Previous Entry Share Next Entry
Кунсткамера MetaPractice (36) The Origins of Neuro Linguistic Programming
теперь
metanymous wrote in metapractice
http://metapractice.livejournal.com/338327.html
http://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

Prologue and Epilogue by Carmen Bostic St Clair

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 Bandler
Your  voice  is  not  here,  only  echoes  of  it.  Your  intelligence,  your  fear-
lessness, 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!
John Grinder
Frank Pucelik




Contents


Prologue: A Suggestion to the Reader (Carmen Bostic-St. Clair)  1
Introduction: Refections on Te Origins of Neuro-Linguistic   5
Programming (John Grinder)
Te Fundamental Strategy  11

Part 1
Chapter 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  36
Chapter 2: My Road to NLP (Terry McClendon)  41
Gestalt with Richard  42
Parts Party  44
Te Meta Model  45
Hypnosis in the Santa Cruz Mountains  45
Ongoing Development  46
Current Refections  48
Chapter 3: Te Early Days of NLP (Judith DeLozier)  51
Chapter 4: Youth Services in Santa Cruz: Te First NLP Community
Testing Ground (David R. Wick)  55
Te Creation of Youth Services  56
Finding Neuro-Linguistic Programming  57
NLP: Te Wild and Crazy People  58
Integrating NLP into Youth Services  59
Did It Work?  60
Epilogue  63
Chapter 5: My Parts Party: Early Dissociated State Terapy  65
(Byron Lewis)
UCSC Special Studies: Eric  66
Alba Road  67
Alba Road Revisited  68
Te Exorcism  69
M.E.T.A. Institute  71


M.E.T.A. International  72
Substance Abuse Treatment  72
Postscript  73
Part 2
Introduction to Part 2 (John Grinder)  77
Te Love Song of NLP (Joyce Michaelson)  79
Chapter 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  105
Prologue: Context  106
Part 1: Te Family Ballet or “What, Specifcally?”  107
Part 2: Bateson Sighting  116
Part 3: Something about Tomato Plants, But It’s All a Bit Fuzzy  119
Part 4: Trough the Corpus Callosum – From the Meta Model
to the Milty Model: Te Birth of NLP  125
From Families to Organizations: My Personal and
Professional Journey  129
Chapter 9: Commentary on “It’s a Fresh Wind that Blows against   133
the Empire” (John Grinder)
Chapter 10: My Early History with NLP (Robert Dilts)  145
Chapter 11: “Te Answer, My Friend, is Blowin’ in the Wind”
(John Grinder)  175
Epilogue (Carmen Bostic-St. Clair)  225
I. Te Stage and the Players  227
II. Te Main Script: NLP Modeling  228
III. Te Casting Calls  232
IV. Group Improvisations: Te First and Second Stages
Utilized for Rehearsals of the Play  238
V. Unscripted Parts  246
VI. Te Epilogue of the Play  251

INTrOduCTION
Refections on The Origins of
Neuro-Linguistic Programming
John grinder
Tis  book  has  as  its  purpose  a  description  of  the  origins  of Neuro-
Linguistic Programming (NLP). Note, please the use of the indefnite
article  a  in  the phrase,  a description  of Neuro-Linguistic Programming.
Te co-editors of this book, Frank Pucelik and John Grinder, were two
of the three prime movers in the creation of NLP and one or both of
them were present at the majority of the events described herein that
defne the origins of NLP. A third voice, that of Richard Bandler, is not
present 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 is
reconstructive.
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 following
three 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, memories
are not stored as intact units to be retrieved and displayed. Tey
are  stored  in distinct physical  locations  (the primary  cortical
areas 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 by
synesthesia circuitry.

