6 steps reframing and why it sucks...
Robert
Two. You need to reframe something that means it is something wrong
here.
Three. You reframe in essence saying that what is reframed is still
there.
Four. It is depending on unconsious communication and well...who is
that putting signals out, in there really?
Five. It is based on behaviours and not updated with the latest
findings.
Six. It is based on epistomology and the level of representations
(five senses/memories)
So what to do?
Why not take the basic idea that there is "one thing" that we reframe
and instead of reframe we make that "one thing" non existent?
Much more fun.
Then it be like Bill clinton.
I never had sex with that woman. He had, well it was a blow job and
that isnt sex according to some.
If he stated, I had sex with her and she begged for more and I said
no, then it be more interesting what would have happen.
Now, I have no idea since that story is totally unrelated to the post
I made here.
Oh, a new book of something wonderful is in the makings..
Stay tuned.
That book will make sure six steps reframing stays reframed.
/Robert
www.svensknlp.nu
BigJiim
>Two. You need to reframe something that means it is something wrong
>here.
>Three. You reframe in essence saying that what is reframed is
I don't buy it. With the exception of having
to count to six how does one figure that six
step reframing sucks?
What IS wrong with using the unconscious
as the goal setter?
People have said that sick step reframing sucks but no one from what I've seen
has steped up and said why?
I know some processes that are better and yet no one has said what they think
execept some stupid questions like isn't it better that we do different things?
just my opinion,
big jim
Robert
You misseed the point.
However,
a book is coming where the notion of "why" will be answered to that
there is little use to use six step reframing.
/Robert
jayroni
boy there's a lot of advertising about on this ng these days. So
when's the book appearing and how will we be able to purchase it?
scadder21
submodalities i have a very diffucult time in consciously using them
to change beliefs. For people like me i feel that reframing is very
helpful. Also reframing seems to be very effective if people have
self sabotaging tendencies and cant understand why they do what they
do. So i dont think its time yet to throw the use of the unconsious
out of the changework process yet.
David Gould
Have you considered that you might be manifesting self-sabotage purely
by believing in it?
Sean
>by believing in it?
>
>Dave
That hasn't been my experience.
I've found -- even after learning all kinds of things that are supposed to make
6-step reframing obsolete, that 6-step is still handy to know, just in case.
For instance...
I promote seminars, and met an attendee who went outside to sit in the hotel
lobby.
She was crying. (For reasons unrelated to the seminar. I swear.)
I sat with her and we chatted for a little bit, and she talked about a problem
she was having, and used 'parts' language to describe it.
"Part of me feels that ______..."
That sort of thing.
It was quite natural to do a conversational 6-step. (Is conversational 6-step
reframing even IN prac trainings anymore?)
She looked better, said she felt better, and it was entirely a 6-step outdated
parts model that did the trick.
Are there faster ways to make that change? Sure. But to her it was just a
conversation, and it paced her model of the world quite easily.
She said months later (at another seminar), that that brief conversation saved
the day. (Actually she said, "Saved my ass.") She said that she had been
thinking of suicide.
Again, I agree that there are better, faster, easier ways to make profound
change than 6-step reframing, but when a crying person starts a conversation
with, "I don't know why, but part of me feels that..." then the 6-step model is
not a bad thing to have in your bag of tricks.
Sean
====================
Why is Burt Goldman so popular?
http://www.pavlovpublishing.com/mindcontrol.htm
scadder21
> by believing in it?
>
> Dave, http://www.deep-trance.com
Good question Dave but i believe that ive been sabotaging myself since
before i knew there was something called self sabotage.
Nick Kemp
(:
"scadder21" <scad...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1f0533ce.03100...@posting.google.com...
Adam Sargant
news:20031007204213...@mb-m21.aol.com...
<snip>
>
> Again, I agree that there are better, faster, easier ways to make profound
> change than 6-step reframing, but when a crying person starts a
conversation
> with, "I don't know why, but part of me feels that..." then the 6-step
model is
> not a bad thing to have in your bag of tricks.
A very valuable point. If someone presents parts, it can be very useful to
work with parts.
:-)
Adam
--
www.trance-formation.co.uk
Personal growth, change and health through NLP and trance work
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free for your edification :-)
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.524 / Virus Database: 321 - Release Date: 06/10/2003
jayroni
Remember though that there are some who post here who have a crucial
commercial interest in protecting their own positions in how they
train and so are hardly neutral in their positions. This is often
demonstrated in both lack of humour and over analysis, which is one of
the reasons why some really interesting posters have departed - a real
shame!
Some current posters even suggest removing the unconscious element
from the whole process, while others constantly purport the arrival of
new books and new discoveries that will revolutionise NLP (maybe yes,
maybe no, we'll see...) NLP is said to be the study of subjective
experience, yet many seek to present the concept that it should ONLY
be the study of THEIR own subjective experience...That's just another
opinion of course
Robert
> I dissagree with you Robert on this one.
Thats fine. No problem with me.
Reframing is useful.
I only would state thats there is a way that dosnt comply with old
past history as NLP does.
What happens when people can not change belifs with submodality
technology is very simple.
It isnt about changing belifs...!
Richard Bandler however brilliant he is really messed that one up.
He uses an example of changing belifs with the "The sun is going up
tomorow or breathing is good?"
Tht is no fuckin belifs.
he confuses at least 2 levels of understanding of expereince and is no
way clear on that so called technology of submodality belif shift.
It is totally wrong in how he talks about what he does.
Thats why people go to reframing beacuse that adress that level.
/Robert
www.svensknlp.nu
Robert
> >by believing in it?
> >
> >Dave
>
>
> That hasn't been my experience.
>
> I've found -- even after learning all kinds of things that are supposed to make
> 6-step reframing obsolete, that 6-step is still handy to know, just in case.
Anything that works is handy.
You did with this expereince pace her reality.
You didnt do 6 step, she did.
If you pace that current reality which is fine which is what NLP does
then that works perfectly.
I state that we do not need to work with that old reality as NLP as
done for 30 years.
You can use your skills from NLP to totally redo how you work and make
it easier for you, the client, the etc..and also make it faster, more
effective and more fun and more elegant.
That what I offer in the book.
Damn need to go write some more..
And it will have pictures in it!
It be the book I wanted to read when entering NLP. Then of
course..thats me. ;)
/Robert
www.svensknlp.nu
Robert
> when's the book appearing and how will we be able to purchase it?
The book depdning on when it is done will be avaible spring 2004.
That also depends of course if the publisher think it is good enough to publish ;)
Does it has selling potential..seems the criteria..
I be putting it out in NLP groups, etc..when it is published.
So..it be seen soon enough.
/Robert
Robert
> out of the changework process yet.
There is actually a way of reorganize how you work with the unconsious
in ways that is totally mindblowing.
You see, I hope, that NLP is based on past reference (history) so is
the unconsious.
Since the unconsious was created by learning things and then as we
learned we put that we learned into a way of automatically handle
things unconsiously.
Freud coined that and it make big sense since it gave a destinction
between what you did and an answer to why you did it, since it wasnt
you then it was your unconsious.
people will expereince trance as being there and not at the same time.
We do not need more seperation.
We need a oneconsious way of doing for example changework which are
based on futurereference instead of past limited.
It take NLP to a level beyound what is possible to imagine since what
you imagine will be based on past reference...
Think about that.
/Robert
www.svensknlp.nu
Evolution of NLP.
Nick Kemp
Good point, as Adam says the trainer feuds don't exactly inspire the rest of
us or set a great example...
"jayroni" <jay...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:91bd4eb1.03100...@posting.google.com...
David Gould
wrote:
>"Sean" <swcg...@aol.comom> wrote in message
>news:20031007204213...@mb-m21.aol.com...
><snip>
>>
>> Again, I agree that there are better, faster, easier ways to make profound
>> change than 6-step reframing, but when a crying person starts a
>conversation
>> with, "I don't know why, but part of me feels that..." then the 6-step
>model is
>> not a bad thing to have in your bag of tricks.
>
>A very valuable point. If someone presents parts, it can be very useful to
>work with parts.
Can be.
And if someone mentions a critical parent, I might start using
Transactional Analysis with them. Or not. ;)
Adam Sargant
news:n1d8ovobvpnku1u9i...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 8 Oct 2003 09:51:19 +0100, "Adam Sargant" <nos...@sargant.net>
> wrote:
>
> >"Sean" <swcg...@aol.comom> wrote in message
> >news:20031007204213...@mb-m21.aol.com...
> ><snip>
> >>
> >> Again, I agree that there are better, faster, easier ways to make
profound
> >> change than 6-step reframing, but when a crying person starts a
> >conversation
> >> with, "I don't know why, but part of me feels that..." then the 6-step
> >model is
> >> not a bad thing to have in your bag of tricks.
> >
> >A very valuable point. If someone presents parts, it can be very useful
to
> >work with parts.
>
> Can be.
>
> And if someone mentions a critical parent, I might start using
> Transactional Analysis with them. Or not. ;)
Difference is, many people talk of a part of themselves doing this and
another wanting that. As a metaphor, it is deep rooted in our culture. If
someone starts talking about their critical parent, you know they're into TA
(or have been). I don't think the two are equivalent.
I don't reckon that thinking about oneself as being made up of seperate
parts all working against eachother is particularly "healthy" and would
choose to work toward a more integrative model, but that's my personal
preference. Many people in my experience do see/feel etc themselves as
fragmented in this way, so I sometimes find it a good place to start.
David Gould
>He uses an example of changing belifs with the "The sun is going up
>tomorow or breathing is good?"
>Tht is no fuckin belifs.
