--- In mytho_masters@yahoogroups.com, "Joseph Riggio" <jsriggio@...> wrote:

Hey Folks,

I've been thinking ... always a dangerous sport! And, I've been indulging myself
to
consider my roots ... the ones that are planted in the soil of NLP. Of course
going there
I've dug up some dirt and I thought since everyone seems to enjoy a bit of
tattle-tale I
share some of my thinking with all'ya'all ... `;~>

The essential core of NLP according to some, maybe even many ... or most ... and
those
include John Grinder who was there at the conception standing in the place of
the wise
man ... has been said to be modeling. I'd argue that this may also be the most
misunderstood concept in NLP ... mostly because it can and has meant so many
different
things to so many different folks. What makes it even more so confusing has to
do with
some of those many different folks include them who would claim to be experts
... both
old and new, young and old. You'll have no troubles finding a book or two on NLP
and
modeling, or NLP modeling, or modeling and NLP and lo and behold even a few on
modeling NLP.

Now let's leap, shall we?

Since there has been almost no clear indication of how specifically "NLP
modeling" varies
from any other kind of modeling, at least until John Grinder and Carmen
Bostic-St. Claire
began to distinguish it, it has been taken to mean whatever any author,
presenter, NLP
Trainer, NLPer or any other fool has wanted it to mean to serve their own
individual
purposes. For instance there are those who "model" the dead and others who model
from
afar ... and even some who do what has to be referred to as "instantaneous
modeling" ...
the modeling of expertise from being in its presences once or twice, but at
least they can
say they've bushed shoulders with greatness, huh?

However, what do professional modelers say about modeling?

To be fair let me define "professional modelers" as I'll be using it first -
those who model
experts expertly and are able to create the code of those they model with
expertise,
measured by the consistent, reliable and replicable results they achieve. Also,
in the
interest of full disclosure I've never claimed to be an professional modeler or
an expert in
modeling, only an interested bystander of expertise.

However, still in the interest of full disclosure, I have claimed and do claim
still an
expertise as a maker of models and professional creator of models that I model
for others
all the time in my professional activities ... sometimes even doing so for
professional
modelers with professional expertise.

In addition, as anyone who's completed a doctoral degree requiring the
publication of a
dissertation can attest, I am a professional researcher and scholar. This simply
means I
have the means and the aptitude to uncover information that exists in documented
form
or waiting to be documented and then to document it in a document that satisfies
the
standards of professional research and scholarship.

Now we have a ground upon which to build our conclusions. This is essential for
anyone
wanting to produce something that would qualify for being consistent, reliable
and/or
replicable within the strictures of standards. So on such solid ground let us
proceed ...

These have been some of the thoughts of my thinking so far. They have in turn
led me to
think that some of those who are modeling really are not, nor do they do
research as
scholars would, preferring it seems to partake in pontificating about what I'd
call
"observations" at best. This is fair enough, or so it seem to me. However, when
they call
these "observations" models and claim original research and scholarship it seems
a slight
to those who are the subject of such observation.

To document observations, and even to test them against what is perceived, from
the point
of view of a modeler or scholar with expertise would be called only "gathering
data" - STEP
ONE in building a robust model ... "Ah, what I've observed and perceived seems
to be fair
and true." Then the professional moves to STEP TWO.

The following step would be required for even the most elemental modeling to be
claimed
... accurate detailed analysis of the observations recorded, tested and vetted
over time.
From this analysis would come the distinctions in the model, should they exist.
This could
be called the coding process in a research paradigm. Very essential to the core
activity.

This TWO would not be modeling either, only the codification of the distinctions
found
from the detailed observation of the model modeled by the modeler. From the
analysis
there would be the most trying stage in the process, determining what has been
analyzed
and codified BEFORE CLAIMING EXPERTISE about what "IT" is or is not. Ah, to be
or not to
be, that is the question.

So going back to Grinder and Bandler ... or as one of their models put it at the
time, Bandit
and Swindler as models are not always so kind to those who claim to have
extracted their
best ... there can be an expertise to becoming and being a professional modeler
that
accrues over time. However, what can and often does occur instead can be
witnessed as
the would-be modeler becoming a model of the result of the model they have
claimed to
model instead. This would not be the same as having modeled at all, just a far
cry into the
dark with little to no enlightenment.

Yet, the illuminated ones distain modeling after all. They choose to be the
model of the
model and let the modelers fall to the work of modeling them ... one and all. I
point to the
Krishnamurtis ... Jiddu ("J") and U.G. ... who found no call to model themselves
or anyone
at all (but I'd be remiss if I didn't say that I prefer U.G. over that J).

So I go back to the master of masters in this, he was precise and profound and
never
remiss. Dr. Milton H. Erickson, an icon, a scion, the best of the best of the
hypnosis family
tree. Digging his roots in deep and firm he grew a completely new branch that
many have
since settled upon thinking themselves sprouts, when in fact most are twigs and
the worst
are suckers. Then there are those who would cut from this branch of the tree and
graft
from it onto their own claiming the resultant fruit as that which they
themselves have
borne. Yet any good farmer knows that an apple will not throw itself in seed,
but only a
bitter reminder of what itself has once been.

Why all this thinking you ask? I told you before we began it was a dangerous
sport. Not to
dismiss or dismantle or even destroy those who try hard and persist in their
plans. Nor do
I want to discourage or cause dismay or even distress to those determined to
declare
themselves descendants of the great modelers, scholars, researchers and experts
who
have come before. Verily I say ... long live the models!!! The legacy of the
great ones
should be preserved, but rarely ... sadly ... is that the case.

A perversion and plague is more often the way of those who claim modeling as the
cause
of the day. I personally would rather see those who would do what they may on
their own
first and find where their gifts really lay. This may be too much to ask when we
all want
some fame in a society of "first-borns" demanding our stay, never risking the
fall
preferring to bay. Like hounds on a scent when something *NEW* is uncovered
these
"first-borns" are used to getting their way each thing in their grasp before
yesterday.

I call this "entitlement" or the sense there of ... not enlightenment, nor
illumination ... but
merely a flicker ... a spark quickly sizzled and faded away ... when deep within
a flame
yearns to escape and burn bright. So let's call this call to the best of the
best within you
there deep in your breast. Why not model yourself instead ... learning to look
deep within
and resonating with the spirit becoming?

I wish you all a very Merry Christmas and a most challenging New Year!!!

Best regards,

Joseph Riggio, Ph.D.
Architect and Designer of the MythoSelf Process

--- End forwarded message ---