To  remember,  then,  is  to  reassemble  portions  of  experience
stored 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 of
the  person  doing  the  remembering.  Such  present  intentions
and requirements of the person remembering operate as flters
on 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  is
NOT  a  disqualifcation,  simply  an  epistemological  warning
about the veracity of what you are reading.
So,  what  do  you  suppose  is  the  probability  of  getting  these
pieces reassembled so as to match the archival representation
of 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 only
of the state, intentions, and fltering that existed at the time of
the actual event but also as a function of state, present inten-
tions,  and fltering  of  the  person  reconstructing  the memory
in  the present. Distinct portions of  the  reconstruction being
reported will be identifed and presented and others will not. As
the 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 the
representation (its specifcity) and whether  it  is confned to a
specifc  logical type of representation – description,  interpre-
tation, and evaluation  (assuming that the person making the
reconstruction, or indeed the reader, can make the distinction
among these varying modes of representation). Tis is unlikely
as the vast majority of the members of the fourth estate have
yet 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? Did
the servers actually present the fresh dishes from one side of
the  diner  and  remove  the  used  dishes  from  the  other  side?
How were the portions of the dinner arranged on the serving
platters? Were the chargers color coordinated with the fowers
on the sideboard (what sideboard!)? Who spoke frst after the
ordering was complete? Did the following speakers at the table
replicate the rhythm of the frst speaker’s voice or was there a
signifcant contrast? Did the volume of sound in the restaurant
rise and fall with a certain temporal frequency? Did the texture
of  the  side dishes  complement  the  texture of  the main dish?
How  clearly  could  you hear  the  sounds of  the  kitchen where
your food was being prepared? How frequently did the people
sitting  beside  each  other  mirror  the  others’  physical  move-
ments  as  compared with people  facing one  another  either  at
the 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 moved
during the seating ritual? Was the waiter/waitress right or left
handed? Was the tablecloth arranged as a square or a diamond
with  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  are
confronted with the task of selecting from among a very large
(although  fnite)  set  of  possible  things  to  represent. Tose
things  that  actually  end  up  in  your  reconstruction  are  there
as an  indicator of your  intentions and  interests, now, as you
reconstruct the memory. In the provocations above about your
dinner  at  the  restaurant,  I  confned myself  largely  to  physi-
cal aspects of  the event. What  if we were  to venture  into  the
relationships implicit at that table and the complex operations
implied  by  these  relationships? Now  the  situation  gets  even
more  complex.  If  you were  able  to  compare what  you  recon-
structed  with  respect  to  the  dinner  in  the  restaurant  with

this  archive,  do  you  suppose  that  your  reconstruction would
contain more or  less  than  the  archival fle  referred  to  above.
Surprisingly, the answer is both – you would fnd a vast array
of  things  that were not  reconstructed  in your  representation
and some things in your representation would NOT be present
in the archive captured by that ubiquitous recording system in
the sky.
Tere are higher level diferences that emerge in addition to the
essentially incomplete and selective nature of your reconstruc-
tion  of  the dinner. Was  your  representation  biased,  focusing
largely 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 and
sequences  of  tastes,  the  developing  of  various  topics  in  the
conversation, and how  the  feelings of  the people at  the  table
shifted with the development of the conversations about these
various topics?
3.  Does it really matter what happened historically?
What  is the point of examining the historical development of
something as complex as the birth of a new feld? Are you hop-
ing  to  catch a glimpse of  the processes of discovery, possibly
even with the intention of using such processes in making com-
parable discoveries yourself? Are you so naive as to think that
two human beings  confronted with  the  “same”  set of  stimuli
(experiences) will respond in the “same” way? Te same’s are in
quotes to remind you that the same set of stimuli are NOT the
same when processed through distinct neurologies. Is it really
relevant to you as a researcher to know how someone else with
a  completely  distinct  background  responded  to  the  stimuli
that were available at  the origin of NLP? Do you  really  think
that playing the music of and dancing to Congolese traditional
rhythms,  and  training  and  riding Arabian  trail horses … will
assist you  in becoming a better modeler? Does having devel-
oped  a  set  of  efective patterns help  guide  young people  out
of the thick jungle of drugs towards a lighted path from which

some  of  them  can  then  reach  back  and  guide  their  former
mates? 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 to
derail a train with a minimum of plastic explosives; or hit a golf
ball 300 yards down the middle of the fairway; or to have a deep
computational competency in automata theory; or how to rig a
automatic watering system for horse trough; or …
Personally,  I don’t  think so. But  then,  it  is very dangerous  to
generalize from a sample of one.
Yet,  as  I move  around  the  globe  ofering  training,  conferences,  and
demonstrations,  one  of  the most  frequent  questions  is  the  history
question: 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 to
accept the question, is a series of bedtime stories, meeting the require-
ments of the speaker’s present intentions in presenting themselves to
strengthen the image of whoever the speaker is and what s/he wishes
the audience to carry away with them.
So, step back a moment here before plunging into this maelstrom and
ask 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 any
point, it is to make available the patterning of geniuses in a learnable
form that integrates these patterns of genius into the performance of
people wishing to achieve higher quality and more efective results in
their worlds of application. Tis results in the raising of the bar in that
profession. For example, the modeling of Dr. Milton Erickson required
some 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) as
well as the tolerance for the inherent ambiguity of the task of modeling
and the competency to code the assimilated patterns into a description
that would allow others to gain access to these patterns without this
enormous 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 apprentice
mason prepared the site, carried the materials, did the clean up, and
whilst doing all this, if this apprentice were to succeed in becoming a
mason, he would notice and mark how, specifcally, the master mason
approached 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  through
unconscious assimilation, the patterns belong  in a deep sense to the
learner. Such a learner then has the leisure to revisit such patterns and
may  then  ferret out  the essential elements of  the patterns and  their
sequencing – the formal pattern itself or some functional equivalent.
Tose  learners  following a conscious approach will certainly upgrade
their  game;  whether  they  ever  achieve  the  depth  of  integration  of
patterning arrived at  inductively  is an open question.  In our present
context, few people,  if anyone, are prepared to enter the strange and
disorienting world of deep inductive learning, thus, the niche of mod-
eler emerges.
So,  what  will  you  do  with  these  reconstructed  tales  fowing  down
through  the  decades  since  their  actual  occurrence,  and  channeled
through the intentions, interests, and self-images of the people ofer-
ing these representations?
Good question!


