http://metapractice.livejournal.com/338327.htmlhttp://www.crownhouse.co.uk/publications/product.php?product=824[ ОФФ. Сначала хотел создать отдельный раздел/тему типа "история НЛП". Но, потом посмотрел и передумал. Пролог к книге пишет К. Бостик, которая к истории НЛП не имеет никакого отношения. Соредактор Пьюселик, - физический факт наличия которого отвергается Р. Бандлером. Бандлер от участия в этих воспоминаниях отказался. Получается, что посмотрим мы эту книгу в разделе "кунсткамера". И не более. ]
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, Frank because of his traumatic time in Vietnam and because he had been working with some disaffected and drug-addicted kids, and Richard because he had been working with Science and Behavior Books on transcribing and editing Fritz Perls’ seminal work, The Gestalt Approach and Eyewitness to Therapy. They started a local gestalt group and ran 2-3 sessions a week collaborating and experimenting with the language of therapy. They started achieving some brilliant results but were having problems transferring their skills to others and so Richard invited one of their college professors, John Grinder, to observe what they were doing in order that he would, hopefully, be able to deconstruct what they were doing that was so effective. John was a professor of Linguistics and was instantly impressed with the work that they were doing. He was able to add more structure and in due course the three of them formalised what is now known as the Meta Model. NLP was born.
John and Frank and each of the other contributors give their own personal account of this period of collaboration when something magical was happening in northern California. Of particular interest is the role Gregory Bateson played, particularly in bringing John and Richard together with Milton H Erickson. Contributors include:
• Robert Dilts
• Stephen Gilligan
• Judith Delozier
• Byron Lewis
• Terry McClendon (author of the first history of NLP,
The Wild Days).
An extremely insightful and riveting read for anyone interested in NLP.
To Richard BandlerYour voice is not here, only echoes of it. Your intelligence, your fear-lessness, and your presence are apparent in many of the narratives. Weformed a team, the three of us, then the two of us, and against all odds,we succeeded in creating something distinct and radical and set it free inthe world.It was a great adventure!John GrinderFrank PucelikContentsPrologue: A Suggestion to the Reader (Carmen Bostic-St. Clair) 1Introduction: Refections on Te Origins of Neuro-Linguistic 5Programming (John Grinder)Te Fundamental Strategy 11Part 1Chapter 1: Lots of “Times,” Some Easy, Some Fun, Some Hard 21(R. Frank Pucelik)Te “Originals” that Chose Not to Contribute toTis Compilation of Chapters 36Chapter 2: My Road to NLP (Terry McClendon) 41Gestalt with Richard 42Parts Party 44Te Meta Model 45Hypnosis in the Santa Cruz Mountains 45Ongoing Development 46Current Refections 48Chapter 3: Te Early Days of NLP (Judith DeLozier) 51Chapter 4: Youth Services in Santa Cruz: Te First NLP CommunityTesting Ground (David R. Wick) 55Te Creation of Youth Services 56Finding Neuro-Linguistic Programming 57NLP: Te Wild and Crazy People 58Integrating NLP into Youth Services 59Did It Work? 60Epilogue 63Chapter 5: My Parts Party: Early Dissociated State Terapy 65(Byron Lewis)UCSC Special Studies: Eric 66Alba Road 67Alba Road Revisited 68Te Exorcism 69M.E.T.A. Institute 71M.E.T.A. International 72Substance Abuse Treatment 72Postscript 73Part 2Introduction to Part 2 (John Grinder) 77Te Love Song of NLP (Joyce Michaelson) 79Chapter 6: Te Middle of Know Where: My Early Days in NLP 81(Stephen Gilligan)Chapter 7: Commentary on “Te Middle of Know Where” 95(John Grinder)Chapter 8: “It’s a Fresh Wind that Blows against the Empire” 105(James Eicher)A Voice of Signifcance 105Prologue: Context 106Part 1: Te Family Ballet or “What, Specifcally?” 107Part 2: Bateson Sighting 116Part 3: Something about Tomato Plants, But It’s All a Bit Fuzzy 119Part 4: Trough the Corpus Callosum – From the Meta Modelto the Milty Model: Te Birth of NLP 125From Families to Organizations: My Personal andProfessional Journey 129Chapter 9: Commentary on “It’s a Fresh Wind that Blows against 133the Empire” (John Grinder)Chapter 10: My Early History with NLP (Robert Dilts) 145Chapter 11: “Te Answer, My Friend, is Blowin’ in the Wind”(John Grinder) 175Epilogue (Carmen Bostic-St. Clair) 225I. Te Stage and the Players 227II. Te Main Script: NLP Modeling 228III. Te Casting Calls 232IV. Group Improvisations: Te First and Second StagesUtilized for Rehearsals of the Play 238V. Unscripted Parts 246VI. Te Epilogue of the Play 251INTrOduCTIONRefections on The Origins ofNeuro-Linguistic ProgrammingJohn grinderTis book has as its purpose a description of the origins of Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP). Note, please the use of the indefnitearticle a in the phrase, a description of Neuro-Linguistic Programming.Te co-editors of this book, Frank Pucelik and John Grinder, were twoof the three prime movers in the creation of NLP and one or both ofthem were present at the majority of the events described herein thatdefne the origins of NLP. A third voice, that of Richard Bandler, is notpresent in this book as he elected not to participate.Te presentation of the origins of a feld presents an interesting chal-lenge for