Показаны записи 11621 - 11630 из 30962
“… devour this book, imitate the same rigorous methods that were used by
the developers, and bring this rigor to develop the next generation of NLP.”
Wyatt l. Woodsmall, phD, nlp master trainer and master modeler
“… there is much more than history in these pages. If you focus at a deeper level
you will fnd something very rich which is often missing in modern NLP – the
fearlessness, the radicalism, the desire to experiment, the commitment to model,
and the willingness to undertake thousands of hours of practice. Without these
elements we would not have NLP today.”
michael carroll, founder of the nlp academy and co-founder of the international trainers academy of nlp
“We have been waiting almost 40 years for this book – a frst-hand account by some of the
people who were there at the beginning at one of the most creative times in history.”
James lawley and penny tompkins, authors of metaphors in mind: transformation through symbolic modelling
“Tis book is a hymn to the spirit of curiosity, creativity, collaboration, and adventure.”
Julian russell, executive coach and Director of the life talent programme
“… an exceptional and essential read for everyone involved in NLP and
interested in contributing to its future.”
Judith lowe, mD and principal trainer of nlp training institute/ppD learning ltd
“Diferent voices, diferent histories … this multiplicity of sometimes conficting
perspectives is a salutary reminder that, as NLP has been at pains to point out, we each
have our own map. Or as Robin Williams once said, “Reality – what a concept!”
ian mcDermott, founder of international teaching seminars
the Origins of neuro linguistic programming brings together the recollections and
thoughts of some of the main protagonists from the very early days of nlp .
in 1971 richard Bandler and frank pucelik were students at Kresege college at
the university of california santa cruz. they had a strong mutual interest in gestalt
therapy and started a local gestalt group, collaborating and experimenting with the
language of therapy, and achieving some brilliant results. richard then invited one of
their college professors, John grinder, to come and see what they were doing – John
was a professor of linguistics and was instantly impressed. he was able to add more
structure to what they were doing and in, due course, the three of them formalized
what is now known as the meta model. nlp was born.
John and frank have each contributed their own substantial chapters, John has
written two commentaries and has been somewhat forthright in his views about how
the methods and the work of the early pioneers are not refected in much of today’s
practice. We also have chapters from terry mcclendon, Judith Delozier, David r. Wick,
Byron lewis, stephen gilligan, James eicher and robert Dilts.
the developers, and bring this rigor to develop the next generation of NLP.”
Wyatt l. Woodsmall, phD, nlp master trainer and master modeler
“… there is much more than history in these pages. If you focus at a deeper level
you will fnd something very rich which is often missing in modern NLP – the
fearlessness, the radicalism, the desire to experiment, the commitment to model,
and the willingness to undertake thousands of hours of practice. Without these
elements we would not have NLP today.”
michael carroll, founder of the nlp academy and co-founder of the international trainers academy of nlp
“We have been waiting almost 40 years for this book – a frst-hand account by some of the
people who were there at the beginning at one of the most creative times in history.”
James lawley and penny tompkins, authors of metaphors in mind: transformation through symbolic modelling
“Tis book is a hymn to the spirit of curiosity, creativity, collaboration, and adventure.”
Julian russell, executive coach and Director of the life talent programme
“… an exceptional and essential read for everyone involved in NLP and
interested in contributing to its future.”
Judith lowe, mD and principal trainer of nlp training institute/ppD learning ltd
“Diferent voices, diferent histories … this multiplicity of sometimes conficting
perspectives is a salutary reminder that, as NLP has been at pains to point out, we each
have our own map. Or as Robin Williams once said, “Reality – what a concept!”
ian mcDermott, founder of international teaching seminars
the Origins of neuro linguistic programming brings together the recollections and
thoughts of some of the main protagonists from the very early days of nlp .
in 1971 richard Bandler and frank pucelik were students at Kresege college at
the university of california santa cruz. they had a strong mutual interest in gestalt
therapy and started a local gestalt group, collaborating and experimenting with the
language of therapy, and achieving some brilliant results. richard then invited one of
their college professors, John grinder, to come and see what they were doing – John
was a professor of linguistics and was instantly impressed. he was able to add more
structure to what they were doing and in, due course, the three of them formalized
what is now known as the meta model. nlp was born.
