the Bandler issue
Andreas M
slightest criticism of Bandler?
Sly
fat cocaine addict and his feet smell." A question I'd like answered is why
so many people post flaming posts criticizing Bandler and then jack off
while the entire newsgroup reacts predictably.
"Andreas M" <andre...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:f9a81fa0.0409...@posting.google.com...
David Gould
wrote:
>Why is it seemingly impossible for so many to accept even the
>slightest criticism of Bandler?
1. Feel free to publicly criticise someone who's obviously suffering if
it makes you feel better. Just don't expect us to be nice about it.
2. My life is immeasurably better, largely thanks to Bandler. For
example, 8 years ago, the man personally hypnotised me to be happy for
the rest of my life, and it's worked ever since. If it takes me a
minute to shoot down some incoherent troll who wishes him dead, I will.
Dave, http://www.deep-trance.com
Guaranteed life changes in Bristol, UK
Newsletter #5: Stopping Your Internal Dialogue.
1984, here we come:
http://www.deep-trance.com/archives/kiss_your_freedom_goodbye.html
Nick Kemp
"David Gould" <spam...@deep-trance.com> wrote in message
news:80aol01imea142hv2...@4ax.com...
jayroni
> Why is it seemingly impossible for so many to accept even the
> slightest criticism of Bandler?
I think there's a difference between slight criticism and outright
libel! Would be interesting to see if Mr Myon would make the same
comments with full details of his identity...
Robert
> slightest criticism of Bandler?
People who do things often are normal but what they are and have done
isnt the same as what they created.
Dunno about Bandler, I had great times when learning from him.
His teaching style is way out out the ordinary...
He accomplish a lot more than most do ever..
Creating a field where people here debate isnt that bad I say.
/Robert
www.riggiomodel.biz
Myron
> it makes you feel better. Just don't expect us to be nice about it.
"Us" and "Them", "Belivers" and "Infidels", "OTs" and "SPs" etc.
That's what it's all about. Your're a cultist.
Bandler's suffering is concrete, palpable evidence that DHE does not
work. If the application of DHE to a client failed Bandler can blame
it on the client. If one of Bandler's DHE practitioners applied DHE
to a client and it failed then Bandler can say the problem was with
the practitioner.
In Bandler's suffering we have the putative DHE master unable to
correct his ills. There is no way out for Bandler, no excuses, he
can't blame DHEs failure on anything or anyone. It is a burning
contradiction that should cause all of his followers to think.
> 2. My life is immeasurably better, largely thanks to Bandler. For
> example, 8 years ago, the man personally hypnotised me to be happy for
> the rest of my life, and it's worked ever since.
What did he charge you for that? The inability to think independently
and
critically? I don't deny that has Bandler has helped many people.
However,
that isn't a license to be a creep.
> If it takes me a
> minute to shoot down some incoherent troll who wishes him dead, I will.
Repeating the word "troll" like a mantra doesn't constitute shooting
me down. You haven't contradicted any of my arguments and you haven't
resolved the apparent contradiction of DHEs efficacy and Bandler's
illness.
Myron
> libel! Would be interesting to see if Mr Myon would make the same
> comments with full details of his identity...
What specifically in what I have said is libelous? Which claim?
-- That he's a cocaine user? That's well documented. You have a guy
with a history of cocaine abuse present with a constantly runny nose
there's a very good chance that he's still using.
-- That he doesn't hold an actual doctorate? That too is well known.
He was never awarded a PhD for a thesis. He has an honorary doctorate
from some second-rate university.
-- That he was never a research phsicist, hollographer, optics expert,
linguist, cryptographer, computer programmer, information scientist,
computer scientist, mathematician etc? Bandler has a BA in philosophy
and psychology and a MA in Psychology. No evidence exists that he has
worked as anything other than an editor, author, therapist, and
seminar leader.
-- That NLP is entirely derivative? That is a matter of fact. It
can't even be debated.
-- That DHE is ineffective? The evidence is Bandler's sickly state.
-- That Bandler has a sordid history of excess and debauchment? The
evidence for that is the evidence that was presented during Bandler
trial for the murder of the coke head dominatrix Corine Christensen
(see http://www.geocities.com/bandlertrial/bandler1.html)
Litigation can be an effective form of harassment, the Church of
Scientology has demonstrated that amply. There is -- as evidenced by
the reposnse to my original post -- a cult surrounding Bandler. Why
should I -- who am doing nothing more than subjecting Bandler's life
and contribution to long overdue scrutiny and helping to correct the
current deification of Bandler -- open myself up to harassment?
If you don't like what I'm saying then please argue against it, rebut
it, critique it. That you are saber rattling is indicative of your
inability to do so. You have no rejoinder hence you either label me a
"troll" or posture about litigation. The emperor indeed has no
clothes.
David Gould
wrote:
>Repeating the word "troll" like a mantra doesn't constitute shooting
>me down.
Yes, it does. :)
>You haven't contradicted any of my arguments and you haven't
>resolved the apparent contradiction of DHEs efficacy and Bandler's
>illness.
Your "arguments" are childish at best. If you'd demonstrated any
ability to deal with these things rationally, then I'd have done so as
my posting history here will indicate.
But since all you've done is respond to every post with inflammatory
comments and taunting, you're a troll.
Myron
> slightest criticism of Bandler?
Good question. There is no tolerance for criticism of Banlder because
the Bandler school of NLP is a cult. It has all of the elements of
cult. Look up a cult on the WWW -- Scientlogy is a good example
because their methods and literature are well known -- and compare
Bandlerian NLP and Scientology. Also, compare the life of L. Ron
Hubbard and that of Bandler. The parallels -- including the
fraudeulent claims about numerous high tech. professions -- are
remarkable.
Some students of Bandler show a devotion to Bandler that is seen only
in cult members. Bandler is the prototypcal charismatic cult leader
right down to the furtive debauchery and hypocrisy. But it is more
than devotion, it is the internalisation of a doctrine, the doctrine
that Bandler is the source of all knowledge regarding the mind:
Bandler is NLP (as Bandler himself claims and attempted to enforce via
trademarking) and NLP is the last word on matters of psychology.
There is a precise parallel to this in Scientology. According to
Scientologists, Dianetics is the last word on mental health, all
mental illness can be treated by Dianetics and the Dianetic model of
mind is the one and only true one. Of course, L Ron Hubbard
discovered Dianetics, so he deserves etheral devotion.
This isn't true of the NLP field as a whole only Bandler who appears
to have always desired to have followers. Bandler has turned his
school of NLP into a quasi-religion.
The same shutting down of critical capacity that can be seen in
cultists is also visible in Bandler's followers. In the place of
critical inquiry the cultist places the simple deduction of "if you
criticise my leader you are either ignorant or malevolent".
For these reasons it is taboo to criticism Bandler or to attempt to
engage a follower in debate. It's just not the done thing, it's
secular blasphemy.
Myron
> fat cocaine addict and his feet smell."
I've done more than that, pleae look at URLs I posted and my original
post.
> A question I'd like answered is why
> so many people post flaming posts criticizing Bandler and then jack off
> while the entire newsgroup reacts predictably.
Why shouldn't people criticise? The capacity to think critically and
to reason (to many levels of abstraction) is uniquellu human. The
alternative is to be a mindless drone.
People often use Usenet to learn about a topic. a.p.g is a forum for
worship of and tribute to Bandler. I don't want someone who is
looking to learn more about NLP to be turned off by the obvious
cultist leanings of the group. There's a good chance that my posts --
amongst other critical one's -- will come up when they do a search.
There's more to NLP than Bandler and you don't have to surrender part
of your mind to make use of NLP. My posts may serve as a starting
point for that discovery.
Also, it's a good PR exercise. My posts how that not all NLPers are
mindless, Bandler-worshipping, stupified cultists. Bandler and his
acolytes have brought NLP into disrepute. My posts are an attempt to
redress this. Bandler isn't NLP.
Is all criticism "flaming" ? Is there no room in your conceptual
framework for argument and rhetoric?
Myron
> isnt the same as what they created.
You are arguing against atguments of your own invention.
The original poinst -- which you are dodging -- is that Bandler hasn't
actually created anything other than a pastiche of sorts. There is
nothing
original in NLP. Bandler and Grinder did not actually originate
anything, they borrowed everything from elsewhere.
Can you name one thing in "old code" NLP that Bandler and Grinder
originated, i.e. created ?
> Dunno about Bandler, I had great times when learning from him.
> His teaching style is way out out the ordinary...
That's because he's high on cocaine when he teaches.
> He accomplish a lot more than most do ever..
So did L. Ron Hubbard, Bhagwan Sri Rajneesh, Jim Jones etc
> Creating a field where people here debate isnt that bad I say.
You don't actually debate, you repeat platitudes and cliches.
RLan538885
>example, 8 years ago, the man personally hypnotised me to be happy for
>the rest of my life, and it's worked ever since.
Bwahahahaha!
I'd like to think you jest, but yours is a perfect example of the deification
of Bandit and Grifter.
If what you claim is true, you are an incomplete human being at best. I'd
suggest you seek professional help for your delusion. I mean that sincerely. IF
it were true and we are to take you literally, then you should hate Bandler for
depriving you of geniune feelings.
"100,000 lemmings can't be wrong."
Sly
and Nazi Germany to put things into perspective? Oops...
mike
OK,OK,OK.........you win....it's your strongest belief and conviction
that there is a cult around Bandler. So what...who cares....are you on
some kind of crusade to save those unfortunate to be in it? If so,
have you ever considered the possibility they might not want to be
saved by you. Maybe...they consider themselves happier individuals for
having been in the "cult". This is a purely subjective thing. Why
would you want to destroy that happiness? Is it built on "false
grounds" or something?
It is easy to hide behind good reasoning and rational argument and, to
me you are very good at this. I would not even attempt to argue with
you. No doubt I would lose. But I do not really care. I am very glad
that I attended some of Bandlers' seminars. As far as I am concerned,
I am a better person for it and I've met some really cool people. I do
not care to be right about this and I do not care to justify it
rationally. Do what you "rationally" will with this. Take it apart or
completely ignore it.
May you be happy on your crusade.
Good luck
Mike
Terry
> The original poinst -- which you are dodging -- is that Bandler hasn't
> actually created anything other than a pastiche of sorts. There is
> nothing
> original in NLP. Bandler and Grinder did not actually originate
> anything, they borrowed everything from elsewhere.
>
Hi Myron, I certainly agree with you there. NLP is a discovery, not an
invention. The language patterns have always been there, modelling has
always been there... any baby learning to speak knows how.
Amazingly, your logical streams remind me of Rex. Are you two related?
Close cousins?
Myron
> >me down.
>
> Yes, it does. :)
No, it doesn't, it can't, it's nothing more than the expression of an
emotion. You may as well just say "shut-up" or saomething equally
trite.
What is does demonstrate is the poverty of your mind and your
pettiness.
> Your "arguments" are childish at best. If you'd demonstrated any
> ability to deal with these things rationally, then I'd have done so as
> my posting history here will indicate.
Let's review my arguments:
- I made a conceptual distinction between synthesis and creation;
- I cited (in brief) the origins of the ideas that comprise old code
NLP;
- I argued that NLP is a work of synthesis rather than an original
creation;
- I provided numerous examples of the lies uttered by Bandler;
- I argued that Bandler's parlous state of health is an
incontrovertible
demonstration of the falseness of the claims made of DHE;
- I have argued that Bandler exhibits all of the traits of someone
with
Narcissistic Personality Disorder;
- I have argued that Bandler employs much of the methods of cult
leaders and used L. Ron Hubbard as an illustrative example;
- I have argued that Bandler does not credit those to whom he owes a
huge intellectual debt (most notably Alfred Korzybski);
- I have argued that is a disorderd and deranged person and used
examples from his life to demonstrate this;
You'll have to show me how these arguments are "childish" or otherwise
lacking rather than make a mere assertion.
Your posts and your website demonstrate that you are sucking on
Bandler's nipple, and that your livelihood depends on people blindly
imbibing the shit that pours out of Bandler's cocaine wired mouth.
You are incapable of commenting on my posts in an impartial manner.
In fact you have a vested interest in trying to plaster over the
cracks in the Bandler facade that I am showing, hence your response.
> But since all you've done is respond to every post with inflammatory
> comments and taunting, you're a troll.
No, that's not _all_ I've done. I've presented a cogent and coherent
case against Bandler in summary form that I am willing and able to
expand upon.
I've entered a hostile arena so my manner is appropriately sharp and
penetrating. I know how cultists think, I knew in advance that I
would get a hostile reception irrespective of the form of my posting.
It isn't the form of my posting that offends you, it's the _content_.
The content is troubling for you. Learning that you've been had, been
duped, taken for a ride is distressing.
This forum is entirely intolerant of any form of criticism of Bandler.
No manner of presentation will alter this, I've been following this
NG for years.
You would like to "shoot me down" as you put it but you don't have the
intellectual wherewithal to do so. For that reason, you simply say
"troll" hoping that a single word will do the heavy lifting for you.
Unfortunately it won't.
Andreas M
> wrote:
>
> >Why is it seemingly impossible for so many to accept even the
> >slightest criticism of Bandler?
>
> 1. Feel free to publicly criticise someone who's obviously suffering if
> it makes you feel better. Just don't expect us to be nice about it.
I don't see any reason why a person shouldn't be criticized just
because they are suffering.
> 2. My life is immeasurably better, largely thanks to Bandler. For
> example, 8 years ago, the man personally hypnotised me to be happy for
> the rest of my life, and it's worked ever since. If it takes me a
> minute to shoot down some incoherent troll who wishes him dead, I will.
My life is immeasurably better too, and largely because of Bandler,
and I think the world of him.
I once went up to him after a seminar to shake his hand and tell him
just that, well he just turned and looked the other way :) Well
obviously I can understand that and I didn't take that too personally
because I'm probably person number seven thousand who tried to do that
that year.
I couln't care less if he'd been a coke addict or a criminal,
everybody has had their past and their own demons.
Several years ago, I went to a Guns'n'Roses concert. In the middle of
the first song of their set, Axl Rose suddenly started arguing with
Slash, the lead guitarist, smashed his mike and went off stage. He
didn't come back, and some groupie came on and tried to explain that
Axl was having personal problems.
Yes, I can imagine a persons dissapointment if they came to see
Bandler and he dissapears after 15 minutes. I went to abroad to UK for
my own practitioner to learn from the master himself instead of doing
a training back here in Norway, and Bandler is after all
McKenna/Breens (is he still in?) flagship and a major attractor to
their seminars.
As for Bandler-criticism, I find a lot of it totally irrelevant,
personal etc, however it seems to me that the instant anybody comments
on a negative aspect of his person (and I'm not nescessarily talking
about trolls on newsgroups, but in real life) people seem to go into
instant attack/defense mode regardless.
For example, I can't help thinking that Bandler could ease his medical
troubles a lot by loosing a couple of pounds (or more). By using some
of the techniques he talks about. Other people with diabetes, and no
knowledge of NLP or DHE, have done so.
Stephen Lambe
Did Bandler and Grinder create something new? In all honesty I don't care. So
what! What they did do was take a lot of information that was already out there
and turn it into something very powerful adn for me that is the crux ... they
packaged these learnings into NLP in a way that made it easy (or easier) for
others to replicate ... so well done to them :-)
As for attending the NLP training expecting to see Bandler and getting a few
minuted of his time as he was ill. I guess I'd be annyoed at this and as long
as I was offered my money back (if I chose to withdraw) then I'd be a fairly
happy man. If I went to the McKenna Breen trainings ... it would be to see and
learn from Bandler ... if he's not available I'd at least want the opportunity
to withdraw.
Is it allowable to criticise Bandler? Personally I think it's ok to do this as
long as it (any criticism) is constructive. I do feel that at times the
newsgroup can get a bit hard on those who ask these questions and sometimes I
do feel myself saying "but the emperor does not have any clothes!"
I think Bandler has made an amazing contribution to understanding people and
personal development. I'm glad I took up NLP and have to admit that it's helped
me enormously in my competence as a coach and trainer. I don't think for a
second that everything Bandler says is true ... having listened to some of his
tapes ... I feel he at times uses NLP as a weapon to harm others. However, I
prefer to separate the man from the teachings ... so I'll happily take th
eteachings ... and let my own personal values guide me as to their application.
