PraiseforTransformationalNLP

“Buchheit andSchamber’s long-awaitedmasterwork explains the origins, elegance, and evolution of themosteffectivepersonaltransformationtechnologyontheplanet.AsaformerstudentandclientofCarl,Isawasignificantimprovementinmypersonallifeandmyabilitytohelpothers.Everychangeagentandstudentofpersonalgrowthwillwanttoreadthisbook,refertoit,keepitcloseby!”–ChristineComaford,executive coach to peak performers, presidential advisor, and best-selling author ofSmart Tribes:HowTeamsBecomeBrilliantTogether

“TransformationalNLP is oneof themost importantbooks tobewritten inour time.CarlBuchheit hassynthesizedthebreakthroughpsychologyandconsciousnessachievementsofthepreviouscenturywithhisown brilliant version of Neuro-Linguistic Programming. The result is a body of knowledge as well aspracticaltoolsthatcontributeeffectivelytoourongoingtasktounderstandwhyandhowwearethewayweare.More importantly, because this new psychology is founded inNLP,Buchheit shows us how to usethese tools to live more creatively, respectfully, and peacefully with ourselves and with each other.”–IrvingS.Katz,Ph.D.,ChancellorofInternationalUniversityforProfessionalStudies

“CarlBuchheitisaremarkableperson.Itwasmygreatgoodfortunetobeoneofhisstudentsandclients.IhaveknownandbeenastudentoramentorofseveralNobelPrizewinners.Carliscertainlyoftheircaliberorbeyondtheminhisdepthofconceptualthinkingandrevolutionarythought.Throughhisgenius,Ihavebecome a happier andmore fulfilled individual. This book is awonderful introduction to his genius. Itdescribes step by step the concepts behind his change work, which can appear to be like magic. I amconvinced thatTransformationalNLP is a significant contribution to the field of psychology and to theworld.” –From the Foreword by Carl Pennypacker, Ph.D., astrophysicist at the University ofCalifornia,BerkeleyandLawrenceBerkeleyNationalLaboratory

“Inthisgroundbreakingbook,CarlBuchheithasgivenusthepiecesthathavebeenmissingfromtheworldof spiritual andmind-body practices.His discoveries of how spirit,mind, and body can be brought intoalignmentopenthewayforustobecomewhowetrulywanttobeandtoworkwithoneanotherwithnewdepth and respect for the experience of being human. I believe that Buchheit’swork is essential for allpractitioners in thefieldsofconsciousnessandwellbeing—andforanyonewhoaspires to livewith innerfulfillment and contribute to planetary peace.” –Debra Poneman, motivational speaker, founder andpresidentofYestoSuccess!seminars,andauthorofChickenSoupfortheAmericanIdolSoul

“InmylifeIhavecrossedthepathsofahandfulofteachersandmentorswhowereofferingsomethingsousefulandpowerfulthatitforeverchangedwhatwaspossibleformeinmylife.CarlBuchheitisatthetopofmyveryshortlistofsuchmentors.FromstudyingTransformationalNLPwithCarlformanyyears,myexistingcoachingpracticegotbetterbyleapsandboundsandlightyears.AndIpersonallyshiftedintothepersonIhadbeentryingtobecomeformyentirelife,ateasewithmyselfandtheworld.Ifyouhavethechancetolearnfromthisteacher,doit!TransformationalNLPisalife-affirming,life-changinggifttotheworld!”–LiYanaSilver, coachandauthorofFeminineGenius:TheProvocativePath toWakingUpandTurningOntheWisdomofBeingaWoman

“CarlBuchheitisaone-of-a-kindloveablegeniuswhospeakstotheheartoftransformation.Heisoneofthe true elders of transformational work, theNicola Tesla of changework! Carl’s work has profoundlytouchedmylifeaswellasthelivesofcountlessothers.Inadditiontohelpingmepersonally,histeachingshaveaddedgreaterdepthtomyownteachingsandtrainings.Ihavedeep,deepgratitudetothisexceptionalteacher. Transformational NLP explains the innovative concepts underlying Carl’s methods.” –JeffreySlayter,motivationalspeaker,executiveleadershiptrainer,andbest-sellingauthorofImagine:StartaRevolutioninYourLifeandBusiness

“IhaveworkedwithCarlforthepastfouryearsasbothastudentandaclient.Ihaveexperiencedgreatershiftsinmyrelationshipwithmyself,withmylovedones,andwithmyworkinthelastfouryearsworkingwithCarlthanIhavewithanyotherpractitionerinanyothermodality.HisapproachenablesmorechoicewithgreatereasethanothermethodsIhavetried.Theresultisthatpeoplecanbecomemoreofwhotheyareandlessatoddswiththemselves,others,andlifeitself.Iamdeeplygratefultohavetheopportunitytowork with Carl. Transformational NLP is a profoundly important work, which can help many peopleachieve their dreams and become the people they want to be.” –Khalid Halim, coach and foundingpartnerofReboot.io,aleadingcoachingfirmforSiliconValleyCEOsandventurecapitalists

“CarlBuchheitstartedtochangemylifeevenbeforeImethim,becauseseveralofmymentorshadalreadybeenCarl’s studentsandclients.Theyguidedme tochangepatternsofworking toohard, losingmoney,beingoverweight,andnotlivinginhappiness.ThechangesinmylifeweresoprofoundthatIdecidedtostudywithCarlhimself.Nowmylifehasachievedmuchhigherlevelsoffulfillmentandmyeffectivenesswith clients has greatly increased. I am so grateful to have found this new approach to change work.Through all of us who have learned so much from him, Carl’s work is changing the world. I highlyrecommendthis landmarkbook.”–SteveNapolitan,motivationalspeaker,businesscoach,andauthorofCaptureClients,CloseDeals

“CarlBuchheitisamodern-daymagician.Howcanyouachievetheambitiousgoalsyousetforyourself?Byhavingrapportwithyourself!Carlshowsyouhow.Inthiswonderfulbook,hesharesallofthetoolsandnewperspectivesattherootofhisremarkablework.”–KatiaVerresen,CEOofKVALeadership

“CarlBuchheit’sTransformationalNLPoffersanewperspectiveonwhywehumanshavelimitingbeliefsandbehaviorpatterns.Hisapproachesandmethodsenablepeopletohavemorechoiceovertheirlives,thusproviding thepotential for them toachieve fulfillmentand innerpeace.”–SharonTennison, founderofCenterforCitizenInitiativesandauthorofThePowerofImpossibleIdeas

Allrightsreserved.Copyright©2017byCarlBuchheitandEllieSchamber.Nopartofthisbookmaybereproducedortransmittedinanyformorbyanymeanswhatsoever,includinggraphic,electronic,ormechanical,includingphotocopying,recording,taping,orbyanyinformationstorage

orretrievalsystem,withoutpermissionfromthepublisher.

WhiteCloudPressbooksmaybepurchasedforeducational,business,orsalespromotionaluse.Forinformation,pleasewrite:SpecialMarketDepartment,WhiteCloudPress,POBox3400,Ashland,OR

97520www.whitecloudpress.com

CoverandInteriorDesignbyChristyCollins,CBookServicesFirstedition:20171718192021 10987654321

LibraryofCongressCataloging-in-PublicationData

Names:Buchheit,Carl,author.|Schamber,EllieNower,author.Title:TransformationalNLP:anewpsychology/byCarlBuchheit,Ph.D.andEllieSchamber,Ph.D.

Description:Ashland,OR:WhiteCloudPress,[2017]|Includesbibliographicalreferences.Identifiers:LCCN2016054334|ISBN9781940468648(ebook)Subjects:LCSH:Neurolinguistic

programming.Classification:LCCBF637.N46B832017|DDC158/.9--dc23

LCrecordavailableathttps://lccn.loc.gov/2016054334

ToallNLPMarinstudents—past,present,andfuture

Contents

AcknowledgmentsForewordIntroduction

ChapterI:HumansHaveFourBrainsTheReptilianBrainThePaleomammalian(OldMammal)BrainTheNeomammalian(NewMammal)BrainTheModernHuman(Fourth)BrainConflictsAmongOurFourBrains

ChapterII:TheIntellectualBackgroundofNLPNewDevelopmentsintheFieldofPsychologyAlfredKorzybskiNoamChomsky

ChapterIII:HistoryandLiteratureofEarlyNLPTheFounders:JohnGrinderandRichardBandlerTheBeginningofNLP:TheMetaModelFurtherDevelopmentsinNLPMiltonEricksonVirginiaSatir

ChapterIV:NLPAfter1976NLPin1976

RobertDiltsByronLewisandFrankPucelikSteveAndreas

PartingoftheWaysJohnGrinderAfter1978RichardBandlerAfter1978RobertDiltsAfter1978

MoreRecentSchoolsofNLPTadJamesMichaelHall

ChapterV:JonathanRiceBackgroundofJonathanRiceandNLPDifferencesBetweenMainstreamNLPandJonathanRice’sNLP

NLPasTechniquesversusNLPwithinPsychotherapyStandingversusSeatedInteractionEye-AccessingCuesChangingLimitingBeliefsTheEcologyofPersonalChangeRe-Imprinting

ChapterVI:TransformationalNLPTheInfluenceofJonathanRiceTransformationalNLPcomparedwithMainstreamPsychotherapy

ContentversusStructureofExperienceTransferenceAttentiontoPersonalHistoryandFamilyDynamicsCompletingtheExperience

TransformationalNLPcomparedwithMainstreamNLPTechniquesversusTransformativeConversationIntendedPositiveOutcomesWorkingwithEcologyRe-imprintingMetaphoricalTimeline

ChapterVII:UniquePerspectivesofTransformationalNLPRapportPractitionerStancePractitionerDesiredOutcomesRespectingAllExperiencePerceptionoftheNatureandMeaningofthePastHopeforaBetterPastConsentingtothePastTheClientistheSourceoftheExperience

ChapterVIII:AlignmentwithQuantumPhysicsTheNatureofRealityandConsciousnessTheFutureInfluencesthePast

ChapterIX:TheFamilySystemInfluencesonTransformationalNLP

AnneAncelinSchutzenbergerRupertSheldrakeDavidBohmErvinLaszloBertHellinger

FamilyandSystemicConstellationsatNLPMarin

ChapterX:ManifestingAlternativeRealitiesInfluenceofCarlosCastaneda’sDonJuanChangeofLifeVersionaswellasLifeVision

ChapterXI:CanPeopleRe-ProgramThemselves?