a number of reasons – among them, the fact that memory isreconstructive.Here is easily the most responsible act I, as an author and a co-editor,can ofer you as the reader of this book. It takes the form of a warning.In approaching what you are about to read, keep in mind the followingthree points in what you encounter in this volume:1. A signifcant portion of what is described never happened!According the latest models of memory processes, memoriesare not stored as intact units to be retrieved and displayed. Teyare stored in distinct physical locations (the primary corticalareas for each of the corresponding input channels) of the cen-tral nervous system; more specifcally in separate representa-tional systems. Te connections among them are mediated bysynesthesia circuitry.To remember, then, is to reassemble portions of experiencestored in separate locations into what appears (in the present)to be a coherent representation of some experience in the past,one that satisfes the present intentions and requirements ofthe person doing the remembering. Such present intentionsand requirements of the person remembering operate as flterson the search mechanisms that reconstitute the memory.Tus, all such representations are ultimately, and profoundly,works of fction. By the way, the fact that they are fction isNOT a disqualifcation, simply an epistemological warningabout the veracity of what you are reading.So, what do you suppose is the probability of getting thesepieces reassembled so as to match the archival representationof some omniscient, ever present (and non-existent) audio vis-ual 360 degree recording apparatus in the sky?2. Memory is selective and essentially incomplete!Tus, memories can be expected to vary as a function not onlyof the state, intentions, and fltering that existed at the time ofthe actual event but also as a function of state, present inten-tions, and fltering of the person reconstructing the memoryin the present. Distinct portions of the reconstruction beingreported will be identifed and presented and others will not. Asthe state, intentions, and requirements of the person remem-bering shift, so will the representations of what occurred.Some of these diferences will depend on the granularity of therepresentation (its specifcity) and whether it is confned to aspecifc logical type of representation – description, interpre-tation, and evaluation (assuming that the person making thereconstruction, or indeed the reader, can make the distinctionamong these varying modes of representation). Tis is unlikelyas the vast majority of the members of the fourth estate haveyet to notice or are unable or unwilling to respect.Test it for yourself – remember the last dinner you ate in a res-taurant. OK, ready – make a representation of what occurred …Got it!Cool, but what about the color of the border of the menu? Didthe servers actually present the fresh dishes from one side ofthe diner and remove the used dishes from the other side?How were the portions of the dinner arranged on the servingplatters? Were the chargers color coordinated with the fowerson the sideboard (what sideboard!)? Who spoke frst after theordering was complete? Did the following speakers at the tablereplicate the rhythm of the frst speaker’s voice or was there asignifcant contrast? Did the volume of sound in the restaurantrise and fall with a certain temporal frequency? Did the textureof the side dishes complement the texture of the main dish?How clearly could you hear the sounds of the kitchen whereyour food was being prepared? How frequently did the peoplesitting beside each other mirror the others’ physical move-ments as compared with people facing one another either atthe same table or the one to your left as you sat at the table?Did the chairs you all sat in make a loud sound when movedduring the seating ritual? Was the waiter/waitress right or lefthanded? Was the tablecloth arranged as a square or a diamondwith respect to the table it covered … a furry of questions,most of little or no interest for most people.Te point here is that in reconstructing a memory, you areconfronted with the task of selecting from among a very large(although fnite) set of possible things to represent. Tosethings that actually end up in your reconstruction are thereas an indicator of your intentions and interests, now, as youreconstruct the memory. In the provocations above about yourdinner at the restaurant, I confned myself largely to physi-cal aspects of the event. What if we were to venture into therelationships implicit at that table and the complex operationsimplied by these relationships? Now the situation gets evenmore complex. If you were able to compare what you recon-structed with respect to the dinner in the restaurant withthis archive, do you suppose that your reconstruction wouldcontain more or less than the archival fle referred to above.Surprisingly, the answer is both – you would fnd a vast arrayof things that were not reconstructed in your representationand some things in your representation would NOT be presentin the archive captured by that ubiquitous recording system inthe sky.Tere are higher level diferences that emerge in addition to theessentially incomplete and selective nature of your reconstruc-tion of the dinner. Was your representation biased, focusinglargely on the visual aspects of that dinner/restaurant event?Was any