Stephen
Robert
> > People who do things often are normal but what they are and have done
> > isnt the same as what they created.
>
> You are arguing against atguments of your own invention.
>
> The original poinst -- which you are dodging -- is that Bandler hasn't
> actually created anything other than a pastiche of sorts. There is
> nothing
> original in NLP. Bandler and Grinder did not actually originate
> anything, they borrowed everything from elsewhere.
>
> Can you name one thing in "old code" NLP that Bandler and Grinder
> originated, i.e. created ?
Representation model, metamodel.
That is 2 orginal models.
Now, I would like you again to point to where there isnt any value in
NLP in regards to the value of that others did have.
You dodged...it..
> > Dunno about Bandler, I had great times when learning from him.
> > His teaching style is way out out the ordinary...
>
> That's because he's high on cocaine when he teaches.
You can prove that?
Unless I am totally out of the law, he could sue you for that?
That be fun.
> > He accomplish a lot more than most do ever..
>
> So did L. Ron Hubbard, Bhagwan Sri Rajneesh, Jim Jones etc
So your repating what others done.
What have you accomplished?
Unless the trolling here counts?
> > Creating a field where people here debate isnt that bad I say.
>
> You don't actually debate, you repeat platitudes and cliches.
hehehehe
/Robert
www.riggiomodel.biz
Mohonk December..
mike
are you a cult deprogrammer? Are you offering those who have been
trained or 'indoctrinated' by Bandler to be persuaded...by you.... to
firstly,'recognise' that they are in a cult and secondly, by some kind
of objective 'rational argument', you can deprogramme them and help
them to reintegrate into 'normal' society? I really don't get what
your purpose is.
You are convinced that you are right....and so you are .....in your
mind. So be happy with that and move on.
Do you want to be convinced otherwise? Or are you wanting to convince
those of us who feel that Bandler has positively affected our lives
that it is all built on 'false grounds'?
No doubt you could take apart this posting with your clever use of
language and logic. You are obviously an 'educated' person and surely
with the skills and abilities you have, you can find something better
to do. Something that brings abit of joy to someone. Something other
than being stuck in wanting to prove whatever point you have.... to
those who feel that whatever failings Bandler has, he has positevely
impacted their lives. Wouldn't that make you feel better?
ErosLA77
Actually, while I AGREE WITH YOU that most of DHE is a load of hooey, I
disagree with your conclusion. It may simply be that, for whatever reason, he
couldn't get past his own pain to apply it to himself.
Sue RAY NOW!
Ask me how!
PUT AN END TO HARASSMENT AND ABUSE OF PROCESS!
Rex Sikes
I agree here with this satement of Ross. Let me add that
Something working or not working is NOT the only evidence for efficacy of a
treatment.
Some things will work some times - some things that do work - may not always
work, and some things that don't work may actually work in some cases. I
don't mean to be vague but what we often use for evidence of things (working
or not) is not always the best criteria. And after all we are people -
living processes and not machines - there are literally thousands of
varibables as to why something does or doesn't occur, work or not etc.
Why does one person have a spontaneous healing or remission and another not?
Why do some of the healthiest people - mentally, physically, emotionally,
spiritually get stricken with a horrible illness. Why do some horrendous
people prosper or live a long life with little problems or issues?
Pointing to one person or even a hundred that get a result is only an
indication that that one or those hundred got the result and not an
indication that anyone else ever will. However, we can assume that others
may get similar results if they engage in similar or exact ....
One person or a hundred not getting a result is no more an indication of
failure than it is of success. Much of what we accept is by inference and
extrapolation.
Many may get results because of belief, placebo effect - others may not
because they don't have a similar disposition.
So it isn't truly fair to say that because a contributor to a field has
issues - health related or otherwise - that the field, isn't worthwhile to
examine. Still it doesn't mean it is any more valid if suddenly the person
got cured using these means.
People do their best with what they have - and what they are aware they
have. Many technologies exist that help for any number of reasons -
that is why there is much debate in certain circles about methodological
controls, blind and double blind studies, how tests are constructed or
operationalized, results and findings - NO MATTER WHAT - are subject to
interpretation and then projected on future likelihood through statistics.
Bandler's issues are his own. Whether you like or abhor the man - maybe he
just needs to be left alone.
However, if he isn't able to deliver on his promis to his seminar
participants then perhaps it is time he hang up the hat and do something
else. Any trainer or provider should make good on their promises and treat
their clientele like gold. (My opinion obviously)
I suggest we give Bandler a break and let the man be --- without using him
to accept or reject the works he has helped fashion. If he is suffering
maybe we should be more compassionate. If he hasn't delivered on his
business practices that is between he and the ones he does business with.
Rex
> From: eros...@aol.comnospam (ErosLA77)
> Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
> Newsgroups: alt.psychology.nlp
> Date: 01 Oct 2004 18:47:06 GMT
> Subject: Re: the Bandler issue
>
> << Bandler's suffering is concrete, palpable evidence that DHE does not
> work. If the application of DHE to a client failed >><BR><BR>
>
ErosLA77
<< It has all of the elements of
Presposterous. There is no millieu control, no sleep deprivation, public
confession(in fact, one of the cornerstones of NLP is that you keep your
private stuff PRIVATE), thought stopping, use of fear to motivate, etc. etc.
Look, you've some valid points about Bandler. But this is stretching to a
point where your agenda is beyond truth telling, so by bye!
David Gould
>David Gould <spam...@deep-trance.com> wrote in message news:<80aol01imea142hv2...@4ax.com>...
>> On 30 Sep 2004 03:37:21 -0700, andre...@hotmail.com (Andreas M)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Why is it seemingly impossible for so many to accept even the
>> >slightest criticism of Bandler?
>>
>> 1. Feel free to publicly criticise someone who's obviously suffering if
>> it makes you feel better. Just don't expect us to be nice about it.
>
>I don't see any reason why a person shouldn't be criticized just
>because they are suffering.
It's not about reason, it's about empathising with a fellow human being
who's suffering from a medically incurable disease and lost his wife
recently.
>> 2. My life is immeasurably better, largely thanks to Bandler. For
>> example, 8 years ago, the man personally hypnotised me to be happy for
>> the rest of my life, and it's worked ever since. If it takes me a
>> minute to shoot down some incoherent troll who wishes him dead, I will.
>
>My life is immeasurably better too, and largely because of Bandler,
>and I think the world of him.
>I once went up to him after a seminar to shake his hand and tell him
>just that, well he just turned and looked the other way :) Well
>obviously I can understand that and I didn't take that too personally
>because I'm probably person number seven thousand who tried to do that
>that year.
You know, I've never thought of Richard as a people person.
>I couln't care less if he'd been a coke addict or a criminal,
>everybody has had their past and their own demons.
Yes. I couldn't even care if he was still a coke addict. Big deal.
<snip>
>Yes, I can imagine a persons dissapointment if they came to see
>Bandler and he dissapears after 15 minutes. I went to abroad to UK for
>my own practitioner to learn from the master himself instead of doing
>a training back here in Norway, and Bandler is after all
>McKenna/Breens (is he still in?) flagship and a major attractor to
>their seminars.
Oh it would be a disaster for me. I was in a similar position recently,
which I'll talk more about soon.
Michael Breen has left the organisation AFAIK. I can't easily imagine
someone filling his shoes.
>As for Bandler-criticism, I find a lot of it totally irrelevant,
>personal etc, however it seems to me that the instant anybody comments
>on a negative aspect of his person (and I'm not nescessarily talking
>about trolls on newsgroups, but in real life) people seem to go into
>instant attack/defense mode regardless.
This surprises you? A lot of people leave seminars with extraordinary
results which are partly dependent on their expectations of the trainer.
It's a bit like the 3rd story down on this page:
http://www.trans4mind.com/personal_development/nutrition/stress/suggestion.htm
>For example, I can't help thinking that Bandler could ease his medical
>troubles a lot by loosing a couple of pounds (or more). By using some
>of the techniques he talks about. Other people with diabetes, and no
>knowledge of NLP or DHE, have done so.
I agree, and that's his choice to make, not ours.
FWIW, I get more mileage out of energy medicine for health problems than
standard NLP.
David Gould
wrote:
Tell you what, we can have this discussion again next time you feel so
bad you want to die.
What I would hate is to believe that human beings are supposed to
suffer. Who told you that? God?
Every human being has the innate sense that they shouldn't have to
suffer, and that there is more to them than their immediate reality
presents.
Now these are genuine feelings, but you discard them, don't you?
Myron
> > originated, i.e. created ?
>
> Representation model, metamodel.
> That is 2 orginal models.
The representation model came from the research into synethesia that
was happening at Stanford university in the 1970's.
The meta-model came from Noam Chomskys "Syntactic Structures" which
was published in 1957. The meta-model as we know it is a combination
of Chomsky's
lingusitics and Virgiania Satir's "Conjoint Family Therapy". Fritz
Perl's questioning style also conributed to the meta-model.
> Now, I would like you again to point to where there isnt any value in
> NLP in regards to the value of that others did have.
> You dodged...it..
I don't understand your question. I haven't dodged anything. If I
haven't answered you it's because I can't make sense of your broken
English. This raises an interesting point. You make many claims
about your modelling technique and the irrelevance of background
knowledge in reproducing exemplary
behaviour. Why don't you demonstrate the brilliance of your modelling
techniques by learning English.
> > That's because he's high on cocaine when he teaches.
>
> You can prove that?
It is an inference based on the guys history of heavy cocaine usage,
chronic mucous discharge from his nose and rambling style of speech.
> Unless I am totally out of the law, he could sue you for that?
Anyone can litigate about anything, so what? There have already been
artciles in the press on Bandler's cocaine binges that haven't
resulted in him litigating (see
http://www.geocities.com/bandlertrial/). There are many people that
can be brought forward to testify to Bandler's cocaine usage.
> That be fun.
Maybe.
> > So did L. Ron Hubbard, Bhagwan Sri Rajneesh, Jim Jones etc
>
> So your repating what others done.
> What have you accomplished?
I was being sarcastic. All of the aforementioned are well-known cult
leaders than had many in their flocks. You are a simpleton.
> Unless the trolling here counts?
What I do is trolling only if you worship Bandler. From your website
-- you have published pictures on your site of you with Bandler -- I
can see you worship or venerate Bandler.
The semiotics of the act of placing photos of yourself with Bandler on
your site are interesting. You are showing your _bona fides_ to the
faithful, you are showing the world that you have basked in the glow
of your gods aura. You are an anointed one.
> > You don't actually debate, you repeat platitudes and cliches.
>
> hehehehe
As I said, you don't debate.
BigJiim
>actually created anything other than a pastiche of sorts. There is
>nothing
>original in NLP. Bandler and Grinder did not actually originate
>anything, they borrowed everything from elsewhere.
>
>Can you name one thing in "old code" NLP that Bandler and Grinder
I don't know of anywhere that students/people are taught modelling of
patterns - or are taught to create patterns. Call modelling deep trance
identification, pattern detection or whatever you will I'm not aware of
anyone out there teaching it to business people.
I'm also not sure there is a lot of documentation on the uses of submodalities.
How different words conjure up different submodalities - words used as
anchors and their related submodalities and how those submodalities are
used within the meta-program frame. I think Ron Hubbard has some effective
tools that have probably been around in Huna for eons but L. Ron makes
them excessible to the masses. If you've ever tried any of his clensing some
of it works. My opinion is that NLP goes one step further in that submodalities
give you more of a concrete example of how L' Rons techniques work - something
in your experience you can identify other than a nominalization. This to me is
where NLP comes in further than any business examples out there. I have
something concrete to listen for, predicates, submodalities, etc. Whether
Bandler created them or not I know of no one out there teaching the brain to
deliberately go faster than it has otherwise (to catch patterns) and using deep
trance identification to sort for patterns. As for the stories of what he has
been
I'm sure some is used for state elicitation and some other is just plain
bullshit.
I also can't remember where connecting states or nested loops has been used
in the business world. God knows I don't see it in therapy.
Bandler's use of time for torpedo therapy is an excellent model for
suggestion/change.
I have found no other model faster that bypasses the conscious mind and
delivers
results. Mostly based on time and how it effects submodalities/states -
depending
on how you want to look at it.
All good arguments on your side and I have nothing to add to them. Some I would
even explore more. Where else can you debate and argument like this if not on
this forum. Is this not a forum for discussion?
Myron
> that there is a cult around Bandler. So what...who cares....are you on
> some kind of crusade to save those unfortunate to be in it?
You've designated yourself "The Peoples' Voice" have you? You can
speak for yourself but you have no legitimate claim to "So what..who
cares". Many clearly do care about the issues I raised.
No, I'm not on a "crusade". I just want to add to the body of opinion
that is critical towards Bandler.
> If so,
> have you ever considered the possibility they might not want to be
> saved by you.
Who are you speaking for? Those that don't care what I have to say
will simply ignore my posts, those that do -- and there are many --
will read them. Besides, as I said may aim is merely to add to the
chorus of voices that speak out against Bandler.
>Maybe...they consider themselves happier individuals for
> having been in the "cult".
You are fighting straw men. You are inventing arguments that you have
an answer to and attributing them to me. I don't deny that many cult
members are happy. What is the significance of their happiness? I
have known of heroin users that are happy. Paedophilia -- for example
-- is an ego-syntonic behaviour, i.e. a paedophile is not toubled by
their own behaviour, they are happy to sexually exploit children.
Does that mean we should not criticise paedohiles?
This is a purely subjective thing.
What is a purely subjective thing? That which makes a person happy?
No not really. People largely and broadly speaking seek the same
basic things it's just how these needs are satisfied differs widely.
> Why
> would you want to destroy that happiness?
Again, happiness is not the ultimate measure of value. If it were
we'd be obliged to celebrate every form of deviance and pervisity.
> Is it built on "false
> grounds" or something?
It isn't my concern.
> It is easy to hide behind good reasoning and rational argument
I'm not hiding behind anything. I'm engaging in rational discourse.
It looks
unusual to you because so little of it occurs on this news group.
It is saddening that you would cast good reasoning and rational
argument in a bad light. Without good reasoning and rational argument
we would degenerate into superstitious savages. It is rational
inquiry and that has driven human progress. It wasn't always the case
that organs could be transplanted, water could be purified, children
with congenital deformities could be helped, the planets could be
explored etc.
> and, to
> me you are very good at this.
A back-handed compliment.
> I would not even attempt to argue with
> you.
You are.
>No doubt I would lose.
Depends what you wanted to argue about. There's a difference between
rational dicourse and sophistry. Bandler doesn't engage in rational
discourse, he is a rhetorician and sophist, in the most pejorative
sense of both words.
>But I do not really care.
You should care if your beliefs don't stand up to close scrutiny.
If you believe that DHE can help an amputee to re-grow a limb without
having seen any evidence then you are foolish.
If you believe you specifically can cause your own or someone elses
limb to re-grow than you are deluded, you have made a break from
reality.
> I am very glad
> that I attended some of Bandlers' seminars. As far as I am concerned,
> I am a better person for it and I've met some really cool people.
I wouldn't dispute this. However, it is no reason to deify Bandler or
accept it as true when he says he is a computer scientist, optics
expert etc.
> I do
> not care to be right about this and I do not care to justify it
> rationally.
You should care because rationality is what provides intellectual
self-defence and enables you to separate the map from the territory.
> Do what you "rationally" will with this. Take it apart or
> completely ignore it.
I have.
> May you be happy on your crusade.
I wouldn't be so melodramatic.
> Good luck
Good luck to you also.
Robert
> > > Can you name one thing in "old code" NLP that Bandler and Grinder
> > > originated, i.e. created ?
> >
> > Representation model, metamodel.
> > That is 2 orginal models.
>
> The representation model came from the research into synethesia that
> was happening at Stanford university in the 1970's.
No, incorrect.
It was the observation from Bandler and Grinder.
Tested and coded and brought the first NLP model out there.
Never existed before.
> The meta-model came from Noam Chomskys "Syntactic Structures" which
> was published in 1957. The meta-model as we know it is a combination
> of Chomsky's
> lingusitics and Virgiania Satir's "Conjoint Family Therapy". Fritz
> Perl's questioning style also conributed to the meta-model.
Wrong again.
The format of the metamodel is the essential bits of working with the
representations people use in regards with behaviours.
