Re: [ET2] maybe off topic

Hello Silvia!

I want to keep my messages short, but hey, the way you write have me
pop 3 questions a sentence (maybe it's just me). I'll be as effective
as possible...
 
> Bandler uses very advanced energy manipulation which he does not
> teach at all and I know why he doesn't. He has good reasons for
> what he does and from his standpoint, this makes perfect sense.
 

Why does he not teach it? (sorry, so curious I had to ask)

> I hold what he does to be not only an unconditional birth right of
> any human being (including women ;-) but also that what he does is
> only a very rudimentary version of something else that is much
> simpler and has different reasons, outcomes and purposes.

What he does is only a rudimentary version of something much
simpler... What is this much simpler something? ET? How to use it to
get similar results in a group setting (as he just tell stories and
people change...)?

> For now, EmoTrance is a good interim measure and a teaching device
> for all concerned; for me it is a very excellent experiment to
> test some basic presuppositions.

Sorry if it's to basic... how is ET a good teaching device? I can see
how it's useful to learn it, but how do you use it when you teach a
different subjct altogether? Give an ET session first?

> It is possible that I am over careful and am slowing things down
> too much, far more than might turn out to have been necessary in
> the end but I'm satisfied with this approach for now.

 From what I perceive, you move pretty fast. How long have you been
doing that? Look at all those books you have and they are not
transcripts from workshops... Alle those patterns and distinctions
that when we get them, wonder why we haven't thought of. ET works
pretty fast too, as fast as any NLP pattern I know...

> So to sum up. The kind of communication forms that RB uses in
> training are a prototype of what we can all expect to be doing
> within the very near future. But when *we* do them, there will be
> significant differences in how they feel and what effect they have
> both ways, also in what formats they will be occurring.

Nice, I hope we all do!

> Most significantly, consciousness will be far more involved and
> that, either end, is the most significant advantage of the
> Hartmann engine over the Bandler engine, if you want to think in
> such terms which I generally try to avoid as this is not a
> competition nor a hierarchy - important to keep in my mind,
> construct or otherwise, so that I don't inadvertently chuck any of
> RBs babies out with my bathwater.

What do you mean by consciousness will be far more involved?

 
> Does that answer your question?

More specifically, I want to know what you got from modelling him
and/or how do you communicate in a way that gets those incredible
results he's getting, especially if it's rudimentary, I can imagine
an even better model at work and can imagine myself using it.

I have a joke with a guy that I'm working on finding a way to
transfer skills through energy only, no talk. That would be a weird
workshop, but can you imagine how fast, easy, effective, it would be?

Magickman

> SF
>
>
>
>
> ======================================

           
Received on Mon Jun 09 2003 - 07:44:03 BST