Conclusion

Appendixes

A: ResearchonNLPB: SurvivalEquivalenceC: AlfredKorzybskiD: AMetaphoricalTimeline:Temporal/SpatialSortingE: HowTransformationalNLPPromotesPersonalTransformationF: TheHellingerFamilyConstellationG: TheInfluenceofKaskafayetonTransformationalNLPH: TheTeachingProgramsofCarlosCastanedaI: StrategiesinOurNeuralProgramming

DefinitionsofKeyTermsEndnotesReferences

T

Acknowledgements

hisbookistheresultofcountlesshoursandenormouseffortovertenyearsin theendeavor todescribe thehistoryandevolutionofNeuro-Linguistic

Programming and articulate the innovations and insights of TransformationalNLP. First, I would like to acknowledge and thank my co-author, EllieSchamber, for her first-class mind, her excellent skills, and her wonderful,planet-likeendurancewithitseffectofuninterruptablegravitationalinevitabilityfortheproject.Icouldnothaveaccomplishedthisworkwithouther.IamalsodeeplygratefultoallofourNLPMarinstudents.Eachhasbroughtmuchformeto learnandhashelpedmetodiscovermoreandmoreaboutwhatIknowandwhat Iwant to teach and be taught.Also, because I have been in practice forsuchalongtime,Ihavehadtheprivilegeofsharingdeeplyintheexperienceofthousandsofpeoplewhohavebeenmyclients.WithoutthemtherewouldbenobodyofworkandnocontinuingurgetoextendmyknowledgesoIcanofferasmuchaspossibleineachsession.Toallofthem,thankyou.

Mydeeprespect,appreciation,andgratitudego toBobHoffmeyer,myco-foundingbusinesspartneratNLPMarin.NLPMarinwasBob’sideaandbeganat Bob’s initiative. I have never known anyone as simultaneously brilliant,honest,wise,practical,andhands-oncompetentasBob.IalsowishtothankallofthepastandpresentstaffmembersofNLPMarin,whohaveworkedsohardtogrow theorganizationandmake thecoursesavailable toa largerand largersegmentof thepublic.Alargepartof thecredit for thesuccessofNLPMarincourses also goes to our training managers and teaching assistants, as theydirectly contribute to the success of our students. My immense gratitudeespecially goes to our two wonderful, extremely capable trainers, MichelleMastersandCarlaCamou,whohavegreatlycontributedtothecontentanddepthofthecoursesatNLPMarin.Weareveryfortunatetohavetheirassistance.

To the founders ofNLP, JohnGrinder andRichardBandler, and all thosepersonswhohavecontributedtoNLP’swild-west-likedaysofrenegadefreedomandexploration,Ialsowanttosaythankyou.Forme,youmadethisthingcalledNLP alive and attractive and available in ways that conventional disciplineswere not. And to all those who have worked in the NLP field with focus,

constant creativity, and steady dignity, especially Robert Dilts, I want to saythankyouaswell.

TheteacherwhohasmostaffectedmylifeisJonathanRice.TheexistenceofNLPMarinandNLPMarin’sTransformationalNLPisduetomyfoundationinJonathan’steaching,example,andinfluence.EarlyNLPcaughtmyattention,butit was Jonathan’s work that captured my mind and heart. In addition toeverything else, Jonathan offeredme the perfectwords of encouragement at aperfectmoment,andforthisIamdeeplygrateful.

MythanksalsogotoRobertFritz,whomIhadthepleasureofknowingandlearningfrominthe1970s,shortlybeforemyattentionwentinthedirectionofNLP. Robert’s intensity and clarity about the role of conscious choice in theunfoldingofhumanexperiencechangedmeforever,arrivingas itdid justas IwasbeginningtointegratetheworkofJaneRobertsandtheSethmaterial.MyversionofwhatIstillcallNLPhasbeentremendouslyinfluencedandinformedby these two inspired individuals, Robert Fritz and Jane Roberts, and by myexperience of the short-lived channeled-entity phenomenon calledKaskafayet.Theconfluenceoftheseforcesinthemiddle1970s—RobertFritz,JaneRoberts,and Kaskafayet—set the stage for my engagement with the new field calledNLP.IhavespentseveraldecadestryingtogetNLPtobeserviceablewithinthemetaphysical and spiritual frames. For me, one of the best things aboutTransformational NLP is its capacity to make profound metaphysical andspiritualmaterialdirectlyrelevanttotheoperationofourlocalbrains.

ImustalsoacknowledgeandbowwithdeeprespecttoBertHellinger,whoseworkIfirstexperiencedattheAnchorPointNLPCenterinSaltLakeCityinthemiddle 1990s. Hellinger is a Great Soul, I am sure. Through the filters andmeaningsIfirstlearnedfromKaskafayettwentyyearsearlier,Hellinger’sworkcontinues to be a tremendously vital source of discovery and creativitywithinTransformationalNLP.

MyappreciationandgratitudegotoIrvandInulaKatz,oftheInternationalUniversityforProfessionalStudies, for theirwisdomandguidanceindirectingthedoctoraldissertationuponwhichthepresentvolumeisbased,andtoChristyMichaelsforintroducingmetoIrvandInula.IwanttothankSangeetDuchaneforherskilfulassistanceineditingthePhDdissertation,andtoBobGordonforhis generous, extremely expert attention to matters related to intellectualproperty.ManythanksalsotoSteveSchollofWhiteCloudPressfortakingonthisproject,and tohisable staff,AmandaMurphyandChristyCollins, foralltheirknow-howandhelp.

Finally,IofferprofoundthankstoBarbara,mywifeofmanyyears,forherforbearanceandforteachingmejustabouteverythingIknowaboutlove.

CarlBuchheitSanRafael,California

February2017

I

Foreword

am a scientist, a specialist in experimental astrophysics and scienceeducation, working at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory of the

University of California. I was the principal researcher for the Hands-OnUniverseprojectinthe1990s,andreceivedthePrixJulesJanssenoftheFrenchAstronomicalSociety.Ihavededicatedmuchofmycareerasanastrophysicistto the study of supernovae, the deaths of stars,which happened unimaginablylongagoandfaraway.IhelpedstarttheBerkeleysupernovasearches,whichledtothediscoveryofDarkEnergyandnumerousinternationalprizesfortheteam.

Forme, understanding and getting alongwith the natural processes of theuniversehasalwaysbeenbothchallengingandrewarding.Ihavealwayshadthetools necessary to figure things out, andwhen I haven’t had those tools, I’veknown where to go to find them or how to invent some of my own. For ascientist like me, learning about the universe is very fulfilling. Even theoccasional experience of being completely wrong has had its own kind ofreward.

In science,notmakingprogress ispartofmakingprogress,but in life,notmakingprogressisjustbeingstuck.Itisprofoundlypainful.Inscience,ifwhatwe do isn’tworking,we try doing something else. It’s pretty straightforward.Butinbeinghuman,nomatterwhathappensweusuallycontinuetooperatewiththesameemotionsandbehaviors thatareproven, throughourownexperience,tobesomewherebetweenless-than-optimalandcompletelydisastrous.Whyarewe like this?Whilemyprofessionalcareeradvancednicely, itwasalways theinability to understand and get along with myself that was confusing anddispiriting.

Approximatelyeightyearsago,IrealizedthatIhadbeenmakingsomebadlifechoicesoverandoveragain.Althoughmycareerinsciencewasprogressingwell and was very fulfilling, my personal life was becoming increasinglyfrustratingandpainful.IcouldnotfindthetoolstomakethechangesIwantedand needed. I investigated a number of schools and systems that promisedpersonaltransformation,butnoneofthetherapiesItriedprovidedmewithanyinsightintomybehaviors,letalonehelpedmetochangethem.

Eventually, I mentioned this to a friend. She had heard of a teachingorganizationcalledNLPMarin, foundedanddirectedbyCarlBuchheit, in theSan FranciscoBayArea. Ever the curious scientist, I went to an introductoryseminar. Wow! What I learned during those few hours that morning wasamazingly eye-opening and encouraging. Carl spoke about and demonstratedsome of the basic tools of Neuro-Linguistic Programming. He showed us,actually showed us, right on the spot, some entirely new things about howhumanscreateandmaintaintheirexperienceofthemselvesandthelargerworld.Heshowedushowfeelingsandmeaningsthatseemfixedandimmutableinday-to-daylifeare infactadjustable,andareactuallyfarmoreeasilychangedthananyonethought.Heintroducedeveryoneinthatroom,thatmorning,tosomeofthediscoveriesmadebythefoundersandoriginatorsofNLPinthe1970s,andIamsurethatnoone’slifewasentirelythesameafterthat.Icertainlyknowthatminewasnot.

