Michael Hall seems to be the person to love to hate, by everyone I get across with. The more I hate reading his books, but the more I love it. What's with the jist?

Why do I get the nauceous feeling there's a deep unstated animosity between MH amongst other NLPers.

I feel bad about these because others widely benefit from MH.

I learned NLP the way by self experiencing - trial and error type long time ago till now. Now that I want to officiate the learnings even though not recognize by the state of California, there's this feeling of discord among academicians.

So what's with the point when there's this resistance? Maybe wait some time until all been levelled out? Next lifetime? Confused and confuse and confusing! To clarify and let the chips fall where they fall, what is it you all, BRING IT ON!

Gotta go bye and time to sign off, got to do other things. Chris Morris, Thanks for NLP Connections!

Hi Mike,
I have read many of Michael's books also. Some have been extraordinary and he is certainly a prolific author. I have noticed that Steve Andreas for instance is almost hostile regarding some of his work.

It seems to me to be arising from a fundamental disagreement about submodalities and logical levels. Michael strongly believes that qualities of representations such as the color of a picture is not "sub" to that picture but "meta" to it.

He has then organized a heap of his work around this concept and has in my opinion gotten stuck in it.

I think this is unfortunate, because his meta states model works really well, and I have found some incredibly powerful techniques and insights in his work.

In Steve Andreas's book "6 Blind Elephants" he explained the fallacy of the meta rather than sub idea. In terms of logical levels (the real ones, not the neurological ones), Steve is correct

Michael does tend to frame things as "this is how it is" despite his insistence on the e-prime thing (not using is etc).

So, there you go, my take on it.

From my point of view, disagreements like this ad depth to NLP and my ideas. I've gotten heaps from Michael's thinking and from Steve Andreas. Sometimes it is just a bit difficult to reconcile the views - after all it would be much more comfortable to have one overriding authority to say "THIS IS IT" and have a definitive and non changing set of recipes to use to achieve certain outcomes and call it NLP. Fortunately that is never going to happen.

Kim

Actually, there is no need to reconcile anything, is there?

Is energy a wave or a particle? Alternative descriptions, perspectives - this is what we need. Why should they all fit or integrate into a larger bubble?

Einstein was tempted as well, and he failed while dealing with a simpler system, i.e. the Universe (which blanks out in comparison with the complexity of the human brain on its software processing level).

Some models are useful, others are not...

Neuro-Semantics is just another model... Its beauty and major contribution is that it creates fresh dynamics between "more traditional schools" and its "new" position. Consider please, what counts is its ability to generate new thinking frames... Isn't it much more valuable than bit of relaxation we could maintain for five minutes due to the illusion that we managed to put puzzles together and know everything.

I studied with Hall and I believe his genius is usually not fully appreciated or recognised, especially if measured through the frames that fully and completely ignore his discoveries. The power of Neuro-Sematics shows up when you start applying it, books are just the pointers.

Also, NLP field seems to be a market place, everybody who makes or wants to make a living out of it needs to develop his/her own value proposition, hence differentiation attempts, even at a cost of creating illusory conflicts and inconsistencies.

But there is a logic to this - while all cars of relatively the same class have four wheels, and each would take you from A to B in a simlar manner, marketers would like to convince you that in fact you would receive completely diffrent experience. But this is a seer nonsense.

Last point - it seems that the NLP or NS is practical model to be applied in a real life and not chewed or endlessly disputed as for example some branches of academic philosophy.

Show me what you cannot do by applying Neuro-Sematics and this is were the conversation would get the the next level (not meta this time...) Regards

You said:

"Show me what you cannot do by applying Neuro-Sematics and this is were the conversation would get the the next level (not meta this time...) Regards"


Show me what neuro-semantics can do that was not ALREADY being done by NLP or CBT.

Meta-states equals adding resources which was explained in all the early NLP books.

Nuero Semantics seems to fall under two categories: 1) Was already in NLP and was renamed by MH ( example reframing , meta position etc...) 2) is complete gibberish.

Anyone that points out the gibberish gets called a non-linear thinker and thus not capable of understanding the MS model ( does MH even know what Non-linear means? Look it up MH, for the love of God) and/or someone that refuses to read his books to understand the meta states model. The possibility that the model makes no sense is not allowed by MH.

Thus if you do not understand you are a non-linear thinker. Is he trying to imply that people that do not understand gibberish are stupid? Or perhaps, it is an attempt to remove focus from the fact that his model is incoherent?

Dear John

I do have neither emotional nor commecrial investment in NS, so I am kind not keen to get involved in defending or attacking it.

Michael Hall is a contactable person, you can easily reach him through his web page and get your text reviewed and answered. Consider doing it before you take authoritative stance. Some reading with reflection may help as well, especially as a peraration before making a contact.

Also, you may want to try another frame: it is neither NLP not NS nor anything else that "does" things but human nervous system.

I saw shamans being so effective and fast in their interventions that many "NLP-ers" or "EFT-ers" or other practitioners could just dream about.