And allowing others who wasnt trained and expereinced at a level of
Milton Ericksson, perls and satir to become that good and be able to
predict behavioural responses at a excellent level.
> > Now, I would like you again to point to where there isnt any value in
> > NLP in regards to the value of that others did have.
> > You dodged...it..
>
> I don't understand your question. I haven't dodged anything. If I
> haven't answered you it's because I can't make sense of your broken
> English. This raises an interesting point. You make many claims
> about your modelling technique and the irrelevance of background
> knowledge in reproducing exemplary
> behaviour. Why don't you demonstrate the brilliance of your modelling
> techniques by learning English.
Still dodging.
Blaming me for not understanding questions?
Cant use the metamodel can you?
> > > That's because he's high on cocaine when he teaches.
> > Unless I am totally out of the law, he could sue you for that?
>
> Anyone can litigate about anything, so what? There have already been
> artciles in the press on Bandler's cocaine binges that haven't
> resulted in him litigating (see
> http://www.geocities.com/bandlertrial/). There are many people that
> can be brought forward to testify to Bandler's cocaine usage.
The qeustion as you dodge is " is he high on cocaine when he teaches
and can you prove it?
> > > So did L. Ron Hubbard, Bhagwan Sri Rajneesh, Jim Jones etc
> >
> > So your repating what others done.
> > What have you accomplished?
> I was being sarcastic. All of the aforementioned are well-known cult
> leaders than had many in their flocks. You are a simpleton.
So now you excuse yourself and not being correct in regard to debating
here?
I do understand.
> > Unless the trolling here counts?
>
> What I do is trolling only if you worship Bandler. From your website
> -- you have published pictures on your site of you with Bandler -- I
> can see you worship or venerate Bandler.
Ah, been to a training and a picture show it all, heh?
> The semiotics of the act of placing photos of yourself with Bandler on
> your site are interesting. You are showing your _bona fides_ to the
> faithful, you are showing the world that you have basked in the glow
> of your gods aura. You are an anointed one.
hehehe
> As I said, you don't debate.
And you dodge.
I notice the behaviour you use in writings excuses for the masses.
All is mindreading and cant be proven.
In NLP we call that self internal belifs that has no relation to
reality.
Best regards
/Robert
www.riggiomodel.biz
Myron
> are you a cult deprogrammer?
No, but I do help where I can. I have no service or product to sell.
I consider my well-reasoned attacks on cultists to be a public
service.
> Are you offering those who have been
> trained or 'indoctrinated' by Bandler to be persuaded...by you.... to
> firstly,'recognise' that they are in a cult and secondly, by some kind
> of objective 'rational argument', you can deprogramme them and help
> them to reintegrate into 'normal' society?
No. In any event a Bandler worshipper is not identical to a
Scientologist, for example. Bandler's follower's are not as
indoctrinated as heavily as Scientolgists (but with DHE they're
getting there) and there isn't the personal intrusion that many cults
practice. I do not claim that Bandler and his acolytes are as harmful
as the Church of Scientology and other absolutist cults.
> I really don't get what
> your purpose is.
To:
- contribute to the body of dissenting opinion on Bandler on the WWW;
- to show-up the pretentious Bandler worshipper's on this NG;
- to test my own prejudices and understanding of how cultists think
and preserve the integrity of their absurd beliefs;
- to promote scepticism and critical inquiry;
- provide leads to those that have doubts about Bandler and his
cohorts;
- to remind people what a terrible human being Bandler is;
- to remind people that many of the "standard bearers" of this NG have
something to sell you
> You are convinced that you are right....and so you are .....in your
> mind.
I reject that view of knowledge and truth. Do you subscribe to
epistemological relativism i.e. there is no such thing as objective
truth, that truth is entirely subjective?
I don't, I reject post-modernity and its moral and epistemological
relativism.
I don't aim to be right _in my mind_, I aim to be right.
> So be happy with that and move on.
You're contradicting yourself. If "it's all subjective" then you have
no place telling me how to be happy and what I should do. According
to your own doctrine, I decide what makes me happy and I pursue that.
> Do you want to be convinced otherwise? Or are you wanting to convince
> those of us who feel that Bandler has positively affected our lives
> that it is all built on 'false grounds'?
No, I don't dispute that Bandler has helped many people. How is that
relevant to the current argument though? Are you suggesting that
because he has helped people everything that he utters is true and
everything he does is virtuous?
> No doubt you could take apart this posting with your clever use of
> language and logic.
I'm not seeking your praise and adoration. I, unlike Bandler, do not
seek Narcissistic Supply.
> You are obviously an 'educated' person
Why is educated in quotes? Do you have your own deifinition of
"educated"?
> and surely
> with the skills and abilities you have, you can find something better
> to do.
I tap these out rather quickly (hence the typos). I think it's
worthwhile work.
>Something that brings abit of joy to someone.
How do you know I don't?
> Something other
> than being stuck in wanting to prove whatever point you have.... to
> those who feel that whatever failings Bandler has, he has positevely
> impacted their lives.
You have made many assumptions and based your line of questioning and
advice on those assumptions. Unfortunately the assumtions are false.
>Wouldn't that make you feel better?
The question is based on an unfounded assumtion but I see what you
getting at. Yes, I do have a life.
Myron
> confession(in fact, one of the cornerstones of NLP is that you keep your
> private stuff PRIVATE), thought stopping, use of fear to motivate, etc. etc.
According to Lifton, a cult has
"A charismatic leader, who increasingly becomes an object of worship
as the general principles that may have originally sustained the group
lose power.
A process [is in use] call[ed] coercive persuasion or thought reform.
Economic, sexual, and other exploitation of group members by the
leader and the ruling coterie."
(see http://www.rickross.com/faq.html)
Bandler has demonstrated the first two characteristics repeatedly. If
he's taking peoples money to teach them how to re-grow limbs, see
telescopically by hallucinating binoculars or microscopically by
hallucinating a microscope then he is -- I'm afraid -- exploiting them
economically.
Ergo Bandler is a cult leader.
Your definition of a cult is not the accepted one. Lifton's work on
"thought reform" was pioneering, his definition of a cult is well
accepted.
You've list a series of thought reform _techniques_ and stated Bandler
doesn't use these therefore he isn't a cult leader. No one with any
credibility in the field of cults uses your definition of a cult.
> Look, you've some valid points about Bandler. But this is stretching to a
> point where your agenda is beyond truth telling, so by bye!
No, you have chosen a definition of "cult" that excludes the
possibility of designating Bandler as a cult leader. I have taken a
generally accepted defintion of the word and have matched the criteria
against the facts.
It's an unpalatable conclusion for many folk who don't regard
themselves as cultists to learn that they in fact are.
Myron
> invention. The language patterns have always been there, modelling has
> always been there... any baby learning to speak knows how.
That isn't what I have argued but there is merit in your disinction
between invention and discovery. I agree with you that much of NLP is
a discovery rather than an invention and I have gone further to say
that Bandler and Grinder did not actually make the original
discoveries that comprise NLP. They have borrowed others discoveries.
That although they credit their sources in there academic seminal
texts (Magic I,II and Patterns I,II) Bandler never credits his sources
in his rambling seminars and interviews.
There is one instance -- for example -- where Bandler in his garrulous
manner
quips, "I let people think that Milton invented the handshake
interrupt. Most people forget Bandler was a cripple" (or words to
that effect, his was in "Bandler Doing Bandler", if I recall
correctly). The implication being that Bandler actually invented the
handshake interrupt. This is patently false, it is well documented
that Erickson did invent the handshake induction (See Erickson,Rossi &
Rossi. "Hypnotic Realities") and he wasn't always wheelchair bound.
Bandler's narcissism extended so far that he denied Grinder's
contribution. This of course eventuated in him trying to trademark
NLP.
So, in the original texts you will find credits for the originators of
the ideas that comprise NLP but in Bandler's seminars and interviews
you will hear Bandler arrogating to himself all of NLP.
Accoding to Bandler,
"All these people who have all that time end energy to pluck names of
how
they're trainers of NLP, head of the German society, head of the Swiss
society.
But if they have no connection with me they have nothing. Because it
is the
thread that runs from me to people that is about really the strongest
thing that
NLP is about."
"Richard sees an article in the magazine on the table: See that
picture right
there? That picture there belongs to me! That does not belong to
whoever wrote
the article. That picture there is mine and it is out of my book!
Now, what's it doing in his article? He didn't ask me permission for
that! It says right here: it‘s the NLP eye accessing cue for normally
right handed people.
No, it is not! It is Richard Bandler's eye accessing cue chart from
Richard
Bandler's book. Now that makes this man a plagiarist. NLP has never
written
anything. It's a word. It's not a human being, it does not own
anything, it is just three letters out of the alphabet which I put
together as the name of what I do.
And I have been very generous about sharing it with people but there
are a lot
of people who have been much more generous with themselves about
stealing
it."
http://www.nlp-institut.ch/pdf/bandler.pdf
You can observe in the interview that he doesn't even acknowldge
Grinder's contribution let alone William James et al.
> Amazingly, your logical streams remind me of Rex. Are you two related?
> Close cousins?
No, I am not in any way associaed or affiliated with Rex Sikes. I do
have a high regard for Rex. Rex is a good thinker, is well read and
researched and knows how to teach.
Robert
> contribution. This of course eventuated in him trying to trademark
> NLP.
That seems to be the case.
If he is narcissistisk is another matter.
He obviosly did and often states "all" my models I created however in
that context it is rarely if ever clear what he refer to when he
states that.
often common pattern in hypnosis language.
what models did he solely create?
Not specified to my knowledge.
> So, in the original texts you will find credits for the originators of
> the ideas that comprise NLP but in Bandler's seminars and interviews
> you will hear Bandler arrogating to himself all of NLP.
True and still it is never clear to "what" bandler refers to.
I teach all of NLP myself which includs elements I discovered.
Grinder states, sometiems we taught the initial idea about a model and
would test if people would find the pattern and model, that could
obviosly also be reveresed taking credit from someone...
So some people found out about eye accissing cues and then they
thought they did the discovery.
whispering in the wind by grinder and carmen.
/Robert
www.riggiomodel.biz
> Accoding to Bandler,
>
> "All these people who have all that time end energy to pluck names of
> how
> they're trainers of NLP, head of the German society, head of the Swiss
> society.
> But if they have no connection with me they have nothing. Because it
> is the
> thread that runs from me to people that is about really the strongest
> thing that
> NLP is about."
>
> "Richard sees an article in the magazine on the table: See that
> picture right
> there? That picture there belongs to me! That does not belong to
> whoever wrote
> the article. That picture there is mine and it is out of my book!
> Now, what's it doing in his article? He didn't ask me permission for
> that! It says right here: it?s the NLP eye accessing cue for normally
Myron
> bad you want to die.
I think your missing the poster's point. I agree that your post is
troubling: it is as abnormal to be always happy as it is to be
chronically depressed. You say that you are always happy. Does that
mean your response to loss is happiness? If someone close to you dies
will you not become saddened? If so then you are dysfunctional.
> What I would hate is to believe that human beings are supposed to
> suffer. Who told you that? God?
No, they are not supposed to suffer but it is a mark of maturity to
recognise that life has its ups and downs. It is the nature of life
-- by virtue of its complexity -- that things will not always go your
way. The normal response to this is sadness. The pathological
response is depression or happiness. If you are always happy -- as
you say you are -- then it would diminish you as a human, in the same
way that the inability to experience the affective component of guilt
diminishes the psychopath.
> Every human being has the innate sense that they shouldn't have to
> suffer,
No they don't. The mature person realises that some degree of
suffering is a part of life. You have needs and desires and the
satisfaction of some of these needs and desires depends on things
external to yourself i.e. resources and other people. Sometimes you
won't get what you need or want because you can't exercise anywhere
near the control you have over yourself upon the external world
(including other people). You will suffer as a consequence. You
needn't become depressed but you should\will feel frustration, anger,
or sadness.
Being happy all the time -- if possible -- would require some degree
of delusion.
> and that there is more to them than their immediate reality
> presents.
This is very vague. I'm guessing that you're saying that people
somehow know there is more to life than life on Earth (?).
This is way off topic and not really relevant to any of the foregoing
discussion.
> Now these are genuine feelings, but you discard them, don't you?
They may very well be genuine feelings but they're not relevant to the
matter at hand.
In any event, what do you propose be done with your feelings? They're
your feelings, they're radically personal, you can't really share them
with anyone except in a superficial way.
Also, it's important to understand that feelings are not facts. Just
because you feel something doesn't mean it is true. A spouse may feel
unappreciated but that does not entail that she necessarily is.
Myron
> It was the observation from Bandler and Grinder.
> Tested and coded and brought the first NLP model out there.
> Never existed before.
No, sorry, it's you that is wrong. During the 1970s at Stanford
University much research was done on synesthesia. This research
produced the representational model. Bandler and Grinder named it
"The Representational Model", but that doesn't mean they discovered
it.
> Wrong again.
> The format of the metamodel is the essential bits of working with the
> representations people use in regards with behaviours.
The meta-model is based on the notions of transformational grammar,
deep structure and surface structure. Noam Chomsky formulated these
conecpts. "Appendix A -- A Brief Outline of Transformational Grammar"
in "The Sructure of Magic I" is a tutorial on Chomskyian Linguistics.
It includes a reference to Chomsky (1957). See also section 1.3 of
NLP Vol 1. The meta-model is an application of Chomsky's
Transformational Grammar to human subjective experience. Grinder did
his PhD on Chomskyian Linguistics.
I quote
"The most thorougly studied and best understood of the
representational systems of human modeling maps is that of human
language. The most explicit and complete model of natural language is
transformational grammar. Transformational grammar is, therefore a
Meta-model...In adapting the concepts and mechanisms of the
transformational model of the human representational system of
language for the purposes of therapy, we developed a formal Meta-Model
for therapy"
(The Structure of Magic Vol. II, p 3)
See http://www.hfac.uh.edu/COGSCI/lang/Entries/transformational_grammar.html
for a brief description of transformational grammar.
Please think about this before posting a response. Also respond with
references to the primary texts.
> And allowing others who wasnt trained and expereinced at a level of
> Milton Ericksson, perls and satir to become that good and be able to
> predict behavioural responses at a excellent level.
>
> > > Now, I would like you again to point to where there isnt any value in
> > > NLP in regards to the value of that others did have.
> > > You dodged...it..
> >
> > I don't understand your question. I haven't dodged anything. If I
> > haven't answered you it's because I can't make sense of your broken
> > English. This raises an interesting point. You make many claims
> > about your modelling technique and the irrelevance of background
> > knowledge in reproducing exemplary
> > behaviour. Why don't you demonstrate the brilliance of your modelling
> > techniques by learning English.
>
> Still dodging.
> Blaming me for not understanding questions?
Your English is terrible is that my problem. Do you think your
English is good?
> Cant use the metamodel can you?
You can't use the English language, that is the problem.
I've left your post in so that others can judge for themselves whether
I am dodging your brilliant line of questioning.
Is this the question?
"Now, I would like you again to point to where there isnt any value in
NLP in regards to the value of that others did have."
That's an ungrammatical sentence, I'm unable to parse it. If someone
else can understand this then please re-state it in grammatically
correct English.
> The qeustion as you dodge is " is he high on cocaine when he teaches
> and can you prove it?
I've already answered that question.
> > > > So did L. Ron Hubbard, Bhagwan Sri Rajneesh, Jim Jones etc
> > >
> > > So your repating what others done.
> > > What have you accomplished?
> > I was being sarcastic. All of the aforementioned are well-known cult
> > leaders than had many in their flocks. You are a simpleton.
>
> So now you excuse yourself and not being correct in regard to debating
> here?
This is another ungrammatical sentence. The question mark suggests
its a question but I am unable to find it. I can't respond to
something I can't obtain any meaning from.
> Ah, been to a training and a picture show it all, heh?
Why?
> And you dodge.
Look at my responses to all of th other posts, I have dealt with them
head-on. Why is it only you that thinks I dodge questions? I haven't
dodged anything. I can't respond to you in full because I don't know
what you are saying.
> I notice the behaviour you use in writings excuses for the masses.
Again, I don't understand what you are trying to say. I suspect that
you do not completely understand what I am trying to say.
> All is mindreading and cant be proven.
Are you referring to my claim that Bandler is a coke head?