I enrolled in the beginning-level class and, over the next fewmonths, as Iallowed the changes Iwasmaking to integrate, I daily felt an increasing calmthat always seemed to keep pacewith an equivalently improving sense ofmystrength and capability. The wonderful thing was, I did not have to repeatprocesses or maintain practices. I was simply and directly changing how mybraininteractedwithmylife,sothatwhatItrulywantedinlifebegantounfoldand what I no longer wanted, such as persistent feelings of shame and guilt,begantodisappear.IwaschanginginwaysIhadalwayswanted.Thechangeswererealandconfirmable,andIdidnothavetoexerteffortforthemtohappen.As Carl underlined repeatedly, with good NLP, when we revise theprogrammingandpatternsthatgiverisetoourexperience, thenourexperiencechangesandwedonothavetoremembertobedifferent—wejustaredifferent,andthenourattentioncannaturallymoveontothenextupgradeinthequalityofourlives.

CarlinsistedonlettinghisstudentsknowthatwhatwewerelearninginNLPhad a history; while it is a new field, it has a long intellectual lineage. Carlacknowledgedhisteachersandhisteachers’teachers,andalwaysgavecredittothe remarkablepeoplewhocamebeforehim. I think that this is oneofCarl’smain intentionsfor thepresentvolume.Hewants tomakesure there isasolidrecordofwhereNLPcame from,and itsoriginal truepowerandbeauty.NLPhasbeenmalignedanddiscountedassuperficialanddistortedexpressionsof ithavebecomecommonplace.Ithasalsobeenendlesslycopiedandappropriatedwithout attribution. Carl wants to set things right, and this volume does that

beautifully.AfterCarl describes the historyof the “realNLP” and fully acknowledges

hisprimaryteacher,Dr.JonathanRice,heoutlinesthestunningoriginalityofhisownwork.Asmuchasitisfoundedinandbrilliantlyinfusedwith1970sNLP,Carl’sTransformationalNLPisnothinglikeitsprogenitors.Bothasynthesisandanexplosion intonew territory,Carl’swork takesNLP’s remarkable,practicalpowertomakechangesinhumanpatterningandcombinesitwiththerespectfulperspectiveonhumannaturethatcomesfromhumanisticpsychologyandmuchofwhatwasbestinthehumanpotentialmovementofthelastthirtyyearsofthetwentieth century. Carl’s teachings and healing magic are ultimately aboutmaking sure we have abundant awareness of our true nature and purpose,combinedwith just the right tools todissolve resistance tooldpain.Heofferssolid, easy access to amazingmethods that allow us to reach for better futureexperiencewithouthavingtoblameourselves—oranyoneoranythingelse,forthatmatter—forwhathasbeengoingoninourlivesbeforenow.

In addition, Carl introduces some practical applications of the amazingimplicationsofquantummechanics,ortheso-calledNewPhysics.AsCarlandthe quantum physicists note, we can never separate the observer from thesystem, and by changing our inner states and beliefs we can influence otherindividuals,societyatlarge,andeventheuniverseitself.Healsoexplains,asdothequantumphysicists, thatall sortsof tendrilsandpathsexist throughspace-time connecting pasts and futures. Understanding this on a psychological,emotional,andintellectuallevelwasveryimportantinmyowngrowth.

Carl isa remarkableperson. Itwasmygreatgoodfortune tobeoneofhisstudentsandclients.IhaveknownandbeenastudentoforamentorofseveralNobel Prize winners. Carl is certainly of their caliber or beyond them in hisdepth of conceptual thinking and revolutionary thought. Through his genius, Ihavebecomeahappierandmorefulfilledindividual.Thisbookisawonderfulintroduction to his genius. It describes step by step the concepts behind hischange work, which can appear to be like magic. I am convinced thatTransformational NLP is a significant contribution to the field of psychologyandtotheworld.

–CARL PENNYPACKER, ASTROPHYSICIST AT THE UNIVERSITYOF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY AND LAWRENCE BERKELEYNATIONALLABORATORY

N

Introduction

euro-Linguistic Programming is a dynamic and fast-growing new fieldthatwasbornof thecouplingof thefieldsof linguisticsandpsychology

andyetisnotrecognizedbyeitherofthesedisciplinesasitslegitimateoffspring.While it was originally touted as a way to improve the practice ofpsychotherapy, since the mid-1980s it has been most popular in applicationsoutside the boundaries of conventional psychotherapy.The techniques ofNLParewidelyused to increaseskills insuchfieldsassales,sports,education,andpublic speaking, as well as in life and executive coaching. Yet, there iswidespreadconfusionanddisagreementaboutwhatNLPactually is,how(andevenwhether)itworks,andwhichapproachofthemanyversionsismostuseful.

Part of the problem seems to be that there is little awareness of theintellectual roots of this discipline. Many people seem to believe that NLPsprang into existence, like Botticelli’s Venus, fully grown from the brains ofJohnGrinderandRichardBandler.Thereislittlewrittenaboutthebackground,history, and evolution of NLP, and what is written is fragmented. Theinformation that is available is often taken out of historical context and isthereforelimitedinvalue.

The study of intellectual history is vital to understanding where we comefrom, how, and why. Our identities are tied to our history. If we do notunderstand thebackgroundandevolutionofour ideas,we lose thecontext fortheirrationaleanddecreaseourabilitytoupdatethemappropriatelyaccordingtonewinformationandunderstanding.Althoughtheworksofscientist/philosopherAlfredKorzybskiandlinguistNoamChomskypavedthewayforthediscoveriesof NLP, they would probably not recognize some of their NLP great-grandchildren as being in their lineage. IfNLPpractitioners understandwheretheir ideas come from, they will be able to more consciously and effectivelychooseinwhichdirectiontheywanttogo.AsIsaacNewtonfamouslydeclared,“IfIhaveseenalittlefurtheritisbystandingontheshouldersofGiants.”

As anNLPpractitioner and trainer formore than thirtyyears, I havebeeneager to understand how my own ideas and practices fit into the historicalcontext and evolution ofNLP.Thiswork accordingly addresses the following

questions:

1. Whatwere thephilosophicalandother intellectual rootsofNLP?Whatwere the contemporary as well as past intellectual influences on thefoundersanddevelopersofNLP?

2. Whatwere themotivesandgoalsof the foundersofNLP?Howand inwhatwaydidthefieldofNLPevolve?

3. Whatwere(andare)thecontroversiesaboutNLP?4. How did the NLP movement become fragmented, and what are the

differencesintheapproachesofeachgroup?5. How did my own work in Transformational NLP evolve? What new

information,perspectives,andmethodologiesdoesmyworkcontributetothefieldofNLP?

This book investigates the intellectual history and evolution of NLP. Itdescribes how the brilliant scholar Alfred Korzybski, informed by the newworldviewofquantumphysics,pointedtoaninnovativewaytoperceivehumannature and potential. He devoted his life to constructing a new method ofpsychotherapy that would allow people to transcend their programming andachieve fulfillment of their desires and their highest human potential.Korzybski’s innovations formed the foundationof thenew thinking that led toNLP.

Neuro-LinguisticProgramminghasbeenamajor,albeitcontroversial,forcein the fields of psychology and communication since the early 1970s. ThefamousfamilytherapistVirginiaSatirandtherenownedanthropologistGregoryBatesonapplaudedthefoundersofNLPformakinggroundbreakingdiscoveriesin the theory and practice of communication that could profoundly assistpsychotherapists inhelpingclients tochange (BandlerandGrinder,1975b,pp.ix-xi).

From themiddle 1980s, however, a number of researchers and establishedpsychotherapistsdeclared thatscientificevidencedidnotsupport theclaimsofNLP. (See Appendix A for a detailed discussion of this research and thecontroversy.) Thereafter, most NLP practitioners were careful to avoid anysuggestion that what they were doing with clients might be a form ofpsychotherapy,whilemostpsychologistsandpsychotherapistsofalltypeseithernever heard of NLP or regarded it as mind-control trickery practiced bycharlatans.1

Nevertheless, there continued to be a plethora of applications for NLPtechniques (often re-branded) outside the boundaries of conventional, formalpsychotherapy. Anthony Robbins popularized some aspects of NLP in hismotivational seminars, andWayne Dyer sometimes referred to concepts fromNLP in his transformational consciousness work. L. Michael Hall presentedNeuro-Semantics, and more recently Sharon Pearson promulgated Meta-Dynamics, bothofwhich are offshoots ofNLP.AmainuseofNLP in recentyears has been in the relatively new domains of executive and personalcoaching.Also,techniquestakenfromNLPareoftenusedtoincreasesalesandpromote business goals and strategies. There are also numerous groups in therealms of both self-help and professional counseling which incorporate someformofNLP.Forexample,cognitivebehavioraltherapy(CBT),eyemovementdesensitization and reprogramming (EMDR), acceptance and commitmenttherapy, solution-focused brief therapy, and narrative therapy have borrowedmuchfromNLP.