attention given to the sounds of the environment(the restaurant)? What about the tastes and combinations andsequences of tastes, the developing of various topics in theconversation, and how the feelings of the people at the tableshifted with the development of the conversations about thesevarious topics?3. Does it really matter what happened historically?What is the point of examining the historical development ofsomething as complex as the birth of a new feld? Are you hop-ing to catch a glimpse of the processes of discovery, possiblyeven with the intention of using such processes in making com-parable discoveries yourself? Are you so naive as to think thattwo human beings confronted with the “same” set of stimuli(experiences) will respond in the “same” way? Te same’s are inquotes to remind you that the same set of stimuli are NOT thesame when processed through distinct neurologies. Is it reallyrelevant to you as a researcher to know how someone else witha completely distinct background responded to the stimulithat were available at the origin of NLP? Do you really thinkthat playing the music of and dancing to Congolese traditionalrhythms, and training and riding Arabian trail horses … willassist you in becoming a better modeler? Does having devel-oped a set of efective patterns help guide young people outof the thick jungle of drugs towards a lighted path from whichsome of them can then reach back and guide their formermates? Is it really an advantage to speak some eight languages;or have a deep appreciation of battlefeld injuries and the cor-responding life-saving interventions required; or know how toderail a train with a minimum of plastic explosives; or hit a golfball 300 yards down the middle of the fairway; or to have a deepcomputational competency in automata theory; or how to rig aautomatic watering system for horse trough; or …Personally, I don’t think so. But then, it is very dangerous togeneralize from a sample of one.Yet, as I move around the globe ofering training, conferences, anddemonstrations, one of the most frequent questions is the historyquestion: What happened at the origin of the feld now known as NLP?and How did it happen? What ensues, if the person asked is willing toaccept the question, is a series of bedtime stories, meeting the require-ments of the speaker’s present intentions in presenting themselves tostrengthen the image of whoever the speaker is and what s/he wishesthe audience to carry away with them.So, step back a moment here before plunging into this maelstrom andask yourself the obvious question:What is the relationship, if any, between the technology of mod-eling and the history of discovery, assimilation, and coding of pat-terning in the feld now known as NLP?Isn’t the point of this simple but difcult adventure called the mod-eling of genius to detect, assimilate unconsciously, code, and dissemi-nate the patterning of geniuses? If this cycle of deep learning has anypoint, it is to make available the patterning of geniuses in a learnableform that integrates these patterns of genius into the performance ofpeople wishing to achieve higher quality and more efective results intheir worlds of application. Tis results in the raising of the bar in thatprofession. For example, the modeling of Dr. Milton Erickson requiredsome 10 months or so between frst contact and the coding of the pat-terning (see Patterns of the Hypnotic Techniques of Milton H. Erickson,M.D. Volumes I and II).1 How many people have the time (10 months) aswell as the tolerance for the inherent ambiguity of the task of modelingand the competency to code the assimilated patterns into a descriptionthat would allow others to gain access to these patterns without thisenormous investment of time and talent?In medieval Europe, the accumulated tacit knowledge of various profes-sions, say, for example, of masonry, was passed from master to appren-tice through direct modeling – there were no shortcuts. Te apprenticemason prepared the site, carried the materials, did the clean up, andwhilst doing all this, if this apprentice were to succeed in becoming amason, he would notice and mark how, specifcally, the master masonapproached the various aspects of actually building that structure, set-ting up that foundation, and executing the plans of the architect.I recognize that the depth of integration of the patterning is quite dis-tinct (at least initially) as a function of the method of assimilation.If learning the patterning is accomplished inductively and throughunconscious assimilation, the patterns belong in a deep sense to thelearner. Such a learner then has the leisure to revisit such patterns andmay then ferret out the essential elements of the patterns and theirsequencing – the formal pattern itself or some functional equivalent.Tose learners following a conscious approach will certainly upgradetheir game; whether they ever achieve the depth of integration ofpatterning arrived at inductively is an open question. In our presentcontext, few people, if anyone, are prepared to enter the strange anddisorienting world of deep inductive learning, thus, the niche of mod-eler emerges.So, what will you do with these reconstructed tales fowing downthrough the decades since their actual occurrence, and channeledthrough the intentions, interests, and self-images of the people ofer-ing these representations?Good question!
