dpnet.net> wrote:
> Thing-gummy? Never heard that one. Where are you from?
It's a London expression for the Britishism 'Thing-gummy-jig' of
Rastafarian 'watch-jah-ma-call-it'
> > how do you model The Tao?)
>
> Heheh... you cannot not model some aspect of it. :)
>
Where and how?
> > Er..on the set of the 'Life of Brian'?
>
> Now you've done it! How can I sleep while running through my head are
> bits of dialogue such as "Where's the fetus gonna gestate, you gonna
> keep it in a box?!" I hope you're happy.
You know better than me I would have guessed that was "The Meaning of
Life"
>
> > Well, Michael probably has more NLP knowledge than me but I have not
> > revealed my 'ascended helpers'...yet
>
> I consider myself a beginner.
>
Truly, the correct attitude for a master NLPer and possibly the start of
a model for Lao Tse
> > I wouldn't like to speculate...what does your underwear drawer
*smell*
> > like?
>
> Wood?
>
Perhaps the underwear is as unwieldy as my NLP....
venus uzynski
The fact is ... you're GOOD!
Smiling,
Venus :-)
Rick Mason wrote:
> In article <38253682...@dpnet.net>,
> Michael DeBusk <debu...@dpnet.net> wrote:
> > venus uzynski wrote:
> >
> > > Yes -- it was I who posted earlier. And while I don't feel inclined
> to take
> > > this any further at the moment, let me just say how much I enjoyed
> your
> > > politely probing reply.
> >
> > He's damn good at distraction, isn't he? It's one of the other things
> > I'm getting out of exchanging posts with him. I hope to learn how to
> do
> > that as in as subtle or not-so-subtle a manner as he.
>
> I am not sure how I do it. Am I good or not then?
>
PStuart
>Now I'm being somwhat facetious when I ask: is this thread becoming
>an "addiction" for you???
>
Rick's addiction is rumor-mongering, gossip, and slander in general. You'd
think with so much practice, he'd be able to do it skillfully, but
unfortunately he harps on stuff that no one really cares about. Bandler smokes
cigarettes??? Ooooooh... bad, bad trainer...
Who cares? That's Bandler's choice, whether he does or not (and we've heard it
both ways now)... just as it is Rick's choice to surf the 'net in his
underwear, drinking cheap beer and farting repeatedly.
93 93/93
Phil
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Paradigm Shift! -- http://members.aol.com/para93/
Phil's Magick Page -- http://members.aol.com/rbcfpstu/
Or go to keyword.com and enter "magick", "hypnosis", or "paradigm"
PStuart
>When I say its off-topic that means the focus of this thread is on the
>co-founder of NLP...not me..
The focus of this thread could be on anything we want it to be.
Personally, I'd rather talk about you. Tell us... when did you stop beating
your wife?
Michael DeBusk
> I am not sure how I do it. Am I good or not then?
One doesn't need to be good consciously to be good.
Michael DeBusk
> It's a London expression for the Britishism 'Thing-gummy-jig' of
> Rastafarian 'watch-jah-ma-call-it'
Ah... American "thingamajig" or "thingamabob." Metasyntactic variable.
> > Heheh... you cannot not model some aspect of it. :)
> >
> Where and how?
Everything is Tao, so you're kinda stuck with it.
> > I consider myself a beginner.
> >
> Truly, the correct attitude for a master NLPer and possibly the start
> of a model for Lao Tse
I'm a fan of Lao Tse myself. Not as diligent a student as I could be,
though.
> > Wood?
> >
> Perhaps the underwear is as unwieldy as my NLP....
You asked what the drawer smelled like, not the underwear. :)
Michael DeBusk
> just as it is Rick's choice to surf the 'net in his
> underwear, drinking cheap beer and farting repeatedly.
Now, Phil... how could you possibly know if there's a net in his
underwear? ;)
Michael DeBusk
> are you a psychiatric worker?