> In NLP we call that self internal belifs that has no relation to
> reality.
So is saying you're a Physicist when you you don't have a degree in
Physics.
I don't think you're in a position to educate me about NLP.
If you want to partcipate fully in this group then you are obliged to
learn English. You can't accuse me of dodging your questions when
they are written in broken English.
Throwing bad English at me and expecting me to understand you is
unreasonable.
Adam Sargant
news:4580b60d.04100...@posting.google.com...
> > No, incorrect.
> > It was the observation from Bandler and Grinder.
> > Tested and coded and brought the first NLP model out there.
> > Never existed before.
>
> No, sorry, it's you that is wrong. During the 1970s at Stanford
> University much research was done on synesthesia. This research
> produced the representational model. Bandler and Grinder named it
> "The Representational Model", but that doesn't mean they discovered
> it.
I have no desire to get into the four legs good two legs bad debate, but the
one thing in NLP that I have not been able to identify as a synthesis from
previous work is the idea that subjective meaning is encoded in the
submodalities of the representational system. This, to me, is the core of
NLP and the core of the work I do with clients... if you are able to point
me to any references that indicate that this idea originated in earlier
work, I would be most grateful :-)
BTW, I would take issue with your ideas about synthesis and origination if
you are willing to engage, but I would choose to do so outside of the
context of the NLP fight club.
--
Adam Sargant
www.deep-mind.com - accelerating personal and spiritual evolution
ErosLA77
<< If
he's taking peoples money to teach them how to re-grow limbs, see
telescopically by hallucinating binoculars or microscopically by
hallucinating a microscope then he is >><BR><BR>
Then he's peddling hogwash. All cult leaders peddle hogwash, but not all
peddlers of hogwash are cult leaders. Universals are only partially
convertible.
Without millieu control, thought stopping, etc etc. you don't have a cult.
Where is the enforcement arm, the Ethics Org, the Sea Org of NLP?
In fact, NLP has grown into an entire field of study.
If you are talking about a "cult" of personality, that's a fallacy of
equivocation around the term "Cult".
In fact, look at this from the site you use. Bandler's seminars have none of
these:
http://www.rickross.com/reference/brainwashing/brainwashing9.html
David Gould
On 02 Oct 2004 02:52:25 GMT, big...@aol.com (BigJiim) wrote:
>Bandler's use of time for torpedo therapy is an excellent model for
>suggestion/change.
>I have found no other model faster that bypasses the conscious mind and
>delivers
>results. Mostly based on time and how it effects submodalities/states -
>depending
>on how you want to look at it.
Torpedo therapy? Never heard the name although I'm probably aware of
the process.
David Gould
wrote:
<snip>
>You say that you are always happy.
Bad start. I never said that.
>Does that mean your response to loss is happiness? If someone close to you dies
>will you not become saddened? If so then you are dysfunctional.
Erm, if I'm sad, I'm not able to function properly aka dysfunction.
To answer your point, I'm lucky that nobody close to me has died. I
don't want people to be sad when I die, and I don't see that being sad
will be helpful if someone I love died.
I wouldn't want to be sad. I would want to cherish and preserve my
memories of them and maybe pray that they'll be helped in the afterlife,
whatever that is.
I couldn't do any of this if I was sad. What a terrible waste it would
be if I couldn't fully appreciate my loved one's life because I chose to
be sad.
However, that's just my opinion. Unlike you, I don't tell others how
they should and shouldn't respond to loss. If you had the personality,
you'd make a good cult leader.
>> What I would hate is to believe that human beings are supposed to
>> suffer. Who told you that? God?
>
>No, they are not supposed to suffer but it is a mark of maturity to
>recognise that life has its ups and downs. It is the nature of life
>-- by virtue of its complexity -- that things will not always go your
>way. The normal response to this is sadness.
Normal according to?
>> Every human being has the innate sense that they shouldn't have to
>> suffer,
>
>No they don't. The mature person realises that some degree of
>suffering is a part of life.
Which mature person? A mature person with a choice to not suffer?
No. A mature person who expects to suffer and thinks they 'might as
well get used to it.'
Now if you want to suffer, I can help you out there.
>You have needs and desires and the
>satisfaction of some of these needs and desires depends on things
>external to yourself i.e. resources and other people. Sometimes you
>won't get what you need or want because you can't exercise anywhere
>near the control you have over yourself upon the external world
>(including other people). You will suffer as a consequence.
Ever heard of Buddhism?
>You needn't become depressed but you should\will feel frustration, anger,
>or sadness.
There you go again. Luckily, I have a mind of my own and aren't
interested in your cult.
<snip>
>> Now these are genuine feelings, but you discard them, don't you?
>
>They may very well be genuine feelings but they're not relevant to the
>matter at hand.
No, they're just more interesting than your obsessive delusion about
Bandler, as well as being proof that RLan538885 was hypocritically
holding some 'genuine' feelings to be sacrosanct but not others.
Re: "matter at hand", you didn't start this thread, you butted in quite
late. Stop trying to control people.
>In any event, what do you propose be done with your feelings? They're
>your feelings, they're radically personal, you can't really share them
>with anyone except in a superficial way.
No idea what you mean.
>Also, it's important to understand that feelings are not facts. Just
>because you feel something doesn't mean it is true. A spouse may feel
>unappreciated but that does not entail that she necessarily is.
True enough.
BTW, I never said you emailed me. Please read more carefully in future.
Myron
> work. If the application of DHE to a client failed >><BR><BR>
>
> Actually, while I AGREE WITH YOU that most of DHE is a load of hooey, I
> disagree with your conclusion. It may simply be that, for whatever reason, he
> couldn't get past his own pain to apply it to himself.
You have set-up a non-falsifiable argument (which is of course
invalid). What you have done would be akin to me saying to a
terminally ill cancer patient, "Look if you open-up and accept the
cosmic love that flows through my body you will be healed." If the
patient goes into remission I say "See, told you so". If the patient
dies I tell the family, "He just couldn't or wouldn't open-up and
accept the cosmic love".
Also, on any level of analysis Bandler is unable to cure his ills. If
a treatment is invalidated by the condition it is claimed to cure then
it isn't a treatment. You're saying DHE can treat emotional pain but
you can't apply it if your experiencing emotional pain.
Additionally, if Bandler can't "get past his own pain to apply it to
himself" the he is not all that claims to be. Recall that Bandler
claimed he taught pain control to the CIA (another lie) and his
student were tested by having an ice-pick thrust through their hand.
Bandler also claimed that he received a compound fracture of his arm
and in a dissociated state was able to re-set it himself (more
bullshit) and that he didn't need to go to hospital to have it set in
a cast or to manage the pain (IIRC this was in "Bandler Doing
Bandler").
Myron
> but the
> one thing in NLP that I have not been able to identify as a synthesis from
> previous work is the idea that subjective meaning is encoded in the
> submodalities of the representational system. This, to me, is the core of
> NLP and the core of the work I do with clients... if you are able to point
> me to any references that indicate that this idea originated in earlier
> work, I would be most grateful :-)
From my reading the consensus of opinion is that th Meta-Model is the
core of NLP.
Read Chapter XXVIII of "Science and Sanity": "On the Mechanism of
Identification and Visualization". There you will find a prototypical
version of NLPs representational system. Bandler and Grinder took
Korzybski's insights into subjectivity and extended them with the
discoveries regarding synesthesia at the time Bandler was studying.
Korzybski even identifies representational system preferences
"It is known that not all people are able to visualize equally well.
In the old days this fact was taken for granted, and did not suggest
further analysis...In the auditory type the main returning currents
are deviated into different paths. The division between 'visual' and
'auditory' types is not sharp. In life we deal mainly with
individuals who have no more than a special inclination for one or the
other types of reaction." (p. 459 "Science and Sanity")
Korzybski recognises representational system predicates
"Even to common sense it seems clear that there is a significant
difference between 'knowing' this world by hearing and 'knowing' it by
seeing. There is, likewise, a difference between the translation of
higher absractions into lower terms by the visual path, and the
corresponding translation by the auditory path. In daily life we
never say 'I hear' when we wish to convey that we understand; but we
say 'I see'." (p. 460 "Science and Sanity").
It is my understanding that "submodalities" which Hall has
demonstrated are properly called "meta-modalities" came from
synesthesia research results (not from Bandler playing with the knobs
on his TV set as some claim).
(Take note Mr Eurotrash)
> BTW, I would take issue with your ideas about synthesis and origination if
> you are willing to engage, but I would choose to do so outside of the
> context of the NLP fight club.
No, I'm not interested in a private dialogue. David Gould has posted
to the NG stating that I sent him a "long list" of arguments against
Bandler/NLP that he says were obvious nonsense. I did no such thing.
I have not entered into private corresposndence with anyone nor do I
have the intention of doing so. I don't want to give you (or anyone
else) the opportunity to attribute "privately revealed" agendas, view
or affiliations to me by saying, "Myron said X,Y,Z in an email to me"
as per David Gould.
Congratulations to David Gould for confirming the cultist nature of
Bandler's followers.
To David Gould I say you are a dishonest piece of shit. Like your
demi-god, master you are a morally debased creep.
Adam Sargant
>
>
> > but the
> > one thing in NLP that I have not been able to identify as a synthesis
from
> > previous work is the idea that subjective meaning is encoded in the
> > submodalities of the representational system. This, to me, is the core
of
> > NLP and the core of the work I do with clients... if you are able to
point
> > me to any references that indicate that this idea originated in earlier
> > work, I would be most grateful :-)
>
> From my reading the consensus of opinion is that th Meta-Model is the
> core of NLP.
It's not my opinion, but that is neither here nor there
<snip>
> It is my understanding that "submodalities" which Hall has
> demonstrated are properly called "meta-modalities" came from
> synesthesia research results (not from Bandler playing with the knobs
> on his TV set as some claim).
Still, I would be greatful for some references to same... all of the
previous I already know, but the idea that subjective meaning is encoded in
the submodalities of the representational system still stands out to me as
an original claim. I am more than willing to accept otherwise, and if it
this idea originated with anyone other than B&G, I would want to know. But I
would need references.
<snip>
> > BTW, I would take issue with your ideas about synthesis and origination
if
> > you are willing to engage, but I would choose to do so outside of the
> > context of the NLP fight club.
>
> No, I'm not interested in a private dialogue. David Gould has posted
> to the NG stating that I sent him a "long list" of arguments against
> Bandler/NLP that he says were obvious nonsense. I did no such thing.
> I have not entered into private corresposndence with anyone nor do I
> have the intention of doing so. I don't want to give you (or anyone
> else) the opportunity to attribute "privately revealed" agendas, view
> or affiliations to me by saying, "Myron said X,Y,Z in an email to me"
> as per David Gould.
Rather than a private dialogue, I would prefer to continue any future
correspondence with you in a different thread. This one defines a context I
have no real interest in.
BTW, I suggest that David was referring to a post you made in response to
him on the newsgroup.
--
Adam Sargant
www.trance-formation.co.uk - creative approaches to personal development
mike
> > that there is a cult around Bandler. So what...who cares....are you on
> > some kind of crusade to save those unfortunate to be in it?
>
> You've designated yourself "The Peoples' Voice" have you? You can
> speak for yourself but you have no legitimate claim to "So what..who
> cares". Many clearly do care about the issues I raised.
> No, I'm not on a "crusade". I just want to add to the body of opinion
> that is critical towards Bandler.
> > If so,
> > have you ever considered the possibility they might not want to be
> > saved by you.
>
> Who are you speaking for? Those that don't care what I have to say
> will simply ignore my posts, those that do -- and there are many --
> will read them. Besides, as I said may aim is merely to add to the
> chorus of voices that speak out against Bandler.
> >Maybe...they consider themselves happier individuals for
> > having been in the "cult".
>
> You are fighting straw men. You are inventing arguments that you have
> an answer to and attributing them to me. I don't deny that many cult
> members are happy. What is the significance of their happiness?
the significance to you or them.
I
> have known of heroin users that are happy. Paedophilia -- for example
> -- is an ego-syntonic behaviour, i.e. a paedophile is not toubled by
> their own behaviour, they are happy to sexually exploit children.
> Does that mean we shou deal with them, evenld not criticise paedohiles?
> No connection between bandler trainees .....sorry....cultists!..... and paedophiles.....surely. Why make that one? ...."to illustrate a point" I hear you say(yes a mind read)..come on...... please your painting awful pictures in my mind!!!!!
> This is a purely subjective thing.
>
> What is a purely subjective thing? That which makes a person happy?
> No not really. People largely and broadly speaking seek the same
> basic things it's just how these needs are satisfied differs widely.
> a persons experience of it is
> > Why
> > would you want to destroy that happiness?
>
> Again, happiness is not the ultimate measure of value. If it were
> we'd be obliged to celebrate every form of deviance and pervisity.
> what?!!
> > Is it built on "false
> > grounds" or something?
>
> It isn't my concern.
>
> > It is easy to hide behind good reasoning and rational argument
>
> I'm not hiding behind anything. I'm engaging in rational discourse.
> It looks
> unusual to you because so little of it occurs on this news group.
> now your asuming things about me.it's ok though. Actually I hardly ever visit this news group and I am not an NLPer
> It is saddening that you would cast good reasoning and rational
> argument in a bad light.
Not so . It just depends on what it is used for. I've witnessed many
people crushed by someones 'superior' reasoning skills, even when they
were 'wrong'.
It is often used by racists,lawyers,polticians....in ways thatI
personally don't like. It is that simple.
Without good reasoning and rational argument
> we would degenerate into superstitious savages.
Are you saying that all people who have not got the same reasoning
abilility as you and cannot generate a rational argument such as yours
are superstitious savages?
It is rational
> inquiry and that has driven human progress. It wasn't always the case
> that organs could be transplanted, water could be purified, children
> with congenital deformities could be helped, the planets could be
> explored etc
..........and the hole in the ozone.....and nuclear weaponry...and
chemical warfare....ah progress....not always beneficial and not
necessarily
better than ages past. I admit that i prefer living in the 'modern
world', but I am a creature of it and therefore all my beliefs and
values would be informed by it.
>
> > and, to
> > me you are very good at this.
>
> A back-handed compliment.
> a geniune one actually. I am impressed with you reasoning ablity.
> > I would not even attempt to argue with
> > you.
>
> You are.
> I am now...your right. You are good at drawing me in.
> >No doubt I would lose.
>
> Depends what you wanted to argue about. There's a difference between
> rational dicourse and sophistry. Bandler doesn't engage in rational
> discourse
how do you know this?
he is a rhetorician and sophist, in the most pejorative
> sense of both words.
> rhetorics and sophistry can be used to for negative or postive ends....just another skillset.....or maybe I'm wrong
> >But I do not really care.
>
> You should care if your beliefs don't stand up to close scrutiny.
> which beliefs are they?
> If you believe that DHE can help an amputee to re-grow a limb without
> having seen any evidence then you are foolish.
>
> If you believe you specifically can cause your own or someone elses
> limb to re-grow than you are deluded, you have made a break from
> reality.
I've not done DHE. I do not, at this point in time, believe that
those things can be done. and as for reality.....well there's a
problematic word.
> > > I am very glad
> > that I attended some of Bandlers' seminars. As far as I am concerned,
> > I am a better person for it and I've met some really cool people.
>
> I wouldn't dispute this. However, it is no reason to deify Bandler or
> accept it as true when he says he is a computer scientist, optics
> expert etc.
> Personally, I have not deified him. Maybe some have. I just learned
a few things and had a good time doing so. i believe that he is highly
skilled in what he does and there are others, from other schools, that
are highly skilled at what they do. As for his claims to having
certain expertise in certain fields....I have no idea why he he makes
them. So far as I know, they are only used within the context of the
training room and I guess that has something to do with it. I am not
impressed by someones' academic title anyway.
forgive my 'mind reads' , assumptions etc .....just having my say
take care
> > I do
> > not care to be right about this and I do not care to justify it
> > rationally.
>
> You should care because rationality is what provides intellectual
> self-defence and enables you to separate the map from the territory.
>What about sophistry and rhetoric?.... Only kidding. I'm not really
that interested in intellectual self-defence and so far as I can tell
even if I can tell the map from the territory I'm still left with a
map. And if others appear to agree with my map I am left with my map
and they are left with their maps.
Robert
> > It was the observation from Bandler and Grinder.