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 alarge number of people who were physically present and participatedin or observed some of the events that are herein described. A few arenames that are widely recognized in the present day feld of NLP; mostare people who are unknown and largely inactive with respect to thepatterning of the NLP of today – people who have no particular clearknown 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 thisbook) through these events, each of whom carried with them specifcpersonal agendas and perceptual flters which ensured that their per-ceptions and thus subsequently their reconstructed memories of theseevents would be quite distinct, especially with the passage of time (nowsome 40 years). Many of these diferences arise through the ubiqui-tous and selective perceptual fltering that necessarily results from thestrong limitations of the bandwidth of consciousness (7 + or – chunksof information).I would venture that few of the distortions that occur in such recon-structions are deliberate. Tis lack of explicit awareness of the flteringand its consequences, and the unconsciously motivated personal agen-das of the people responsible for these deviations from what actuallyhappened (now largely unknowable), makes such distortions all themore problematic, both with respect to the task of discovering whatthe 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 thedevelopment and deployment of patterning over the last four decadesin NLP, and easily verifed in the reader’s own experience, is the aston-ishing diversity in the descriptions that emerge from any single eventwhen described from the distinct perceptual positions of the peoplewho directly participated in or witnessed the event in question.
Indeed, I would caution the reader to consider the following: the moreprominent the name/reputation of the writer of the description, themore likely the distortions (operationally defned as deviations froma correspondence with the record captured by great 360 degree audio/video recorder in the sky – which fortunately or unfortunately does notexist). Tis is the sense of unknowable as in the paragraph two abovethis one. Note please that this applies with full force to the words thatyou are presently reading.Tis is as accurate a statement for a relatively common event, such aswhose idea was it, really, to organize that birthday party for a mutualfriend, 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 appropriatebackground and some thought can comment on what they perceiveas the predecessors of NLP or any other set of developed patterns.Certainly, practitioners of the Philosophy of Science have done thisservice for many branches of science (see especially the fne work ofTomas Kuhn in Te Structure of Scientifc Revolutions on the develop-ment of portions of modern physics2). Trough their research into thebirth and development of what later became incorporated into stand-ard models or sets of patterning, these practitioners have succeeded inconnecting discrete and heretofore unconnected work, sometimes in asingle 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 thecontext of the creation of that discipline. It is interesting to considerthe diferences between these two issues as captured by the followingtwo questions.Te frst question is:Where did the ideas that turn up in some new model or set of pat-terns come from historically?