Somewhere I heard him talk about the difference between being convinced
and believing something. He claimed those 2 you mentioned are something
you'd be convinced about ie no need to question it.
>he confuses at least 2 levels of understanding of expereince and is no
>way clear on that so called technology of submodality belif shift.
>It is totally wrong in how he talks about what he does.
>
>Thats why people go to reframing beacuse that adress that level.
Would like to hear more.
Chris Collingwood
It is not the 6-step reframing format that is so significant as the
principles through which it works.
- The use of involuntary signals with the Unconcious mind
- The separation of behaviour and intention via a shift in logical
levels
- The generation of alternative behaviours that fulfil the intent
- The testing of the new choices in behaviour for consequences
The 'parts' metaphor is simply that, a metaphor. I recommed that
anyone interested in exploring this read Carmen Bostic St. Clair's and
John Grinder's book "Whispering In the Wind" .
www.nlpwhisperinginthewind.com They have a whole section of the book
devoted to 6-step Reframing as the breakthrough pattern that led to
the new code of nlp.
I sometimes use a spatial format for 6-step reframing that assists
participants in cleaning sorting behavours from intentions. Sometimes
I have the persons conscious mind generate the options and offer them
to the unconscious for selection. There are many ways that the
principles found in 6-step reframing can be applied.
Chris Collingwood
www.inspiritive.com.au
Robert
> It is not the 6-step reframing format that is so significant as the
> principles through which it works.
>
> - The use of involuntary signals with the Unconcious mind
> - The separation of behaviour and intention via a shift in logical
> levels
> - The generation of alternative behaviours that fulfil the intent
> - The testing of the new choices in behaviour for consequences
>
> The 'parts' metaphor is simply that, a metaphor. I recommed that
> anyone interested in exploring this read Carmen Bostic St. Clair's and
> John Grinder's book "Whispering In the Wind" .
> www.nlpwhisperinginthewind.com They have a whole section of the book
> devoted to 6-step Reframing as the breakthrough pattern that led to
> the new code of nlp.
Quote "If you want to have more choices about your behaviour and
emotions, to enhance your communication and relationships and develop
new abilities in your thinking, then NLP can provide you with the
technology for accomplishing that.". end
quote.http://www.inspiritive.com.au/nlp_faq.htm
In that you guys suggest that you add choices ABOUT so that the what
was is still there.
In essence when you do six step reframing and I do not care who does
it even Grinder that it is based on an outdated model as is most of
the NLP patterns.
I suggest as I been understanding the model of Mythoself that you
reorganize the whole way people use NLP into another format that when
done so make patterns like six step vanish since that pattern or model
vanish when doing that kind of work I suggest.
The parts model along with that.
> I sometimes use a spatial format for 6-step reframing that assists
> participants in cleaning sorting behavours from intentions. Sometimes
> I have the persons conscious mind generate the options and offer them
> to the unconscious for selection. There are many ways that the
> principles found in 6-step reframing can be applied.
Sure, no question about that.
Still you use a format that is based on past history, keep the
original behaviour and then add choices which is all ok doing NLP.
I suggest as noted above and in other newsgroups in NLP that we can
make NLP patterns vanish since they be uneeded.
You reorient how you establish the framework from a totally different
system of Ontology and rebalance that with epistomology.
As also noted it will be a book that goes into this in a general
common sense easy to read with pictures...
/Robert
www.svensknlp.nu
> Chris Collingwood
> www.inspiritive.com.au
Robert
Dave,
seems Bandler dosnt know what he does does he?
He adress a level with submodality belif change which isnt belifs it
is about how you know or the fact of universe. That is however a
powerful way of doing things since you tap into the way people build
the reality they have of percepetion.
So when ppl try to do that process it often fails.
They end up going to reframing since that process add choices and is
an analogue format and the submodlaityshift is digital.
So reframing will always work and submodlaityshift will be either or.
If done right the submodlaityshift is this,
you take a belif and then add the sun goes up tomorow.
Now, what happens with the second example with the sun is a fact and a
very deep structure of reality of faith in how the world goes around
the solarsystem.
We just trust faithfully that it will. (We can not know it will
continue)
So he uses at least depending on how he does that nowadays
belif level
how you know level
fact level of faith.
Convincers kick in after the shift is done.
They modify the change and make the change meaningful...
The thing here is that I can not do those procedures anymore since I
found a faster more elegant way trought the work of Mythoself.
Thats why I writing that book and also argue for the reorient of a
system in how it has been done in NLP.
To do what I propose and what Joseph has stated a long time you change
the foundation of NLP totally.
And yes, even the founders will change.
They already done that they are however stuck with the current past
reality.
:)
/Robert
www.svensknlp.nu
scadder21
process on this situation one where it seems reframing would be very
useful. The situation is that the patient/client is a successful
person by most accounts yet they arent satisfied with there level of
accomplishment. The main challenge is that they often get in there own
way and unconsciously sabotage themselves a great deal by either not
going through with meetings that should really raise there career or
by not following through on programs that should help them increase
the knowledge they need to succeed. To me at least this is a perfect
situation for reframing. Obviously in this case the sabotage has
positive intent and the unconscious needs to know that it has other
options other then to get in the clients way. Robert or anyone else
who thinks that reframing is no longer useful how would you deal with
this situation not using reframing??
David Gould
>The situation is that the patient/client is a successful
>person by most accounts yet they arent satisfied with there level of
>accomplishment. The main challenge is that they often get in there own
>way and unconsciously sabotage themselves a great deal by either not
>going through with meetings that should really raise there career or
>by not following through on programs that should help them increase
>the knowledge they need to succeed.
Anchor the feeling that prevents them from being motivated. Elicit
submodalities.
Then collapse, swish, (linguistic) reframe, EFT or re-imprint as seen
fit.
Robert
I would take them where problems dosnt exists.
Note this and you need to take notes -
That reframing is based on a reality that I do not longer work with.
Then there is no need to even use or talk about that subject it dosnt
exist more for me than a nice painting on a museum or an arechelogial
item in the same place.
Then again,
if it was that easy then persuasion wouldnt exist and it does.
Then I would take them to the place where they always wanted to be at,
belonging into being there best and that quality of experience in the
future established into the now as a new reality as same as the old
one that once was and no less is anymore.
I think the question you ask is valid, the framework becomes so much
easier with this, and done properly it is both faster, more effective
and also no need to change what they have done for so long beacuse who
likes change?
I disagree here with for example McKenna-breen who stated that change
is a requisite for the courses they run.
And dont get me going on Get real by Dr phil..
You do something that is so natural so excellent that you find
yourself involved into something like a experience where you been once
maybe twice maybe many times where you just knew..in your soul...that
it was a pure delighted expereince...no thoughts..just
wonder...ful..experience to be..totally there and no where else...
That is the point I go to and then reframing is of no use since it has
nothing to reframe....
Then I change what is left of the old reality so the new one be
there..eternity.
Be your best and let others be so.
To be clear, This is essentially the basic approach in Mythoself and
the brilliant work of Joseph Riggio.
I add something a bit easier to chew.
One question or a question?
/Robert
Joseph Riggio
this is a perfect situation for reframing (vs. something else) or that
reframing is a perfect solution to this situation (implied
explicitly)?
However, stepping beyond that I actually spent a year thinking about
this discussing it and debating it ... i.e.: the value/valuelessnes of
the parts model (it's all in the archives at NLPTalk-reserve if you're
interested really). Anyway I came up with and away with a few points:
1. I didn't and still don't like or use parts because I don't want to
fragment my clients experience EVER! Instead whatever I do I seek to
create greater integration and synergy. Anyone who believes that they
way you create synergy and integration is by first creating clear
delineations and separations must also be a big fan of diversity ...
another of my all time least favorite ideas.
2. There are better ways to get the same result without ever resorting
to the parts model (I know this isn't the same as reframing as a
whole, and is absolutely the core of six-step reframing). For instance
in your example just asking the client what's been the result of the
pattern they've been running - not "why" they do it, but what the
empirical evidence of it is often a great starting point. The
advantage of this is that it doesn't demand them to consider their
interior experience as composed of multiple parts as opposed to a
wellformed whole structure with multiple intentions. I could go on and
on with this one, but I promised only a few "quick" points ...
3. The "Unconscious" is and always was an unnecessary construct in my
opinion (and some others like Nick Humphrey). It seems the more we
learn about how the brain actually operates the less there seems to be
evidence of an "Unconscious" or the need for one. Yet this doesn't
mean there are not "unconscious processes," i.e.: those processes
which operate out of conscious awareness. Another model and one I'm
much more fond of personally is a model build on the various brain
structures which for all intents an purposes are actually different
brains that co-habitat in the same skull and body. These brains are
sometimes called: Neo-Cortex, Cerebellum, Medulla Oblongata, Limbic
System ... you get the point. What's interesting is that other than
the neo-cortex none of the other brains have "language," i.e.: words
or verbal symbolic representation, and they seem absolutely pitiful at
operating abstractions. Now I say "Good to have a neo-cortex to do
these things, lookey here at how it's letting us communicate
asynchronously and through the use of commonly agreed upon
abstractions" - yet I like my limbic system too - grunting, groaning
and moaning with me through all my various escapades. Outside of
"ordinary awareness - read: language and descriptions" yet
particularly practical when you is pondering propogation.
4. Just because something "works" doesn't mean it's good. Frontal
lobotomy works, so does electro-shock. Just because people use "it"
and "it's" common in the culture doesn't mean "it's" good ... people
flocked to apartheid in S.Africa for a while. This kind of argument
doesn't much hold water as far as I'm concerned ... it kinda' like,
"Everyone else is doing it!" Maybe it's time to update the system ...
then again maybe that's just my opinion.