AlfredKorzybskihadlookedfortechniquesthatcouldbeusedinthecontextof psychotherapy. However, the founders of NLP and most of their studentsbecamemoreinterestedinthetechniquesasstand-aloneproceduresratherthanas part of psychotherapy. After several years, NLP developed into twoapproaches: One group focused on individual techniques and the otherincorporated the techniques into psychotherapy. It is my opinion that to theextentthatNLPdivergedfromtheoriginalintentofitsforebearsitbecamelesseffective than its original potential in creating powerful methods forpsychological change. In contrast, those practitioners who did continue in theintellectual tradition that led to NLP and incorporated NLP techniques intopsychotherapy, have been able to be extremely effective in helping clients toachieve the personal transformation that they truly desire. I believe thatKorzybski’svisionandgoalswerelostinthedevelopmentofmainstreamNLP,but were fulfilled by the legacy of Jonathan Rice that forms the basis of theschool of Transformational NLP. My own innovations in the field of NLP,which I have labeledTransformationalNLP, are basedon thework that camebefore, through the legacyofJonathanRice,and thenewscientificknowledgethatwehaveonlyrecentlyacquired.

Utilizingacombinationofhistoricalandheuristicmethodologies,thisworkprovidesacomprehensivehistoryofNLP,alongwithitsintellectualantecedentsandcontemporaryinfluencesonitsdevelopment.ForthisvolumeIhavealmostentirelyusedprimarysourcesandinterviews,assecondarysourcesformostof

this investigation are not available. This study reviews the literaryworks thatweremilestonesalongthepathofdevelopmentofNLP,andexplainstheprocessbywhichthefieldevolved.Thenthisworkcomparesandcontraststhetwomainstrands of development of NLP by the second generation of practitioners.Finally,itshowsmyownworkasbasedononeofthoselinesofdevelopment,andillustrateshowIhavetakenNLPtoanotherlevelthatisbasedonthemostrecentknowledgeofquantumphysics.

Thiswork,likeallothers,haslimitations.Themainlimitationismypersonalbias. As a third-generation teacher and practitioner, I had to make manydecisions over the years about which path among several divergent ones tofollow.AlthoughinthisstudyImadeeveryattempttopresentallpointsofviewfairly,IrecognizethatIsometimesbecameoverlypassionateaboutonecourseofactionascomparedtotheothers.Anotherlimitationisthelackofinformationfromsurveysregardingtheeffectivenessofonetypeofchangeworkoverothers.Instead, during the more than thirty years that I have been practicing andteaching NLP, I have relied on the personal communications of clients andstudents. Clearly, forgetfulness over time and personal bias can influence theresults.

Nonetheless, I hope that this work will have value in increasing people’sunderstanding about this very significant development in the field ofpsychology. I also trust that itwill be useful in spreading theword about thebeneficial effects of this new form of NLP, with the result of helping moreclients, teachingmore practitioners, and informing thewider public that is soeagerlysearchingforhappinessandfulfillment.

A

CHAPTERI

HumansHaveFourBrains

s farbackas recordedhistorywillallowus to look,peoplehavealwaysconsidered suffering an inevitable and inescapable fact of life. It is an

unfortunateaspectofbeinghumanthatpeoplefrequentlycontinuetoexperiencewhattheydonotwantandarenotabletoexperiencethatwhichtheyreallydowant.Itseemsthatthemainreasonforthisanomalyisthatallofourmoststuckpatterns of experience are generatedbyour brain’s ongoing efforts to keepuswell and safe. All of our thought and behavior patterns that do not work areactuallytheconsequenceofourbrain’spatterningtomakesurethatwesurvive.

Mostneuroscientistsagreethatasaproductof theevolutionaryprocesswehumansallhavemorethanonebrain,andeachofourbrainshasadifferentsetofinstructionsanddescriptionsaboutwhatwellbeingis.InhisseminalworkTheTriuneBrain(1990),neuroscientistPaulMacLeanwritesthatnaturebuildsnewbraincomponentsandfunctionsontopof(ratherthaninplaceof)whateverhasalreadyevolvedovereonsoftime.Asaresult,humanshaveseveralcoexistingbrains,andeachofthemseemstohaveitsowngoalsandindicatorsforsuccess.While the different brains are not completely autonomous, and they each getinformation from the others, they can nevertheless operate somewhatindependently.

AsMacLeandescribes:

A comparison of the brains of existing vertebrates, together with anexamination of the fossil record, indicates that the human forebrain hasevolvedandexpandedtoitsgreatsizewhileretainingthefeaturesofthreebasic evolutionary formations that reflect an ancestral relationship toreptiles, earlymammals, and recentmammals. . . . Radically different inchemistryandstructureandinanevolutionarysensecountlessgenerationsapart, thethreeneuralassembliesconstituteahierarchyof three-brains-in-

one,atriunebrain.Basedonthesefeaturesalone,itmightbesurmisedthatpsychological and behavioral functions depend on the interplay of threequitedifferentmentalities....[T]hethreeevolutionaryformationsmightbeimaginedasthreeinterconnectedbiologicalcomputers,witheachhavingitsown special intelligence, its own subjectivity, its own sense of time andspace, and itsownmemory,motor, andother functions. (MacLean,1990,pp.8-9)1

More recent investigations point to four, rather than three, coexisting brains,whichasoftencompeteagainstascooperatewithoneanother (CummingsandMiller,2007;Joseph,2001;Massey,2001;Miller,2007).

TheReptilianBrainThefirstandoldestbrainisourreptilianbrain,whichincludesthebrainstemandcerebellum.Itappearsthatithasnotchangedmuchinfunctionfromthebrainofthe contemporary lizard. It regulates the basics of physical survival such asrespiration, heartbeat, and blood pressure. This is the brain that governsinstinctualbehaviorssuchasfear,hunger,thefight-or-flightresponseattimesofdanger,andthestruggleforpower,territoriality,andsex.Incorporatinglearningfrom its previous life-threatening mistakes, this brain then automaticallygenerates the same adaptive behaviors again and again, over and over, withneithertheimpetusnorthewherewithaltoreviseandupdateitsearlierlearning(MacLean,1990).

ThePaleomammalian(OldMammal)BrainThemiddlepartofthebrainiscalledthepaleomammalian(oldmammal)brain,orthelimbicsystem.Thisbrain,whichdevelopedduringtheearlyevolutionofmammals, augments primitive reptilian responses such as fear and adds thecapacitytoexperiencestrongprimaryemotionssuchasrage,pleasure,pain,andjoy (MacLean, 1990). As psychiatrist Bessel van der Kolk (2014) succinctlydescribes, “It is the seat of the emotions, themonitor of danger, the judge ofwhatispleasurableorscary,thearbiterofwhatisorisnotimportantforsurvivalpurposes”(p.56).

The paleomammalian brain also provides the ability to remember pastexperiencesalongwiththeirassociatedemotions.Theemotionsandthememory

of the emotions provide stronger motivations to move toward or away fromconditionsthataffectsurvival.Thus,thisbrainlinksemotionsandmemorywithbehavior. Since the limbic system enables thememory of ongoing experiencealong with the associated emotions, it provides the mammal with a sense ofindividualcontinuation.Thelimbicsystemisalsoresponsibleforthemotivationand emotions involved in bonding with others, such as during reproductivebehaviorandparentalcare.Theprimatebrainadds theability tofeelapartof,and participate in, multifarious social relationships (MacLean, 1990; Van derKolk,2014).

TheNeomammalian(NewMammal)BrainOur third brain is the neomammalian (new mammal) brain, the cerebralneocortex,whichisthelargestpartofthebrainofprimatemammals,includinghumans. As mammals evolved, around 150 million years ago, the neocortexdeveloped to increasingly refine its visual, auditory, and tactile informationprocessing. This providedmammals, and especially primates, with far greaterability to analyze sensory input and store information, thereby increasing theircognitiveabilities(Joseph,2001).

Humans developed from the same ancestor as monkeys and apes. Pre-humansseparatedfrommonkeysandapesaroundfiveorsixmillionyearsago.Over thecourseofseveralmillionyears, thesepre-humans learned tostandontheirhind legs andwalkupright.Theydeveloped theopposable thumb,whichenabledthemtograspandholdobjectsandtherebyexploreandmanipulatethem(Joseph,2001;MacLean,1990).

About 500,000 years ago, the brain ofHomo erectus greatly enlarged toabouttwicethesizeofthebrainofearlierhominids.Theyalsodevelopedmoreflexibility in thehands.Thesewere the firstarchaic (primitive)Homosapiens,whooriginallyappearedinAfricaandAsia.Then,about250,000-300,000yearsago,NeanderthalsappearedinEuropeandtheMiddleEast(Joseph,2001).

Untilrecently, theprevailingtheoryamongscientistsandlinguistswasthatarchaic pre-humans and Neanderthals did not have the capacity for speech.According to this view, the language of these pre-humans was largely acombinationofgutturalsounds,facialexpressions,andgesticulationsconnectedwith the social-emotional expressions of the limbic system, similar to thevocalizations,facialexpressions,andgesturesofapes.Theywereonlycapableofmakingthesamesimpletools,whichservedonlyasinglepurpose,overand

over again. They eventually learned towear animal skins, but they used onlyvery simplistic methods to prepare them to wear (rather than bone sewingneedles,forexample,whichweredevelopedmuchlater).Yet,thelimbicsystemin conjunction with the evolving neocortex enabled these pre-humans andNeanderthalstodevelopaprimitiveculturalandsociallifethatincludedburyingtheirdeadwith ritualofferings suchas animalbones.This indicates that theseprimitivepeoplewerecapableofintenseemotions, includingloveandspiritualfeelings.Suchemotionsareafunctionofthelimbicsystemandinferiortemporallobe,andwerethesameasinmodernhumans(Joseph,2001).