Sometimes. I do security in a general hospital that has a very busy ER
and an inpatient psych unit. I'm also an emergency medical technician,
and I used to work in a state psych hospital doing emergency medical
response.
Hospital security is different from that in shopping malls, warehouses,
construction sites, that sort of thing. People skill is more than
mandatory, patience is more than a virtue, and the willingness to allow
oneself to get bled on, puked on, pissed on, cursed, threatened, and
physically attacked is basic. I get to do all the things nobody else
wants to do. :)
> > holding down two very fit and muscular teenage boys high on a
> > cholinergic hallucinogen,
>
> You held them down by yourself?
Nope, I had several large and strong helpers. These kids were a match
for us, though. A bad trip on a hallucinogen is an amazing thing to
witness.
> What does jimson weed look like? Do you know another name for it?
http://www.hsc.wvu.edu/charleston/wvpc/jimson.htm contains a pretty deep
description and a couple of pics.
AKA Thornapple, devil's weed, datura. Grows wild around here. Deadly in
too great a dose. Not listed in Maryland as a controlled dangerous
substance, so possession and use here is not a criminal act. However,
the two whom I dealt with were charged with disorderly conduct and
something else.
> > Just telling them, essentially, "if you keep doing this, you'll die."
>
> Would such a direct approach make them rebellious?
I suppsoe with those whom NLPspeak calls "polarity responders" it could.
> Yet, the therapist asserts that their approach will solve the problem
> because the client has to release, explain, understand.....
Sure, and when their insurance runs out they'll either be magically
cured or they'll be labelled "chronic" or "resistant."
> I am getting an impression you back 'state sanctioned terrorism' for
> want of a better term...(being deliberately lazy here ;-))
If by "state-sanctioned terrorism" you mean government regulation of
other people's bad habits, no, I don't support it.
> With this type of approach to 'treatment' - the client is really going
> to do it anyway. Therefore, any treatment method is going to be
> relatively successful with such a client set. How do you know the
> treatment plan played a part in recovery?
Good point, and the answer is "I don't." If someone *really* wants to
quit, they'll do so... eventually, and for good or not. What I like to
do is make it *easier* for them to do what they want to do anyway, and
help them plan for both continued success and "falling off the wagon" in
the future.
I like to discover the structure of the person's "it's time to smoke
now" 4-tuple and then change it to "it's time to do something I've
always wanted to do now" instead. That way, the feelings a person gets
during nicotine withdrawal drive them to do something wonderful instead.
It makes the detox so much easier on them.
For example, one woman knew it was time to smoke when she got a crtain
feeling in her upper abdomen. I asked her how she knew that feeling
meant "smoking." Her eyes moved up and she said (of course) "I just
know." So I said, "the feeling in your belly isn't shaped like a
cigarette, so you have some way of knowing it means 'smoke a cigarette'
rather than 'eat a sandwich' or 'scratch your ass' or whatever. Is it a
sound you hear in your head... or a picture you see, or..." and before I
could finish, she opened her eyes wide and pulled her face back and said
"Oh! I never noticed that before! There's a picture!" I simply "swished"
that picture with a pic of something she wanted to do but just never
could find the motivation to do (in her case, creative writing.) Within
an hour of the session, she went and bought a pad and a good pen... she
felt she "had to." :)
> I wouldn't be surprised! (Maybe I should be always surprised at life
> then I might do socialising for real rather than virtually..joke...)
It's fun to be surprised. I've stopped saying to myself "NOW I've seen
EVERYTHING" because the universe tends to play funny jokes on me when I
do. :)
> The term 'addiction' was connected in news stories, I picked up on
> that thread.
Reporters tend to write what will sell papers, and then retract it later
on page 48 column 3 in tiny type a month later.
> But it's not in the strategy of a defensive person to admit to being
> defensive.
So there's no real way to know.
> What I observe is an addict who is ruining their life.
What I observe is someone who is ruining their life. If they say to me,
"so what? It's my life to ruin if I choose," I can do nothing but agree.