5. Inside most of what passes as "change work" or "transformation" is
what is referred to as hypnosis by some. When the process is operated
hypnotically some of this other "stuff" becomes less and less
relevant. Yet it's good to find a hard hypnotist and that's not easy.
Most of them are into being "permissive" with their clients and let
them run the show. When I read Milton (Erickson that is) and Elman and
others for whom I come to have a great respect I find they're seldom
actually permissive at all. They set the outcome endlessly hold this
in place for the client, even when the client can't or won't - then
they blackmail them. It's an interesting business, but it works good
(see my point number 4 above).
Thanks all,
Joseph Riggio
AppliedNLP.com
P.S. - What's going on with you all that you seem to think that
everyone's trying to sell their particular brand of snake oil or that
that's a "bad" thing. If there weren't some driver for all you all,
all you all wouldn't be here ... and neither would I ... however as a
snake oil salesman myself I can tell you there's easier ways to fill a
room than chatting with you folks here ... usually this is just
amusement and entertainment ... seldom do you folks show up at my
shows ... hard to keep the snake oiled that way ... just
curious??!!?!!?
scad...@aol.com (scadder21) wrote in message news:<1f0533ce.03100...@posting.google.com>...
scadder21
> submodalities.
>
> Then collapse, swish, (linguistic) reframe, EFT or re-imprint as seen
> fit.
>
> Dave, http://www.deep-trance.com
That what i would have thought too but the sabotage isnt about lack of
motivation. THere seems to be much motivation, just a major lack of
action or action so scattered that it doesnt add up to anything. Its
not abotu motivation is about sabotage. How would you deal with that?
scadder21
"problems" in this situation. This person is just cruising along
passing up opportunities. I dont see self sabotage as a behavior but
instead as a state of being. They tell me that the feeling is like
wanting to do something and just being amazed that you dont do it. It
doesnt seem to be state dependent either. Honestly its really really
puzzling. Robert also do you do seminars in the US? and if so when??
David Gould
>> Anchor the feeling that prevents them from being motivated. Elicit
>> submodalities.
>>
>> Then collapse, swish, (linguistic) reframe, EFT or re-imprint as seen
>> fit.
>
>That what i would have thought too but the sabotage isnt about lack of
>motivation. THere seems to be much motivation, just a major lack of
>action or action so scattered that it doesnt add up to anything. Its
>not abotu motivation is about sabotage.
Sabotage is one of those psychobabble words that is meaningless to me.
When it's time for action, what prevents them?
Adam Sargant
news:bd1345d6.0310...@posting.google.com...
> A few quick points ... other than your belief what's the evidence that
> this is a perfect situation for reframing (vs. something else) or that
> reframing is a perfect solution to this situation (implied
> explicitly)?
Hi Joseph. Before I start, I want to say that I agree with everything you've
said. You talk a lot of horse sense (where the hell did that phrase come
from<g>?). I just want to clarify a couple of points
>
> However, stepping beyond that I actually spent a year thinking about
> this discussing it and debating it ... i.e.: the value/valuelessnes of
> the parts model (it's all in the archives at NLPTalk-reserve if you're
> interested really). Anyway I came up with and away with a few points:
>
> 1. I didn't and still don't like or use parts because I don't want to
> fragment my clients experience EVER! Instead whatever I do I seek to
> create greater integration and synergy.
Do you see no place for parts if that is the metaphor someone presents to
you? In the past I have started with the "parts" a client has presented to
me, and worked towards integration. Conversely, when I started on my nursing
training, I worked with a lot of tutors who came from a gestalt background.
These guys could (and did) challenge me quite aggressively if I used
language like "A part of me feels like..." which, although I value the
experience with hindsight, left me confused and feeling misunderstood at the
time.
> Anyone who believes that they
> way you create synergy and integration is by first creating clear
> delineations and separations must also be a big fan of diversity ...
> another of my all time least favorite ideas.
Can you clarify diversity in this context for me? Diversity is something I
value greatly.
I'll have to think on this one. The unconscious has always seemed to me to
simply be a nominalisation of unconscious process. I don't hyave any
opinions as to whether this is a good or a bad thing, but it can sometimes
be a useful thing.
> 4. Just because something "works" doesn't mean it's good. Frontal
> lobotomy works, so does electro-shock. Just because people use "it"
> and "it's" common in the culture doesn't mean "it's" good ... people
> flocked to apartheid in S.Africa for a while. This kind of argument
> doesn't much hold water as far as I'm concerned ... it kinda' like,
> "Everyone else is doing it!" Maybe it's time to update the system ...
> then again maybe that's just my opinion.
Again, I'm not sure that good or bad are relevant here. Sometimes (like
apartheid) it's simply what you work with or against. You take your stance.
> 5. Inside most of what passes as "change work" or "transformation" is
> what is referred to as hypnosis by some. When the process is operated
> hypnotically some of this other "stuff" becomes less and less
> relevant. Yet it's good to find a hard hypnotist and that's not easy.
Woah! Interrupt<g>
> Most of them are into being "permissive" with their clients and let
> them run the show. When I read Milton (Erickson that is) and Elman and
> others for whom I come to have a great respect I find they're seldom
> actually permissive at all. They set the outcome endlessly hold this
> in place for the client, even when the client can't or won't - then
> they blackmail them. It's an interesting business, but it works good
> (see my point number 4 above).
>
> Thanks all,
>
> Joseph Riggio
> AppliedNLP.com
>
> P.S. - What's going on with you all that you seem to think that
> everyone's trying to sell their particular brand of snake oil or that
> that's a "bad" thing. If there weren't some driver for all you all,
> all you all wouldn't be here ... and neither would I ... however as a
> snake oil salesman myself I can tell you there's easier ways to fill a
> room than chatting with you folks here ... usually this is just
> amusement and entertainment ... seldom do you folks show up at my
> shows ... hard to keep the snake oiled that way ... just
> curious??!!?!!?
Oily snakes. Now there's an image to conjure with:-)
Adam
--
www.trance-formation.co.uk
Personal growth, change and health through NLP and trance work
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free for your edification :-)
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.524 / Virus Database: 321 - Release Date: 07/10/2003
Robert
> "problems" in this situation.
No of course not.
You try to reframe what I wrote?
Thats what I do...
> This person is just cruising along
> passing up opportunities. I dont see self sabotage as a behavior but
> instead as a state of being. They tell me that the feeling is like
> wanting to do something and just being amazed that you dont do it. It
> doesnt seem to be state dependent either. Honestly its really really
> puzzling.
I guess it can be since this is what people refer as secondary gains,
they do the "thing" while they do not why they do that "thing" etc...
Moment 22.
If do the work as I suggest as also Joseph does then the above stop to
be a factor when doing that line of work.
>Robert also do you do seminars in the US? and if so when??
I will do when the book comes and get out.
Before that no.
I problebly will do if so in canada since it seems like a nice place.
Who knows, thx for asking, you are actually the first one who has
asked with my 5 years or so on the web NLP groups..
/Robert
www.svensknlp.nu
Robert
> lobotomy works, so does electro-shock. Just because people use "it"
> and "it's" common in the culture doesn't mean "it's" good ... people
> flocked to apartheid in S.Africa for a while. This kind of argument
> doesn't much hold water as far as I'm concerned ... it kinda' like,
> "Everyone else is doing it!" Maybe it's time to update the system ...
> then again maybe that's just my opinion.
Oh LOL.
> 5. Inside most of what passes as "change work" or "transformation" is
> what is referred to as hypnosis by some. When the process is operated
> hypnotically some of this other "stuff" becomes less and less
> relevant. Yet it's good to find a hard hypnotist and that's not easy.
> Most of them are into being "permissive" with their clients and let
> them run the show. When I read Milton (Erickson that is) and Elman and
> others for whom I come to have a great respect I find they're seldom
> actually permissive at all. They set the outcome endlessly hold this
> in place for the client, even when the client can't or won't - then
> they blackmail them. It's an interesting business, but it works good
> (see my point number 4 above).
Hum, blackmail, I just like that idea!
And I agreee!
Why let the client run the show when it is much more fun getting result!
/Robert
scadder21
> A few quick points ... other than your belief what's the evidence that
> this is a perfect situation for reframing (vs. something else) or that
> reframing is a perfect solution to this situation (implied
> explicitly)?
>
The reason that i think this would be a great situation for reframing
are a few. First let me state that im not saying the non parts model
doesnt work because i know it does. Im only stating that for those who
have challenges consciously finding and tracking submodalities that
model is difficult. In this situation The person states that they
want to do this thing or that but don't. Going back to one of the
first presuppostions of NLP that every behavior has a positive intent
and that the person is probably getting secondary gain from not
acting. It also seems that they do truly want to change and do feel
bad when they dont take action. What i see is that there values and
beliefs dont match up with there actions. Just to sum it up in one
sentence. They want to act different just don't, then regret it after
the fact. Im in no way saying that you other guys are wrong i just
think that in situations like this the parts model is useful. Let me
know what you think..Thanks
scadder21
what its like and what the "sabotage" part is if it exists. Here's an
example of the behavior. The person decides that they want something
in there life...so they set about to listen to a h ypnosis cd1/2 or a
1/4 of the way through they get bored and buy another hypnosis cd or
get restless or depressed or angery and that stops the 21 days
program. THeres a large uneasy feeling maybe a fear of completing the
training and having the new program built in. ANother example of this
sabotage is having there interest so varied with different hypnosis
programs that they dont stick to one. Another trait of his which is
very visable is that he learns but doesnt use. He eats up self help
books knows how to do it and what to do just never does. Thats why i
dont believe its state dependent he willingly learns stuff and just
doesnt use it and only after does his state get bad when he realizes
that hes wasting time not doing but learning. Honestly its very
perplexing, the behavior or just the whole being seems hellbent no not
changing those it seems that consciously change is very desirable or
even needed. Thanks
David Gould
>THeres a large uneasy feeling maybe a fear of completing the
>training and having the new program built in.