In the last two decades, new findings have led to the theory that an EastAfricanpre-human,calledHomoheidelbergensis,wasthecommonancestorofNeanderthals,Denisovans,andmodernhumans.ThenewevidenceindicatesthattheHomoheidelbergensis didhave thebasic anatomyandcranial capacity formodern speech.According to this theory, between 300,000 and 400,000 yearsagoagroupofthisspeciesleftAfrica.SomeofthemwentnorthintoEuropeandtheMiddleEastandbecametheNeanderthals.OtherstraveledeastandbecametheDenisovans.ThefindingsindicatethattheNeanderthalsandDenisovanshada much more complex stone tool technology, culture, and social life thanpreviouslyrealized,andsuchadvanceswouldhavenecessitatedahighlevelofcognition and motor control and the ability to communicate verbally. Theyhunted large game, controlled and used fire, built shelters and camps, createdornamentswith pierced beads and shells, used earth pigments for cosmetic orartistic purposes, buried their dead with ritual offerings, looked after theirwoundedand ill, andapparentlyusedmedicinalherbs.Theyseemed to live insmall family groups and communities (Dediu and Levinson, 2013; NationalGeographic,2016;Nowell,etal.,2016).

The Homo heidelbergensis who remained in Africa evolved into Homosapiens around 200,000-150,000 years ago. Although there is evidence formigrationsoutofAfricaasearlyas120,000yearsago,thosenon-Africanearlyhumans became extinct. Modern non-Africans are almost entirely, with theexceptionof trace amountsofDNA fromNeanderthals and earliermigrations,descended from a mass migration from Africa through Egypt and into theArabianPeninsulathattookplace60,000yearsago(NationalGeographic,2016;Rincon,2016).

InHomosapiens,thefrontalandparietallobeshadgreatlyexpandedinsizeand function.Therewere hugedifferences in the brain anatomy and cognitivefunctioning between the archaic and the early modern human (Joseph, 2001;

Massey,2001;NationalGeographic,2016).ThissetthestagefortheappearanceoftheFourthBrain.

TheModernHuman(Fourth)BrainAround35,000yearsago,therewasanabruptleapinevolutionthatresultedinthe development of the Fourth Brain.2 The first fully modern human (Homosapienssapiens),knownasCro-Magnon,suddenlyandmysteriouslyappearedinAfrica,Europe,andtheMiddleEast(CummingsandMiller,2007;Joseph,2001;Massey,2001;Miller,2007).Theappearanceof theCro-Magnonscameat thesametimeastherapidextinctionoftheNeanderthalsandarchaichumans.Theearly modern humans had coexisted (and, according to DNA analysis,sometimes even mated) with the Neanderthals and archaic humans for about5,000 years. It seems that either themore evolvedHomo sapiens successfullycompetedagainst themforresources(andNeanderthalsconsequentlygraduallydiedoff),or theearlymodernhumansactuallykilledoff theNeanderthalsandarchaic humans, or they “made love, not war” and merged into the largerpopulationofHomosapiens.Similarly,modernhumansintheFarEastandAsiawhohadevolvedfromarchaicpre-humanseithersuccessfullycompetedagainst,killedoff,orabsorbedtheremainingprimitivehumans(Joseph,2001;NationalGeographic,2016).3

TheCro-Magnonshadgreatly increasedbrainvolume, increasedversatilityinuseofthehands,andmorehighlyevolvedanatomyandfunctionofthefrontalcortex.AsneuroscientistBruceMillerwrites,“Thehumanfrontallobesmediatethe behaviors thatmost distinguishman from animals” (Cummins andMiller,2007,p.12).ThesemodernHomosapiens alsohadanevolvedangulargyrus,which is the part of the brain that is connected to processing language,mathematics,andothercognitiveskills.Thiscorrespondedtomorecomplextoolconstruction,cognitivedevelopment,language,andartisticachievement(Joseph,2001;Massey,2001).Inadditiontospeechandlanguageabilities,thelargersizeandqualitativedevelopmentof theleftprefrontalcortexprovidedtheability toplanforthefuture,organizeresourcestoachievegoals,developproblem-solvingstrategies, think abstractly, create values, and develop social skills to live incomplexsocialnetworks(Joseph,2001).

ConflictsAmongOurFourBrains

Allofourfourbrainsareoperatingconstantlyandareusuallywellcoordinated.However,therearesomeinevitableconflictsamongthemasaresultofopposingdirections in the programming. What MacLean designates as the reptile andmammal brains are sometimes referred to together as the emotional brain incontrasttotherationalbrain(VanderKolk,2014).Iprefertorefertoitasthecreaturebrainincontrasttothemorehighlyevolvedhumanbrain.*

Themain driver for the creature brain is fear,with the goal of survival. Itdoes not want to change anything that has become associated with theexperienceofhavingsurvived.Incontrast,ashumanisticpsychologistsdescribe,the primary impulsion in the human brain is the desire to receive and extendlove, along with the impetus to continue learning and pursuing the changesinvolvedinself-development.Thiscreatesahuge innerconflict.Thehumanisalwaysimaginingthingsbeingdifferentandbetter;simultaneously,ourcreaturebrain insists that things remain as they are (because, after all, theway thingshavebeenhas successfully resulted in survivinguntil now).Also, the creaturebraindoesnothaveasenseoftimeashumansdo.Thecreaturefunctionsonlyinthe eternal present: There is meal time and sleep time, but not a life time.Consequently, the creature brain creates and stabilizes patterning thatmay beobsolete, unproductive, and painful as long as it associates this behaviorwithsurvival.

Thecreaturebrain creates associations rather thanmeanings. It generalizesandjumpstoconclusionsbasedonroughsimilarities,initiatingpreprogrammedand automaticmuscular and physiological reactions such as the fight-or-flightresponse (VanderKolk, 2014). In its natural processing, it learns to associatesurvival with situations and conditions that threatened survival but did notactually lead to death. This association has ironic and tragic implications forhumanbeings.

Inmyworkwith clients I have found that the conditions thatwe learn tosurvive become the template for the experiences upon which our continuedsurviving will depend. When a young child’s survival is threatened—or isperceivedbythechildtobethreatened,regardlessofwhatisactuallyhappeningin the life situation—then the very presence of the threat becomes part of agestaltofsurvival.Fromthemomentswhentheseassociationsarefirstcreatedin the child’s creature neurology, the threat and the creature brain-mediatedsurvival of the threat become forever linked. They become part of the child’ssurvival patterning. From those moments forward, in the child’s creatureneurology,anyexperiencesthatinvolvethethreathavesurvivalvalue,andany

situationsthatdonotincludeperceptionofthethreatdonotcarrysurvivalvalue.Non-threatening contexts and situations are thus experienced as being “notsurvivable”preciselybecausetheyarenotdangerous!

A common example of such survival patterning is what happens when achildisraisedinahouseholdinwhichoneorbothparentsfrequentlyuseshameasawaytocontrolthechild.Thechildfrequentlyexperiencesfeeling“shamedtodeath,”althoughofcourses/hedoesnotactuallydie.Becausethechilddoesnotperish,theexperienceofbeingshamedtodeathbecomesstronglyassociatedin the creature neurologywith the experience of not perishing. This iswhat Iterm survival equivalence—a situation in which survival in general becomeslinked(inthiscase)withthesurvivalofoverwhelmingshameinparticular.

It is important to remember that thisequivalence is formedandheldat thelevel of creature neurology—a level of the mind/brain that does not makemeaning. However, countless meanings will be generated higher in themind/brain,andprobably throughout theperson’s life, as s/he seeks toexplainhis/her experience to him/herself—a severely limited experience that isgenerated almost timelessly by the tenacious, error-free operation of thisunhappyequivalenceofsurvivalwithsurvivalofshame.

Whenthechildmaturesandisabletoleavehomeandmoveawayfromtheapparent sources of the shaming experience, the link between shame andsurviving continues in the neurology. Typically, the now-mature person goesinto a relationship with, or accepts employment with, or otherwise creates aclose and dependent connection with someone who has essentially the samepatterningtoshameothersthattheparentshad.Infact,ifwewatchtheperson’slifeandchoicesunfoldovertime,wefindthattheindividualcontinuallyattractsand is attracted to peoplewho are also impelled to participate in shame-basedrelationships. It is not just that the relationship is based on the experience ofshame—it is that, for the creature-self, continuing shame actually equalscontinuing survival.4 (See Appendix B for more discussion of survivalequivalence.)

Of course, the person’s human-level consciousness is confused and upsetabouttheserepeatingdevelopmentsandisdesperatelytryingtomakesenseoutof them. With his or her family and friends in despair, with counselors andcoachesofferingmoreandmoreadviceaboutmakingbetterjobandrelationshipchoices,andwithhis/herownself-trustandself-esteemreachingnewlows,s/hecontinues to move toward situations s/he definitely does not want to beexperiencing,apparentlywithoutthecommonsenseorthepersonalwilltomake

thingsbetter.Thebewilderedhumanfindsitnecessarytocreatelimitingbeliefsabouthim/herselfandtheworld,justtohavewhatkeepshappeningmakesomesense.A“limitingbelief”isabeliefaboutreality(whichworkstostructurethatvery reality) that is in conflictwithwhat thehuman aspect of thepersonnowwantstoexperience.5Inthiscase,asasimpleexample,thepersonhascometobelievethattheremustbesomethingshamefulabouthim/herself.

Painfulasthisisforthehuman,theperson’screatureneurologyisoperatingperfectlytofulfillitsimperativetosurvive.Suchsurvivalpatterningistheresultofmillionsofyearsofcreaturebrainevolution.Thiscreaturebrain learnsveryfastandwell,butitisnotequippedto“unlearn”anything.Whileitcanlearnanynumberofnewthings,itwillalwayshavetoaddthemtowhatitalreadyknowsinstead of substitute them for old patterns. This creates ongoing, extremelypainfulconflictinthehumanpsyche.