John and frank have each contributed their own substantial chapters, John has
written two commentaries and has been somewhat forthright in his views about how
the methods and the work of the early pioneers are not refected in much of today’s
practice. We also have chapters from terry mcclendon, Judith Delozier, David r. Wick,
Byron lewis, stephen gilligan, James eicher and robert Dilts.
Tis is surely an issue worthy of the attention of researchers with a
synthetic bent – a history of the development of the ideas involved. As
examples of the high value of such work, I cite two cases from Kuhn.
Te frst is from Te Structure of Scientifc Revolutions:
With scientifc observation … the scientist can have no
recourse above or beyond what he sees with his eyes and
instruments. If there were some higher authority by recourse
to which his vision might be shown to have shifted, then that
authority would itself become the source of his data, and the
behavior of his visions would become a source of problems.
Te period during which light was “sometimes a wave and
sometimes a particle” – was a period of crisis, a period where
something was wrong – and it ended only with the develop-
ment of wave mechanics and the realization that light was a
self-consistent entity diferent from both waves and particles.
In the sciences, therefore, if perceptual switches accompany
paradigm changes, we may not expect scientists to attest to
these changes directly. Looking at the moon, the convert to
Copernicanism does not say, “I used to see a planet, but now
I see a satellite.” Tat locution would imply a sense in which
the Ptolemaic system had once been correct. Instead, a con-
vert to the new astronomy says, “I once took the moon to be
(or saw the moon as) a planet, but I was mistaken.” Tat sort
of statement does occur in the aftermath of scientifc revolu-
tion. If it ordinarily disguises a shift of scientifc visions or
some other mental transformation with the same efect, we
may not expect direct testimony about that shift. Rather we
must look for indirect and behavioral evidence that the scien-
tist with a new paradigm sees diferently from the way he had
seen before.
Let us then return to the data and ask what sorts of transfor-
mations in the scientists’ world the historian who believes in
such changes can discover. Sir William Herschel’s discovery of
Uranus provides a frst example. On at least seventeen diferent
occasions between 1690 and 1781, a number of astronomers,
including several of Europe’s most eminent observers, had
seen a star in positions that we now suppose must have been
occupied at the time by Uranus. One of the best observers in
this group had actually seen the star on four successive nights
in 1769 without noting the motion that could have suggested
synthetic bent – a history of the development of the ideas involved. As
examples of the high value of such work, I cite two cases from Kuhn.
Te frst is from Te Structure of Scientifc Revolutions:
With scientifc observation … the scientist can have no
recourse above or beyond what he sees with his eyes and
instruments. If there were some higher authority by recourse
to which his vision might be shown to have shifted, then that
authority would itself become the source of his data, and the
behavior of his visions would become a source of problems.
Te period during which light was “sometimes a wave and
sometimes a particle” – was a period of crisis, a period where
something was wrong – and it ended only with the develop-
ment of wave mechanics and the realization that light was a
self-consistent entity diferent from both waves and particles.
In the sciences, therefore, if perceptual switches accompany
paradigm changes, we may not expect scientists to attest to
these changes directly. Looking at the moon, the convert to
Copernicanism does not say, “I used to see a planet, but now
I see a satellite.” Tat locution would imply a sense in which
the Ptolemaic system had once been correct. Instead, a con-
vert to the new astronomy says, “I once took the moon to be
(or saw the moon as) a planet, but I was mistaken.” Tat sort
of statement does occur in the aftermath of scientifc revolu-
tion. If it ordinarily disguises a shift of scientifc visions or
some other mental transformation with the same efect, we
may not expect direct testimony about that shift. Rather we
must look for indirect and behavioral evidence that the scien-
tist with a new paradigm sees diferently from the way he had
seen before.