This one might be a clue ;)
Explore it.
Joseph Riggio
There's a lot to address in this message so it's taken me a bit to get
to it again.
I've snipped out all the bits by me below and left your comments,
which I'll address in whole-form here as best I can in this medium ů
;->
Let me be clear: "I SEE ABSOLUTELY NO PLACE IN CHANGE WORK WHERE I
WILL APPLY THE PARTS MODEL."
Why? NOT because it doesn't "work" (see "good" below) ľ but rather
because of the consequences of that work after-words. I'm not
interested in endlessly working with the various "parts" of a client
and especially not those "parts" I create. Basically there are some
fundamental philosophical principals I hold to. Let's name two of them
ľ phenomenology (or the fact that each person has their own subjective
experience and it can be "known" by them to some degree and is always
experienced by them fully), and empiricism (or the premise that we
have knowledge because we have experience, or that knowledge is based
in experience ľ especially sensory experience). You can see that these
ideas, which are over a hundred years old, are at the root of what we
often call NLP. (Oh yeah, I'm also a fan of Pragmatism ľ especially
American Pragmatism ľ so I "hold" to these principals because they
work and then when they have I let go again ů until the next time).
So given these two primary principals where are these "PARTS" people
refer to ľ empirically in this case? You and I both know and realize
they're referring to pure intellectual constructs ľ phenomenological
experience ľ that have no basis empirically ľ even for them! Yet some
other people are willing to reinforce and substantiate these
intellectual constructs by "speaking" with them and "working" with
them. Then they call themselves professionals, hah!
Me, I prefer to work with my clients, not their hallucinations.
(Although I will work with them through "ON" their hallucinations ľ
there are those worth having after all.)
What's more important I've never found it once necessary, better or
even easier to work with these intellectual constructs. Do you think
that six-step reframing is an Ĺeasy' way to create a transformational
shift with clients ľ for either you or them? Another thing is that
when I ask them right up front who, what and where this "part" is that
they've referred to they look at me like I'm out of my mind and the
"part" just goes away. Now it's interesting as I think about it ľ I
can't remember in the last five years anyone using that particular
language with me, i.e.: "A part of me ů" Funny thing, isn't it?
Try this if it should happen to you (as so many people here claim
happens so frequently to them in "therapeutic" conditions):
C: A part of me just feels that way!
U: Oh, what's that part's ů First Name?
C: What? What are you talking about?
U: That part of you that "ů just feels that way!", what's it's first
name? Is it a man or woman by the way?
C: Have you lost your mind?!?!? It's just an expression, a form of
speech ľ there's no REAL part!
U: Oh sorry I didn't understand. When you said there was a part of you
I just assumed you meant it and it should of course have a name and a
place to live. Does it live somewhere specifically or just kind of
hang around waiting for you?
C: I've told you "THERE IS NO PART!" ľ it's just a matter of speaking
about something, that all.
U: Oh, okay. So what exactly is it that's going on then?
C: Well sometimes I feel ů
U: So if you feel that way SOMETIMES ů and YOU COULD LEARN to feel
another way MOST OF THE TIME that would serve you better and let you
feel great would you be interested?
C: OF COURSE! That what I want, but I don't know how to do that.
U: Well have you ever had one of those moments when the world was just
completely open to you ů you know when you couldn't put a foot down
wrong so to speak? ů (calibrate) ů YEAH, right! A moment "like that"
when you just knew if your whole life could be this way ů "LIKE THIS!"
ů (reference the idiomatic form you noticed while calibrating) it
would be incredible ů even if that moment only lasted an instant? Huh?
You get my drift I'm sure ů
Which brings me quickly to and through diversity. Which as I've come
to understand most people mean accepting and even appreciating the
differences between people ľ not significant differences like skills
or knowledge or even attitudes ľ but things like skin color, race,
religion and even how many limbs are working or not. Yet in order to
have this kind of diversity I'd have to be tracking for and noticing
these things in the first place. Yet what I've found is that when
people are tracking for "who" a person is and "what" they represent in
being themselves they often haven't noticed these things at all ľ and
there's little time to make space for diversity because they're busy
getting on with their lives with these same folks.
As long as we insist on putting our attention on what isn't rather
than what is we'll be stuck with ideas like diversity. You can only
have diversity when you notice what's different about someone ľ how
they aren't like you ľ and what's missing from either you or them that
makes it so. When we sort for where we want to be as we continue to
become ourselves then these differences have a hard time finding a
place to land. So do you want to spend your time straightening out the
"crooked" mile people so often walk to get to where they're going ľ or
teach them how to fly? It's just a choice you know ů
Now, if while you're doing that, you're accessing your own and other's
unconscious process all the more power to ya'! However if you begin to
want to speak with their "Unconscious" (note this is capitalized like
a proper name) that's another thing completely. It suggests an
independent entity. This "is" how John Grinder refers to it as I read
what he says. That there's a separately functioning entity that can
take over tasks and run processes. And when working with himself or
others he often assigns tasks to the "Unconscious" ľ it's a point of
departure from the model for me. (I'm just NOT into possession to get
my life to work ů)
Now I've read a bit of Milton (Erickson, that is) and those who write
about him, and learned from and with him, also often suggest an
"Unconscious" and that they will work with this entity directly. When
I read Milton in transcript what I read is that he often used the word
ambiguously as in "ů your Unconscious" = trans: "you are unconscious"
and then went on to train the unconscious process quite openly and
explicitly. It's a distinction which has shaped my work.
BTW it's also what's allowed me to take this work so successfully into
contexts where "hypnosis" is often shied away from like the corporate
boardroom. I've yet to meet an executive who won't work with me around
how to train themselves to respond immediately to a situation based on
training themselves to recognize patterns and signals that occur
around them that they then no longer need to process consciously ľ but
can rely on newly developed reflexes to do it for them like a
professional athlete would in competition ľ as an example. However,
damned few clients would allow me to work with their staff
"unconsciously" and speak with their "Unconscious" when they can get
the result and also know for themselves how it operates and have
access to the process on their own.
Now so we're not operating unconsciously around these sometime
slippery and ambiguous terms ľ Adam ľ regarding "apartheid" would you
stand for it or against it? And how would you known what stance to
take without making a judgment of some kind (a projection into the
future about where it will lead if you'd like) that will inform your
decision regarding which way to go? Now there are some things, which I
will agree with you are neither good nor bad, like "vanilla" or
"chocolate" (although I know not everyone agrees with me about this ľ
for some people you know chocolate is the Ĺdevil' and for some others
a "blessing sent from heaven" ľ "you pays your price and you picks
your poison" as they say). These types of choices for most folks are
just what they'd call opinion or preference. Yet there are those
things that carry an ethical or moral load for the individual making
the choice that is significant and implies judgment, aka: right and
wrong. Things like murder, rape and genocide. However if for you there
truly is no ethical or moral load about anything then I applaud your
upstanding sociopathic values. }$->
Yet I'm not so sure that this is the point I was making ů i.e.: just
that because something works ů it's not good (meaning: useful, most
appropriate, without negative consequences, the choice to be made ů).
However I like the paragraph that I wrote above anyway ů I think it's
actually rather good.
I hope I have too blatantly erupted any patterns of yours that you've
wanted to keep intact ů yet ů
Thanks for the exchange I enjoy your responses and truly do hope you
don't think I've taken up too much time or space with this one of my
own.
Yours in prestidigitation,
Joseph Riggio, Master Snake Charmer Extraordinaire
AppliedNLP.com
"Adam Sargant" <nos...@sargant.net> wrote in message news:<bm5luo$f3o0b$1...@ID-75919.news.uni-berlin.de>...
> "Joseph Riggio" <jsri...@compuserve.com> wrote in message
> news:bd1345d6.0310...@posting.google.com...
> > A few quick points ... other than your belief what's the evidence that
> > this is a perfect situation for reframing (vs. something else) or that
> > reframing is a perfect solution to this situation (implied
> > explicitly)?
>
> Hi Joseph. Before I start, I want to say that I agree with everything you've
> said. You talk a lot of horse sense (where the hell did that phrase come
> from<g>?). I just want to clarify a couple of points
>
> >
[snip]
>
> Do you see no place for parts if that is the metaphor someone presents to
> you? In the past I have started with the "parts" a client has presented to
> me, and worked towards integration. Conversely, when I started on my nursing
> training, I worked with a lot of tutors who came from a gestalt background.
> These guys could (and did) challenge me quite aggressively if I used
> language like "A part of me feels like..." which, although I value the
> experience with hindsight, left me confused and feeling misunderstood at the
> time.
>
[snip]
>
> Can you clarify diversity in this context for me? Diversity is something I
> value greatly.
>
> >
[snip]
>
> I'll have to think on this one. The unconscious has always seemed to me to
> simply be a nominalisation of unconscious process. I don't hyave any
> opinions as to whether this is a good or a bad thing, but it can sometimes
> be a useful thing.
>
[snip]
>
> Again, I'm not sure that good or bad are relevant here. Sometimes (like
> apartheid) it's simply what you work with or against. You take your stance.