> > Tested and coded and brought the first NLP model out there.
> > Never existed before.
>
> No, sorry, it's you that is wrong. During the 1970s at Stanford
> University much research was done on synesthesia. This research
> produced the representational model. Bandler and Grinder named it
> "The Representational Model", but that doesn't mean they discovered
> it.
Nope, still was researched and found out creating the second model
after the first which was the metamodel.
What sources and what information they had access to while they
discovered the eye acessing cues and relation to thinking is a
discovery.
> > Wrong again.
> > The format of the metamodel is the essential bits of working with the
> > representations people use in regards with behaviours.
>
> The meta-model is based on the notions of transformational grammar,
> deep structure and surface structure. Noam Chomsky formulated these
> conecpts. "Appendix A -- A Brief Outline of Transformational Grammar"
> in "The Sructure of Magic I" is a tutorial on Chomskyian Linguistics.
> It includes a reference to Chomsky (1957). See also section 1.3 of
> NLP Vol 1. The meta-model is an application of Chomsky's
> Transformational Grammar to human subjective experience. Grinder did
> his PhD on Chomskyian Linguistics.
No it isnt. The deep and surface strcuture was brought forward in the
start of NLP but later dropped as not needed for the metamodel model.
It is brought together by first analyzing the verbal patterns Perls
used and later satir.
Then Grinder used his waste knowledge from chomsky to note that he was
familar with this type of linguistics.
Then the metamodel was brought out in a format that allowed people to
create a distinction between the model of the world people used to
what was actually going on, as much anyone can do so.
The metamodel is recursive as are the other models of NLP using the
basis on representations which in essence means how people think in a
structured way.
How language and behaviours create a context which can be challenged
of someone trained to do so.
> I quote
>
> "The most thorougly studied and best understood of the
> representational systems of human modeling maps is that of human
> language. The most explicit and complete model of natural language is
> transformational grammar. Transformational grammar is, therefore a
> Meta-model...In adapting the concepts and mechanisms of the
> transformational model of the human representational system of
> language for the purposes of therapy, we developed a formal Meta-Model
> for therapy"
>
> (The Structure of Magic Vol. II, p 3)
They adapted this after they found out what Perls and satir was doing
to getting results other wasnt getting even after studies.
So the metamodel is a model brought from studies of extraordinary
people doing theraphy and later refined with work from transformatic
grammar.
It is compleately removed from content using the process people base
their thinking on.
It is in whispering in the wind by Grinder and Carmen.
page 152.
/Robert
www.riggiomodel.biz
Joe Donahue
I reply late to this group and after a long hiatus. In that time I
reread several NLP books including the O'Connor's NLP and am now
rereading for the third time "Frogs into Princes". In that time away I
also went to Dublin Ireland to see Bandler for myself. It was actually
cheaper for me to fly to his workshop in Dublin then to attend a similar
one in the states. In Dublin he disappointed me not because he does not
deserve NLP stardom but because he had deteriorated even then ( two
years ago) from his many tapes that I have viewed.
We can hate him for his confabulations, which are many, or love him for
his seminal contributions. He was in Dublin, a short, fat, out of shape
angry man, a sort of a Joe Pesci with waistline. If you have read him
or have seen him. I speculate that you screen out his boisterous
nonsense and accept the artistry of his hypnosis which was demonstrated.
Some of his books, quite frankly, are an embarrassment. Full of illogic
and incoherence of thought with randomness that often confuses. He is a
lousy writer!
Yet he would, even in his worst moments, have a jewel of an
understanding, a clear and precious comment that would erase all the
other nonsense. The question might be not "Does he talk nonsense?" He
obviously does. The question might be better put " Does his nonsense
now overshadow his current contributions and his seminal efforts as
well?" The former must be yes as his condition deteriorates but the
latter can never be for whatever reason.
NLP was given life by him primarily. Yes others might have given more
technical and scholarly contributions but his energy and charisma was
quite phenomenal. So what do we do? We honor the gift he helped package
and presented to us and encourage him to retire to private life with an
occasional artistic effort. Yes he is full of incredible bull shit. I
heard it and chuckled myself at his audacity. This short little fat man
claiming to be a 'tough guy'. I was the only American present so I
understood his peculiarly american swagger. The "Music Man" comes to
mind but the Irish and some others received him quit differently,
respectful, a little confused but subdued.
When some criticize Anthony Robbins spectacles and showmanship they
should have see Richard in his performance, Loud Rock music signaled his
entrance as he strode in with a necklace of symbolic 'indigenous' type
artifacts and rings of large stone settings on both hands, almost
impossible to not notice. He was a Guru having a good time being a Guru
or an old Guru trying to be a young one. My suggestion is to separate
him from NLP in a way that the current NLP, which to me is about
practical applications in daily tasks does not suffer.
I actually use NLP to coach elite Track and Field athletes.
As in sports many who argue about it have never 'done it'. The bandwith
is full of experts who have never been really hit or been hurt or have
lost in a moment so fleeting that it seems a mystery. Bandler has
nothing to do with what I do, except that I must honor the seed that the
tree of my knowledge through others grew from.
Like most social psychology phenomena NLP will work for some, less for
others and not all all for some. Look, if you can bat .350 in the sport
of baseball you can win a batting championship. You are a hero in a
sport with an average hardly over one third of total attempts. Even in
sales a one third success rate is a 'big deal' so if we/I can be
successful with NLP less than half the time we will do all right and
none of that has anything to do with Richard Bandler. It has to do with
us, our own skill, our own beliefs in how we see 'others'. When we can
modify our own beliefs we can begin to help others do the same. Its not
Bandler out on that practice field doing 'The squash' its me. If I don't
get a response that is effective its me that must modify until 'it'
works. It is truly that simple and Bandler, now sick and deteriorating
has nothing to do with it. I wish him health and peace and eternal
thanks for what he truly gave me even if I cannot identify it exactly. I
do not understand electicity either, yet I know the switches work. I do
not always need to know but I do need to 'Do'.
Far
Joe Donahue
ErosLA77
Date: Sat, Oct 2, 2004 9:29 AM
Message-id: <4580b60d.04100...@posting.google.com> >><BR><BR>
<< No, they are not supposed to suffer but it is a mark of maturity to
recognise that life has its ups and downs. It is the nature of life
-- by virtue of its complexity -- that things will not always go your
way. The normal response to this is sadness. The pathological
response is depression or happiness. If you are always happy -- as
you say you are -- then it would diminish you as a human, in the same
way that the inability to experience the affective component of guilt
diminishes the psychopath.>
That is VERY well said. I'm very puzzled. Some of what you say is right on
target, but some of it, like calling "NLP" a cult is so off the mark, I can
scarce tell if you are kidding, or just enjoing the venom of strongly
exaggerating an actual position.
Myron
I haven't read "Whispering in the Wind" so I can't check your info.
If what you are saying is in Whispering then that is a re-write of
history.
Myron
>
> Bad start. I never said that.
You said that since Bandler hypnotized you, you have been happy since.
> Erm, if I'm sad, I'm not able to function properly aka dysfunction.
No, you're confusing sadness with depression.
> I couldn't do any of this if I was sad. What a terrible waste it would
> be if I couldn't fully appreciate my loved one's life because I chose to
> be sad.
There's a difference between being sad and being depressed.
> However, that's just my opinion. Unlike you, I don't tell others how
> they should and shouldn't respond to loss.
No, I don't subscribe to your relativistic world-view. If what you
are telling me is genuine -- and not just attempts at baiting -- then
your mind is mush. Your (pathetic little) world (with Bandler as its
godhead) is nihilistic.
> If you had the personality,
> you'd make a good cult leader.
I'm a notch above sheep like you.
> >No, they are not supposed to suffer but it is a mark of maturity to
> >recognise that life has its ups and downs. It is the nature of life
> >-- by virtue of its complexity -- that things will not always go your
> >way. The normal response to this is sadness.
>
> Normal according to?
More relativism.
> Which mature person? A mature person with a choice to not suffer?
The mature person that can diffentiate (Californian New Age) fantasy
from
reality.
> No. A mature person who expects to suffer and thinks they 'might as
> well get used to it.'
Bullshit.
<snip>
> Ever heard of Buddhism?
Have you heard of cold, hard reality?
> >You needn't become depressed but you should\will feel frustration, anger,
> >or sadness.
>
> There you go again. Luckily, I have a mind of my own and aren't
> interested in your cult.
You're head is full of New Age and Postmodernist bullshit.
> No, they're just more interesting than your obsessive delusion about
> Bandler, as well as being proof that RLan538885 was hypocritically
> holding some 'genuine' feelings to be sacrosanct but not others.
I don't think anyone gives a toss about your feelings.
> Re: "matter at hand", you didn't start this thread, you butted in quite
> late. Stop trying to control people.
If it weren't for my contribution neither of the threads would still
be going.
Many have welcomed my contribution, it's only the thoroughly
indoctrinated -- like you -- that have been entirely beligerent and
obnoxious.
> >In any event, what do you propose be done with your feelings? They're
> >your feelings, they're radically personal, you can't really share them
> >with anyone except in a superficial way.
>
> No idea what you mean.
Exactly. You're so trapped by your pathetic New Age ideas that you
can actually share your feelings in anything but a trivial and
superficial way.
> >Also, it's important to understand that feelings are not facts. Just
> >because you feel something doesn't mean it is true. A spouse may feel
> >unappreciated but that does not entail that she necessarily is.
>
> True enough.
Then why do you want to share your feelings.
> BTW, I never said you emailed me. Please read more carefully in future.
You wrote that I sent you sent you a long list. You were
prevaricating.
Terry
Richard's tall tales, and has always led me to believe it's purposeful.
Now, I've always believed Richard was chaining states, hypnotically
inducing states, and checking status, etc. with his tales, and that I
understood. But this kind of incongruence makes no sense to me.
Although people often generalize, delete and distort their Maps in daily
life, this is different, there's an incongruency about it. Don't bother
pursuing truth, this manipulation could drive a sane person crazy. The
illogic will be circular. Usually, a person's beliefs align with their
behavior and there's a congruency with their competency.
This incongruency is intelligently incompetent. Troll behavior, or some
other ulterior motive. If anyone understands the motive, I'd sure like
to know as I never did discern a purpose.
Terry
Myron
> peddlers of hogwash are cult leaders. Universals are only partially
> convertible.
I know.
> Without millieu control, thought stopping, etc etc. you don't have a cult.
> Where is the enforcement arm, the Ethics Org, the Sea Org of NLP?
You're disregarding the fact that Bandler meets Lifton's three
criteria.
> In fact, NLP has grown into an entire field of study.
I know, I never stated that all of NLP is a cult only that Bandler's
branch is.
> If you are talking about a "cult" of personality, that's a fallacy of
> equivocation around the term "Cult".
No, that's not what I meant. I mean that Bandler's conduct meets
Lifton's three criteria of a cult.
> In fact, look at this from the site you use. Bandler's seminars have none of
> these:
>
> http://www.rickross.com/reference/brainwashing/brainwashing9.html
I can't see the direct relevance of that page. If anything it argues
for me in that Bandler lacks differential diagnosis and assessment
skills and as a result may do much harm in the name of "change work".
DHE induces delusions in people -- customised delusions. This is not
healthy.
The critical point which you are resisting is that according to
Lifton's three criteria Bandler runs a cult.
Robert
> > peddlers of hogwash are cult leaders. Universals are only partially
> > convertible.
>
> I know.
>
> > Without millieu control, thought stopping, etc etc. you don't have a cult.
> > Where is the enforcement arm, the Ethics Org, the Sea Org of NLP?
>
> You're disregarding the fact that Bandler meets Lifton's three
> criteria.
Isnt the idea that you propose that we accept that you are offering
Liftons criteria as evidence that bandler is doing a cult and if so
that all my work is about freedom (bandler quote) that your free to
express that and so also if you do are expressing the very freedom
bandler speaks about?
I cant understand how someone so intelligent would miss the
paradoxical structure of that quote.
/robert
www.riggiomodel.biz
Robert
Great post Joe.
/Robert
www.riggiomodel.biz
DigitalDreamer
use and usefulness. Now we get someone who is waging a one man obsession
against one of nlp's co-developers. And who steadfastly refuses to enter
into a debate about content. Seems to me he is as obsessed with Bandler
as are the 'cult followers' he denigrates.
BTW Myron, when attacking Robert, bear in mind 2 things: firstly,
English is not his native language and secondly, your posts are riddled
with selling mistakes and grammatical errors.He has a valid reason for
his erratic English - he is not a native English-speaker. What is your
excuse?
M Criz
Myron has clearly had a bad experience at some point and was probably
a cult member which is why he devotes his efforts to attacking the co
creator of NLP on an NLP forum. Some of the generalisations he makes
are amusing though...<g>
Joe Donahue
recently bothered me. I felt some response was needed not necessarily to
defend Bandler (who I felt uncomfortable with in person) but to place
some perspective into the discussion. Issac Newton for instance was a
hated, self possessed man who may have been the most brilliant
contributing 'jerk' of all time. Imagine if we threw out all his
contributions because he was so disliked! here is an appropriate quote
from Bruce Lee regarding what 'works' and what 'does not'.
"absorb what is useful, reject what is useless, and add what is
specifically your own" Bruce Lee
Joe Donahue
Performance coach
David Gould
On 3 Oct 2004 19:06:54 -0700, lronhubb...@fastmail.to (Myron)
wrote:
>> >You say that you are always happy.
>>
>> Bad start. I never said that.
>
>You said that since Bandler hypnotized you, you have been happy since.
>
>> Erm, if I'm sad, I'm not able to function properly aka dysfunction.
>
>No, you're confusing sadness with depression.
>
>> I couldn't do any of this if I was sad. What a terrible waste it would
>> be if I couldn't fully appreciate my loved one's life because I chose to
>> be sad.
>
>There's a difference between being sad and being depressed.
So what? Neither allow one to be at their best.
>> However, that's just my opinion. Unlike you, I don't tell others how
>> they should and shouldn't respond to loss.
>
>No, I don't subscribe to your relativistic world-view.
No, you just rely on having to be right in order to not feel like a
freak.
>If what you
>are telling me is genuine -- and not just attempts at baiting -- then
>your mind is mush.
Because YOU say so?
>Your (pathetic little) world (with Bandler as its godhead) is nihilistic.
Ever heard of projection? :)
>> If you had the personality,
>> you'd make a good cult leader.
>
>I'm a notch above sheep like you.
Suddenly all your arguments aren't worth a dime to you. Your need to
negotiate your position is all that matters. Which is quite bizarre
considering you're positing anonymously with a disposable account.
Who are you trying to convince? Yourself?
>> >No, they are not supposed to suffer but it is a mark of maturity to
>> >recognise that life has its ups and downs. It is the nature of life
>> >-- by virtue of its complexity -- that things will not always go your
>> >way. The normal response to this is sadness.
>>
>> Normal according to?
>
>More relativism.
What a small small world you live in.
>> Which mature person? A mature person with a choice to not suffer?
>
>The mature person that can diffentiate (Californian New Age) fantasy
>from reality.
That's your answer???
>> No. A mature person who expects to suffer and thinks they 'might as
>> well get used to it.'
>
>Bullshit.
What a compelling counter-argument. I bow to your superior knowledge.
><snip>
>
>> Ever heard of Buddhism?
>
>Have you heard of cold, hard reality?
Yes, but I choose to not live in your reality.
>> >You needn't become depressed but you should\will feel frustration, anger,
>> >or sadness.
>>
>> There you go again. Luckily, I have a mind of my own and aren't
>> interested in your cult.
>
>You're head is full of New Age and Postmodernist bullshit.
Wow, I guess it's really a threat to you.
>> No, they're just more interesting than your obsessive delusion about
>> Bandler, as well as being proof that RLan538885 was hypocritically
>> holding some 'genuine' feelings to be sacrosanct but not others.
>
>I don't think anyone gives a toss about your feelings.
Boo hooo hooo.
What's the problem? Can't take what you dish out? Hypocritical
blubbering coward. Bet you still live your parents too. Let me guess,
dominating mother, repressed homosexuality, no friends whatsoever, some
lame job where you think you're too good for them but in reality they
just think you're a tosser...
Naturally, you'll deny all these and throw similar accusations at me.
But _you'll know_ how transparent your writing is, despite your attempts
to conceal your identity.