Tis is surely an issue worthy of the attention of researchers with asynthetic bent – a history of the development of the ideas involved. Asexamples 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 norecourse above or beyond what he sees with his eyes andinstruments. If there were some higher authority by recourseto which his vision might be shown to have shifted, then thatauthority would itself become the source of his data, and thebehavior of his visions would become a source of problems.Te period during which light was “sometimes a wave andsometimes a particle” – was a period of crisis, a period wheresomething was wrong – and it ended only with the develop-ment of wave mechanics and the realization that light was aself-consistent entity diferent from both waves and particles.In the sciences, therefore, if perceptual switches accompanyparadigm changes, we may not expect scientists to attest tothese changes directly. Looking at the moon, the convert toCopernicanism does not say, “I used to see a planet, but nowI see a satellite.” Tat locution would imply a sense in whichthe 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 sortof statement does occur in the aftermath of scientifc revolu-tion. If it ordinarily disguises a shift of scientifc visions orsome other mental transformation with the same efect, wemay not expect direct testimony about that shift. Rather wemust look for indirect and behavioral evidence that the scien-tist with a new paradigm sees diferently from the way he hadseen before.Let us then return to the data and ask what sorts of transfor-mations in the scientists’ world the historian who believes insuch changes can discover. Sir William Herschel’s discovery ofUranus provides a frst example. On at least seventeen diferentoccasions between 1690 and 1781, a number of astronomers,including several of Europe’s most eminent observers, hadseen a star in positions that we now suppose must have beenoccupied at the time by Uranus. One of the best observers inthis group had actually seen the star on four successive nightsin 1769 without noting the motion that could have suggested
“… devour this book, imitate the same rigorous methods that were used bythe 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 levelyou will fnd something very rich which is often missing in modern NLP – thefearlessness, the radicalism, the desire to experiment, the commitment to model,and the willingness to undertake thousands of hours of practice. Without theseelements 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 thepeople 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 andinterested 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 confictingperspectives is a salutary reminder that, as NLP has been at pains to point out, we eachhave our own map. Or as Robin Williams once said, “Reality – what a concept!”ian mcDermott, founder of international teaching seminarsthe Origins of neuro linguistic programming brings together the recollections andthoughts 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 atthe university of california santa cruz. they had a strong mutual interest in gestalttherapy and started a local gestalt group, collaborating and experimenting with thelanguage of therapy, and achieving some brilliant results. richard then invited one oftheir college professors, John grinder, to come and see what they were doing – Johnwas a professor of linguistics and was instantly impressed. he was able to add morestructure to what they were doing and in, due course, the three of them formalizedwhat is now known as the meta model. nlp was born.John and frank have each contributed their own substantial chapters, John haswritten two commentaries and has been somewhat forthright in his views about howthe methods and the work of the early pioneers are not refected in much of today’spractice. We also have chapters from terry mcclendon, Judith Delozier, David r. Wick,Byron lewis, stephen gilligan, James eicher and robert Dilts.
Prologue and Epilogue by Carmen Bostic St ClairThe Origins of Neuro Linguistic Programming brings together the recollections and thoughts of some of the main protagonists from the very early days of NLP.Ну, т.е. это попытка написать третью версию истории о возникновении НЛП. Вторая версия Волкеровская была просто замечательна. Первая не оставила о себе никакого следа. И автор первой истории приглашен Гриндером в его третью версию.In 1971 Richard Bandler and Frank Pucelik were students at Kresege College at the University of California Santa Cruz.Волкер и Андреас совершенно четко датируют первые опыты моделирования молодым Бандлером за некоторое время ДО появления Гриндера и, возможно, Пьюселика. Вот эти первые опыты и есть настоящее начало НЛП.They had a strong mutual interest in Gestalt Therapy, Frank because of his traumatic time in Vietnam and because he had been working with some disaffected and drug-addicted kids, and Richard because he had been working with Science and Behavior Books on transcribing and editing Fritz Perls’ seminal work, The Gestalt Approach and Eyewitness to Therapy.Френк был прагматически заинтересован гештальт терапией. Но, молодой Бандлер имел к ней совершенно особенный «модельный» мета интерес. Кроме того, если верить другим источникам, до Перлса Бандлер уже отмоделировал Вирджинию Сатир.They started a local gestalt group and ran 2-3 sessions a week collaborating and experimenting with the language of therapy. Гриндер упорно доказывает, что НЛП появилось именно на этой экспериментальной группе. Но, оно появилось ДО группы.They started achieving some brilliant results but were having problems transferring their skills to others and so Richard invited one of their college professors, John Grinder, to observe what they were doing in order that he would, hopefully, be able to deconstruct what they were doing that was so effective. John was a professor of Linguistics and was instantly impressed with the work that they were doing.И Джон пообещал, что поможет с формализацией навыков. Но, он за сорок лет так и не исполнил своего обещания.He was able to add more structure and in due course the three of them formalised what is now known as the Meta Model. NLP was born.Джон на третий день принес подредактированную модель глубинной грамматики Хомского, которую далее назвали мета моделью. Так родилось гриндеровское НЛП.