>
> > 5. Inside most of what passes as "change work" or "transformation" is
> > what is referred to as hypnosis by some. When the process is operated
> > hypnotically some of this other "stuff" becomes less and less
> > relevant. Yet it's good to find a hard hypnotist and that's not easy.
>
> Woah! Interrupt<g> JSR- Thanks!
Joseph Riggio
I don't object to "reframing" per se ... in fact I think NLP is all
about reframing ... it's the "parts" this that I find offensive.
I've just written a l ... o ... n ... g reposne to Adam where
I address much of this. Take a look at least a the very first part of
that and see if it addresses this in a way that makes sense to you
too.
Thanks,
Joseph Riggio
AppliedNLP.com
scad...@aol.com (scadder21) wrote in message news:<1f0533ce.03101...@posting.google.com>...
Adam Sargant
> Adam hello,
>
> There's a lot to address in this message so it's taken me a bit to get
> to it again.
Thank you for taking the time.
>
> I've snipped out all the bits by me below and left your comments,
> which I'll address in whole-form here as best I can in this medium .
> ;->
>
> Let me be clear: "I SEE ABSOLUTELY NO PLACE IN CHANGE WORK WHERE I
> WILL APPLY THE PARTS MODEL."
>
> Why? NOT because it doesn't "work" (see "good" below) - but rather
> because of the consequences of that work after-words. I'm not
> interested in endlessly working with the various "parts" of a client
> and especially not those "parts" I create. Basically there are some
> fundamental philosophical principals I hold to. Let's name two of them
> - phenomenology (or the fact that each person has their own subjective
> experience and it can be "known" by them to some degree and is always
> experienced by them fully), and empiricism (or the premise that we
> have knowledge because we have experience, or that knowledge is based
> in experience - especially sensory experience). You can see that these
> ideas, which are over a hundred years old, are at the root of what we
> often call NLP. (Oh yeah, I'm also a fan of Pragmatism - especially
> American Pragmatism - so I "hold" to these principals because they
> work and then when they have I let go again . until the next time).
>
> So given these two primary principals where are these "PARTS" people
> refer to - empirically in this case? You and I both know and realize
> they're referring to pure intellectual constructs - phenomenological
> experience - that have no basis empirically - even for them! Yet some
> other people are willing to reinforce and substantiate these
> intellectual constructs by "speaking" with them and "working" with
> them. Then they call themselves professionals, hah!
>
> Me, I prefer to work with my clients, not their hallucinations.
> (Although I will work with them through "ON" their hallucinations -
> there are those worth having after all.)
>
> What's more important I've never found it once necessary, better or
> even easier to work with these intellectual constructs. Do you think
> that six-step reframing is an 'easy' way to create a transformational
> shift with clients - for either you or them?
I've got to say I find it tedious, clumsy and inelegant (I include aesthetic
values in my approach to working with people. Makes my world a nicer place
to be in:-)
> Another thing is that
> when I ask them right up front who, what and where this "part" is that
> they've referred to they look at me like I'm out of my mind and the
> "part" just goes away. Now it's interesting as I think about it - I
> can't remember in the last five years anyone using that particular
> language with me, i.e.: "A part of me ." Funny thing, isn't it?
>
> Try this if it should happen to you (as so many people here claim
> happens so frequently to them in "therapeutic" conditions):
>
> C: A part of me just feels that way!
> U: Oh, what's that part's . First Name?
> C: What? What are you talking about?
> U: That part of you that ". just feels that way!", what's it's first
> name? Is it a man or woman by the way?
> C: Have you lost your mind?!?!? It's just an expression, a form of
> speech - there's no REAL part!
> U: Oh sorry I didn't understand. When you said there was a part of you
> I just assumed you meant it and it should of course have a name and a
> place to live. Does it live somewhere specifically or just kind of
> hang around waiting for you?
> C: I've told you "THERE IS NO PART!" - it's just a matter of speaking
> about something, that all.
> U: Oh, okay. So what exactly is it that's going on then?
> C: Well sometimes I feel .
> U: So if you feel that way SOMETIMES . and YOU COULD LEARN to feel
> another way MOST OF THE TIME that would serve you better and let you
> feel great would you be interested?
> C: OF COURSE! That what I want, but I don't know how to do that.
> U: Well have you ever had one of those moments when the world was just
> completely open to you . you know when you couldn't put a foot down
> wrong so to speak? . (calibrate) . YEAH, right! A moment "like that"
> when you just knew if your whole life could be this way . "LIKE THIS!"
> . (reference the idiomatic form you noticed while calibrating) it
> would be incredible . even if that moment only lasted an instant? Huh?
A far more elegant challenge than that which was ever applied to me <g>
> You get my drift I'm sure .
>
> Which brings me quickly to and through diversity. Which as I've come
> to understand most people mean accepting and even appreciating the
> differences between people - not significant differences like skills
> or knowledge or even attitudes - but things like skin color, race,
> religion and even how many limbs are working or not. Yet in order to
> have this kind of diversity I'd have to be tracking for and noticing
> these things in the first place. Yet what I've found is that when
> people are tracking for "who" a person is and "what" they represent in
> being themselves they often haven't noticed these things at all - and
> there's little time to make space for diversity because they're busy
> getting on with their lives with these same folks.
>
> As long as we insist on putting our attention on what isn't rather
> than what is we'll be stuck with ideas like diversity. You can only
> have diversity when you notice what's different about someone - how
> they aren't like you - and what's missing from either you or them that
> makes it so. When we sort for where we want to be as we continue to
> become ourselves then these differences have a hard time finding a
> place to land. So do you want to spend your time straightening out the
> "crooked" mile people so often walk to get to where they're going - or
> teach them how to fly? It's just a choice you know .
I like the crooked miles. You catch a lot that you might miss when flying.
But I think I get your point.
> Now, if while you're doing that, you're accessing your own and other's
> unconscious process all the more power to ya'! However if you begin to
> want to speak with their "Unconscious" (note this is capitalized like
> a proper name) that's another thing completely. It suggests an
> independent entity. This "is" how John Grinder refers to it as I read
> what he says. That there's a separately functioning entity that can
> take over tasks and run processes. And when working with himself or
> others he often assigns tasks to the "Unconscious" - it's a point of
> departure from the model for me. (I'm just NOT into possession to get
> my life to work .)
Is it a linguistic difficulty? It makes sense to me to allow processes to
become unconscious.
> Now I've read a bit of Milton (Erickson, that is) and those who write
> about him, and learned from and with him, also often suggest an
> "Unconscious" and that they will work with this entity directly. When
> I read Milton in transcript what I read is that he often used the word
> ambiguously as in ". your Unconscious" = trans: "you are unconscious"
> and then went on to train the unconscious process quite openly and
> explicitly. It's a distinction which has shaped my work.
'K
> BTW it's also what's allowed me to take this work so successfully into
> contexts where "hypnosis" is often shied away from like the corporate
> boardroom. I've yet to meet an executive who won't work with me around
> how to train themselves to respond immediately to a situation based on
> training themselves to recognize patterns and signals that occur
> around them that they then no longer need to process consciously - but
> can rely on newly developed reflexes to do it for them like a
> professional athlete would in competition - as an example. However,
> damned few clients would allow me to work with their staff
> "unconsciously" and speak with their "Unconscious" when they can get
> the result and also know for themselves how it operates and have
> access to the process on their own.
OK, that answers my point above
> Now so we're not operating unconsciously around these sometime
> slippery and ambiguous terms - Adam - regarding "apartheid" would you
> stand for it or against it?
Against
> And how would you known what stance to
> take without making a judgment of some kind (a projection into the
> future about where it will lead if you'd like) that will inform your
> decision regarding which way to go?
I would run scenario's in my imagination, and measures those out6comes
against my own values. Any change in a system that causes pain that would
not have existed without that change would be undesirable. That's a bit
simplistic, but you get the drift I guess.
> Now there are some things, which I
> will agree with you are neither good nor bad, like "vanilla" or
> "chocolate" (although I know not everyone agrees with me about this -
> for some people you know chocolate is the 'devil' and for some others
> a "blessing sent from heaven" - "you pays your price and you picks
> your poison" as they say). These types of choices for most folks are
> just what they'd call opinion or preference. Yet there are those
> things that carry an ethical or moral load for the individual making
> the choice that is significant and implies judgment, aka: right and
> wrong. Things like murder, rape and genocide. However if for you there
> truly is no ethical or moral load about anything then I applaud your
> upstanding sociopathic values. }$->
>
> Yet I'm not so sure that this is the point I was making . i.e.: just
> that because something works . it's not good (meaning: useful, most
> appropriate, without negative consequences, the choice to be made .).
> However I like the paragraph that I wrote above anyway . I think it's
> actually rather good.
>
> I hope I have too blatantly erupted any patterns of yours that you've
> wanted to keep intact . yet .
I like my patterns shaken occasionally, but not stirred
> Thanks for the exchange I enjoy your responses and truly do hope you
> don't think I've taken up too much time or space with this one of my
> own.
Thanks for taking the time to make this response. I will spend more time on
it than I have given here.
Adam
--
www.trance-formation.co.uk
Personal growth, change and health through NLP and trance work
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free for your edification :-)
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.525 / Virus Database: 322 - Release Date: 09/10/2003
Elvis Lester
Hello!
To me it is helpful to refer to parts as "identities" - sub-identities at
that - not highly dealt with with NLP. It is very helpful to work with
'identities' (with clients:) knowing that what you say is likely accurate -
that we are always constructing our 'perception-conception' of reality
inclusive of Identity out of which perception functions.