>> Re: "matter at hand", you didn't start this thread, you butted in quite
>> late. Stop trying to control people.
>
>If it weren't for my contribution neither of the threads would still
>be going.
>Many have welcomed my contribution,
Haha, you really believe that, don't you?
>it's only the thoroughly indoctrinated -- like you -- that have been entirely beligerent and
>obnoxious.
If you're going to use that thesaurus, at least get the spelling
correct.
Let me get this straight: you think the only reason people have been
polite to you is because they're not in a cult????
That's hilarious.
OK enough for now, sugarplum.
<rest snipped>
BTW, take a few deep breaths before replying.
Elvis Lester
I created the term "meta-modalities" and introduced it to Hall in an email
which I have on file. BTW, it is not likely that you will win gain any
credibility on this list using Hall's name or work.
I am wondering if you or those with whom you associate have a death-wish for
Bandler and hope to benefit from his eventual absence. Or, is it that you
wish to discredit him now and benefit now by doing so?
BTW, Hall's critique of DHE was a marketing hype. I know firsthand. Hall had
listened to someone's audios of a DHE training. I wanted to write from the
experience I had with DHE direct inserting a few positive points about DHE
but Hall would have nothing to do with that and only wanted to bash Bandler
to gain recognition for himself and his meta-states. So, he wrote an article
and put my name on it. I asked him to remove my name from it because it was
so jaded.
Also, what a diversion you are creating taking the heat off the usual
suspects on this list.
Ambitious.
Elvis
EbaySimpson
entirely beligerent [sic] and obnoxious."
Since your own belligerence and obnoxiousness in this thread have clearly
exceeded that of the individual you are addressing, your statement is true
only if you are yourself one of "the thoroughly indoctrinated".
The sheer number of poor arguments in your postings here is impressive,
but not sufficiently so as to inspire a necessarily careful (and sometimes
necessarily lengthy) analysis. Suffice it to say that your writings are
abundant with straw man and inductive fallacies and factual misstatements
(with regard to diabetes, rhinitis, etc.).
BigJiim
>
HI David. Nice to hear from you. I've been lurking for a while without much
time to write. I like what Myron is doing ~ very provacative and engaging.
Despite his frankness, name-calling and all around bad looks I don't see
why his points can't be addressed ~ not that our conversation, right here
now David, is the place to do that - but why not?
I'm glad you said hi - made me feel welcome: )
>Torpedo therapy? Never heard the name although I'm probably aware of
>the process.
I first found torpedo therapy in Rex Sikes Master Practitioner manuel. I'm
not sure if Torpedo Therapy is Richards name or if it's John Mcwhirter's
invention. As I remember John Mcwhirter was writing about Richards
use of language and breaking it down into individual pieces. John, I think,
was talking about how Richard does rapid-fire change with people and
described the process with some of Richard's language. A fellow student
and I tried the same process with some minor troubles of our own and found
the process worked with our troubles as well. Since then I've been using
it for many different applications in business and the home front and find
it quite efffective. It, in my opinion, uses submodalities and time. It also
by-passes the conscious mind by the clever use of time and words not typically
associated with time.
I know this doesn't really give credit to John Mcwhirter or Richard Bandler
but the process I found was credited to them. I'm also sure that my description
was not an adequate example of how the process works ~ but just some cliff
notes
into how I found it.
Nice to hear from you again David!
My best,
Big Jim
Myron
> use and usefulness. Now we get someone who is waging a one man obsession
> against one of nlp's co-developers. And who steadfastly refuses to enter
> into a debate about content. Seems to me he is as obsessed with Bandler
> as are the 'cult followers' he denigrates.
I have argued content at great length. Read the thread.
> BTW Myron, when attacking Robert, bear in mind 2 things: firstly,
> English is not his native language and secondly, your posts are riddled
> with selling mistakes and grammatical errors.He has a valid reason for
> his erratic English - he is not a native English-speaker. What is your
> excuse?
Poor touch typing ability and no proof reading. Just type and post.
Anything else would be casting pearls before swine. My audience is
largely low-quality -- there are a few notable exceptions -- so I
wouldn't waste my time producing perfect prose. I post when I can
grab a few minutes, my posts are tapped out quickly, often when I'm
distracted and tired. So that's my excuse.
BTW you typed "selling" instead of spelling.
I acknowledged that English is his second language but he should
appreciate that because English is his second language his meaning is
not always clear. If he feels I have not answered one of his
questions it is because I can't understand it not because I'm being
evasive.
Myron
> Liftons criteria as evidence that bandler is doing a cult and if so
> that all my work is about freedom (bandler quote) that your free to
> express that and so also if you do are expressing the very freedom
> bandler speaks about?
>
> I cant understand how someone so intelligent would miss the
> paradoxical structure of that quote.
There is no paradox or irony there. I haven't spent tens of thousands
of
dollars on Bandler seminars, I don't teach NLP/DHE seminars, I'm aware
that
there is more to psychology than NLP, I am widely read and I don't
look to
Bandler for the "meaning of life". I have very little investment or
commitment
to NLP (sure I have spent money and time but no more than I have in
other studies). For that reason, I can think freely. Canning Bandler
doesn't produce feelings of dissonance in me like it would someone who
has spent US$60,000+ on NLP/DHE/NHR training. Bandler doesn't have me
by the balls, he hasn't got my brain in a tin can.
Also, I have made some effort to learn something about logic, formal
and informal fallacies, epistemology, statistics, experiment design,
cult psychology and psychiatry. If I can think freely it is not
because of Bandler and NLP but because of because of study not related
to NLP.
It is a myth that NLP produces broader minds and better communicators.
The posters to this group are evidence that this is indeed not the
case. NLP presents a model of the mind and just as arrogantly as
psychodynamic psychiatry
says, "this is it, this is the last word, we have arrived at an
answer, argument will not be entered into".
General Semantics -- the field founded by Alfred Korzybski -- will
broaden your mind and make you a better communicator. Korzybski and
General Semantics are about freedom. Celebrate the venerable
Korzybski not some unoriginal, narcissistic, cocaine-snorting,
bloated, compote.
The only freedom Bandler is concerned about is his own. He shows no
genuine concern about anyone other than himself. When he does treat
someone's phobia he is motivated not by altruism but by a desire for
narcissistic supply. Bandler's life is dedicated to the pursuit of
narcissistic supply.
The standard NLP response to this is that I'm "mind reading". One
need only closely read his interviews and listen to his talks and
understand his biography to see that he has all the characteristics of
someone with Narcissistic Personality Disorder.
Myron
> which I have on file. BTW, it is not likely that you will win gain any
> credibility on this list using Hall's name or work.
I'll have to take your word on this of course because there is no
publicly available information that would permit me to confirm this.
Whether you or Hall came up with it doesn't really matter in the
context in which it was said. It was something said in passing.
There is much more intelligence and sanity in NS that there is in DHE.
> I am wondering if you or those with whom you associate have a death-wish for
> Bandler and hope to benefit from his eventual absence. Or, is it that you
> wish to discredit him now and benefit now by doing so?
I will not benefit in any material way by Bandler's absence or
discrediting. I don't have anthing to sell. NLP as a field would
benefit by his passing.
> BTW, Hall's critique of DHE was a marketing hype. I know firsthand. Hall had
> listened to someone's audios of a DHE training. I wanted to write from the
> experience I had with DHE direct inserting a few positive points about DHE
> but Hall would have nothing to do with that and only wanted to bash Bandler
> to gain recognition for himself and his meta-states. So, he wrote an article
> and put my name on it. I asked him to remove my name from it because it was
> so jaded.
Can you actually rebut Hall's criticisms?
> Also, what a diversion you are creating taking the heat off the usual
> suspects on this list.
I don't belong to any NLP clique or cult. I dislike most of the
people on this NG for one reason or another. I'm not affiliated with
anyone.
> Ambitious.
I have no ambition with regard to this NG. I've already stated my
purpose.
Myron
> entirely beligerent [sic] and obnoxious."
>
> Since your own belligerence and obnoxiousness in this thread have clearly
> exceeded that of the individual you are addressing, your statement is true
> only if you are yourself one of "the thoroughly indoctrinated".
I disagree. I'm forceful, honest, intelligent and direct.
> The sheer number of poor arguments in your postings here is impressive,
> but not sufficiently so as to inspire a necessarily careful (and sometimes
> necessarily lengthy) analysis.
Yes, of course. I've heard it before, "I could demolish your
arguments if I wanted to but I just can't be bothered". Then fuck off
then if you can't be bothered, stay on the potty and take a shit or
get the fuck off.
> Suffice it to say that your writings are
> abundant with straw man and inductive fallacies and factual misstatements
> (with regard to diabetes, rhinitis, etc.).
Show me how you posturing tool.
Myron
So you're proposing that happiness is a sane response to all
eventualities?
> No, you just rely on having to be right in order to not feel like a
> freak.
I'm clever enough that being right is a realitic option. For ignorant
tossers like you it makes sense to downplay the value of being right
in the context of
an argument. You're partcipitaing in a debate dickhead. A debate
consists of
two or more parties arguing that their position is the right one.
> >If what you
> >are telling me is genuine -- and not just attempts at baiting -- then
> >your mind is mush.
>
> Because YOU say so?
>
> >Your (pathetic little) world (with Bandler as its godhead) is nihilistic.
>
> Ever heard of projection? :)
So you're a Freudian now?
> >I'm a notch above sheep like you.
>
> Suddenly all your arguments aren't worth a dime to you. Your need to
> negotiate your position is all that matters. Which is quite bizarre
> considering you're positing anonymously with a disposable account.
How do you arrive at that conclusion? I have been combining scorn and
vitriol and argumentation since my first post on this thread. You've
rebutted none of my arguments. Sure, you've postured and whined but
all that has demonstrated is that you are great big vagina.
> Who are you trying to convince? Yourself?
Re-read my objectives which I posted earlier.
> What a small small world you live in.
You have demonstrated no knowledge beyond a poor understanding of the
roots of NLP. You aren't in a position to flaunt the wide expanses of
your world.
> >The mature person that can diffentiate (Californian New Age) fantasy
> >from reality.
>
> That's your answer???
You shouldn't scoff it is of the same quality as your replies.
> >Bullshit.
>
> What a compelling counter-argument. I bow to your superior knowledge.
When you are given a taste of your own style "argument" you don't like
it do you?
> Yes, but I choose to not live in your reality.
Ok, so reality is largely subjective is it?
> Wow, I guess it's really a threat to you.
No, no threat to me just the gullible and ignorant.
> >I don't think anyone gives a toss about your feelings.
>
> Boo hooo hooo.
>
> What's the problem? Can't take what you dish out?
I don't think you can match me on either front. My arguments and
knowledge are better than yours and my vitriol is also.
> Hypocritical
> blubbering coward.
How so?
>Bet you still live your parents too.
Wrong.
> Let me guess,
> dominating mother,
Wrong. She's quite passive actually.
> repressed homosexuality,
Wrong.
> no friends whatsoever,
Wrong.
> some
> lame job where you think you're too good for them but in reality they
> just think you're a tosser...
No, wrong again. I won't be baited into divulging personal details.
I will say that I currently hold a professional job with quite a bit
of responibility. In all of my previous jobs I have risen as high as
I can go -- without changing roles -- in a relatively short period of
time. I have even received internal awards for performance and
effort. In all my places of employment I have been a top performer.
My salary currently is good. Last year it was very high (remember
things don't always go your way). Most people that know me think I'm
a fucken legend.
> Naturally, you'll deny all these and throw similar accusations at me.
I deny them because they are not true. If there were any
homosexuality in me it wouldn't be repressed, I'd be a raving homo.
If I lived at home I'd expect that I'd admit it. You don't have the
family dynamic correct either. I won't throe similar accusations at
you because that would be hackneyed wouldn't it, calling someone a
repressed homo. is unimaginative.
> But _you'll know_ how transparent your writing is, despite your attempts
> to conceal your identity. Your identity is as concealed as mine is. Knowing your full name doesn't tell me your biography.
Wow! Hypnotic language.
> Haha, you really believe that, don't you?
Are you suggesting that I haven't propmpted people to post?
> If you're going to use that thesaurus, at least get the spelling
> correct.
I don't use a thesauraus you're not worth the effort.
> Let me get this straight: you think the only reason people have been
> polite to you is because they're not in a cult????
I think you're talking to yourself here. Did I make any inference
based on people being polite to me? Do you think I care if people are
being polite to me? Do you think I would be as a blunt and vitriolic
as I have been if I was interested in eliciting polite responses.
> That's hilarious.
Now you're making yourself laugh.
Myron
> a cult member which is why he devotes his efforts to attacking the co
> creator of NLP on an NLP forum. Some of the generalisations he makes
> are amusing though...<g>
No, I have never been a member of a cult. Nor have I had a bad
experience with a cult. I simply don't like cults and their leaders.
Myron
> recognise that life has its ups and downs. It is the nature of life
> -- by virtue of its complexity -- that things will not always go your
> way. The normal response to this is sadness. The pathological
> response is depression or happiness. If you are always happy -- as
> you say you are -- then it would diminish you as a human, in the same
> way that the inability to experience the affective component of guilt
> diminishes the psychopath.>
>
> That is VERY well said. I'm very puzzled. Some of what you say is right on
> target, but some of it, like calling "NLP" a cult is so off the mark, I can
> scarce tell if you are kidding, or just enjoing the venom of strongly
> exaggerating an actual position.
Thanks Ross, it is quite eloquent isn't it.
I used Lifton's three criteria to test whether Bandler runs a cult.
According
to the criteria, he does. I didn't invent Lifton's criteria and
Lifton isn't some obscure writer. Lifton is seminal material on
cults. You keep saying that I claim that NLP is a cult but I did not
say that, I said Bandler runs a cult. Not as sophisticated as the CoS
or the Raelians but nevertheless a cult. Bandler is a cult leader
with a short attention span and low organisational ability.
Myron
> Richard's tall tales, and has always led me to believe it's purposeful.
> Now, I've always believed Richard was chaining states, hypnotically
> inducing states, and checking status, etc. with his tales, and that I
> understood. But this kind of incongruence makes no sense to me.
>
> Although people often generalize, delete and distort their Maps in daily
> life, this is different, there's an incongruency about it. Don't bother
> pursuing truth, this manipulation could drive a sane person crazy. The
> illogic will be circular. Usually, a person's beliefs align with their
> behavior and there's a congruency with their competency.
>
> This incongruency is intelligently incompetent. Troll behavior, or some
> other ulterior motive. If anyone understands the motive, I'd sure like
> to know as I never did discern a purpose.
I stated my objectives very early in one of the two threads, I won't
repeat them here.
What is puzzling you -- I think -- is the unfamiliar combination of
erudition and trash talk. If there is any incongruity it is that. I
have contributed substantive arguments and backed them up with
citations (I owe a citation regarding synesthesia, I haven't forgotten
nor am I being evasive) and I have also been quite acerbic and
vituperative.
This NG isn't a civilized forum and I'm not going to pretend that it
is. Rational discourse has certain rules, it is like a game of chess.
You can't play a game of chess against someone that doesn't abide by
the rules. David Gould is a fine example of this. He is yet to rebut
any of my arguments. Instead his tactic is to claim he could defeat
my arguments if he wanted to and to name call. He clearly doesn't
want to play the game. He's happy to play another game, namely
exchanging insults. Unfortunately he's not particularly good at this
either. You have a simple choice with me: (a) ignore me; (b) argue
against me, observing the rules of rational discourse and debate; or
(c) throw insults at me. My preference is for (b), (a) wouldn't
really concern me, and I'm able to participate in (c).
A problem is that many that have posted have confused (b) with (c).
Also, some have confused posturing with (b). Saying that you could
rebut my arguments if you wanted to is not the same as actually
rebutting my arguments.
Also, there is no illogic or manipulation. Everything in category (a)
that I have presented is of the form:
Assertion + (Argument and/or Evidence)
there are no tricks here. I can only imagine someone having
difficulty with this if:
(a) they subscribe to a form of epistemological relativism (which
is currently fashionable); or
(b) they simply don't understand what is required before they
accept an assetion as true.