Additional sources of conflict for humans are the dichotomy in thefunctioningoftheneocorticalandlimbicsystemsandthedividebetweenthetwohemispheres of the neocortex itself. As neuroscientist Rhawn Joseph (2001)explains:

Overthecourseofevolution,thelimbicsystemandeachhalfofthebrainhavedevelopedtheirownuniquestrategiesforperceiving,processing,andexpressing information, as well as specialized neuro-anatomicalinterconnections that assist in mediating these functions. . . . Indeed,whereas the limbic systemmediates themore primitive aspects of social-emotional intelligence, the neocortex and the cerebral hemispheres areorganized such that two potentially independent mental systems coexist,literallysidebyside.(p.75)

Although humans have the newer brain of the neocortex, we remaincreatures of the primary emotions governed by the limbic system.While thelimbicsystemisthesourceoftheemotions,itdoesnot“think”likeahuman,norcan it comprehend speech or communicate verbally. The emotions connectedwithandsustainingourbeliefsarise in thelimbicsystem,whichiswhyverbalargumentsusuallydonotgreatly impact them(MacLean,1990;VanderKolk,2014).Joseph(2001)elucidates:

Theoldlimbicbrainhasnotbeenreplaced,andisnotonlypredominantinregard to all aspects of motivational and emotional functioning but is

capable of completely overwhelming ‘the rationalmind’. . . . this schismbetweentherationalandtheemotionalisreal,andisduetotherawenergyof emotion having its source in the nuclei of the ancient limbic lobe . . .[which appeared] long before humans walked upon this earth and thatcontinuetocontrolanddirecthumanbehavior.(p.162)

The difference in function between the right and left hemispheres of theneocortex adds to the confusion. The two halves of the brain speak differentlanguages. The left hemisphere organizes information into temporal units andlogicalsequences,makingitpossibleforhumanstoidentifycauseandeffectandthereby plan for the future. It enables humans to translate our feelings andperceptions into words. It controls linguistic thought and speech includinggrammar,syntax,reading,writing,verbalcomprehension,andmemory,anditisassociatedwithmathematicalandanalyticalreasoning(Joseph,2001).

The right cerebral hemisphere is associatedwith themore subtle forms ofhumansocialandemotional intelligence, includingtheperceptionofemotionalfeelings and nuances of expression in others and the ability for facialrecognition. It is also the source of our potential for empathy. Itmediates oursense of humor, our understanding of metaphors and symbols, our spiritualfeelings, and all of our imaginative and intuitive processes (Joseph, 2001;McGilchrist,2009;Miller,2007).Inmanyways,“thementalsystemmaintainedby therightcerebralhemisphere is . . .dominantover the temporal-sequential,language-dependenthalfofthecerebrum.Indeed,therightcerebrum...isfullycapableofmotivating,initiating,aswellascontrollingbehavioralexpression—oftenwithout theaidorevenactive (reflective)participationof the lefthalfofthebrain”(Joseph,2001,p.117).

Throughoutourlives,humanbeingsexperienceabewilderingdiscordamongtheexperiencesprovidedbycombinationsofmultiple-brainactivity.Weareallfamiliarwiththeexperienceofdoingandbeingwhatwedonotwanttodoandbe, and of conversely not being and doing what we apparently do want.Everyday life is a continuing streamof these conflicts—fromour complicatedstruggles in interpersonal relationships to forcing ourselves to select the low-carbohydrate,gluten-freeoptiononthelunchmenu.

In Western Civilization, there is a common assumption that reason andemotionsareconstantlyatoddswitheachother.ThisisillustratedintheconflictbetweenApollo,thegodofreasonandlogic,andDionysus,thegodofpassionand instincts, in ancient Greek mythology. The preponderance of Western

literatureandphilosophy isbasedon theconflictand tenuousbalancebetweenthesetwothemes.FromPlatotoDescartesandKant,Westernphilosophershavetaught that the body and mind are separate and distinct entities, and thatdecisionsshouldbebasedonrationalthinkingandlogicratherthanemotions.

However, all thoughts involve having feelings. Neurologist AntonioDamasio,inhisbrilliantbookDescartes’Error(1994),showsthatemotionsandfeelings are necessary for the functioning of reason. There is a strongneurological connection between reason and emotion. Emotions profoundlyinfluence bothwhat people reason about andhow they reason.Our rationalityreliesonourhavinggoodaccesstoourfeelings,andouremotionsalwayshavetheir own life-sustaining intentions. However, these feelings may be totallyoutsideofconsciousawareness,andsimplybeintheformofa“gutfeeling”or“hunch.”

Infact,whatwecall“thinking”isactuallyaprocessofinternalandexternalrepresentationalevents.Ifaclientishaving“painfulthoughts,”Iamgoingtobevery curious about the pictures, sounds, and feelings that comprise what thatperson experiences as a “thought.”All thoughts are complex combinations ofinternal and external pictures, sounds, feelings, smells, and tastes, in somesequence,with some kind of bias orweighting toward one or two of the fivesensesmorethantheothers.So,theissueisnot“thinking”versus“feeling.”Thereal issue is: where are the feelings in your thoughts coming from?Are they“reptilefeelings,”“primatefeelings,”“humanspiritualfeelings,”oramixtureofthese?Ashumans,whatmakesthedifferenceisnotwhetherwearethinkingorfeeling, but which feelings our programming prioritizes to give weight to thevisualandauditorycomponentsofourexperience.Aretheemotionsappropriateforthesituation?Forexample,“creaturefeelings”arelikelytobeinappropriatein the context of performing complicated dental surgery, just as “spiritualfeelings”willprobablyprovideinadequatedriverstatesforprofessionalfootballplayersandtheirfansduringagame.

Inappropriate emotions can cause great pain in humans. NeuroscientistJoseph Le Doux discovered that sensory signals travel first to the amygdala,which is the seat of the emotions, before they travel to the neocortex, thethinkingbrain.Hencetheamygdalarespondsbeforetheneocortexdoes,whichexplainsthepowerofemotionstooverwhelmrationality.Tomakemattersevenmore complex, the brain has two memory systems, one for ordinary facts,controlled by the hippocampus, and one for emotionally charged situations,monitored by the amygdala. When the amygdala is aroused, it imprints in

memory the emotional arousal more strongly than other memories (Goleman,1995).AspsychologistDanielGoleman(1995)writes,theamygdala“franticallycommands thatwe react to the present inways thatwere imprinted long ago,with thoughts, emotions, reactions learned in response to events perhaps onlydimly similar, but close enough to alarm the amygdala” (p. 21). However,emotional memories are not always appropriate guides to present situations.When someone “pushes our buttons” we are most often experiencing theincongruous association between a past experience and a present event. Forexample, a personwho, as a child, experienced harsh criticism from a parentmayoverreactemotionallytoconstructivefeedbackfromhis/herboss.

The prevailing approach that most well-meaning psychotherapists take toaddress their patients’ emotional pain and apparently self-defeating behaviors,asidefrommedication,issomeformoftalktherapythatispredominantlyaboutlife’scontent.PsychologistDanielGolemanexplainsthatwhentheclientretellsthe story of the trauma in the safety of the therapist’s office, the painfulmemories“arebroughtmoreundercontroloftheneocortex,wherethereactionstheykindlecanberenderedmoreunderstandableandsomoremanageable....Thisbegins to imparta telling lesson to theemotionalcircuitry—that security,rather than unremitting terror, can be experienced in tandem with the traumamemories” (Goleman, 1995, pp. 211-12). Even in cases of severe trauma andPTSD, such talk therapy, along with the support system and education itprovides,canbehelpful.

However, there are limitations to how far such therapy can go. Mosttherapists mainly depend on what clients recall consciously and are able todiscloseaboutthecontentofthememoriesthatcausepain.Thisusuallydoesnotworktoeitherrevealorrevisethedeeperlevelsofrepresentationsinautomatedprogramming. Psychiatrist Bessel Van der Kolk (2014) explains that, “Therational,executivebrain isgoodathelpingusunderstandwhere feelingscomefrom. . . .However, the rational brain cannotabolish emotions, sensations, orthoughts. . . .Understandingwhy you feel a certainwaydoesnot changehowyoufeel”(p.205).SincethecreaturebraindoesnotunderstandEnglish(oranyotherhumanlanguage,forthatmatter),discussionandanalysisofpasttraumasachieveonlylimitedresultsinhelpingpeoplecreatedesiredlifeexperiences.

Neuro-LinguisticProgramming,incontrast,isamethodologyforhelpingustobothunderstandandchangetheactualstructureandinternaleventsofhumanexperience. Instead of the why asked by most psychotherapists, the NLPfounders became more concerned with how the client creates his or her

experience through the structural building blocks of sensory representationalsystems. GoodNLP changework includes locating and revising the creature-level/human-level communication problems that generate almost all of ourunwanted experiences, and that heretofore havebeen considered impossible tostoporchange.Nowweareabletore-imprintorre-potentiateneuralpathwaysso that the way is cleared for new learning and needed resources can betransferredorcreatedtoachievethedesiredstate.