John and Frank and each of the other contributors give their own personal account of this period of collaboration when something magical was happening in northern California.Джон и Фрэнк, и каждая из других участников дать свой личный счет этого период сотрудничества, когда что-то магическое, что происходило в Северной Калифорнии.Бандлер был первым и неповторимым участником этих групп/моделирования. Джон и Френк занимались, что называется «прихватом» по ходу своего участия.Of particular interest is the role Gregory Bateson played, particularly in bringing John and Richard together with Milton H Erickson. Роль Бейтсона заключалась в том, что уже на втором шаге он ЗАКРЫЛ ТОЛЬКО ЧТО ОТКРЫТОЕ НЛП, обозвав его булшитом.Contributors include: • Robert Dilts • Stephen Gilligan • Judith Delozier • Byron Lewis • Terry McClendon (author of the first history of NLP, The Wild Days).Дилтс, породивший ныне экстрасенсорное НЛП-3 включен в список типа его могильщика.Байрона не знаем, посмотрим.Автор первой истории НЛП нам это непонятно – был ли он в первичной группе нелперов?An extremely insightful and riveting read for anyone interested in NLP.Чрезвычайно интересноTo Richard BandlerYour voice is not here, only echoes of it. Your intelligence, your fearlessness, and your presence are apparent in many of the narratives. We formed a team, the three of us, then the two of us, and against all odds, we succeeded in creating something distinct and radical and set it free in the world.It was a great adventure!Хороша команда – Гриндер, фактически, ограбил Бандлера. Бандлер самостоятельно создал несколько подходов эквивалентных НЛП. Гриндер за сорок лет сделал литературное моделирование Кастанеды и компилировал игры нового кода. И все. А теорию моделирования он не смог сделать и за сорок лет.Большое приключение!
Есть забавные "совпадения" в этой не очень прозрачной истории НЛП, а также наличии в ней такого персонажа как Пью... Что я имею ввиду?Буквально в первых строчках истории НЛП от Terrence McClendon, есть интересная фраза о Бендлере Richard used to walk around the university campus looking like he justcame home from a street fight on the back streets of San Jose. His hair was longish and he sported a goatee. He was rarely without his knife on his hip. Now everyone knows that anything could happen to anybody at anytime, in nowhere. However I believe Richard used to take that literally even in the quiet calm atmosphere of the university. а почему она любопытная? Дело в том, что у некого якобы третьего создателя НЛП по версии Гриндера Пью, есть интересный расказ о том, что он после вьетнамской войны пришел домой и поступил в институт в который ходил как раз с большим ножом на поясе, от которого долго не мог избавиться мало ли что могло произойти на улице/университетеВот такое совпадение. Интересно, что это не единственное появление ножа кадре. Это символ, который для Ричарда, похоже, имел большое значение - Richard would arrive, take off his knife, put it beside him, put out his props, including cigarettes and a box of kleenex tissues, and ask, "Who would like to work first?" Странно не правдо ли? Вот Пью и Со и решили - Нож был? Был. А кого, уже никто и не помнит.Это я так в конспиралогию хотел поиграть.
Richard promoted his own groups around Santa Cruz thru word of mouth. He was very good at what he did and often had to limit his group sizes. He was aloof, in fact I often wondered if he actually knew the names or had any contact with the people in the groups outside of the group areas. Richard was not really considered a loner but he had few choice friends that he associated with.Похоже Пью это один из сотен приходящих на семинары Ричарда, кому он "правил мозги":) Вот и не помнит/не говорит о нем. Они не могли не пересечься, видимо это факт.
Т.е. Пью с Джоном просто пара врунов-проходимцев? Получается так. В этом месте перепутали кто носил нож. Потом возвели на Бандлера поклеп в его наркоманичности и склонности к убийствам. Крутые ребята.