The quality of debate on this NG is very low and many of the people
that do NLP seminars are muddle-headed, the type that read New Age
shit like "The Celestine Prophecy" and have done all sorts of other
seminars hoping they will emerge as geniuses. I've provided numerous
references to books, URLS and I've quoted copiously from primary
texts. I've also made some conceptual distinctions. I don't expect
someone that has been on a steady diet of New Age material and Popular
Psychology and has now "advanced" to NLP and DHE to intelligently
respond to anything I have written. These people are like lost
children and are the traditional fodder for cult leaders. I can allow
myself to be shouted down by these infantile fools or I can shout
back. There is no mystery or ulterior motive here.
It is very cultist to suspect that all criticism originates from some
conspiracy.
EbaySimpson
Please supply a well-reasoned and consistent standard by application of
which your postings here have not been "entirely beligerent [sic] and
obnoxious" and others' postings here have.
"...you posturing tool."
Upon what "reasoning" was this based? Please submit convincing evidence
for its accuracy.
Myron
> "...it's only the thoroughly indoctrinated -- like you -- that have been
> entirely beligerent [sic] and obnoxious."
>
> Since your own belligerence and obnoxiousness in this thread have clearly
> exceeded that of the individual you are addressing, your statement is true
> only if you are yourself one of "the thoroughly indoctrinated".
Is there an SI measurement for belligerence and obnoxiousness that you
are applying? No, so your measurement of my "belligerence and
obnoxiousness" -- if it does exist -- is an entirely subjective
measure on your part. So your argument is entirely predicated on an
insubstantiable subjective assessment. How would you respond if I
stated, "I think you're twice as belligerent and obnoxious as me"?
> The sheer number of poor arguments in your postings here is impressive,
That's unusual given that I have proposed only a few arguments.
You're inability to enumerate this plethora of bad arguments doesn't
impress me.
> but not sufficiently so as to inspire a necessarily careful (and sometimes
> necessarily lengthy) analysis.
Of course because that would show you up as being a poseur.
> Suffice it to say that your writings are
> abundant with straw man and inductive fallacies and factual misstatements
> (with regard to diabetes, rhinitis, etc.).
No that is sufficient. I could just as well say, "You suck, you are a
pretentious,moronic, fuckwit retard, but not to such a degree that it
would
justify me preparing a geometric proof. Suffice it to say, what you
have posted is flawed in every conceivable way but I won't demonstrate
how it's flawed."
Pretty vacuous thing to say isn't it? Well that's just what you have
done.
On the topic of my mis-speclling of belligerent. I'm posting informal
polemic to a bunch of dickheads that can't differentiate their anus
from their elbow. I'm not posting to a reputable journal why the fuck
should I care about spelling mistakes (most of which are typographic).
Before you try and lecture men on inductive fallacies perhaps you
should ponder the concept of standards of evidence and heuristics. As
for straw man fallacies, please show me.
You're a poseur. I'm confident I can eviscerate you, Robert the
Eurotrash, David Gould and "Jayroni" and I think you all know this
that's why you hide behind posturing and pretence.
jayroni
are you sure? It doesn't sound like it from your postings
Myron
"diagnosis" of repressed homosexuality -- is usually the last
desperate attempt at salvaging some credibility and morale. It is
ironic that a disciple of Bandler -- someone that is virulently
hateful of Freud and relentlessly critical of psychodynamic psychiatry
-- would resort to a pseudo-Freudian "analysis".
To demonstrate just how big a tool you are I'll reciprocate your
pseudo-Freudian analysis. We'll see who does the
pseudo-psychodynamics better.
This is your attempt:
> What's the problem? Can't take what you dish out? Hypocritical
> blubbering coward. Bet you still live your parents too. Let me guess,
> dominating mother, repressed homosexuality, no friends whatsoever, some
> lame job where you think you're too good for them but in reality they
> just think you're a tosser...
>
> Naturally, you'll deny all these and throw similar accusations at me.
> But _you'll know_ how transparent your writing is, despite your attempts
> to conceal your identity.
This is mine:
I suspect that you are the product of an upbringing characterized by
an absent father. This led to the absence of an effective male role
model. You have idealised Bandler as the perfect father. Through the
process of transference you have imbued Bandler with all that is good.
The absence of an effectice male role model caused you to internalize
your mother's sexual orientation. This produced in you a latent
homosexuality. This latent homosexuality is finding its expression in
your idelealisation of Bandler. The idealisation has progressed to
erotic attachment. You have fantasies of sexual union with Bandler.
The union you imagine is a means of assimilating Bandler and his great
wisdom which is a product of your idealisation. You will resist this
analysis. The resistance is proof of its validity. Your hostility to
me is a result of your perception of me as a threat to your object of
erotic attraction.
See, I can do it also. I think my pseudo-Freudian verbiage is better
than yours.
Why bother going down that cliched path? I've seen it all before.
This is childish. Before you get into a fit of self-righteous moral
indignation remember that you initiated this tangent.
It disturbs me that a half-wit like you sells himself as a therapist.
The benefit of this exchange with you is that your prospects can gain
an insight into your character and intellectual capacity by searching
usenet. Your inability to differntiate between sadness and depression
and your claim that perpetual happiness is natural/desirable/possible
is telling.
You must be a really smug, smarmy butthole, "Oh, since Bandler
hypnotised me I've never been unhappy". Well fuck you and Bandler, if
that is true then he's given you a form of autism. Wouldn't you be an
empathic individual without the capacity to feel sadness. What do you
do, smile like some retard when someone tells you they experienced a
death in the family?
What you and Bandler deserve is to be drowned in a shallow puddle of
Bandler's
benzoylecgonine and glucose rich urine.
Rex Sikes
Gosh what another tragic example of wasted bandwidth. Critique Bandler if
you wish, his work, his life, his relationships. But at least get the facts
correct.
A difficult thing to do because so much time was spent mythifying the
founders, the work etc.
NLP has strong roots in other areas. Yes. Bandler has innovated some things
- what he is really good at is creative applications and seeing things and
being curious enough to discover if they work and also putting his twist on
things. Has he developed things - certainly - everything he seems to want
credit for - no. Has he contributed - yes. Is he a genius - not in my
opinion but he has done many good and creative things regardless of what
else he may or may not have done, and regardless of what others think about
him.
Is nlp a cult - not in a long shot. Does it suffer from some over zealous
practitioners, myths, and religous trappings - yes in many ways.
Is there merit to utilzing nlp for some things - yes, many things yes.
Is it a panacea - no are the founders fallible - you bet. Is it a system for
personal and professional change - yes it can be - does it have a similar
structure to ther workshops and trainings in MLM - yeah in some ways.
Bottom line - is there benefit - I believe so.
Do I care for Bandler - not necessarily - I worked for many years with him,
and he for me in cases. I repsect some things about him and not others.
Would I again want to spend time with him - no and haven't for ten years.
But, enough about the man. Look at the books - some are taped transcripts. B
& G both contributed to early works in print. Watch the videos. For gawd
sakes don't believe all the stories (metaphors and analogies) they aren't
meant to actually always be believed - look at the work instead. Look at the
other contributions from other authors. And realize that within the
community many have rushed to publish, to put on seminars etc. without
necessariy having any real different offerings. Some are and some aren't.
NLP should be critiqued on its merits not hearsay, wild rants, inaccurate
assumptions and incorrect data, should not be judged on the truthfulness of
any story.
Other than that - it seems a waste to banter around such notions.
Tom Vizzini
GREAT POST!
"Rex Sikes" <r...@amazingrex.com> wrote in message
news:BD8828F7.C749%r...@amazingrex.com...
Robert
> conspiracy.
Not if your paranoid ;)
/Robert
www.riggiomodel.biz
Adam Sargant
news:4580b60d.04100...@posting.google.com...
> A debate
> consists of
> two or more parties arguing that their position is the right one.
A worthwhile debate, IMO, allows that both parties accept that the other
party has something worthwhile to contribute, and being prepared to shift to
a degree.... otherwise there is just a diatribe.
I would still be grateful if you could offer references for the notion that
the subjective experience of meaning being encoded in the submodalities of
the representational systems (or the meta-modalities if you prefer) did not
originate with B&G.
Adam
Adam Sargant
Group hug?
:-)
--
Adam Sargant
www.deep-mind.com - accelerating personal and spiritual evolution
"Tom Vizzini" <T...@essential-skills.com> wrote in message
news:a6mdncwDSMe...@adelphia.com...
ErosLA77
Yah, I am very versed with cults, due to a family member having had a longer
history with Scientology.
What I don't see with Bandler are any of the major abusive things, like
undermining the member's self-trust, sleep deprivation, group confession,
loaded language, many, MANY of the ear marks of a cult.
I do agree there is some massive cognitive dissonance going on with people who
DO worship RB; they seem to ignore all the incongruencies, inconsistencies,
etc. And Bandler displays some of the characteristics you talk about.
But a cult? A cult, at the very least, has REGULAR meetings. Bandler only does
so many trainings a year, scattered all over the place. Maybe one of my point
is, WITHOUT THE ORGANIZATION, there is NO CULT. Cult like aspects, sure. But no
org, no cult. What you have is a showman, offer some value, and taking money,
and a perhaps "cult" of personality.
One of other major things lacking in Bandler is any "recruitment/enrollment"
pressures. Bandler NEVER pressures anyone to go out and recruit others. Unlike
some very big name "encounter group" week end traings, there is NO enrollment
pressure at all. No pledge to go get other people. Simply NONE.
Also, no deception with "graduations" and "free guest evenings" and that sort
of thing.
I'm telling you, without those things..it's more of a sideshow that charges a
lot than a cult.
RJ
Sue RAY NOW!
Ask me how!
PUT AN END TO HARASSMENT AND ABUSE OF PROCESS!
David Gould
wrote:
>> So what? Neither allow one to be at their best.
>
>So you're proposing that happiness is a sane response to all
>eventualities?
Sanity is merely a label used to control people, which is again why
you're using it.
I see you chose not to dispute your obvious tendencies in this regard.
>> No, you just rely on having to be right in order to not feel like a
>> freak.
>
>I'm clever enough that being right is a realitic option. For ignorant
>tossers like you it makes sense to downplay the value of being right
>in the context of
>an argument. You're partcipitaing in a debate dickhead. A debate
>consists of
>two or more parties arguing that their position is the right one.
I think I already made this clear: I'm not interested in debating with
someone with your approach. As Tom predicted, you have failed to accept
the many counterarguments which decimated your case against Bandler.
You're only interested in being right in whatever shrinking context you
can manage to make that judgment in.
You will continue to rant until people ignore you, thereby denying you
the opportunity to escape your freakdom.
Elvis Lester
Where do you get your information about Bandler Seminars?
I am wondering if you have direct experience of attending events where
Bandler has presented.
And, do you base your info on Bandler on "facts" or hearsay?
I'd like to know so that we are talking about specifics about your
'complaints'...
that is what you are doing... complaining - plain and simple.
You must have complaints or you would not persist in delivering the info you
have.
What is your outcome from posting as you have? Are you clear about it?
Otherwise, why do you care - if you have not outcome or ambition.
You have already indicated that the people on this group aren't worth
saving... in so many words. I don't mean to put words in your mouth. I doubt
you would let me... would you?
Since you bring Hall up - Have you attended Hall's seminars?
What do you think gives them an advantage if you think there is an
advantage?
I could debate you all day on Hall's material and methods. I know them
inside out.
I can also debate you on NLP & DHE. What good would it do?
It is clear you have a very determined mindset to dirty your hands with
lambasting Bandler.
What is your real beef with Bandler? Be honest and stop the non-sense
complaints about "cults".
You can't be for real what you are saying. If anything, by description, then
NLP is a "cultish" technology.
Cult -
====
1 A usually nonscientific method or regimen claimed by its originator to
have exclusive or exceptional power in curing a particular disease.
2 Obsessive, especially faddish, devotion to or veneration for a person,
principle, or thing.
The object of such devotion.
3 An exclusive group of persons sharing an esoteric, usually artistic or
intellectual interest.
If by #3 you mean cult, then I can agree with you partially. :)
Elvis
Myron
> which your postings here have not been "entirely beligerent [sic] and
> obnoxious" and others' postings here have.
Look at both threads to which I have contributed, there are many posts
without any scorn or vitriol.
> "...you posturing tool."
>
> Upon what "reasoning" was this based? Please submit convincing evidence
> for its accuracy.
You haven't rebutted any of my arguments, you have only postured that
you can do so.
.
. . You are a posturing tool.
Q.E.D.
Robert
> I think I just fainted <g>
>
> Group hug?
HUGS!
It is not new to me that Tom has a secret of being nice.
I knew it a long time ago.
Hugs.
/Robert
www.riggiomodel.biz
Elvis Keith Lester
Anybody seen Myron...
Where did he go?
Left us so abruptly.
Or, am I not getting messages as I should..
Elvis
Terry
Your system is working well. "Myron" fired the anchors he intended to
fire, structured his posts according to his set of rules, and elicited
the responses he knew he would.
He embedded a few commands, broke his own rules left and right...
included generalizations, deletions, and distortions.... hey, just like
real life!
He's now basking in his afterglow.
Terry
Robert
> Your system is working well. "Myron" fired the anchors he intended
to
> fire, structured his posts according to his set of rules, and elicited
> the responses he knew he would.
Myron is a comedian.
At least that was what I could notice.
Rarely had so much fun on this group.
> He embedded a few commands, broke his own rules left and right...
> included generalizations, deletions, and distortions.... hey, just like
> real life!
Most who complain, think about cults are either a cultist themself or
a reprogrammed one.
Either way they become paranoid and often fanatical about the whole
thing they become obsessed with.
Even if he elicited responses and claimed Bandler did lead a cult he
dosnt understand the mechanichs people use to build and maintain
generalizations.
Which is a nice video with bandler back in the old days.
/Robert
www.riggiomodel.biz
Elvis Keith Lester
to say having been unable to "climb the ladder" to full and complete success
or tenure. ;)
Elvis
"Robert" <rob...@svensknlp.nu> wrote in message
news:627ff765.04101...@posting.google.com...
Joe Bloggs
>
> I agree here with this satement of Ross. Let me add that
>
> Something working or not working is NOT the only evidence for efficacy of
> a
> treatment.
lol, ooookay. I wish our medical science worked like that. In fact it seems
they do, see the whole vioxx scandal.
> Some things will work some times - some things that do work - may not
> always
> work, and some things that don't work may actually work in some cases.
Do you work? Or better, do you try to make sense? I think the next drug
company that comes out and says "this drug will work some times, and
sometimes it may not work, and often when we think it won't work, it may
actually work in some cases", get's my vote of confidence. I think the
airline company that says "our plane might fly safely, but often it doesn't,
but sometimes when we think we'll crash we actually won't, and so you might
as well fly with us" is the one I'll book my next flight with. My point,
obviously, is that when you come out and make a statement with some sort of
ascertion you can't backtrack it with the kind of mumbo jumbo you're trying
to present here.
>I don't mean to be vague but what we often use for evidence of things
>(working
> or not) is not always the best criteria.
Really, cuz when I was fixing the roof on my house last week I was pretty
happy that the supply yard told me the new material I was installing would
certainly keep the rain out of my house. I've been pretty happy with the
evidence of this thing working properly. I was pretty happy that the new
screw driver I bought worked as evidence that I could put in a few light
fixtures around my house. I'm pretty certain that the evidence that it
worked proved that it did what it claimed to do.
>And after all we are people -
> living processes and not machines - there are literally thousands of
> varibables as to why something does or doesn't occur, work or not etc.
Which is why we usually try to narrow them down and make good common sense
guestimates as to what will work in certain specific situations. You're try
to sell an idea and you're doing a poor job of it.
> Why does one person have a spontaneous healing or remission and another
> not?
When we figure that out, we can be pretty sure we'll have some concrete
building blocks for reproducing it, but if you're going to advertise a cure
all be all then CURE ALL AND BE ALL, or don't advertise it.
> Why do some of the healthiest people - mentally, physically, emotionally,
> spiritually get stricken with a horrible illness.
We don't know.
>Why do some horrendous
> people prosper or live a long life with little problems or issues?
We don't know.
> Pointing to one person or even a hundred that get a result is only an
> indication that that one or those hundred got the result and not an
> indication that anyone else ever will.
What's your point? We bring it back to the claims that are made. They should
be backed up with evidence, otherwise they're as empty as the lack of
evidence to support them. It's a simple process that tries to give
credibility to a system.