ThegoaloftheproficientNLPpractitioneristoassisttheclienttohavewhats/hewants,basedonhisorhermost trulyhumandesiresandvalues.Thiscanusuallybeaccomplishedinashorttime.NLPcanachievethisoutcomebecauseitspeaksnotonlytothehumanbrain,butalsotothecreaturebrain.Itspeakstothecreaturepartofusintheprogramminglanguageofcreatureneurology:Thisisalanguagenotofwords,butofpictures,sounds,feelings,smells,andtastes.Whenwereprogramthecreaturebrainbyusingitsownprogramminglanguage,it accepts updates easily and permanently. Hence, we can describe NLP as amethodologytoassistourcreatureneurologytobettersupportourmosthumanandspiritualgoals.

* InTransformationalNLP, thecreaturebrain refers to the reptilianandpaleomammalianbrain,whilethehumanbrainencompassestheneomammalianandthefourthbrain.

N

CHAPTERII

TheIntellectualBackgroundofNLP

euro-Linguistic Programmingwas the child of twomovements that hadreached young maturity in the early 1970s: the Human Potential

movement and theCognitive Psychologymovement. The twomain figures inthese movements who strongly influenced the founders of NLP were AlfredKorzybskiandNoamChomsky.

NewDevelopmentsintheFieldofPsychologyIn the early twentieth century, Sigmund Freud, the father of psychoanalysis,believedthathehaddiscoveredthescienceofthemind.Hearguedthathumanthoughtsandbehavioraredeterminedbylargelyunconsciousmentalstatesthatspring fromourbasic instincts.ForFreud,humanemotions, ideas,andactionscould be explained as results that came from hidden causes that can bediscoveredandexplored(Thornton,n.d.).

Later, the behaviorism of JohnWatson and B. F. Skinner strove to makepsychology even more “scientific” by focusing only on observable behaviorrather than theories of the unconscious. In this view, people’s thoughts andbehaviorareafunctionoftheexternalstimulitheyreceive.Behaviorismwasthedominant school of thought in psychology from the 1920s through the 1950s(Miller,2003).

In the later 1950s, the rise of humanistic psychology, also known as theHuman Potential movement, became a new and third force in the world ofpsychology.TheworksofAlfredKorzybskiintheearlierpartofthecenturylaidthe foundation for this new worldview. The pioneers of the Human Potentialmovement were Abraham Maslow and Carl Rogers. Unlike behaviorism,humanistic psychology is interested in self-actualization and the problems ofhuman existence such as values, personal responsibility, human potential,

creativity,love,andspirituality.Insteadofstudyingpathologyandneuroses,theHuman Potential movement explores how people can achieve their highestpotential.

The founders of NLP were deeply affected by the Human Potentialmovement.GregoryBateson,FritzPerls,andVirginiaSatirworkedtogetheratEsaleninthe1960saskeypioneersofthismovement.TheirinfluenceonJohnGrinderandRichardBandlerwaskeyinformingtheconceptualframeworkthatgaverisetoNLP(Hall,2010a,2010b).

Inthemid-1950s,arelatedrevolutioninthoughttookplaceinthecognitivesciences. The Cognitive Revolution was an intellectual interdisciplinarymovementthatincludedthefieldsofexperimentalpsychologyandlinguistics.Incontrasttobehaviorism,whichfocusesonlyonobservablebehaviors,cognitivepsychologyismoreinterestedininternalmentalprocesses,suchashowpeoplethink, perceive, remember, learn, and solve problems.1 The famous linguistNoamChomsky,whoconsideredlinguisticsabranchofpsychology,wasakeyfigureinthismovement.HelaunchedtheCognitiveRevolutionin1956whenheespousedhistransformationalgenerativegrammarinapaperleadingtohis1957monographSyntacticStructures(Miller,2003).

Chomsky’sinfluenceonJohnGrinderwasbasictothemindsetthatinformedthe language model of NLP, the Meta Model, described in Structures, I.Chomsky also strongly influenced psychologists George Miller, EugeneGalanter, and Karl Pribram, who wrote Plans and the Structure of Behavior(1960). Grinder was especially influenced by the work of GeorgeMiller, forwhomheworkedasaguestresearcher in1969–1970.Miller’sT.O.T.E.modelformed the basis for Robert Dilts’s work on strategies (Bostic St. Clair andGrinder,2001;Dilts,1980,1999a;GrinderandPucelik,2013;Miller,2003).

Thus,NLPeruptedfromthecombinationoftheHumanPotentialmovement,anchored in theconceptual frameworkofAlfredKorzybski, and theCognitivePsychology movement, based largely on the work of Noam Chomsky. WecannotevenbegintoappreciatetheintellectualrootsofNLPwithoutpayingourrespectstotheworldviewsandworkofthesetwoextraordinaryscholars.

AlfredKorzybskiIn the first half of the twentieth century the brilliant scholar, scientist, andphilosopher,AlfredKorzybski(1879–1950),laidthefoundationforthethinkingthat brought about the development of NLP. Korzybski’s philosophy of

language,whichhecalledGeneralSemantics, formed thebasisofNLP (Dilts,1999a).Infact,Korzybskiistheonewho(intheprefacetothe1941editionofScienceandSanity)coinedtheterm“neuro-linguistic”(Korzybski,1994).

Korzybski’s work is scarcely known and his influence on NLP is barelyacknowledged, but he was a stunningly original thinker who worked with anamazing range of curiosity. He formulatedmost of the conceptual frameworkthat made the development of NLP possible. Yet, neither John Grinder norRichardBandler, the acknowledged founders ofNLP,mentions him in any oftheirworksinmorethanapassingmanner.2In1999,morethanaquarterofacenturyaftertheinceptionofNLPattheUniversityofCaliforniainSantaCruz,oneoftheoriginalgroup,RobertDilts,brieflynoddedtoKorzybski’sinfluence(1999a). In 2013, James Eicher, another member of the group, mentioned inpassingthatthephilosophicalpremisesofNLPwerebasedonKorzybski’swork(GrinderandPucelik,2013).

Korzybski is thekey to understanding thepresuppositions andmost of thebasicprinciplesofNLP.WhileGrinderandBandlerconstructedamethodologyfor NLP, it was Korzybski who had previously conceived and developed theworldview that provided the rationale and pointed the way. If Grinder andBandlerfatheredthisnewfieldofpsychology,wemustconsiderKorzybskithegrandfatherwhomadetheirworkpossible.

Korzybski was greatly influenced by the ideas of the eighteenth-centuryphilosopher Immanuel Kant. LikeKant, Korzybski (1994) argued that we arelimited in what we can know by the structure of the human nervous system.Peoplecanneverexperiencetheworlddirectly—instead,theymakeabstractionsfrom their sense perceptions. However, these abstractions do not necessarilyhave a structure that is similar to whatever is actually happening. Differentpeople have different neurological responses to, and make differentgeneralizationsabout,theirneurologicalresponsestothesameexternalstimuli.AsKorzybskiexplained,thenewscienceshowsthat“whatwelabel‘objects’or‘objective’aremerenervousconstructs insideofourskullswhichournervoussystemshaveabstracted...fromtheactualworldofelectronicprocessesonthesub-microscopiclevel”(p.lii).

In addition to being influenced by Kant, Korzybski was affected by theburgeoning new field of quantum physics. He dedicated Science and Sanity,originally published in 1933, to quantum physicists Werner Heisenberg andNielsBohr,anddeclared thathewas intellectually indebted toAlbertEinstein,ErnstMach,andWernerHeisenbergaswellastothephilosopherofSkepticism,

Bertrand Russell. Korzybski based much of his philosophy on Heisenberg’suncertaintyprinciple,whichisthattherealitythatisbeingobservedismodifiedby theveryactofobserving.Thus,Korzybskiexplained,Heisenbergshowsusthatrealityisinsomewaycreatedbytheobserver(Korzybski,1994).

LikeHeisenberg,Korzybskiarguedthatlogicallywecanneverassumethatonethingcausesanother,sinceallweknowisthatthetwothingsoftenappearone after the other (1994, pp. 93, 218). This principle of relativity is acornerstone of Korzybski’s theory of semantics. He developed a brillianthypothesisconcerningtherelationshipbetweenpeople’sconceptualframeworksand the structure of language. He arrived at his theory of linguisticsindependently of other linguistic theoristswhowere just beginning to publishtheirworksatthetimebutwerenotyetknown.Hewas,forexample,notawareoftheworksofFranzBoas,EdwardSapir,orBenjaminWhorf(Read,1990).

Korzybski (1994)wrote that people are limited in their knowledge by thestructureof their language.The language itself determinesone’sperceptionofthe world. Humans create in their minds abstractions of the reality that theyperceive through their senses, then they create further abstractions of theirsensory abstractions through language. Korzybski’s transformational grammarexplores the changes that occur between a person’s perception and how s/hedescribesit.

In his seminal work, Korzybski (1994) argued that the languages that weinheritedfromourprimitiveancestorsarebasedonoutdatedperceptionsofthestructureofreality.Parentsandteachersteachthechildthestructureoflanguagealong with the socially acceptable habits of thought and behavior. Thesebehaviorpatternsarebasedonunconsciousassumptionsandpresuppositions.Ifthe unconscious presuppositions are factually false, one’s entire mindset isimpacted and the presuppositions can result in harmful thinking and behavior,and even lead to insanity. Korzybski concluded that it is necessary for us tomodify the structure of our language so that it corresponds to our newunderstandingofthestructureoftheworldandthenervoussystem.

Korzybski blamed much of modern psychopathology on presuppositionsderivedfromthemisunderstandingaboutandperversionofAristotle’sscientificmethod.This obsoletemodel ofAristotle views theworld andhumannervoussystems as objective and fixed. Korzybski argued that we should discard thisoutdated worldview of reality being objective and unchangeable. Instead, inaccordancewiththenewdiscoveriesofphysics,weshouldthinkoftheworldintermsofrelativeprocesses(Korzybski,1994).