Identity is a concept-percept we are always creating (of self) and
perceiving-conceiving through. If a person has an outdated 'identity' (part
let's say) they are using in a situation that leads to no good for them, I
think it befitting to oblige them to understand, read and identify the
signal value of the message that identity/learning from the situational
identity that person had/experienced. This may be considered a part that
'conflicts' with or 'collides' with the person's positive intent/desired
state of now. One way of overcoming the issue is to positively
collude/conspire with the part, identify its intent and build that into the
equation of the solution towards a more highly functioning person with an
Identity (more full) that suits the person of now and the situation. More
congruence and alignment and support are the goals here.
Good experience and lessons can be garned along with an integration or
dis-integration of that outdated identity that the person may very well find
useful later on. In my opinion, we have the ability to have multiple
identities that do have 'associated'
values/intentions/beliefs/expectations/states-sensations-etc. that conflict
or collide (including those from 'younger' self - memory/recall/reference -
and 'future' self - imagination/invention/etc.) with primary identity or
sub-identity created to address and/or perform in the situation/event/etc.
Yes, it is conceptual and all map and may have little to nothing to do with
the 'reality' of the situation - current, past or future.
"Parts" IMO is just a word denoting the person at a past point and/or
present/future point with associated perceptions-conceptions-VIBES. It
reflects that we are able to have reference experiences and also have them
from multiple perceptual positions -
self/other/onl.-observer/meta-position/system (past/present/future). It can
be very helpful to disassociate and get information and then work with the
client at integrating the learnings they do acquire.
Various "Parts"-identities" may have linkage to situations in the present
that we can benefit from as to resources, reference experiences and such.
When we are concerned with high performance per se, it is commonly useful to
have access to identities (maybe not even yours:) that we can step into (and
out of) that are more confident, powerful, poised, than the so called
'main-identity(s)' we may usually come from or sub-identities previously
launched in that situation/context that may or may not limit or bind or
cause poor performance (re-identication with substandard performance). That
way we can be at our best in the situation, coming from a more congruent and
eco-logical and aligned "identity", focused on our intentions we now hold
with the better and more eco-logical - psycho-logics associated with that
'part/identity'.
It seems that Perceptual positions of Onlooker/observer and meta-positions
are essential in getting the metaphor of parts. Being able to have or take
the long view is a key skill. Yes, we want to re-associate to 'participate'
of course and being of one mind in the moment we can do so.
Elvis Keith Lester, MA, LMHC, NCC
ExecuLearn(r)
http://www.execulearn.biz
"Joseph Riggio" <jsri...@compuserve.com> wrote in message
news:bd1345d6.03101...@posting.google.com...
> Adam hello,
>
> There's a lot to address in this message so it's taken me a bit to get
> to it again.
>
> I've snipped out all the bits by me below and left your comments,
> which I'll address in whole-form here as best I can in this medium .
> ;->
>
> Let me be clear: "I SEE ABSOLUTELY NO PLACE IN CHANGE WORK WHERE I
> WILL APPLY THE PARTS MODEL."
>
> Why? NOT because it doesn't "work" (see "good" below) - but rather
> because of the consequences of that work after-words. I'm not
> interested in endlessly working with the various "parts" of a client
> and especially not those "parts" I create. Basically there are some
> fundamental philosophical principals I hold to. Let's name two of them
> - phenomenology (or the fact that each person has their own subjective
> experience and it can be "known" by them to some degree and is always
> experienced by them fully), and empiricism (or the premise that we
> have knowledge because we have experience, or that knowledge is based
> in experience - especially sensory experience). You can see that these
> ideas, which are over a hundred years old, are at the root of what we
> often call NLP. (Oh yeah, I'm also a fan of Pragmatism - especially
> American Pragmatism - so I "hold" to these principals because they
> work and then when they have I let go again . until the next time).
>
> So given these two primary principals where are these "PARTS" people
> refer to - empirically in this case? You and I both know and realize
> they're referring to pure intellectual constructs - phenomenological
> experience - that have no basis empirically - even for them! Yet some
> other people are willing to reinforce and substantiate these
> intellectual constructs by "speaking" with them and "working" with
> them. Then they call themselves professionals, hah!
>
> Me, I prefer to work with my clients, not their hallucinations.
> (Although I will work with them through "ON" their hallucinations -
> there are those worth having after all.)
>
> What's more important I've never found it once necessary, better or
> even easier to work with these intellectual constructs. Do you think
> that six-step reframing is an 'easy' way to create a transformational
> shift with clients - for either you or them? Another thing is that
> when I ask them right up front who, what and where this "part" is that
> they've referred to they look at me like I'm out of my mind and the
> "part" just goes away. Now it's interesting as I think about it - I
> can't remember in the last five years anyone using that particular
> language with me, i.e.: "A part of me ." Funny thing, isn't it?
>
> Try this if it should happen to you (as so many people here claim
> happens so frequently to them in "therapeutic" conditions):
>
> C: A part of me just feels that way!
> U: Oh, what's that part's . First Name?
> C: What? What are you talking about?
> U: That part of you that ". just feels that way!", what's it's first
> name? Is it a man or woman by the way?
> C: Have you lost your mind?!?!? It's just an expression, a form of
> speech - there's no REAL part!
> U: Oh sorry I didn't understand. When you said there was a part of you
> I just assumed you meant it and it should of course have a name and a
> place to live. Does it live somewhere specifically or just kind of
> hang around waiting for you?
> C: I've told you "THERE IS NO PART!" - it's just a matter of speaking
> about something, that all.
> U: Oh, okay. So what exactly is it that's going on then?
> C: Well sometimes I feel .
> U: So if you feel that way SOMETIMES . and YOU COULD LEARN to feel
> another way MOST OF THE TIME that would serve you better and let you
> feel great would you be interested?
> C: OF COURSE! That what I want, but I don't know how to do that.
> U: Well have you ever had one of those moments when the world was just
> completely open to you . you know when you couldn't put a foot down
> wrong so to speak? . (calibrate) . YEAH, right! A moment "like that"
> when you just knew if your whole life could be this way . "LIKE THIS!"
> . (reference the idiomatic form you noticed while calibrating) it
> would be incredible . even if that moment only lasted an instant? Huh?
>
>
> You get my drift I'm sure .
>
> Which brings me quickly to and through diversity. Which as I've come
> to understand most people mean accepting and even appreciating the
> differences between people - not significant differences like skills
> or knowledge or even attitudes - but things like skin color, race,
> religion and even how many limbs are working or not. Yet in order to
> have this kind of diversity I'd have to be tracking for and noticing
> these things in the first place. Yet what I've found is that when
> people are tracking for "who" a person is and "what" they represent in
> being themselves they often haven't noticed these things at all - and
> there's little time to make space for diversity because they're busy
> getting on with their lives with these same folks.
>
> As long as we insist on putting our attention on what isn't rather
> than what is we'll be stuck with ideas like diversity. You can only
> have diversity when you notice what's different about someone - how
> they aren't like you - and what's missing from either you or them that
> makes it so. When we sort for where we want to be as we continue to
> become ourselves then these differences have a hard time finding a
> place to land. So do you want to spend your time straightening out the
> "crooked" mile people so often walk to get to where they're going - or
> teach them how to fly? It's just a choice you know .
>
> Now, if while you're doing that, you're accessing your own and other's
> unconscious process all the more power to ya'! However if you begin to
> want to speak with their "Unconscious" (note this is capitalized like
> a proper name) that's another thing completely. It suggests an
> independent entity. This "is" how John Grinder refers to it as I read
> what he says. That there's a separately functioning entity that can
> take over tasks and run processes. And when working with himself or
> others he often assigns tasks to the "Unconscious" - it's a point of
> departure from the model for me. (I'm just NOT into possession to get
> my life to work .)
>
> Now I've read a bit of Milton (Erickson, that is) and those who write
> about him, and learned from and with him, also often suggest an
> "Unconscious" and that they will work with this entity directly. When
> I read Milton in transcript what I read is that he often used the word
> ambiguously as in ". your Unconscious" = trans: "you are unconscious"
> and then went on to train the unconscious process quite openly and
> explicitly. It's a distinction which has shaped my work.
>
> BTW it's also what's allowed me to take this work so successfully into
> contexts where "hypnosis" is often shied away from like the corporate
> boardroom. I've yet to meet an executive who won't work with me around
> how to train themselves to respond immediately to a situation based on
> training themselves to recognize patterns and signals that occur
> around them that they then no longer need to process consciously - but
> can rely on newly developed reflexes to do it for them like a
> professional athlete would in competition - as an example. However,
> damned few clients would allow me to work with their staff
> "unconsciously" and speak with their "Unconscious" when they can get
> the result and also know for themselves how it operates and have
> access to the process on their own.
>
> Now so we're not operating unconsciously around these sometime
> slippery and ambiguous terms - Adam - regarding "apartheid" would you
> stand for it or against it? And how would you known what stance to
> take without making a judgment of some kind (a projection into the
> future about where it will lead if you'd like) that will inform your
> decision regarding which way to go? Now there are some things, which I
> will agree with you are neither good nor bad, like "vanilla" or
> "chocolate" (although I know not everyone agrees with me about this -
> for some people you know chocolate is the 'devil' and for some others
> a "blessing sent from heaven" - "you pays your price and you picks
> your poison" as they say). These types of choices for most folks are
> just what they'd call opinion or preference. Yet there are those
> things that carry an ethical or moral load for the individual making
> the choice that is significant and implies judgment, aka: right and
> wrong. Things like murder, rape and genocide. However if for you there
> truly is no ethical or moral load about anything then I applaud your
> upstanding sociopathic values. }$->
>
> Yet I'm not so sure that this is the point I was making . i.e.: just
> that because something works . it's not good (meaning: useful, most
> appropriate, without negative consequences, the choice to be made .).