If they tell me they want to stop but "can't" that's a different thing.
> We might say they haven't complained about it but does that mean we
> cannot make our judgement?
We can make a judgement. Sure, we can guess. And as long as we know it's
a guess and operate on that premise, I see no harm in it.
> To be honest there is no overall plan.
OK.
> I already have a few ideas of where the fault-lines might lie in NLP.
I'd be curious about those, if you;d care to share.
> I did know that the discussion would take us to here.
I suppose it should have done so sooner. "Determining a well-formed
outcome" is one of the basics.
> But it has been fun for me.
And me.
> Anyway, you are getting a hot chocolate from a woman
Long drive for a cup of hot chocolate. :)
> (I assume)
You assume she's a woman, or that she's buying the hot chocolate?
> if you heard an earlier message my only vice is chocolate.
Your ONLY vice? You don't get out enough. :)
> OK. But doing something is the only way of demonstrating an ability. How
> could Bandler know that he spoke truthfully when he said he could quit?
I can drive to St. Louis. I've never done so. I know I can do it because
I know how to drive, I know how to read a map, and there are roads that
lead to St. Louis. I don't have to demonstrate an ability if I can
demonstrate its composite parts.
> That's a good strategy. Maybe that is all you 'can do'. I wonder what
> more you could do?
It's more accurately what I'd be willing to do. Taoism teaches
non-interference, after all.
> What you seem to be saying is that addiction can be determined two
> ways: a) the person dishonestly claims to have quit but has not
> or b) they say they cannot quit but are addicted
The only way I will help someone with an addiction is if they present
the latter. If they present the former, I might believe they're addicted
but for all practical purposes for me, they're outside my circle of
influence.
> In (a) if the substance involved is not considered an addictive
> substance, let's say full-fat milk, and the person lies to their
> dietician we could not say for sure that they were addicted.
Food *is* considered an addictive substance by some. Note the many
"Overeaters Anonymous" groups.
> In (b) if they say they are addicted we would have to take their word
> for it. But the flaw is that they could be lying.
If they lie to me about it, they gain nothing, so pragmatically I
respond the same way.
> > Good for them. Seriously. Were they addicted before?
>
> I don't know. I suppose they would have to have tried to give up to
> know. (I just did an 'as if', I think).
:)
> Well, in this case we are talking about the "Capo de Capo of Worldwide
> NLPing" - and he just CAN'T have a lifestyle that would bring the
> organisation into disrepute....
He can't? Wow. I didn't know that.
> Well, he looked like and affected a manner like one of the Belushi's in
> the "Blues Brother's" when I saw him several years back.
I suppose "very obese" is a comparative deletion.
> > Give them a view of their future, assuming their habitual use
> > continues, and they usually become highly motivated to change.
>
> Sort of pushed rather than irresistably/compelling pulled.
True. We can add the pull as well.
> I just wondered if it helps to be in touch with your body and that if
> that were most likely to happen when being in the moment.
It's most beneficial when you can choose what works best for you at the
moment.
> Would you say that the unpunctual-types are in the "now" or simply
> "no-where" in relation to time?
I would say they can't tell from their vantage point.
> I think I meant is it necessarily so i.e. that feeling that 'it' feels
> good will involve 'now' or loss of time-reference. Is there an override
> that gets rid of the sense of time? I might also posit the converse,
> that there is a time override that gets rid of the sense of pleasure.
Association and dissociation are the simplest ways I know to acquire and
delete feelings.
> Why not? I am not saying that I can - yet, but if my computer can then
> why can't I? E.g. my computer can calculate many points of view at once.
> Perhaps when I move in space say to catch a ball I am considering
> multiple-viewpoints
It's like the philosopher Carlin's observation that you can't *really*
know with perfect accuracy what you look like with your sunglasses on.
