If I take John Grinders recommendation that NLP is first and foremost a modeling technology. Technology either developed or stumbled upon by Bandler and Pucelik. By John Grinders own admittance the coding of the technology is more of an "art" than an agreed form of re-presentation to be communicated to others with the intention of those others performing at an approximate level as the original modelee. I can honestly see nothing logical or NLP ish about some of John Grinders chosen influences for the New code - Dan Casteneda, Tito Sampos for example. Yet there are aspects of New code that are invaluable and forward thinking. And, there are aspects of other schools which are also invaluable and forward thinking now looking back such as Christina Halls take on time. I'm not looking for some either/or arguments here (please don't and please be respectful), more of a kind of who/what criteria gets to decide what is NLP is and what isn't NLP when its blatantly based upon modeling, and then subsequent codifying of the original model. Some of the "original" NLP stuff wasn't even based on modeling such as eye accessing cues... If I modeled Shinzeng Young would meditation then be a part of NLP? Is NLP a modeling technology or is it more to do with the coding of it that's important after modeling based on some sort of criteria or both or what? What if I modeled John Grinders coding ability would that solve the whole issue?

I feel good that someone here is just as confuse as I am about what NLP "really" is about. But of course this is just a nominalization which capture so many different attitudes, methodologies, technologies, codings, peoples. And sure it will be utterly confused to see these all in just a picture but if you can see that it is actually evolving, at least this is what I think, maybe we will not use not the word like "NLPish" again because, as Sartre said(the one Richard Bandler mentioned in his many workshop, who drink many coffee and complain "life is meaningless"), "Existence before essence"

On the other hand, I think that Carlos Castaneda has been influencing John Grindler for a long time. If you still remember at the end of Frogs into Princes, they mentioned that the death is your eternal companion; and you can see numerous quotations of Castaneda in the book Turtle All the Way Down. After I have read all the books by Castaneda, I do see some Castaneda has sipped into the concept of NLP.
Read this post if you are interested Carlos Castaneda Real Life NLP

Hi Alistair and Caleb

Alistair,

Nice post with some interesting propositions.

Here's my understanding of the situation, quite largely based on conversations with Grinder, but those discussion were - on my part - based on the various Bandler and/or Grinder books.

1. In the beginning there was "modelling" as the universal learning process. Not in NLP, but for the whole human race. NLP-style modelling is what all able-bodied infants (and many others besides) use to learn to walk and talk and "know about" the world.

2. It was this basic, instinctive modelling process - distinguished from all others by its "know nothing state" element - that Bandler discovered whilst involved with editing a book of Perls' work and whilst running the sound system for Virginia Satir on a lengthy teaching trip to Canade. Both of these experiences PRECEDE the start of Bandler's association with Grinder.

3. The non-evaluative modelling process IS "NLP"/"Neuro-Linguistic Programming". The definition in "Neuro-Linguistic Programming, Volume 1" is pretty accurate, but it is spoiled by Dilts' attempt to make it look scientific.

4. What you get from using NLP (the modelling process) is "NLP-related techniques" and "NLP-related concepts". Where these have been arrived at through the use of the NLP modelling process, they belong to the FoNLP.

IMPORTANT: There are other ways of modelling which also work just fine WHEN used skilfully and in an appropriate context. There are also plenty of techniques which work for some people. The mistake is to think, as Dilts claims, that just because something "works" it must be part of the FoNLP. (I have an electric kettle that worked just fine a few minutes ago. But it ain't an "NLP kettle".

The key factor is that a modelling-derived technique/process, based on the behaviour of someone who is excellent at using the modelled skill, already has credibility - because someone has used it over time and gotten excellent results. The techniques that are allegedly "NLP" techniques, but aren't, are actually based on theory, with NO pre-existing "excellent" human exponents.
Of course that is not to say that they don't work. Only that they aren't part of the FoNLP.

Why people get upset when this is explained to them is beyond my understanding, as yet. It's like they want EVERYTHING to be part of NLP. Which is actually self-defeating since it completely removes any meaning from the term other than "everything".

"Hey, come to our NLP seminar and learn EVERYTHING!"

OK, now I understand - though I had to write out to get it

I hope this at least <i>begins</i> to answer your questions, Alistair?

Caleb

Good observation, though you miss out the key words "perception(s)" and "epistemology".

Remember Castaneda's first book, at least, was actually a degree thesis and may or may not be literally "true". Either way, it said a great deal about perceptions (which are also an essential element in NLP/the FoNLP). This was seems to have been an important book for both Bandler and Grinder, and I think I'm right in saying that it did indeed feed into their development of the FoNLP.
(I can't find my copy right now, but I think at least one of Castaneda's book is mentioned in the bibliography for "The Structure of Magic 1".
And why wouldn't it? It goes right to the heart of another key element of NLP - epistemology, how do we know what we think we know?

