[ 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. ]
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
It was a great adventure!
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
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
Chapter 5: My Parts Party: Early Dissociated State Terapy 65
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
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
Chapter 7: Commentary on “Te Middle of Know Where” 95
Chapter 8: “It’s a Fresh Wind that Blows against the Empire” 105
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
Refections on The Origins of
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
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
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 …
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
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
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).
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-
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?