If it was really possible to go out of your body and look at it from a
certain angle, how could you know if the very act of exiting your body
changes, or doesn't change, the appearahce of your body in some way?
> That's reasonable..(I'm flagging)....
You have to flag to agree with me? ;)
> Do you know anything about mysticism
A little. Not really enough to make use of it.
> heard them say that they want to be 'in the moment'. From what you are
> saying it seems that being in the moment requires less 'processing' and
> that being in reference to time requires more processing.
It requires *different* processing.
> One wonders why they are trying so hard.
Because it's believed that being "in the moment" is the state that will
free us from the cycle of reincarnation. At least that's how I
understand it.
> In fact, I might put out a new thread asking if anyone knows this 'guru'
> called Arjuna who mixes Advaita with NLP?
I know the name "Arjuna" but I think I know it from the Bhagavad-Gita.
> 'in the now'=being alive=wild party animal=Bandler
>
> Some how I don't think you will let me.
You're right, I won't. :)
One can be alive without being "in the now."
Being alive does not equal being a wild party animal. I hate parties and
am far from wild, even when I'm associated into time.
Bandler may or may not be a wild party animal, depending on his
circumstances.
> NB I am aware that it is awfully difficult to comment on someone's
> motivation. Even more so after conversing with you.
We can question someone's motivation. We just can't answer the question.
> On addiction: I wonder if you are aware of clinical definition and if
> you accept it or find it useful?
The World Health Organization defines it, but I think it's filled with
such semantic ill-formedness that it isn't really useful.
"Drug addiction is a state of periodic or chronic intoxication produced
by the repeated consumption of a drug (natural or synthetic). Its
characteristics include:
1. An overpowering desire or need (compulsion) to continue taking the
drug and to obtain it by any means;
2. A tendency to increase the dose;
3. A psychic (psychological) and sometimes physical dependence on the
effects of the drug;
4. An effect detrimental to the individual and to society."
PStuart
>Now, Phil... how could you possibly know if there's a net in his
>underwear? ;)
It was the strained quality of his farts.
Michael DeBusk
> >Now, Phil... how could you possibly know if there's a net in his
> >underwear? ;)
>
> It was the strained quality of his farts.
Too much cheese. :)
Mike DeBusk
> Michael, what is your email?
> I have tried to get a hold of you but my mails were rejected.
Yeah, I know how you feel... I tried to contact you at the address given
in your messages, but apparently it's not real.
Rick Mason
Michael DeBusk <debu...@dpnet.net> wrote:
> Rick Mason wrote:
>
> > I am not sure how I do it. Am I good or not then?
>
> One doesn't need to be good consciously to be good.
Perhaps, it's not useful to develop it anyway.
BTW Apologies if I am slow replying to the longer messages ...I'm
trapped in the cyber-sludge of multiple virtual communions..
Rick Mason
> > Rastafarian 'watch-jah-ma-call-it'
>
> Ah... American "thingamajig" or "thingamabob." Metasyntactic variable.
Not a meta-content variable? My learnings are a losings (in the accent
of the blonde curly Italin-sounding Marx Brother)
>
> > > Heheh... you cannot not model some aspect of it. :)
> > >
> > Where and how?
>
> Everything is Tao, so you're kinda stuck with it.
>
But the first page (from memory) says 2it cannot be written down and
once stepped on is not the Tao" which isn't particularly good if you
are into the computational metaphor for the mind.
> > > I consider myself a beginner.
> > >
> > Truly, the correct attitude for a master NLPer and possibly the
start
> > of a model for Lao Tse
>
> I'm a fan of Lao Tse myself. Not as diligent a student as I could be,
> though.
I am not so sure that the Taoist religion represents Old Long Ears, they
are more into longevity practises.
Anyway, Lao Tse recommends daily decrease - good advice for addicts of
all sort..which reminds me I must cut down on my surfings
>
> > > Wood?
> > >
> > Perhaps the underwear is as unwieldy as my NLP....