> However I like the paragraph that I wrote above anyway . I think it's
> actually rather good.
>
> I hope I have too blatantly erupted any patterns of yours that you've
> wanted to keep intact . yet .
Robert
he want something and he dosnt know what he wants.
He want to feel good, or such state........on that line what he want
to have.
He stops himself, using the pressure when he learned, he start to
think and then finds out he dosnt know enough to get the .........what
he want to feel and then start all over.
The obvious is to do what I have already suggested.
I know why, I dont need to explain since the why is of no need when
you already understand the why he does that.
Do you why understand or not?
If not, you will keep asking.
Interesting.
It is called reframing.
/Robert...
scadder21
Nice eye i caught that one too....this is a thought that i didnt add
to any of my previous posts. I dont really want to state it this way
but this is how it seems to me. It seems that his identity doesnt
want to open up to changes. BEcuse if it changed it wouldnt be it
anymore it would be different. Have you guys ran into this before
with people who want to change but don't because something stops them.
Its almost like the current self has to commit suicide for the new
improved self to grow out from it. Im starting to think more and more
that this might be the major reason people sabotage themselves
unconsciously, because there sense of self is solely centered on how
they currently are not what they will become. Now how would you guys
deal with this situation?? By the Way...id like to thank everyone
here for taking your time on this thread and giving great and
throughtful answers....Andrew
David Gould
>David Gould <da...@deep-tranceNOSPAM.com> wrote in message news:<047govg5tlaulv6q5...@4ax.com>...
>> On 11 Oct 2003 05:48:42 -0700, scad...@aol.com (scadder21) wrote:
>>
>> >THeres a large uneasy feeling maybe a fear of completing the
>> >training and having the new program built in.
>>
>> This one might be a clue ;)
>>
>> Explore it.
>Nice eye i caught that one too....this is a thought that i didnt add
>to any of my previous posts. I dont really want to state it this way
>but this is how it seems to me. It seems that his identity doesnt
>want to open up to changes. BEcuse if it changed it wouldnt be it
>anymore it would be different. Have you guys ran into this before
>with people who want to change but don't because something stops them.
> Its almost like the current self has to commit suicide for the new
>improved self to grow out from it.
This is a great example of what is wrong with 6-step reframing, and
neurological levels for that matter.
His identity doesn't want to open up to changes, but it doesn't have to.
Simply because you have new skills, new beliefs in a different context,
doesn't mean you're a different person.
Just because you're getting better results, that doesn't mean you're a
different person. Because you'll find you'll always keep the real core
of yourself that is worth holding onto.
6-step reframing confuses identity with values, beliefs, skills,
behaviour etc in exactly the same way. How were you ever going to get
this "self" to change when the 6-step model reinforces the belief that
change would necessarily involve self-destruction?
>Im starting to think more and more
>that this might be the major reason people sabotage themselves
>unconsciously, because there sense of self is solely centered on how
>they currently are not what they will become.
Oh there are lots of ways to fit the "sabotage" label:
Fear of failure, fear of not having any more excuses, and those are just
the ones we have other labels for.
Joseph Riggio
It sounds a lot like you're either just renaming "parts" –
"identities," which you actually cross-map through your use of
parentheses … OR … you are referencing the concepts of DTI (deep
trance identification).
What I cannot help but think as I read through what you've written is
that you are referencing both … sometimes alternately and sometimes
simulutaneously.
For me it is no more useful to reference ‘parts' as ‘identities'
anymore than to reference them as ‘parts'. The main distinction is
that I truly never have heard someone reference their ‘identities' or
more-so ‘sub-identities' – this may however be a good thing and a
reason to use this semantic form that I'm overlooking.
My point is that unless you BEGIN FROM AN INTEGRATED STATE you can not
get to an integrated state. You do not BUILD integration in people,
they already HAVE IT and you simply need to ACCESS IT. These are very
different approaches. I can accept if someone says "Riggio you are
full of shit!" That's understandable from where I come from and means,
"I don't agree with you and think what you are saying is
unsubstantiated and unsubstantiatable." However, where I come from
they use a different lingua franca – if you know what I mean.
Then we can at least discuss the relative merits of the argument at
hand and not get lost in infinite side trails and discursions. These
folks from ‘back home' have a saying I've found many of them love …
"Bullshit walks!"
However, coming back on point … what I've presented here and done by
best to illustrate, by example even, is that there is a way to address
the whole "parts" metaphor for what it is – an intellectual construct
that is in direct opposition to integration.
This is not about a "better way" of addressing the "parts" – by this
or any other name. If you disagree with my fundamental concept that
the "parts model" has no value and should be discarded then let us
address that first … then if we find that there is merit to discussing
"parts" or a model that address them by any other name I say "fair
game!"
What I propose happens when people are referencing "parts" is that
they are actually saying: "In this instant I feel/think that I
should/want to do such and such." And in another instant they
feel/think that they should/want to do some other such and such. These
alternating positions oscillate so rapidly as to seem to be present
simultaneously … and yet upon inquiry the reality for the individual
of them actually being present simultaneously … as opposed to
sequentially, even though very rapidly … is most easily debunked.
Once this is presented to the individual … that there are two opposing
positions which they hold and are referencing, one against the other
(although there could be more than two as well), they are able to
begin to consider another way of operating, which may in fact hold the
resolution to the opposition in hand.
What I oppose it getting to this resolution through a structured
fragmentation of "IDENTITY" regardless of the outcome it produces. I
hold (until otherwise proved incorrect) that the consequences of
forcing the process through a fragmentation of "IDENTITY" is in direct
opposition to the best interests of the client long-term.
This last statement of course is measured against my entire philosophy
and methodology of working in and from whole-form. For me the
"Implicate Whole" of Bohm's work sums this up quite well. All we are
ever considering is the particular unfolded bit of reality that is
contained in the entirety of the enfolded reality which is always
present in full … the Implicate Wholeness of the Universe.
Joseph Riggio
ApplliedNLP.com
"Elvis Lester" <EL...@learninstitute.com> wrote in message news:<QfZhb.92026$eS5....@twister.tampabay.rr.com>...
> Joseph and group...
> Hello!
>
> To me it is helpful to refer to parts as "identities" - sub-identities at
> that - not highly dealt with with NLP. It is very helpful to work with
> 'identities' (with clients:) knowing that what you say is likely accurate -
> that we are always constructing our 'perception-conception' of reality
> inclusive of Identity out of which perception functions.
>
[snip]
Adam Sargant
> Adam hello,
Hi. I've had some more time to think on your posts, so I reckon a fuller
response is in order.
> There's a lot to address in this message so it's taken me a bit to get
> to it again.
>
> I've snipped out all the bits by me below and left your comments,
> which I'll address in whole-form here as best I can in this medium .
> ;->
>
> Let me be clear: "I SEE ABSOLUTELY NO PLACE IN CHANGE WORK WHERE I
> WILL APPLY THE PARTS MODEL."
>
> Why? NOT because it doesn't "work" (see "good" below) - but rather
> because of the consequences of that work after-words. I'm not
> interested in endlessly working with the various "parts" of a client
> and especially not those "parts" I create. Basically there are some
> fundamental philosophical principals I hold to. Let's name two of them
> - phenomenology (or the fact that each person has their own subjective
> experience and it can be "known" by them to some degree and is always
> experienced by them fully), and empiricism (or the premise that we
> have knowledge because we have experience, or that knowledge is based
> in experience - especially sensory experience). You can see that these
> ideas, which are over a hundred years old, are at the root of what we
> often call NLP. (Oh yeah, I'm also a fan of Pragmatism - especially
> American Pragmatism - so I "hold" to these principals because they
> work and then when they have I let go again . until the next time).
>
> So given these two primary principals where are these "PARTS" people
> refer to - empirically in this case? You and I both know and realize
> they're referring to pure intellectual constructs - phenomenological
> experience - that have no basis empirically - even for them! Yet some
> other people are willing to reinforce and substantiate these
> intellectual constructs by "speaking" with them and "working" with
> them. Then they call themselves professionals, hah!
I'm not sure that an individual referring to "a part of themselves" is
referring to an intellectual construct. It is IMO a mental one, yes, but can
be a direct reference to an experience that is very real for them, because
that is how they have come to construct their experience of reality.
I do agree that it is a construct that is counter to any chance of
constructive personal development, though. You seem to be taking the view
that one should not work with it in order to eradicate it (indeed, that one
cannot work with it in order to eradicate it)
You present a strong, coherent (like a laser) case. I respect that.
> Me, I prefer to work with my clients, not their hallucinations.
> (Although I will work with them through "ON" their hallucinations -
> there are those worth having after all.)
How do you ensure that your clients are not your hallucinations? I think
that the hallucination is all we've got. I just get to choose which ones I
want.
> What's more important I've never found it once necessary, better or
> even easier to work with these intellectual constructs. Do you think
> that six-step reframing is an 'easy' way to create a transformational
> shift with clients - for either you or them?
As previously stated, I find that particular pattern clumsy and inelegant.
Elegance is one of the criteria I use in this context for deciding whether
something closely fits into my reality model or not. In this case, 6 setp
reframing is in the po category (Edward de Bono)
> Another thing is that
> when I ask them right up front who, what and where this "part" is that
> they've referred to they look at me like I'm out of my mind and the
> "part" just goes away. Now it's interesting as I think about it - I
> can't remember in the last five years anyone using that particular
> language with me, i.e.: "A part of me ." Funny thing, isn't it?