Let us then return to the data and ask what sorts of transfor-
mations in the scientists’ world the historian who believes in
such changes can discover. Sir William Herschel’s discovery of
Uranus provides a frst example. On at least seventeen diferent
occasions between 1690 and 1781, a number of astronomers,
including several of Europe’s most eminent observers, had
seen a star in positions that we now suppose must have been
occupied at the time by Uranus. One of the best observers in
this group had actually seen the star on four successive nights
in 1769 without noting the motion that could have suggested
Indeed, I would caution the reader to consider the following: the more
prominent the name/reputation of the writer of the description, the
more likely the distortions (operationally defned as deviations from
a correspondence with the record captured by great 360 degree audio/
video recorder in the sky – which fortunately or unfortunately does not
exist). Tis is the sense of unknowable as in the paragraph two above
this one. Note please that this applies with full force to the words that
you are presently reading.
Tis is as accurate a statement for a relatively common event, such as
whose idea was it, really, to organize that birthday party for a mutual
friend, as it is for that rare event – the creation of a new feld of pat-
terning such as NLP. None of it is to be taken at face value.
Tere are two distinct issues here. First, anyone with an appropriate
background and some thought can comment on what they perceive
as the predecessors of NLP or any other set of developed patterns.
Certainly, practitioners of the Philosophy of Science have done this
service for many branches of science (see especially the fne work of
Tomas Kuhn in Te Structure of Scientifc Revolutions on the develop-
ment of portions of modern physics2
). Trough their research into the
birth and development of what later became incorporated into stand-
ard models or sets of patterning, these practitioners have succeeded in
connecting discrete and heretofore unconnected work, sometimes in a
single feld, sometimes across felds, that had previously been consid-
ered distinct. Such studies can be highly useful and instructive.
Tis is a distinct issue from what the creator or co-creators of a dis-
cipline had access to, what they were aware of at the time and in the
context of the creation of that discipline. It is interesting to consider
the diferences between these two issues as captured by the following
two questions.
Te frst question is:
Where did the ideas that turn up in some new model or set of pat-
terns come from historically?
prominent the name/reputation of the writer of the description, the
more likely the distortions (operationally defned as deviations from
a correspondence with the record captured by great 360 degree audio/
video recorder in the sky – which fortunately or unfortunately does not
exist). Tis is the sense of unknowable as in the paragraph two above
this one. Note please that this applies with full force to the words that
you are presently reading.
Tis is as accurate a statement for a relatively common event, such as
whose idea was it, really, to organize that birthday party for a mutual
friend, as it is for that rare event – the creation of a new feld of pat-
terning such as NLP. None of it is to be taken at face value.
Tere are two distinct issues here. First, anyone with an appropriate
background and some thought can comment on what they perceive
as the predecessors of NLP or any other set of developed patterns.
Certainly, practitioners of the Philosophy of Science have done this
service for many branches of science (see especially the fne work of
Tomas Kuhn in Te Structure of Scientifc Revolutions on the develop-
ment of portions of modern physics2
). Trough their research into the
birth and development of what later became incorporated into stand-
ard models or sets of patterning, these practitioners have succeeded in
connecting discrete and heretofore unconnected work, sometimes in a
single feld, sometimes across felds, that had previously been consid-
ered distinct. Such studies can be highly useful and instructive.
Tis is a distinct issue from what the creator or co-creators of a dis-
cipline had access to, what they were aware of at the time and in the
context of the creation of that discipline. It is interesting to consider
the diferences between these two issues as captured by the following
two questions.
Te frst question is:
Where did the ideas that turn up in some new model or set of pat-
terns come from historically?
Frank and I have considered how to manage these issues. We have set-
tled on a specifc strategy. We have determined to pursue the mini-
mization of these particular classes of distortion by calling upon a
large number of people who were physically present and participated
in or observed some of the events that are herein described. A few are
names that are widely recognized in the present day feld of NLP; most
are people who are unknown and largely inactive with respect to the
patterning of the NLP of today – people who have no particular clear
known agenda. Mark carefully what they report.