And again - the magic was in the human nervous system, who cares which lenses and conceptual framework was used to codify it.

Good luck with Mike - why don't you post the answers you get to this thread. It may be an insighful dialog rahter then just your expert opinions.

Best regards

I didn't think anybody would read this thread and I just noticed it now.

My take is I read some of his books and not all. The Meta States book is a sad disappointment to me due to not well edited causing confusion with misspellings and I don't see the humor in that at all causing me to think that I may be really just stupid because of withholding critical informations. The thing is I only have one life to live maybe he will rewirte that book and sell it to me again at a bargain I hope, but he will be in a different plateau again.

Revised Achieving peak performance and Mind lines are notable which I haven't completely read, but it seems readable and can be encoded. MH stands on by using stilts above the shoulders of great great men, and I'm just not fast enough to catch to the chase, yet.

It's true though MH likes renaming NLP terminologies to suit his need to expand readers awareness, but contracts in me that makes difficulty in restating what he just said. Maybe my diminuitive self just gets exasperated and overwhelmed that I can't take in anymore all in anymore all in one time and just goes nowhere and onto demastery.

What's the point in complicating things? Steve A and Michael H should bang eaches head together and like true scientist's come up with a relatively theory on communicating with self and others to advance the welfare of all not just in their pockets and make a true mark in this world not like a dog pissing in the post.

This is whining and despise to be at that, and will come back with true fighting words soon. What good is my life training to kill efficiently effective before and now not to learn to enhance my life and others and the if's to what is all about life.

HAVE FUN AND ENJOY

Does anybody know What happened? The responses? Where's the beef? I just like to happen to like the wii games.

Now you all know what it feels like reading MH books.

What're his top 3 books that I haven't got?
1. The Spirit of NLP
2. Sourcebook of Magic
3. What's the 3rd one?

Aren't they any good! Now if anybody here says You Got Me Wrong, Speak Up of forever be silence. Are they good.

You all know you all contributed to the war on terror, thru missiles and bullets with your names attached on to them, when you purchased your computers and paid taxes on them including to nimble pay.

Are you afraid to speak up now? What if those bullets were turn on to you what do you do now? Is MH any good as he so say to you?

Try to put Secrets of Personal Mastery on your list... It is very non-technical wrapping of common sense that is not so common at all.

I spent a lot of time talking to/with MH many times during the trainings I got from him and outside the formal setting as well. This is a very good way of addressing particular asepcts that are not fully and completely covered in his books.

One of the things that allows to identify those who understand Meta-States model is to ask them: Is the effect of one state bearing on the other the same (neurologically) as collapsing/chaining anchors?

If your answer is some form of "yes," it means you still apply the traditional sudmodalities based model to the state management.

This is my last post in this thread. Sorry and apologies if I annoyed anybody, this was not my intent. Just got bored with this at this stage

regards

Jurek! thanks

Just the right thing I was looking for I must'av missed that one and just to show you how really stupid I can get to keep going for more to meet the deadline before the offer's been pulled off.

Too bad you early quit the thread entirely when there's plenty learning to be done in before the scuffle got really heated but I suppose you've had enough when I told you how you felt and Don't you just feel wonderful?... 'Atypical NS response when the going gets tough and he don't count.

I'm sure MH would enjoy his roastings, but not when ask to delineate his issues. He can make fun but not the receipient of it and so what gives? Man up! Or just to JG & SA.

"Nuff said, I take your word for it for what it's worth.

Mikee

'Oh shit! I know I already got what Jurek suggested and that was so and so he quit already the roasting party early.

Any body got their Top 12 shit list that who wants to unload? I'm taking no crap so beware!

Jurek

I agree you are not responsible for Nuero Semantics.

This is however a fight club section and while I generally think fighting is a non productive activity I do believe stating an opinion and discussing it ( arguing if you do not accept the reframe) leads to constructive ideas and clarity of ideas.

I do not know you personally but if it seems like I attacked you personally, please forgive and all the best. If you decide to repost on this thread I more then welcome it.

So anything further that I say is NOT directed at you nor MH but rather at Nuero Semantics which I believe harms the field of NLP and thus prevents the benefit it could have offered. ( That is a discussion that is best left for another thread )

However I must keep the larger perspective- NLP and its possible benefits in mind and so I must comment on one thing you said. The response is not directed at you but at NS.

You Said:

" One of the things that allows to identify those who understand Meta-States model is to ask them: Is the effect of one state bearing on the other the same (neurologically) as collapsing/chaining anchors?

If your answer is some form of "yes," it means you still apply the traditional sudmodalities based model to the state management"

My answer: No. Collapsing anchors and chaining anchors generally do not lead to in congruency whereas the Meta states model more often then not leads to this state.

So they are very different in that Meta states does not understand you have to access the needed resources thier is not some sort of "meta formula" ( see NLP Volume 1 1980)

Real example by MH. MH claims that love of hate changes hate. No it does not It leads to in congruency, try it.