  • 1

The Fundamental Strategy


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.

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?

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

“… 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.

It was a great adventure!

Prologue and Epilogue by Carmen Bostic St Clair
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.


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.

Re: It was a great adventure!

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 интересно

To Richard Bandler
Your 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!

Подмена персонажей

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.

Re: Подмена персонажей

Да уж. Отвечать за содеянное у Гриндера желания никакого нет. Вот он и мутит далее все больше и больше.

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 just
came 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/университете

Вот 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.

Edited at 2013-07-07 02:13 am (UTC)

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.

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)


Да уж, личный мотив неприязни это сильно.

Забавно, что НЛП Бандлера так и не открылось ни Гриндеру, ни Пьюселику.


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.

Очень похоже на то.

Теперь Бостик открывает-закрывает Историю НЛП, а Френн

Contents
Prologue: A Suggestion to the Reader (Carmen Bostic-St. Clair) 1
Introduction: Refections on Te Origins of Neuro-Linguistic 5
Programming (John Grinder) Te Fundamental Strategy 11

Part 1
Chapter 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 36

Chapter 2: My Road to NLP (Terry McClendon) 41
Gestalt with Richard 42
Parts Party 44
Te Meta Model 45
Hypnosis in the Santa Cruz Mountains 45
Ongoing Development 46
Current Refections 48

Chapter 3: Te Early Days of NLP (Judith DeLozier) 51
Chapter 4: Youth Services in Santa Cruz: Te First NLP Community Testing Ground (David R. Wick) 55
Te Creation of Youth Services 56
Finding Neuro-Linguistic Programming 57
NLP: Te Wild and Crazy People 58
Integrating NLP into Youth Services 59
Did It Work? 60
Epilogue 63

Chapter 5: My Parts Party: Early Dissociated State Terapy 65
(Byron Lewis) UCSC Special Studies: Eric 66
Alba Road 67
Alba Road Revisited 68
Te Exorcism 69
M.E.T.A. Institute 71
M.E.T.A. International 72
Substance Abuse Treatment 72
Postscript 73

Part 2
Introduction to Part 2 (John Grinder) 77
Te Love Song of NLP (Joyce Michaelson) 79

Chapter 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 105

Prologue: Context 106
Part 1: Te Family Ballet or “What, Specifcally?” 107
Part 2: Bateson Sighting 116
Part 3: Something about Tomato Plants, But It’s All a Bit Fuzzy 119

Part 4: Trough the Corpus Callosum – From the Meta Model
to the Milty Model: Te Birth of NLP 125
From Families to Organizations: My Personal and Professional Journey 129

Chapter 9: Commentary on “It’s a Fresh Wind that Blows against 133
the Empire” (John Grinder)
Chapter 10: My Early History with NLP (Robert Dilts) 145
Chapter 11: “Te Answer, My Friend, is Blowin’ in the Wind” (John Grinder) 175
Epilogue (Carmen Bostic-St. Clair) 225

I. Te Stage and the Players 227
II. Te Main Script: NLP Modeling 228
III. Te Casting Calls 232

IV. Group Improvisations: Te First and Second Stages
Utilized for Rehearsals of the Play 238
V. Unscripted Parts 246
VI. 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?

Рождение НЛП БЕНДЛЕРА 1967-1971

Итак
1967-68 Ричард Знакомиться с В.Сатир
1968-1970 - Моделирует Сатир, ездит с ней по семинарам и т.д
1970 умирает Перл
~1970-1971 Бендлер заканчивает работу над книгами Перлза - заканчивает моделирование Перлза

ЗДЕСЬ СКОРЕЕ ВСЕГО И РОДИЛОСЬ НЛП БЕНДЛЕРА


1971(конец) со слов Пью он знакомиться с Бендлером
1972-1973(середина) со слов Пью они работают как пара, и ведут группы
~1972 (середина)появляется Гриндер
1973 со слов Пью Гриндер и Бендлер работают как пара, а он становиться вожаком стаи студентов

Можно, посмотреть, когда кто появился сравнив историю от Волкера и МакКлендона

Re: Рождение НЛП БЕНДЛЕРА 1967-1971


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.

  • 1
?

Log in

No account? Create an account