The trick to getting the most out of Castaneda's work is to read it using the approach that Castanda's guides are allegedly using: Looking at what is "behind" the outward appearances.

Be well

Andy B

Andy B. wrote:

The trick to getting the most out of Castaneda's work is to read it using the approach that Castanda's guides are allegedly using: Looking at what is "behind" the outward appearances.

Great reply, Andy, concise and informative

But I am afraid that by constantly "Looking at what is "behind"....." might actually distort what is there on the "appearances" because, in my experience, taking his words literally really help me change my perception, and hopefully, to "get what he really mean".

p/s To me, modelling is like creating a map, and modelling other people is like creating a map about other's map. With this much of logical levels, no wonder coding is a form of "art" because, after all, there might be no territory, and everything is but some map.

celestrist wrote:

...taking his words literally really help me change my perception, and hopefully, to "get what he really mean".

To get what he 'really means' or your interpretation of what he 'really' means?

Just a thought

Interesting stuff thanks for the replies. Confusion is setting in which is always a good thing in my book.

Andy B. wrote:

Why people get upset when this is explained to them is beyond my understanding, as yet. It's like they want EVERYTHING to be part of NLP. Which is actually self-defeating since it completely removes any meaning from the term other than "everything".

This is one of the points (if not the point) I am trying to get at. I can't see reasons for the outside influences for NLP but they, the reasons must be there. NLP is a meta discipline that doesn't have to belong to any other kind of epistemology - the current model science and its cousins such as Psychology for example. Without John Grinder there would be no NLP as we know it, that is as clear as the sun shining outside (where I am on the map anyway). Without his ability to codify what was/is happening the skill would have stayed within the realms of unconscious competance on behalf of the modeler. It can't just be about modeling though otherwise people such as Korzybski or Bateson for example wouldn't be needed at all, neither would Casteneda. There seems to be a criteria that exists behind the agreed epistemological influences which is what? is it questions such as "does it lead to an increase in choice while preserving the original choice as an option?", "does it allow you to go from present state to desired state?", "does it give you leverage to go from not this - that?". Beliefs and values seem to feature quite heavily in some realms of NLP but they are not part of NLP because they are just a leverage point to work from. I'm not entirely sure of the point I am trying to get at but it is the point I am trying to get at!!

Alistair

In regard to the point you want to get at, may I suggest that you turn left at Albuquerque - or right. Just DON'T go straight till morning.

Seriously though, I didn't understand this comment:

"... otherwise people such as Korzybski or Bateson for example wouldn't be needed at all, neither would Casteneda."

I may have missed the point entirely, but in "The Structure of Magic 1" (IIRC), Bandler and Grinder cite people like these as the proverbial giants on whose shoulders they stood as they were developing NLP and the FoNLP.

And after all, if you're going to be a modeller, you gotta have someone to model.

Andy B. wrote:

I may have missed the point entirely, but in "The Structure of Magic 1" (IIRC), Bandler and Grinder cite people like these as the proverbial giants on whose shoulders they stood as they were developing NLP and the FoNLP.

Exactly. For what purpose though? In order to do what?

Andy B. wrote:

And after all, if you're going to be a modeller, you gotta have someone to model.

I know for a fact (I hope!) they didn't explicitly model Korzybski and I doubt either of them explicitly modeled Bateson while he worked. They were epistemological influences. Why not Maslow or Rogers or Freud? Why not James? Watson's in there but never mentioned. Why not middle eastern influences? They must have had and must still have a criteria for "it" which is what? Lets pretend I hunted down the worlds most succesful CBTer and modeled him. Lets pretend I hunted down one the worlds most succesful/prolific meditators such as Shinzen young and modeled him and his teachings. Would they then be accepted as part of the field? My gut feeling tells me no but that doesn't make any sense (currently) if NLP is a modeling technology full stop.

NLP is a meta discipline that doesn't have to belong to any other kind of epistemology

I don't think so because, and I quote Whispering in The Wind by Grinder and Bostic,

We propose that NLP, both in its core activity, modeling, and its applications can be usefully understood to be a higher order operational epistemology....
The epistemological positioning of the field of NLP can be stated quite simply. Under normal
circumstances what we as individuals refer to as our experience of the world is actually a set of
events that have already been significantly transformed with respect to the world. We name these
sets of events First Access (FA).

Would they then be accepted as part of the field? My gut feeling tells me no

Maybe your gut feeling is base on the fact that, currently, NLP is not directly applied to these field because the community is not that interested in these fields.

NLP is a meta discipline in the sense that all disciplines (including recursively, NLP itself) are
subject to NLP modeling activities - that is to say, that the geniuses in the disciplines of
physics, chemistry, psychology, architecture, religious practice, business activity, sports... are all potential sources of these sets of differences which distinguish top performers from average
performers - in other words, such geniuses are potentially sources for NLP modeling projects.