> However, we can assume that others
> may get similar results if they engage in similar or exact ....
> One person or a hundred not getting a result is no more an indication of
> failure than it is of success.
It is if only 100 were tested.
>Much of what we accept is by inference and
> extrapolation.
So does that means we can say what we want and not have to back it up with
evidence?
> Many may get results because of belief, placebo effect - others may not
> because they don't have a similar disposition.
If you say you have the building blocks of belief and can cause internal
changes in yourself, then prove it.
> So it isn't truly fair to say that because a contributor to a field has
> issues - health related or otherwise - that the field, isn't worthwhile to
> examine.
There are many worthless field out there. I'd like to know if you have the
time and effort to spend a lifetime examining it, or if perhaps you are one
of those rare people that want to maintain somewhat of a healthy skepticism
and invest your precious energy into something that will deliver worthwhile
results?
> that is why there is much debate in certain circles about methodological
> controls, blind and double blind studies, how tests are constructed or
> operationalized, results and findings - NO MATTER WHAT - are subject to
> interpretation and then projected on future likelihood through statistics.
That are many threats to validity. If you know what they are you can usually
determine if the scientific paper is worthwhile. Usually peer reviewers know
what threats to validity have been crossed and its the reason why there is
more than one peer reviewing the paper so as to ensure those papers that
have been put through a shoddy scientific process are not published. It's
not a perfect system by any means but it ensures that someone who wants to
put the methodology to test can follow a similar path and determine if
indeed the results match.
Robert
Don,
> "absorb what is useful, reject what is useless, and add what is
> specifically your own" Bruce Lee
Now, I would ask, what did Bruce Lee add to?
And what did he absorb to?
Bruce Lee did more according to me than just find things that worked.
So did Bandler and Grinder.
So have others done trough the ages.
I learned from many.
Still do.
/Robert
www.riggiomodel.biz
Presenting in Canada 2-5 dec 2004.
Usa...11-12 dec....
> Thanks Robert. The tenor of the posts which I have begun to read
> recently bothered me. I felt some response was needed not necessarily to
> defend Bandler (who I felt uncomfortable with in person) but to place
> some perspective into the discussion. Issac Newton for instance was a
> hated, self possessed man who may have been the most brilliant
> contributing 'jerk' of all time. Imagine if we threw out all his
> contributions because he was so disliked! here is an appropriate quote
> from Bruce Lee regarding what 'works' and what 'does not'.
>
> "absorb what is useful, reject what is useless, and add what is
> specifically your own" Bruce Lee
> Joe Donahue
> Performance coach
>
> Robert wrote:
> > Joe Donahue <dona...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:<uE%7d.171148$D%.18790@attbi_s51>...
> >
> > Great post Joe.
> >
> > /Robert
> > www.riggiomodel.biz
Robert
The name torpedo theraphy was for me in the books by steve and
connirae - change your mind and keep the change book.
/Robert
www.riggiomodel.biz
> >Hey Jim, glad to see you're still around.
> >
>
> HI David. Nice to hear from you. I've been lurking for a while without much
> time to write. I like what Myron is doing ~ very provacative and engaging.
> Despite his frankness, name-calling and all around bad looks I don't see
> why his points can't be addressed ~ not that our conversation, right here
> now David, is the place to do that - but why not?
>
> I'm glad you said hi - made me feel welcome: )
>
>
> >Torpedo therapy? Never heard the name although I'm probably aware of
> >the process.
>
> I first found torpedo therapy in Rex Sikes Master Practitioner manuel. I'm
> not sure if Torpedo Therapy is Richards name or if it's John Mcwhirter's
> invention. As I remember John Mcwhirter was writing about Richards
> use of language and breaking it down into individual pieces. John, I think,
> was talking about how Richard does rapid-fire change with people and
> described the process with some of Richard's language. A fellow student
> and I tried the same process with some minor troubles of our own and found
> the process worked with our troubles as well. Since then I've been using
> it for many different applications in business and the home front and find
> it quite efffective. It, in my opinion, uses submodalities and time. It also
> by-passes the conscious mind by the clever use of time and words not typically
> associated with time.
>
> I know this doesn't really give credit to John Mcwhirter or Richard Bandler
> but the process I found was credited to them. I'm also sure that my description
> was not an adequate example of how the process works ~ but just some cliff
> notes
> into how I found it.
>
> Nice to hear from you again David!
>
> My best,
>
> Big Jim
Myron
> fire, structured his posts according to his set of rules, and elicited
> the responses he knew he would.
How do you know that Myron isn't my real name?
> He embedded a few commands, broke his own rules left and right...
> included generalizations, deletions, and distortions.... hey, just like
> real life!
No, I didn't break any of my own rules. Reflexively saying
"generalization, deletion and distortion" is a poor substitute for
thought and reasoning.
> He's now basking in his afterglow.
No, not quite. I do have a life. I haven't given the matter much
thought for at least two weeks. The views of most of the people on
this group do not carry much significance for me. I thought I made
clear my low estimation of collective the intellect and knowledge of
the group.
However, I can see that I have had quite an impact.
Myron
A combination of first and (trusted) second hand experience.
> I am wondering if you have direct experience of attending events where
> Bandler has presented.
> And, do you base your info on Bandler on "facts" or hearsay?
Facts, but you can childishly try to engage me in the meaning of a
fact.
> I'd like to know so that we are talking about specifics about your
> 'complaints'...
> that is what you are doing... complaining - plain and simple.
No, I'm not complaining. Implicit in a complaint is the expectation
of restitution or compensation. I'm critiquing.
> You must have complaints or you would not persist in delivering the info you
> have.
Must I. Indulge me please and allow me to assert that you are making
a generalization.
You've made a series of assumptions in order to arrive at that
conclusion.
> What is your outcome from posting as you have? Are you clear about it?
Yes, I have enumerated the many purposed of my posting in explicit and
unambiguous language. Find it in the thread(s).
> Otherwise, why do you care - if you have not outcome or ambition.
Read my stated purpose and critique it directly. You are fighting
straw men.
> You have already indicated that the people on this group aren't worth
> saving... in so many words. I don't mean to put words in your mouth. I doubt
> you would let me... would you?
You have already.
> Since you bring Hall up - Have you attended Hall's seminars?
Yes.
> What do you think gives them an advantage if you think there is an
> advantage?
Personal integrity.
Intellectual rigour.
Respect of the academic protocol of crediting sources.
No NPD (disguised as elaborate metaphor/allegory).
Thorough understanding of General Semantics.
Knowledge of contemporary psychology.
Strong clinical focus.
Accessibility (Hall and Bodenhammer will actually respond to email).
Absence of pretence.
Congruence (i.e. not riddled by mental/physical disease).
Moderately priced seminars and media.
Neither have been tried for any felony offences.
Availability of ideas in a form amenable to rigorous critique.
Good people, people you would invite home to dinner.
> I could debate you all day on Hall's material and methods. I know them
> inside out.
Good for you. Are you suggesting that because you know Hall's
material and
methods that you are exempt from actually mounting argument based on
evidence
and valid reasoning?
> I can also debate you on NLP & DHE.
You probably can, you seem a notch above the rabble. However, whether
you can win a debate against me is another matter. If you're
confident then rebut all of my arguments presented thus far regarding
the intellectual roots of NLP and the absence of evidence for any of
the outlandish claims made for DHE.
> What good would it do?
That is as asinine question. It betrays an absence of
Socratic/dialogical culture in you, which is consistent with the
standards bearers of this group. This is one of the reasons I contend
that the Bandlerian arm of NLP is cultist.
> It is clear you have a very determined mindset to dirty your hands with
> lambasting Bandler.
Why wouldn't I? The guy is a rogue.
> What is your real beef with Bandler? Be honest and stop the non-sense
> complaints about "cults".
I am being honest. There is no hidden agenda or malevlont ulterior
motive. I have stated my "beef" with Bandler repeatedly.
I am not a cult member, I have never been a cult member, I have never
been burnt by Bandler in a business deal or personal matter. Purge
your mind of these silly notions. I there were some "other motive" I
would lay it on the table since it would strengthen my position.
Also, I have no promise of pecuniary gain from the demise -- corporeal
or credential -- I don't sell seminars, I'm not affiliated with any
seminar provider. I am the ideal critic.
> You can't be for real what you are saying. If anything, by description, then
> NLP is a "cultish" technology.
I am "for real". Where is the dissent and criticism in NLP? Are you
contending that Bandler and Grinder aren't in pursuit of deification?
Are you claiming that Bandler's life does not closely resemble that of
Crowley and Hubbard?
> Cult -
> ====
> 1 A usually nonscientific method or regimen claimed by its originator to
> have exclusive or exceptional power in curing a particular disease.
>
> 2 Obsessive, especially faddish, devotion to or veneration for a person,
> principle, or thing.
> The object of such devotion.
> 3 An exclusive group of persons sharing an esoteric, usually artistic or
> intellectual interest.
>
> If by #3 you mean cult, then I can agree with you partially. :)
You're throwing a dictionary definition at me. I've thrashed out this
matter at length with Ross. Please review my exchange with him. For
your edification, your making a very basic informal fallacy. The
implication of quoting a dictionary definition at me is that a
lexicographer can answer all the problems of philosophy. What is art?
Answer: look it up in the dictioanry. What is morality? Answer:
look it up in the dictionary.
Myron
> At least that was what I could notice.
> Rarely had so much fun on this group.
Robert. What you demonstrated in your exchanges with me is that you
know much less about NLP and clear thinking than you think you do.
You have murdered your own credibility. You were unable to rebut any
of my arguments. You present as a NLP/DHE authority but are largely
ignorant of the intellectual antecedents of the fields you claim
authority on. Many have noticed this.
> Most who complain, think about cults are either a cultist themself or
> a reprogrammed one.
No Robert, I am not a cultist nor have I ever been. My spiritual
biograpgy in brief is: agnostic, atheistic, agnostic, mainline
Christian. I hasten to add that I'm not even a "good" Christian. I
don't attend church regularly nor do I observe all of the Holy days.
My political biography in short is: apathetic, left of centre, centre.
I don't belong to any political parties or special interest groups.
I am my own man.
I have studied cults in detail, I have met people that are in cults
but I have never been the victim of a cult.
You are trying in vain to find an explanation for me that is different
than the one I have offered you.
> Either way they become paranoid and often fanatical about the whole
> thing they become obsessed with.
Again, you are layering assumptions upon assumptions. I am not
obsessed with the matter, my two week hiatus should be ample evidence
of this. I am interested in the matter and I have the brains to
argue.
> Even if he elicited responses and claimed Bandler did lead a cult he
> dosnt understand the mechanichs people use to build and maintain
> generalizations.
It's easy when you are immersed in the self-improvement/human
potential culture to apply things to others but to conveniently forget
about yourself. That is to say, self-help guru explains phenomenon X
and student says, "yes, I know someone just like that". This is what
you are doing. I know how people build and maintain belief systems
from both an epistemological and psychological perspective and I have
addressed this indirectly in my numerous posts. How likely is it that
I -- given that I have demonstrated an above average knowledge of cult
psychology -- don't understand how world-views/belief systems and
generalizations are built and maintained?
> Which is a nice video with bandler back in the old days.
_a fortiori_
Have you ever stopped to think that your world-view is screwed-up?
That Bandler doesn't have all the answers? That you may be being
exploited financially and emotionally?
I re-iterate my key point to you: you have failed to rebut any of my
arguments.
Myron
> to say having been unable to "climb the ladder" to full and complete success
> or tenure. ;)
You're generalizing and mind-reading.
Myron
issues which touched upon research design, inductive logic,
probability and epistemology which would have taken us very far from
the topic at hand. Hence I did not wish to respond.
I repectfully disagree with Rex's post. Rex's layering of
(existential) qualifiers is weasely and self-satisfied. I have great
respect for Rex as a NLPer and mntalist but I think his knowledge of
the scientific method and inferential statistics is lacking.
"Joe Bloggs" <no...@nowherereally.com> wrote in message news:<5%0hd.57714$9b.12335@edtnps84>...
Myron
> recently bothered me. I felt some response was needed not necessarily to
> defend Bandler (who I felt uncomfortable with in person) but to place
> some perspective into the discussion. Issac Newton for instance was a
> hated, self possessed man who may have been the most brilliant
> contributing 'jerk' of all time. Imagine if we threw out all his
> contributions because he was so disliked! here is an appropriate quote
> from Bruce Lee regarding what 'works' and what 'does not'.
You too are fighting straw men. One of my main arguments is that
Bandler contributed nothing original. All in old-cde NLP is entirely
derivative.
The problem is not that Bandler is a jerk, it's that he's an
unoriginal jerk.
Newton may have been a jerk but
(a) he was original, establishing foundations in numerous branches of
physics; and
(b) he was a genius.
Bandler is not original nor is he a genius. Hence your analogy is
false.
> "absorb what is useful, reject what is useless, and add what is
> specifically your own" Bruce Lee
That's cool. But we're debating the specific contribution of Bandler
to the field that has come to be known as NLP.
Myron
> you're using it.
Post-modern bullshit. The idea your trying to expound comes from
Nietzche and Foucault. Neither Neitzche nor Foucault have an argument
to back-up this assertion. Do you?
> I see you chose not to dispute your obvious tendencies in this regard.
You haven't given me anything of substance to debate against. You are
vacuous.
> I think I already made this clear: I'm not interested in debating with
> someone with your approach.
You haven't made anything clear except your fetishism towards RB.
> As Tom predicted, you have failed to accept
> the many counterarguments which decimated your case against Bandler.
What arguments? Where are they? All rejoinders that have been put to
me I have countered and have had no counter argument.
You're a sore loser.
> You're only interested in being right in whatever shrinking context you
> can manage to make that judgment in.
My opening contentions still hold since they haven't been rebutted.
> You will continue to rant until people ignore you, thereby denying you
> the opportunity to escape your freakdom.
I take a break for two weeks and I find that there is still activity
when I return. I have raised numerous substantive matters and I have
argue with an erudition and acerbity that is alien to this group. I
can see that amongst the thinking few of the group (and the silent
lurkers) I have caused some wheels to turn. Mission accomplished dick
head.
You're just envious because you are
(a) untalented;
(b) ignorant;
(c) inarticulate;
(d) erotically attracted to Richard Bandler and hence compelled to
provide
tribute;
(e) unintelligent; and
(f) unable to argue a point.
Do you imagine that in my polemical campaigns I haven't encountered
mindless sheep like you? Don't flatter yourself. People like you are
cheap and plentiful. You're a low-rent psychotherapist. It disturbs
me that fuck-wits like you are invited into the minds of the
disordered and disturbed. You're too fucking stupid to get any sort
of real credential from a real college or univerisity. You were
probably a carpet layer before you became a "therapist". Dave the
carpet layer (for the sake of argument) does some seminars with
Richard Bandler and now he's a mental health authority. Well fuck me!
If I had my way I'd shut down quacks like you overnight.
Myron
> So did Bandler and Grinder.
What specifically? Name one original thing in old-code NLP?
> I learned from many.
Yeah, many wankers.
> Still do.
Learn from wankers?
Yeah, you're a font of knowledge Robert. You've really impressed me
with your deep and wide-ranging knowledge.
Also, you've yet to learn English. Does Riggio speak English? If so,
then perhaps you can add that to your beloved "Riggio Model".
Joe Bloggs
> I have great
> respect for Rex as a NLPer and mentalist but I think his knowledge of
> the scientific method and inferential statistics is lacking.
Indeed.
Joe Bloggs
> However, I can see that I have had quite an impact.
Yes you have. I came here to get opinions of the upcoming Persuasion
Engineering course, and have received more secondary learning that I
initially bargained for. I hope this thread continues because it's going to
be a key one in deciding if I take the course or not. On one hand I have
listened to some of Bandlers work in the past, in the form of tapes and CD's
borrowed from a friend and am intruiged at pssobly experiencing the man
live. However, on the other hand, the issues that Myron raises are very
important and I have to say as far as debating goes, Myron is winning hands
down. Ooooh soo kinesthetic :-))
Keep it up.
Joe Bloggs
> That's cool. But we're debating the specific contribution of Bandler
> to the field that has come to be known as NLP.
Would it be fair to say that despite his megalomania, Bandler helped to
synthesize several different bodies of knowledge into one "code" that helped
other easily access and reproduce the methods he observed?