You will fnd in this book the voices of people who moved resolutely,
wandered, and/or often stumbled (most of all the co-authors of this
book) through these events, each of whom carried with them specifc
personal agendas and perceptual flters which ensured that their per-
ceptions and thus subsequently their reconstructed memories of these
events would be quite distinct, especially with the passage of time (now
some 40 years). Many of these diferences arise through the ubiqui-
tous and selective perceptual fltering that necessarily results from the
strong limitations of the bandwidth of consciousness (7 + or – chunks
of information).
I would venture that few of the distortions that occur in such recon-
structions are deliberate. Tis lack of explicit awareness of the fltering
and its consequences, and the unconsciously motivated personal agen-
das of the people responsible for these deviations from what actually
happened (now largely unknowable), makes such distortions all the
more problematic, both with respect to the task of discovering what
the distortion is/was and what it is/was a distortion of – that is, devia-
tions from what actually happened.
But surely one of the most obvious and powerful conclusions from the
development and deployment of patterning over the last four decades
in NLP, and easily verifed in the reader’s own experience, is the aston-
ishing diversity in the descriptions that emerge from any single event
when described from the distinct perceptual positions of the people
who directly participated in or witnessed the event in question.
Frank R. Pucelik
* Один из трёх первых разработчиков НЛП вместе с Ричардом Бэндлером и Джоном Гриндером; Фрэнк Пьюселик
* Тренер с мировым именем в области профессионального роста и личностного развития;
* Живая легенда НЛП;
* Один из лучших коммуникаторов в мире;
* Профессор кафедры международных отношений Университета Оклахомы, профессор: Интернациональный колледж, Лос-Анджелес, Калифорния, США;
* Президент компании «Pucelik Consulting Group» (Консалтинговые услуги).
Веб-сайт:
http://www.alfaleader.ru
Местоположение:
Санкт-Петербург, Россия
http://vk.com/club2525489
https://www.google.ru/#newwindow=1&sclient=psy-ab&q=%D1%84%D1%80%D1%8D%D0%BD%D0%BA+%D0%BF%D1%8C%D1%8E%D1%81%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%BA+dst&oq=DST*Gm.ctkbr&gs_l=hp.1.0.0i8i13i30l2.30621.35728.2.39716.9.9.0.0.0.0.762.2398.0j5j2j1j6-1.9.0....0...1c.1.19.hp.nCWtI0j7dL8&psj=1&bav=on.2,or.r_qf.&bvm=bv.48705608,d.bGE&fp=fa2dafb959f97836&biw=1001&bih=591
Так и непонятно, почему нельзя узнать 15 человек из группы Пью?
Ага, вместо ожидаемой/уже не ожидаемой теории моделирования опять новая порция лирики и воспоминаний. Т.е. теперь уже точно - "кина не будет".
Кроме того, Ричард категорически отказался участвовать в этих воспоминаниях. Значит, значительная их часть есть эээ враки.
Кроме того, привлечение Бостик С.К. к репликам по поводу истории НЛП выглядит, по меньшей мере, цинично. Она не имеет к истории НЛП никакого отношения. Равно, как и к моделированию, хотя оставила свой неизгладимый след в последних текстах и книгах, которые подписаны ею и Гриндером.
Кроме того, главный соавтор данной книги Пьюселик, при категорическом отрицании факта существования сего Пьюселика Бандлером, придает этой книги вполне определенное значение. Типа: прощай НЛП.
Но, мы честно посмотрим эту книгу по мере обнаружения ее в близком доступе.
Я сейчас сделаю об этой книге отдельный пост, сделав повторение из "Грехи отцов", потому что по стилю она чем-то напоминает ту иезуитскую статью.
В итоге: завершилось оформление финальной ситуации с НЛП. Есть только одна группа людей на этом свете, которая способна завершить формальную задачу выдачу теории/практики моделирования. И это мы метапрактики, - со всеми нашими заботами, занятостями и прочее.
Причем, время на завершение при учете наличных условий сокращается до трех-пяти лет.
Кроме того, Ричард категорически отказался участвовать в этих воспоминаниях. Значит, значительная их часть есть эээ враки.