As a psychiatric nurse, I work with many people who present with a range of
fragmented self-constructs. One of the reasons I find your ideas so
interesting. But yes, whether you choose to believe it or not, I am
frequently told that "a part of me wants to do...". On a daily basis I try
to find ways to help people restructure this more positively.
>
> Try this if it should happen to you (as so many people here claim
> happens so frequently to them in "therapeutic" conditions):
>
> C: A part of me just feels that way!
> U: Oh, what's that part's . First Name?
> C: What? What are you talking about?
> U: That part of you that ". just feels that way!", what's it's first
> name? Is it a man or woman by the way?
> C: Have you lost your mind?!?!? It's just an expression, a form of
> speech - there's no REAL part!
> U: Oh sorry I didn't understand. When you said there was a part of you
> I just assumed you meant it and it should of course have a name and a
> place to live. Does it live somewhere specifically or just kind of
> hang around waiting for you?
> C: I've told you "THERE IS NO PART!" - it's just a matter of speaking
> about something, that all.
> U: Oh, okay. So what exactly is it that's going on then?
> C: Well sometimes I feel .
> U: So if you feel that way SOMETIMES . and YOU COULD LEARN to feel
> another way MOST OF THE TIME that would serve you better and let you
> feel great would you be interested?
> C: OF COURSE! That what I want, but I don't know how to do that.
> U: Well have you ever had one of those moments when the world was just
> completely open to you . you know when you couldn't put a foot down
> wrong so to speak? . (calibrate) . YEAH, right! A moment "like that"
> when you just knew if your whole life could be this way . "LIKE THIS!"
> . (reference the idiomatic form you noticed while calibrating) it
> would be incredible . even if that moment only lasted an instant? Huh?
>
>
> You get my drift I'm sure .
>
> Which brings me quickly to and through diversity. Which as I've come
> to understand most people mean accepting and even appreciating the
> differences between people - not significant differences like skills
> or knowledge or even attitudes - but things like skin color, race,
> religion and even how many limbs are working or not. Yet in order to
> have this kind of diversity I'd have to be tracking for and noticing
> these things in the first place. Yet what I've found is that when
> people are tracking for "who" a person is and "what" they represent in
> being themselves they often haven't noticed these things at all - and
> there's little time to make space for diversity because they're busy
> getting on with their lives with these same folks.
>
> As long as we insist on putting our attention on what isn't rather
> than what is we'll be stuck with ideas like diversity. You can only
> have diversity when you notice what's different about someone - how
> they aren't like you - and what's missing from either you or them that
> makes it so. When we sort for where we want to be as we continue to
> become ourselves then these differences have a hard time finding a
> place to land. So do you want to spend your time straightening out the
> "crooked" mile people so often walk to get to where they're going - or
> teach them how to fly? It's just a choice you know .
So when constructing a team or a partnership, what do you look for to make
it work? Unless you extend the dismissal of parts to not include the
individual team or partnership members as parts? Or have I just started
answering my own question?
:-)
> Now, if while you're doing that, you're accessing your own and other's
> unconscious process all the more power to ya'! However if you begin to
> want to speak with their "Unconscious" (note this is capitalized like
> a proper name) that's another thing completely. It suggests an
> independent entity. This "is" how John Grinder refers to it as I read
> what he says. That there's a separately functioning entity that can
> take over tasks and run processes. And when working with himself or
> others he often assigns tasks to the "Unconscious" - it's a point of
> departure from the model for me. (I'm just NOT into possession to get
> my life to work .)
Agreed entirely. I have and do use talk of the unconscious, but as a
linguistic construct. I will be more cautious of doing so in future, and
more aware of the contexts and implications of doing so.
> Now I've read a bit of Milton (Erickson, that is) and those who write
> about him, and learned from and with him, also often suggest an
> "Unconscious" and that they will work with this entity directly. When
> I read Milton in transcript what I read is that he often used the word
> ambiguously as in ". your Unconscious" = trans: "you are unconscious"
> and then went on to train the unconscious process quite openly and
> explicitly. It's a distinction which has shaped my work.
>
> BTW it's also what's allowed me to take this work so successfully into
> contexts where "hypnosis" is often shied away from like the corporate
> boardroom. I've yet to meet an executive who won't work with me around
> how to train themselves to respond immediately to a situation based on
> training themselves to recognize patterns and signals that occur
> around them that they then no longer need to process consciously - but
> can rely on newly developed reflexes to do it for them like a
> professional athlete would in competition - as an example. However,
> damned few clients would allow me to work with their staff
> "unconsciously" and speak with their "Unconscious" when they can get
> the result and also know for themselves how it operates and have
> access to the process on their own.
>
> Now so we're not operating unconsciously around these sometime
> slippery and ambiguous terms - Adam - regarding "apartheid" would you
> stand for it or against it? And how would you known what stance to
> take without making a judgment of some kind (a projection into the
> future about where it will lead if you'd like) that will inform your
> decision regarding which way to go? Now there are some things, which I
> will agree with you are neither good nor bad, like "vanilla" or
> "chocolate" (although I know not everyone agrees with me about this -
> for some people you know chocolate is the 'devil' and for some others
> a "blessing sent from heaven" - "you pays your price and you picks
> your poison" as they say). These types of choices for most folks are
> just what they'd call opinion or preference. Yet there are those
> things that carry an ethical or moral load for the individual making
> the choice that is significant and implies judgment, aka: right and
> wrong. Things like murder, rape and genocide. However if for you there
> truly is no ethical or moral load about anything then I applaud your
> upstanding sociopathic values. }$->
See previous reply.
> Yet I'm not so sure that this is the point I was making . i.e.: just
> that because something works . it's not good (meaning: useful, most
> appropriate, without negative consequences, the choice to be made .).
> However I like the paragraph that I wrote above anyway . I think it's
> actually rather good.
>
> I hope I have too blatantly erupted any patterns of yours that you've
> wanted to keep intact . yet .
>
> Thanks for the exchange I enjoy your responses and truly do hope you
> don't think I've taken up too much time or space with this one of my
> own.
I hope you continue to respond. I find the presentation of alternative and
diverse ideas a challenge and a reward in its own right <g>
> Yours in prestidigitation,
>
> Joseph Riggio, Master Snake Charmer Extraordinaire
> AppliedNLP.com
Adam
--
www.trance-formation.co.uk
Personal growth, change and health through NLP and trance work
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free for your edification :-)
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.525 / Virus Database: 322 - Release Date: 10/10/2003
James Petry
scadder21
> This is a great example of what is wrong with 6-step reframing, and
> neurological levels for that matter.
>
> His identity doesn't want to open up to changes, but it doesn't have to.
> Simply because you have new skills, new beliefs in a different context,
> doesn't mean you're a different person.
>
> Just because you're getting better results, that doesn't mean you're a
> different person. Because you'll find you'll always keep the real core
> of yourself that is worth holding onto.
>
> 6-step reframing confuses identity with values, beliefs, skills,
> behaviour etc in exactly the same way. How were you ever going to get
> this "self" to change when the 6-step model reinforces the belief that
> change would necessarily involve self-destruction?
>
>
> Fear of failure, fear of not having any more excuses, and those are just
> the ones we have other labels for.
>
> Dave, http://www.deep-trance.com
WOW Dave this is absolutely profound what you said here. So now its a
matter of building a belief that one has an identity seperate from
beliefs, attitudes, skills, cognitions and contexts. So my next
questions is this in order to build that belief that person have to
discover what identity involves if it doesnt involve those things you
meantioned. Great post Dave! Do you mind if i email you privately??
Andrew
Robert
> fragmented self-constructs. One of the reasons I find your ideas so
> interesting. But yes, whether you choose to believe it or not, I am
> frequently told that "a part of me wants to do...". On a daily basis I try
> to find ways to help people restructure this more positively.
Adam,
No need to restructure...
No need to take what they say as valid.
No need to..etc...
The part talk comes from the way they are not whole since they went
fragmented on the way.
There is 2 ways you can do this,
either by
go to where Joseph hints in his Mythoself work
or
To the place where they was whole before they was fragmented (parts).
There is also a way to combine those 2 into wholyness.
As stated earlier, I can not work as I once did with the NLP toolbox.
For me I can point why the parts and such is outdated since I can
teach a way that never goes there at all.
If you ask the client there something like this,
you have a part that says this, now I guess then there is another part
or even more than 2.
Then you say without delaying,
I guess then that there is soemthing that divided all of those from
one point and that point where things went divided you dosnt even
remmeber what it was.
Thats not important, what is important is that you now will go back
and redo the divide in a way that makes you whole.
Fill the hole, take the puzzle and build a picture, hear the
instruments and make a symphony....
Thats how NLP:ers can do that.
I wouldnt recomend that though.
It is however a way to do so by current NLP.
The basic idea here is this,
there is a state of consiousness which is the reality of percepetion.
Go there and rebuild that original state and viola...
No more parts.
get it?
/Robert
www.svensknlp.nu
Robert
> fragmented self-constructs. One of the reasons I find your ideas so
> interesting. But yes, whether you choose to believe it or not, I am
> frequently told that "a part of me wants to do...". On a daily basis I try
> to find ways to help people restructure this more positively.
Adam,
David Gould
>WOW Dave this is absolutely profound what you said here. So now its a
>matter of building a belief that one has an identity seperate from
>beliefs, attitudes, skills, cognitions and contexts. So my next
>questions is this in order to build that belief that person have to
>discover what identity involves if it doesnt involve those things you
>meantioned.
It's simple. Identity involves those things which are unchangeable (so
you don't need to worry about losing those) and those things which are
worth keeping.
>Great post Dave! Do you mind if i email you privately??
Please do. Anyone who isn't a spammer is welcome to email me.