From: friday@netcom.com (Carol Anne Ogdin)
Subject: Re: Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP)
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 92 15:09:35 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

In <64300@cup.portal.com> Tagi@cup.portal.com (Tagi Mordred Nagashiva) writes:

>1) If, as Amanda Walker says, among others I might add, NLP is criticized
>by specialists in modern linguistics, then 

>a) What do YOU, Carol, see as their motive for such criticism, and, if it
>is unjustified, why does it occur?

I cannot speak to other's motivations; ask them.  One of the principles
I've learned in recent years (as an outgrowth of sensory-groundedness in
communications) is that "why" is not a very useful question to me; I'm
much more interest in "how" and "when" and "which."

Secondly, I am not in the position, nor do I wish to be, of defending
NLP.  I will _explain_ NLP, where I can, and I'll help people find out
where they can learn more.  I will even go so far as to posit facts
as counterexamples to unsubstantiated or uninformed opinion, but it is
decidely _not_ my role to have to "prove" to anyone that NLP is superior
to anything else, or to justify it to casual on-lookers.  If you really
want to know if it is of value to you, go read the references and talk
to people who do NLP.

[deleted demand I justify qualification of NLP trainers]

>c) Regardless of the tedium or complexity of the task, could you give us
>some idea of what kinds of 'skills' you are talking about here?  When

NLP offers its students improved skills at being able to hear what people
are saying, what thought processes are going on behind that thinking, and
to provide stimuli to such people to help them get more of what they want
from their world.  These are the same skills that any artful communicator
uses; NLP is just a way to learn how to be an artful communicator.

>What services do you offer, now that you are licensed, besides
>training in the NLP skills?

I am not "licensed," there is no licensing authority; licenses are issued
by government bodies.  I am certified, as are all NLP practitioners, by
the organization doing the training as having complete (satisfactorily,
in the judgement of the instructors) of the course of training (not every-
one achieved certification; it is based on demonstrated ability).  Trainers
are appointed by Richard Bandler or John Grinder...although I understand
now that some Master Trainers are now granting trainer certifications.

There is no independent, authoritative body of judges or objective criteria,
and the attempts by the National Association for NLP has been unsuccessful
in formulating a national testing program.

> Can you demonstrate this in this newsgroup in
Your assumption is wrong; while some of NLP is linguistically-based, most
of it is based on noticing and utilizing analog communications, such as
tonality and inflection, body movements (noticing and synchronizing with
another person's breathing, for instance), eye movements.  I've been  
wrestling with how to convey any sense of this through this all-digital
medium, and I'm stymied.  The only thing I've been able to do on the
conference system I use (The Well), is offer people exercises they can go
do which we can dialog about later.

Insofar as the "linguistic" parts of NLP, I refer you (as I have before)
to Chapter 4 of The Structure of Magic.

>I think that you will find that magick and language are deeply
>intertwined and that many of the folk in this newsgroup (and in
>others, perhaps) are conversant with some of the 'skills' which
>you seem to value highly.  Just because we do not use the same
>terms to refer to this skill-set doesn't mean that we are unfamiliar
>with it.  If you were to provide examples of these skills, then we
>might be able to more completely understand your claims and NLP's
>value to human communications.

Let's set a couple of things straight:  The patronizing arroganze of
"you will find" presupposed that I don't already know the link between
magick and language; isn't it evident why I started this thread?  Because
I use the skills I've learned in NLP in my shamanic/magickal work, I
said so.

Secondly, I never suggested that NLP was the only way, or preferred
way to conduct interpersonal communications; I've said I found NLP a
valuable tool and a place to learn what I needed to know.

Thirdly, artful use of language is a two-edged sword.  I find that about
half the stuff in this newsgroup I've learned to skip by without reading
because (all the previous examples by those parties on those topics) have
been artful use of language to play ego games that don't interest me.

Finally, I make no "claims" regarding "NLP's value" beyond my personal
experience that I found it valuable and other might find it valuable, too.
If you expect me to convince you of the intrinsic value of NLP, you got
the wrong lady here; I'm not interested in convincing you, merely pre-
senting an idea some readers of this newsgroup may (or may not) elect
to follow up on their own.

>Thank you for your time in explaining your knowledge of NLP
>to those of this newsgroup who are interested.  I know I am.
>And thank you to all of you who are challenging her!

There is a difference between exchanging information for the purposes of
learning, and engaging in challenging debates.  I'm interested (in this
forum) in the former; I have no interest in engaging in a battle of
wits (with or without NLP); that is for others to enjoy.
-- 
---   ---   ---   ---   ---   ---   ---   ---   ---   ---   ---   ---
    - Friday -                   "If a miracle happens in your vicinity--
      friday@well.sf.ca.us                            take credit for it!"
      (Carol Anne Ogdin)
Newsgroups: alt.magick