ContentsPrologue: A Suggestion to the Reader (Carmen Bostic-St. Clair) 1Introduction: Refections on Te Origins of Neuro-Linguistic 5Programming (John Grinder) Te Fundamental Strategy 11Part 1Chapter 1: Lots of “Times,” Some Easy, Some Fun, Some Hard 21(R. Frank Pucelik) Te “Originals” that Chose Not to Contribute to Tis Compilation of Chapters 36Chapter 2: My Road to NLP (Terry McClendon) 41Gestalt with Richard 42Parts Party 44Te Meta Model 45Hypnosis in the Santa Cruz Mountains 45Ongoing Development 46Current Refections 48Chapter 3: Te Early Days of NLP (Judith DeLozier) 51Chapter 4: Youth Services in Santa Cruz: Te First NLP Community Testing Ground (David R. Wick) 55Te Creation of Youth Services 56Finding Neuro-Linguistic Programming 57NLP: Te Wild and Crazy People 58Integrating NLP into Youth Services 59Did It Work? 60Epilogue 63Chapter 5: My Parts Party: Early Dissociated State Terapy 65(Byron Lewis) UCSC Special Studies: Eric 66Alba Road 67Alba Road Revisited 68Te Exorcism 69M.E.T.A. Institute 71M.E.T.A. International 72Substance Abuse Treatment 72Postscript 73Part 2Introduction to Part 2 (John Grinder) 77Te Love Song of NLP (Joyce Michaelson) 79Chapter 6: Te Middle of Know Where: My Early Days in NLP 81(Stephen Gilligan)Chapter 7: Commentary on “Te Middle of Know Where” 95(John Grinder)Chapter 8: “It’s a Fresh Wind that Blows against the Empire” 105(James Eicher) A Voice of Signifcance 105Prologue: Context 106Part 1: Te Family Ballet or “What, Specifcally?” 107Part 2: Bateson Sighting 116Part 3: Something about Tomato Plants, But It’s All a Bit Fuzzy 119Part 4: Trough the Corpus Callosum – From the Meta Modelto the Milty Model: Te Birth of NLP 125From Families to Organizations: My Personal and Professional Journey 129Chapter 9: Commentary on “It’s a Fresh Wind that Blows against 133the Empire” (John Grinder)Chapter 10: My Early History with NLP (Robert Dilts) 145Chapter 11: “Te Answer, My Friend, is Blowin’ in the Wind” (John Grinder) 175Epilogue (Carmen Bostic-St. Clair) 225I. Te Stage and the Players 227II. Te Main Script: NLP Modeling 228III. Te Casting Calls 232IV. Group Improvisations: Te First and Second StagesUtilized for Rehearsals of the Play 238V. Unscripted Parts 246VI. Te Epilogue of the Play 251
Теперь Бостик открывает-закрывает Историю НЛП, а Френнк ею рулит.И ни слова нигде о моделировании. И что же мы должны сказать просто и прямо мистеру Гриндеру в благодарность за такую инсинуацию Истории НЛП?
Ну, Пью еще мстит Ричарду, за то, что он "отбил" у него Лесли.(Можно даже приблизительный год вычислить и будет понятено время/год, когда для Пью, НЛП Бендлера закрылось навсегда)
Итак1967-68 Ричард Знакомиться с В.Сатир1968-1970 - Моделирует Сатир, ездит с ней по семинарам и т.д1970 умирает Перл~1970-1971 Бендлер заканчивает работу над книгами Перлза - заканчивает моделирование ПерлзаЗДЕСЬ СКОРЕЕ ВСЕГО И РОДИЛОСЬ НЛП БЕНДЛЕРА1971(конец) со слов Пью он знакомиться с Бендлером1972-1973(середина) со слов Пью они работают как пара, и ведут группы~1972 (середина)появляется Гриндер1973 со слов Пью Гриндер и Бендлер работают как пара, а он становиться вожаком стаи студентовМожно, посмотреть, когда кто появился сравнив историю от Волкера и МакКлендона
Несомненно: рождение НЛП следует отсчитывать от 67-68 годов, когда Ричард познакомился с Вирджинией. А это срок НА ПЯТЬ ЛЕТ БОЛЬШЕ/СТАРШЕ, нежели тот, который обкоцал нам мистер Гриндер с компанией.
We formed a team, the three of us, then the two of us, and against all odds, we succeeded in creating something distinct and radical and set it free in the world.И даже здесь он не может конкретно сказать, кто стали эти two of us. Двусмысленность, в которую можно вложить Бандлера и Гриндера или Гриндера и Пью.