Hi Jon,

Jon wrote:

Can you imagine Martin Luther King's I have a dream speech without emotion? Alex used emotion, he merely used different emotion as acceptable within our culture.

Unless I'm very much mistaken, Nick was referring to the way Jonathan was using language to express himeself in an emotional state, not the emotional state Jonathan was holding.

In your example, King was both emotional and eloquent, elegant in the extreme with his choice and use of language, which, I think, is why that speech resonates as it does, even from the printed page.

And I'm not sure 'I've got a fuckin' dream, motherfuckers!' would have had the same resonance... unless perhaps it was delivered by Samuel L. Jackson, of course.

Be Well,

Michael Perez

ok.

map002 wrote:

Hi Jon,
Unless I'm very much mistaken, Nick was referring to the way Jonathan was using language to express himeself in an emotional state, not the emotional state Jonathan was holding.

In your example, King was both emotional and eloquent, elegant in the extreme with his choice and use of language, which, I think, is why that speech resonates as it does, even from the printed page.

And I'm not sure 'I've got a fuckin' dream, motherfuckers!' would have had the same resonance... unless perhaps it was delivered by Samuel L. Jackson, of course.

Be Well,

Michael Perez

I guess I am still missing the point as I cannot remember Martin Luther King using any sort of bad language - emotion yes and powerful emotion too but just think of the advantage he would have given his detractors at that time if he had used the sort of language used by Alex.

M-L-K inspired, inflamed and seriously rattled people by the powerful use of eloquent and universally engaging language.

I cannot remember Nelson Mandela using poor language and swearing about his tormentors and I would have been more understanding of this if he had done so. His power comes partly from the fact that his words have always been clear, objective and inclusive and he is possibly the most inspiring and emotional person alive.

I understand emotion and passionate feelings about a subject. I don't get that this translates into potentially inflammatory language.

The cause described has received feedback from a potential supporter of that cause. The response has been he’s just emotional seems to miss one of the key foundations of the communication loop, as I understand it, which is to be aware of the response you get so that you can be flexible in order to achieve your outcome.

I am sure Alex will recruit many new supporters. His cause seems just and logical. He may recruit me but not if he continues to conduct his campaign in such a way.

My emotion on this subject is fired up by the fact that I am not seeing, hearing or feeling the sort of excellence in communication that I expect from the NLP community.

Just for the record I swear, in the car at other drivers, in the office when the computer crashes or when my sons carry out another crazy act of potential self destruction. I am no saint but these occasions are moments when I have lost control and I do not feel good about that.

Writing, especially writing for a just or good cause, should be constructed to gain the maximum level of rapport, empathy and support with the readership. As we write we have choices about the language we use. If we are campaigning we should also look ahead to gauge the potential of every word if it is ever assessed as part of our argument?

We cannot say that we are modelling excellence in communication and then support or excuse a mode of communication that can alienate people, not because they do not agree with the argument but because they find the language in-effective or inflammatory?

Or can we?

perspec1 wrote:

Writing, especially writing for a just or good cause, should be constructed to gain the maximum level of rapport, empathy and support with the readership. As we write we have choices about the language we use. If we are campaigning we should also look ahead to gauge the potential of every word if it is ever assessed as part of our argument?

We cannot say that we are modelling excellence in communication and then support or excuse a mode of communication that can alienate people, not because they do not agree with the argument but because they find the language in-effective or inflammatory?

Or can we?

Well, it all comes back to what your outcome is. I've written adverts and brochures and website copy, and a useful rule of thumb there is to avoid obscenities. But if you look at the example of French Connection, sales went through the roof when they introduced their FCUK range. And, when I did some work for a company aiming itself at the wallets of young men, I too went down the rude route with real results.

I also write scripts for tv, film, and theatre. Are you telling me that there's no place for a judiciously selected and juicy swear word in those worlds? I think not. The saltiness of the language you use can be an important part of its impact. Sure, some filmmakers overdo it (I'm looking at you Guy Ritchie), but David Mamet for one is eloquent in his obscenity.

As for alienating people: look, dickwad, there are times when you don't want people just following you cause you're all buttoned-up and Sunday best. Capice? There are times when varying the tenor of your vocabulary can get people to sit up and take notice, to pay attention rather than allow themselves to be lulled into lack-of-awareness. The difference between sentence and sentience is just that letter I, and though I have no idea what that means, it sounds good doesn't it?

Lol!! Yes, Adrian, it certainly does sound good (whatever it means!).

Venus :-)

I "love" all this registration stuff. :-)
Here in South Australia the Psychological Board tried to register hypnotists, but found themselves in deep strife very quickly--they couldn't define hypnosis in a way that made the process of inducing it registerable! LOL.
Each time they took a local stage hypnotist to court for not complying with the registration requirements (which he didn't) they lost the case.
The time they attempted to change the registration act, the definition of hypnosis caused so much trouble and was so ludicrous, the attempt was thrown out of parliament.
Greg