--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jst...@...> wrote: > snip > > "Science" is what Doug was claiming, and that I was > > challenging. I make no claims that my analysis is > > scientific, it is a opinion from the body of work done > > by Bandler and Grinder analysing speech patterns of > > Milton Erickson and other state change experts. I am > > certified as a practitioner of NLP (FWIW) so that is > > the basis of my opinion. > > OK, so it's just your opinion, then. Thank you for > clarifying.
It is my opinion based on Bandler and Grinder's theories about speech patterns. I actually analyzed some of Maharishi's speeches with my instructors at my certification course in Colorado. The whole thing is based on Grinder and Bandler's analysis which many might object to. I can't claim it is my personal opinion because I am basing it on their work. I think you would enjoy their analysis of language if you are not already familiar with it. > > > You also added the word "deliberately" which I would > > not do. > > Perhaps the word "designed" wasn't quite right, then, > because that implies intention. I agree that I don't know how deliberate any of this was. I suspect it was a matter of trial and error. The same patterns pop up in Rick's interviews and I'm sure that is just from telling the story a bunch of times and eliminating things that make people go "whaaaa." When Bandler and Grinder presented their analysis after modeling Milton Erickson he said "Oh that's what I do!." He wasn't aware of any of it as being a pattern that could be analyzed. > > But thank you for clarifying. > > > Maharishi was probably just using the same techniques > > of language used on him. One of the things I liked about > > NLP was that it gave a framework to understand language > > patterns that people use naturally through trial and > > error. It is not claiming that every person using > > language that defies the conscious mind to keep track of > > the details is conscious of the techniques they are > > employing. > > > > But after sitting in a room for hours and hours of tapes > > for what added up to over 2 years of my life, enduring > > endless repetition of the same phrases, I'm pretty sure > > Maharishi was not very interested in my conscious mind > > in his communications. YMMV > > Interesting that he would want his teachers not to > analyze what he said, but apparently had no such > reservations about ordinary TMers doing so. Both teachers and meditators believe they were doing more analyzing than they were. Mostly we fit together phrases from his language patterns like a puzzle. I'm sure you are familiar with the concept of "sacred science" language from Lifton. Using TM terms and phrases gives people a lot more confidence in their understanding than I believe is deserved. > > Oh, wait, but so many of the tapes we saw were made > during TTCs. Did you notice that when the video > camera was on, he would suddenly stop using those > speech patterns and talk so that you could analyze > what he said for a while until the camera was turned > off? Maharishi has lots of different speech patterns if you hang out with him long enough. Most of the tapes reflect his state change patterns. On TTC we also had tapes of specific instructions like how to handle the press which use his down to biz style. It is quite distinct. > > > I am not even endorsing all the claims of NLP which get > > pretty far-fetched but I believe their language work was > > excellent and some of it has trickled down to mainstream > > psychology. > > Frankly, I think trying to apply NLP theories to MMY > doesn't make a whole lot more sense than trying to > apply quantum theory to the Unified Field. IMHO, of > course. I don't see why not, it analysis in great detail his specific forms of speech patterns. This is not an overlay of different subjects in a metaphorical context, it is the actual subject matter of the theories. And since I was certified to teach it, NLP is a framework I was trained to apply in this exact way. Of course that doesn't prove anything about NLP's validity which, as I have mentioned, I have different feelings about depending on the aspect of NLP we are discussing. It is extremely useful in art like poetry and songwriting to understand the mechanics of how you turn a person's mind inward with language and how to avoid internal contradictions that disturb invoking and internal connection with the words. Maharishi was very good at this style of speech and you can analysis him using it in a positive way if you are inclined to assign positive motivations to him. And for the most part I do, with some important exceptions. My training from Maharishi in using this language form made me a quick study in NLP, particularly in trance inductions. You can also discuss this as the language of gaining rapport with someone. This is a very non sinister use where you want the person to have as little specific conflict with what you are saying as possible. In my own business communicating in a style that evokes feelings and turns a person inward is practically the most important part of my show. >