>
> You asked what the drawer smelled like, not the underwear. :)
Glad to hear you could make a valuable olfactory distinction.
I heard that one NLPing shrink could smell schizophrenia. Willie somone?
Consciously Decreasing Daily,
Michael DeBusk
> Perhaps, it's not useful to develop it anyway.
It depends on what you want to use it for. "Installing" a sense of
distractedness and chaining it to a person's state of depression or
anxiety or whatever may be very useful.
> BTW Apologies if I am slow replying to the longer messages ...I'm
> trapped in the cyber-sludge of multiple virtual communions..
Oh, you poor thing... ALL those friends sending you messages. ;)
Michael DeBusk
> > Ah... American "thingamajig" or "thingamabob." Metasyntactic variable.
>
> Not a meta-content variable?
I don't think so. I may be mistaken.
> My learnings are a losings (in the accent
> of the blonde curly Italin-sounding Marx Brother)
Chico?
> But the first page (from memory) says 2it cannot be written down and
> once stepped on is not the Tao" which isn't particularly good if you
> are into the computational metaphor for the mind.
True... like the blind man's elephant, we can only know a piece of it at
any given time. It's too big to fit into our brain at this stage of
evolution.
> I am not so sure that the Taoist religion represents Old Long Ears, they
> are more into longevity practises.
Oh, hell, I don't want to live forever.
> Anyway, Lao Tse recommends daily decrease - good advice for addicts of
> all sort..which reminds me I must cut down on my surfings
Addicted to surfing, are you? ;)
> I heard that one NLPing shrink could smell schizophrenia.
It used to be believed that a schizophrenic's body contained an elevated
level of a particular chemical, the name of which I can't recall but Dr.
Hannibal Lechter mentioned it in "The Silence of the Lambs."
That bit of nonsense has since been refuted.
Jonathan Altfeld
Just jumping into the fun.
Rick Mason <masonric...@hotmail.com.invalid> wrote:
>Michael DeBusk <debu...@dpnet.net> wrote:
>> I heard that one NLPing shrink could smell schizophrenia.
>> It used to be believed that a schizophrenic's body contained
>> an elevated level of a particular chemical, the name of which
>> I can't recall but Dr. Hannibal Lechter mentioned it in "The
>> Silence of the Lambs." That bit of nonsense has since been
>> refuted.
>
>I thought you'd be more open minded and say there might be a smell.
I'm interpreting this differently. I don't think he was refuting that
there might be a smell, just that there are many possibilities that we
often believe if the theory is sound or reasonable enough. And that if
we take the time to actually test things, sometimes we find out they're
not true.
Do I believe there might be a smell to schizophrenia? I have no
evidence or medical knowledge at present that would lead me to such a
conclusion but I am confident there *may* be a smell.
If I cannot, at present, smell it, does that mean others can not smell
it? No. There may be someone with a very attuned capacity for fine
olfactory distinctions for various disorders. There may be someone with
such a capacity in concert with other highly-attuned senses that can
identify such disorders. Or not.
Now, I'm not basing any critical decisions on this information either
way, so leaving it open as an inconclusive possibility doesn't hurt me,
and as Rick noted, keeps the mind in a more open state.
Anyhow, I don't think Michael was expressing a closed-minded state; I
think he was illustrating something else. Just my opinion. He can
freely correct my comments if I'm off the mark.
>I asked a doctor, she said she could recognise by smell alcoholics in
>rehab because they are dosed with certain drugs.
>Rick
That's easy to believe, because a high degree of sensory acuity in any
sensory modality is something that can be trained into our skillset.
Regular exposures to particular stimuli can help someone make finer
distinctions between stimuli that are close but not identical.
Regards,
Jonathan Altfeld (jona...@altfeld.com) 877 LIVE-NLP T/Free
Mastery InSight Institute of NLP(tm) +1 813 960-8999 Phone
http://www.altfeld.com/mastery/index.html +1 813 960-9852 Fax
London UK 12/10, Boston 1/21, Sydney March/2000,
Copenhagen April/2000
venus uzynski
Speaking of being able to recognize dis-eases by scent, I'm wondering if
there's any other disease (besides alcoholism) that could make someone smell
as if they had been drinking too much?
