Кунсткамера MetaPractice Кунсткамера MetaPractice (36) The Origins of Neuro Linguistic Programming


[ 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. ]

The Origins of Neuro Linguistic Programming

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
the world.
It was a great adventure!
John Grinder
Frank Pucelik


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

Part 1
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
Epilogue  63
Chapter 5: My Parts Party: Early Dissociated State Terapy  65
(Byron Lewis)
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
Postscript  73
Part 2
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
(Stephen Gilligan)
Chapter 7: Commentary on “Te Middle of Know Where”  95
(John Grinder)
Chapter 8: “It’s a Fresh Wind that Blows against the Empire”   105
(James Eicher)
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
Neuro-Linguistic Programming
John grinder
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
synesthesia circuitry.

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 …
Got it!
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
the sky.
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
various topics?
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-
eler emerges.
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?
Good question!