[MD] Emotions' place?

[MarshaV]

Andre,

I like this.  I think this is my "patterns".   I never connected this 
with nlp, but makes sense.  Interesting.   Can't wait to read more.

Painting goldfish.  Gotta go.

Marsha



At 08:54 AM 10/24/2008, you wrote:
>Hi All,
>
>Sorry I am jumping in this in the middle so to speak, but I have been
>concentrating on other things in the Discuss and have been busy with work.
>Another reason is that I have been somewhat reluctant to introduce another
>way of thinking about thinking in this Discuss but something told me this is
>a good time ( a little q event?)
>
>I have been teasing this Arioch character for a few days now and today
>wanted to call his/her bluff by introducing the practice of NeuroLinguistic
>Programming (NLP) into the arena. Its practitioners do not really apply
>theory to what they do, they just find out what works and go with that. In
>this sense it is very pragmatic and empiricist. The intellectual component
>they do have is based on transformational grammar.
>I will quickly explain its origins and hope I do not bore you too much (and
>if this has already ben discussed somewhere (afterall I have missed loads of
>Discuss, please ignore) But I do think NLP can assist us to become clearer
>about the things we are dealing with.
>
>It was started by Richard Bandler (a Gestalt therapist). Now, a therapist's
>job is basically to get people out of their emotional difficulties/ problems
>etc etc. However, this person appears in his office one day and tells him
>that he has no problems, no hang-ups, life is quietly going along but he
>feels he is missing something...there is no excitement (are bells already
>ringing??). Can Richard help him 'find' this??
>Richard is stunned, never has he encountered this before but he goes to work
>on it. He has a friend who teaches linguistics at some University. Together
>they develop what is now known world wide as NLP. Its basic tennet then is
>how to improve one's life, performance, thinking, living.
>
>I think its insights, now based on some 30 years practical experience can
>help us in this discuss.
>
>I will give 2 examples of its practical application towards recent posts. It
>will also give you an idea about how NLP'ers (yes, I am a practitioner)
>approach 'problems'.
>
>Example 1:
>
>Krimel says:
>
>One cannot "will" to feel happy or sad, or fearful, nor can we wish these
>emotions away when they occur.
>
>An NLP'er will appreciate the dynamic response. No problem. But if the
>person who has experienced the response wants to get out of it ( eg feeling
>fearful every time something similar happens that 'caused' the fear reaction
>in the first place) then NLP will ask (because now we have moved from the
>pre- intellectual level to the intellectual level): how are you doing this?
>How are you creating this fearfull response to albeit similar situations but
>no situation/ experience is the same... so how this same response to
>something different? ( I am sure you can think of some of your own
>experiences to make sense of this).
>I must also add that NLP is not interested in the why question...they prefer
>to leave that to philosophers!
>
>By asking specific questions the NLP'er will ellicit the way through which
>the person experiences for example "fear". We do this through putting a
>combination of pictures, sounds, feelings (and smells and tastes if
>appropriate) together and talking to ourselves about these. Yes, we all talk
>to ourselves!
>The specific combination of these result in the response which the person
>labels "fear". Once you know the combination, i.e, how you do it...you can
>change it.
>
>Example 2
>
>woods:
>
>"Depends on what you mean by "intellectual". We each know some intellectual
>patterns may usurp and change the social level in an immoral way".
>
>Andre:
>
>"Intellect", and the "intellectual" level have been a bit bothersome over
>the years (at least that is my understanding of it).
>
>Now, I am not sure if this will really resolve something but I hope it will
>lead to , at least a further clarification of the problem:
>
>A NLP'er would say:( based on transformational grammar) you have changed an
>ongoing event i.e. expressed as a verb) into something fixed, immovable,
>something out of your control (rather something that controls you!!). You
>have changed it into a noun!! And this is called a nominalisation.
>
>There are many nominalisations and I'll mention just a few here:
>
>decision,sensation,emotion,reason, intellect, intellectual,pattern,MoQ.
>
>To become clear on which is which use this simple structure:
>
>And ongoing.....decision, ( eg I regret my decision) The question then
>simply becomes : What stops you from re-deciding....") This fits, no
>problems here...it makes sense.So "the decision" is a nominalisation.
>
>Compare this to house, car, bank, tree etc. To put "An ongoing... in front
>of these (true) nouns doesn't make sense because they are true nouns.
>This is how you separate them.
>
>Recognising a nominalisation simply means that you are restoring, for the
>person who feels dominated, stuck, halted...a real show-stopper!! such a
>situation, the persons ongoing experience to the ongoing flow of life from
>whence the process comes.
>
>This sounds SOM but I am suggesting that, maybe, we as budding MoQ' ers can
>use this same SOM logic to expand itself into MoQ thinking.
>
>Is this making sence and is this useful?
>
>I will leave you with one more observation ( I have to go outside because a
>tropical downpour has just begun!!)
>
>Pirsig: "Good is a noun. That was it....That was the homer, over the
>fence...Good as a noun rather than an adjective is all the Metaphysics of
>Quality is about. ( Lila p418)
>
>Andre
>Moq_Discuss mailing list
>Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
>http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
>Archives:
>http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
>http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/

.
.
The Universe is uncaused, like a net of jewels in which each is a 
reflection of all the others in a fantastic, interrelated harmony without end.
.
.