... ↑
metanymous в посте Metapractice (оригинал в ЖЖ)
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?