Can diabetes do that to you? Somehow I seem to remember it can, but I'm not
sure why.
Thanks all,
Venus
Jonathan Altfeld wrote:
<snip>
Michael DeBusk
> Depends what you mean by the Tao. If you mean everyting then I don't
> see how there could be enough 'space' to fit the whole universe in the
> brain/mind.
"Tao" in this context is "The Way," as in "the way everything works."
Way too big.
> > Oh, hell, I don't want to live forever.
>
> Why not (?) - you might thereby avoid hell indefinitely!
I guess I have it easy there... I don't believe in Hell. I do realize
the possibility that Earth is another planet's Hell. ;)
> No, I'm obsessed with the Quest but I CAN stop at anytime and have a
> Cosmic Tea-break (a herbal please)
Pass the honey...
> I thought you'd be more open minded and say there might be a smell.
If there's a smell, it's not specific to schizophrenia. Because
schizophrenia is not a biological disorder, but it does create some
biological conditions (such as increased production of adrenaline, as
anyone afraid would do.)
> What if Bandler said it would people jump to his defense?
I'd ask him what he meant. He *has* done some specific research in this
area.
> I asked a doctor, she said she could recognise by smell alcoholics in
> rehab because they are dosed with certain drugs.
She isn't smelling the alcohol dependence, but the drugs. Different
thing.
> (PS Do you know more or less or just different things everyday?)
Definitely.
Michael DeBusk
> Just jumping into the fun.
Look before you leap, because, after all, he who hesitates is lost. ;)
> I'm interpreting this differently. I don't think he was refuting that
> there might be a smell, just that there are many possibilities that we
> often believe if the theory is sound or reasonable enough. And that if
> we take the time to actually test things, sometimes we find out they're
> not true.
I'm saying that *if* a schizophrenic smells like something, it isn't
schizophrenia that he smells like. It MAY be the drugs he's taking or
the perpetual adrenaline high or the shit under his fingernails.
> If I cannot, at present, smell it, does that mean others can not smell
> it? No. There may be someone with a very attuned capacity for fine
> olfactory distinctions for various disorders. There may be someone with
> such a capacity in concert with other highly-attuned senses that can
> identify such disorders. Or not.
I've successfully diagnosed several physical illnesses in the past, just
from their smell. It isn't that nobody else can smell it, it's that most
people don't bother making sensory distinctions of so fine a quality.
I've been around so many sick people for so long that I can often tell,
and I notice smells consciously. Most nurses and doctors might say about
themselves that they "don't know how I know, I just have a nose for such
things."
Michael DeBusk
> Speaking of being able to recognize dis-eases by scent, I'm wondering if
> there's any other disease (besides alcoholism) that could make someone smell
> as if they had been drinking too much?
Not diabetes per se, but hyperglycemia. Diabetes can push your blood
sugar that high, as can steroid use and a few other things. As the
too-sweet blood passes through your lungs to exchange oxygen for carbon
dioxide, your breath (which is an excretory function after all) picks up
some of the excess glucose and expels it, giving your breath a "fruity"
or "acetone" scent. Your pores will do the same.
Note well that you may want to avoid cheap-ass cologne (as opposed to
cheap ass-cologne) that might smell like whiskey. One fellow was denied
permission to visit the psych unit because he smelled like he'd been
drinking; he had liver disease and *couldn't* drink. The nurse, because
of his protests and her knowledge of my sense of smell (I "diagnosed"
pneumonia in her when she was claiming it was bronchitis once,) asked me
to check. I smelled it on one side of him, not the front, and deduced it
was his cologne. "Go wash your face and try again," I told him. He did,
and they let him in. That night he went home and dumped his cologne. :)