Note neither collapsing anchors nor "meta states " needs the submodality model but then again MH is not known for logical statements.

: The meta stating model as described by MH.

NOTE: If you have religious sentimets, please skip this post. The text below is neither meant to disturb nor evaluate - it refers to religion from modelling perspective only.

Both Hall and Bodenhamer seem to be fascinated by Korzybski's General Semantics and this sentiment does not position them as those who would strictly and necessarily follow Aristotelian logic.

While this is not a philosophical thread, some facts need to be mentioned... Logical argumenation requires recognition of committments to the type of logic used that undeprins the language. Should it not be secured, conversation could not be classified as rational to any defined degree.

One of my champions, Ayn Rand (please read on even if you hate her and the rest of the Objectivist Movement), says that every utterance that embeds a contradiction as a cognitive assertion is false, no matter how good it looks and how many Capital Letters are used to make it sound/look Good.

So back to my point, individuals who follow non-Aristotelian logic give themselves permission to covertly say what they want and "make true" what they wish. They seem to ignore that if fact-based or objective logic is out, wishes and emotions become a standard based on which deduction, induction and sylogistics is based. The brain becomes short-circuited and from the goal oriented machine deteriorates to a sort of wishfulthinking device or a magic wand.

The aspect that has always put me off NS was huge sentiment of the Neuro-Semantics heroes to religious "thinking," and in particular to Christianity. Quite openly and without any attempts to hide it, Bodenhamer presents himself as an active priest or pastor of some sort. I do not know if religious focus forms a part of his therapeutic business or after hours charity (not taxed) type of thing. I do not care, do you?

Now if one adheres to religion, and in fact to religion dogmatic to the degree Christianity is, and at the same time preaches NLP, then his/her position is a contradiction and as such necessarily false.

Why? Because religionist posits that there is an "absolute reality - God, god, whatever name" and consequently there is an absolute and objective description of it. In contrast, NLP talks about models and open questions. One cannot maintain both position without undermining any of them, eventually one becomes a contradiction him/herself.

I discussed this whole thing at length with Judth DeLozier. I was quite lucky, because my Master NLP course organized by John Seymour (UK) contained two blocks run by Hall and DeLozier respectively, so there was a lot of opportunities to fight.

At some stage (corridor conversation, not formal session) I asked Judith, who has a degree in antropology and religious studies, are NLP and religion ultimately incompatible because NLP talks models of reality and religion claims to have a privileged access to "Reality?" Her response was simple - should religion not claim this, it would cease to be religion at all.

Why this all long story? Because NS seems to have accepted Christian mentality as one of its building blocks or frames through which its founders relate to the world. Thus spotting contradiction here or there should not take anybody by surprise. Why? becuase it is a simple consequence of using the logic which accepts contraditions as cognitive assertions, as religions do.

I have no Christian sentiments and again - this post is not to upset anybody. I also think that there are elements of NS that could be usefully picked out and applied, but it needs to be made with the open mind (of course in such a way that the brain does not fall out... by the way, isn't it what religious conditioning is all about?)

I asked Judith to sign for me her Encyclopedia of Systemic and New Code NLP. She wrote "to my worthy opponent" as then years ago I was in a combative mood and her training on the new code was definitely more than I could digest at that stage of my development. But today I am OK with her approach and also find useful bits in NS - maybe also because they seem to sometimes motivate me to new reflection, etc.

Cheers & Regards

I AGREE!

You must be in your 'the Meditative State,' again so stop, and I'm just glad that of you appreciating like me into having being there. I guess, what a dream that would be for you like with all the incursions going pretty soon if not yet to be happening.

Arguably, to you, would be even less difficult more simplify or facilitative or prakticly easier, to give in to me to what my desire is and get to get me the hell out of the nightmare.

Just to make it short the story cutting edge to the chase your the 'Top 10' shit List MH books by priority, and your excuses as to why they're just being good in estimation by you in sequence logical order.

Listen Up! You seem to be not listening. Get it done,Time is of the essence and probably run out. So hurry up and possibly right!?!



I worked hard on this, it took me 15 minutes minus plus or 2, SO...

HAVE FUN ENJOY!

Mike D

Too much LSD...cut back some...Not all just some.

All the best.

It seems to me logically that I am the only person in this whole thread who endorses MH directly and having not to wander about it categorically, and no flinchings making bones about it or scope.

Maybe I can apply for a Marketing Consultant job with James Lavers and as a condition for employment do a project work on endorsing Al Whitton for Free!

John Hume: Wha'cha got? Would you care to share some? Daily rave party and make sure to bring some and don't bogart that joint @ 1111 Trousdale drive, you know where it's at and I'm sure you've been there alot of times lately, don't bother to stop at the counter nor give my name as reference.

I'm sure what I'm saying is not what MH meant in all of these nor intent, just my 02 cent opine. Gotta give to my credit to were my credit is due.