Кроме того, привлечение Бостик С.К. к репликам по поводу истории НЛП выглядит, по меньшей мере, цинично. Она не имеет к истории НЛП никакого отношения. Равно, как и к моделированию, хотя оставила свой неизгладимый след в последних текстах и книгах, которые подписаны ею и Гриндером.
Кроме того, главный соавтор данной книги Пьюселик, при категорическом отрицании факта существования сего Пьюселика Бандлером, придает этой книги вполне определенное значение. Типа: прощай НЛП.
Но, мы честно посмотрим эту книгу по мере обнаружения ее в близком доступе.
Я сейчас сделаю об этой книге отдельный пост, сделав повторение из "Грехи отцов", потому что по стилю она чем-то напоминает ту иезуитскую статью.
В итоге: завершилось оформление финальной ситуации с НЛП. Есть только одна группа людей на этом свете, которая способна завершить формальную задачу выдачу теории/практики моделирования. И это мы метапрактики, - со всеми нашими заботами, занятостями и прочее.
Причем, время на завершение при учете наличных условий сокращается до трех-пяти лет.
Аналогично, можно было бы сказать, что "разум" внутренне присущ тем мозговым цепям, которые замыкаются внутри мозга. Либо что разум внутренне присущ цепям, которые замыкаются внутри системы "мозг плюс тело". Либо, наконец, что разум внутренне присущ более широкой системе "человек плюс окружающая среда".
Контекст обсуждения в этой статье для данного «разума» - "человек плюс окружающая среда" есть устойчивые сетевые сообщества.
В принципе, если мы хотим объяснить или понять ментальный аспект некоторого биологического события, необходимо принять во внимание систему, т.е. сеть замкнутых контуров, внутри которых задано это биологическое событие. Но если мы хотим объяснить поведение человека или любого другого организма, эта "система", как правило, не будет иметь тех же границ, что и его "Я" (в том смысле, в каком этот термин обычно понимается).
В устойчивый сетевых сообществах границы индивидуального «Я» имеют мало значения/совсем не имеют значения.
Представим себе человека, рубящего дерево топором. Каждый новый удар топора отличается от предыдущего, поскольку корректируется в соответствии с формой заруба, оставленного на дереве предыдущим ударом. Этот самокорректирующийся (т.е. ментальный) процесс представлен полной системой «дерево => глаза => мозг => мышцы => топор => удар => дерево», и именно эта полная система характеризуется внутренне присущим разумом.
Ну, с такой бейтсонианской схемой я не согласен:
--«дерево => глаза => мозг => мышцы => топор => удар => дерево»
--«дерево => глаза => мозг => МЕНТАЛЬНЫЙ ИНТЕРФЕЙС ПРОЦЕССА РУБКИ ДЕРЕВА => мышцы => топор => удар => дерево»
…вот, вторая схема правильная.
А затем, следует заменить дерево на интернет...
--Для СТ есть модельные-феноменологические описания свойств СО. В них полно декодера.
--Но конкретного КАТАЛОГА реальных СО нету ведь!
Нету и не будет, если мы сами для себя его не сделаем.
У Андреасов перечисляются типа номинализации, там любовь, единение, спокойствие и т.д. Но эти все слова только запутывают.
Точно так.
Я и предлагаю описать физиологию: - сексуальности - атрактивности - любви, верности, и т.д. (по типовым ценностям)
Отлично, когда начнем. для всех этих/таких описаний требуется проводить опросы.
Ну, на том уровне подробности, который всё ещё можно нормально обсуждать.
Нас будут интересовать внутренние кинестетические последовательности.
--Но конкретного КАТАЛОГА реальных СО нету ведь!
Нету и не будет, если мы сами для себя его не сделаем.
У Андреасов перечисляются типа номинализации, там любовь, единение, спокойствие и т.д. Но эти все слова только запутывают.
Точно так.
Я и предлагаю описать физиологию: - сексуальности - атрактивности - любви, верности, и т.д. (по типовым ценностям)
Отлично, когда начнем. для всех этих/таких описаний требуется проводить опросы.
Ну, на том уровне подробности, который всё ещё можно нормально обсуждать.
Нас будут интересовать внутренние кинестетические последовательности.
Дочитали до конца.