AccordingtoKorzybski,manypeopleareinpsychologicalpainbecausetheydo not distinguish between their experience (their linguistic representations ofreality) and reality itself. In other words, widespread human misery occursmostlybecause,asheexplained,peopleconfusethemapwiththeterritory.Hewrote that“ifwereflectuponour languages,wefindthatatbest theymustbeconsidered only as maps. . . . Amap is not the territory it represents, but, ifcorrect, it has a similar structure to the territory, which accounts for itsusefulness. . . . [Similarly] aword isnot the same as the object it represents”(Korzybski,1994,p.58).ThushebrilliantlycoinedthefamousphrasesusedinNLP:“Amapisnottheterritory”and“Awordisnotwhatitrepresents.”

Korzybskiconcludedthatjustastheworldisnotfixed,alsohumannatureisnot fixed.Whatwe consider “human nature” is largely a product not only ofhereditybutalsoofenvironment,especiallythestructureofourlanguage,whichcontains within it dogmas, prejudices, misunderstandings, fears, and otherpathologicalpresuppositions.Thegreat innovatorwrote thestartlingstatement,“‘Human nature’ can be changed, once we know how” (Korzybski, 1994, p.xciii). The old habits of thought are not inevitable—they can be changed bytraining.Korzybski discussed a new functional definition ofman based on ananalysisofhumanpotentialitiesascontrastedtofixedcharacteristics.Heurgedlinguistsandpsychologiststofollowinthefootstepsofthequantumphysicists:We “must abandon permanently the use of the [fixed] ‘is’ of identity”(Korzybski,1994,p.60).

Thispioneeringthinkerprovidedamethodologytoaccomplishthisgoal.Heclaimed that human nature could be changed through both education of themasses of people and one-to-one therapy with individuals. For the public,Korzybski constructed a new transformational grammar that focuses more onprocessesthanfixedidentities.Forindividuals,Korzybskicreatedatherapythattaughtpeople todistinguishbetweenwordsabout reality and theactual reality(1994, p. 695). (See Appendix C for a description of Korzybski’spsychotherapy.)Korzybskibelievedthatthiswoulddevelopacriticalattitudeinpeoplewhichwouldleadtopsychologicalhealthaswellasincreasedcreativityandproductivity.Bysuch training,“makingourselvesconsciousofabstractingwe prevent the animalistic unconsciousness of abstracting” and allow theindividualtofindmoreappropriateevaluationsandgeneralizationsaboutreality(1994,p.501).

ScienceandSanityrevealsthewidescopeofKorzybski’sgenius.Heopenednew doors in the field of psychotherapy. Brilliant and innovative as his

conceptual frameworkwas, however, hismethodof disciplining themindwasextremelylaboriousanddifficult.

Nonetheless, this does not diminish its importance in our cultural history.Korzybski’s work provides the basis for the development of the much moredirectandsimple,nottomentionfarmoreeffective,methodsofNLP.AmajorpartofNLPisbasedonwhatarecalled“MetaModelchallenges”oflanguage.These “challenges” are processes that are derived from Korzybski’stransformational grammar.TheNLP concept of theMetaModel (discussed inthe followingchapter) isbasedonKorzybski’sexplorationof thechanges thattake place between sensory perceptions and our thoughts and language aboutthem. Like Korzybski, NLP seeks to change the client’s thinking process byquestioningthelanguages/heusesthatrevealshisorherviewsaboutreality.

NoamChomskyAnotherimportantinfluenceonGrinderwasthelinguistNoamChomsky,whoisespeciallyfamousforhistheoriesaboutthesyntaxoflanguage.Chomsky’smostimportant contribution to NLP is his syntactic theory of transformationalgrammar(BosticSt.ClairandGrinder,2001;Dilts,1999a).

Chomsky can best be understood against the background of the work ofseveral earlier great linguists. Franz Boas (1848–1942), a student of Kant, isconsidered the founder of anthropology in the United States in the latenineteenthcentury.HewasdeeplyinfluencedbyKant’sviewthatwecanneverknowexternalreality,butratherunderstanditonlybyinterpretingsensationsviacertain “categories of understanding.” In opposition to the contemporarymainstream mindset among anthropologists that viewed human cultures asshaped by biological propensity and the stage of evolution of a race, Boaspointedtoculturalrelativism.Hetaughtthatlearningandhabit,ratherthanraceand heredity, are the basis for the diversity in human cultures. Studying thedifferentlinguisticfamiliesofdiverseNativeAmericantribes,Boasmaintainedthat the culture,world view, andways of life of a people are reflected in thestructureoftheirlanguage(Boas,n.d.;Kemmer,2008b;McCall,2006).

AstudentofBoasintheearlytwentiethcentury,EdwardSapir(1884–1939),expandedonBoas’argument.Hedeclaredthatlanguagedoesnotmerelyreflectthe culture and habit patterns of a people, but rather language and thoughtinfluenceeachother.Inotherwords,habitsofthoughtarethemselvesinfluencedbythestructureofalanguage(Ash,1999;Kemmer,2008a;Sapir,1997).

Benjamin Whorf (1897–1941) took this idea further by examining thegrammaticalprocessesbywhichlanguageaffectsthought.Whorf(1940)arguedthatthoughtsandactionsareinfluencedbylanguageandculture.Hewrotethat:

Wedissectnaturealong lines laiddownbyournative languages. . . . theworld ispresented inakaleidoscopic fluxof impressionswhichhas tobeorganizedbyourminds—andthismeans largelyby the linguisticsystemsinourminds....wearepartiestoanagreementtoorganizeitinthisway—an[implicit]agreementthatholdsthroughoutourspeechcommunityandiscodified in the patterns of our language. The agreement is, of course, animplicitandunstatedone,butitstermsareabsolutelyobligatory;wecannottalk at all except by subscribing to the organization and classification ofdatawhichtheagreementdecrees.(AscitedinAsh,1999)

There has been considerable controversy among linguists as well asanthropologists during the past century about the validity of the Sapir-WhorfHypothesis.3NoamChomsky(1957)arguedagainstSapirandWhorf,claimingthat all language is universal and innate rather than simply a function of ourculture and activities. In his book Syntactic Structures, published in 1957, hedescribedhistheoryofTransformationalGrammar.Hearguedthatauniversal,internalgrammarunderliesalllanguage.Thedeepstructureofasentenceisthemeaning, which is universal. The surface structure refers to the sounds (e.g.pronunciation) andwords in the sentence,which differ among languages. Thedeep structure is converted into the surface structure in accordance with anorderedsetofrules.AccordingtoChomsky,allhumanchildrenineverycultureoneartharebornwiththeknowledgeofthesameprinciplesofthegrammaticalstructureof all languages, and this inbornknowledgeexplains the success andspeedwithwhichchildrenlearnlanguage.(BosticSt.ClairandGrinder,2001).

Chomsky’s work in linguistics had major implications for psychology,providing new insights into the nature of mental processing and humanpsychology.HiscritiqueofSkinner’sview(thatlanguagecouldbeexplainedasa stimulus-response process) signaled the decline of interest in behaviorism inAmerican psychology and stimulated much more interest in the cognitiveprocessesinallaspectsofhumanpsychology.Chomsky’sviewofhowthemindworks and his theory of linguistics greatly influenced John Grinder and thedevelopmentofNLP(BosticSt.ClairandGrinder,2001).

CHAPTERIII

TheHistoryandLiteratureofEarlyNLP

TheFounders:JohnGrinderandRichardBandlerThewritingsofKorzybskiandChomskygreatlyaffectedthestudyoflinguisticsinthe1960sand1970s.In1971JohnGrinder,atthirty-oneyearsold,receivedaPh.D.inlinguisticsfromtheUniversityofCalifornia,SanDiego,andwashiredas an assistant professor in the Linguistics Department at the University ofCalifornia in Santa Cruz. He worked with Noam Chomsky, and his researchfocused on Chomsky’s theories of transformational grammar (Dilts andHallbom,2009).

RichardBandlerwasabrillianttwenty-one-year-oldseniorin1971,majoringinpsychologyatUCSC.Atthattime,studentswereallowedtodirectseminarsthat were supervised by a professor, and in 1972 Bandler asked Grinder tooversee the Gestalt therapy groups that he was leading (Grinder and Pucelik,2013;McClendon,1989).Grinder’sconsent tosupervise theseminarswasoneofthosedecisivemomentsthatchangehistory.1

BandlerwasespeciallyinterestedintheGestalt therapyofFrederick(Fritz)Perls (1893–1970).Hebeganstudying theworkofPerls in1972whenhewashired by a publishing company, Science and Behavior Books, to producetranscriptsofvideosofPerls’lecturesandworkshopsforthebooksTheGestaltApproachandEyewitness toTherapy (GrinderandPucelik,2013;McClendon,1989).

Perls’ Gestalt therapy focuses on experience, specifically the presentmoment, and the precision of language. It emphasizes the role of language increatingaperson’sexperienceandexpressionofreality.LikeGrinder,Perlshadbeen strongly influenced by Alfred Korzybski (Bowman and Brownell, n.d.;Dilts,1999a;GrinderandPucelik,2013;Wysong,n.d.).

Bandler had excellent behavioral modeling skills: he had a remarkable

capabilitytomimicotherpeople’sbehaviorandthewaytheyspoke.Healsohadanextensiveknowledgeofthenewcontemporarysystemsofpsychotherapy.Ashe worked with Perls’ papers and numerous video and audio tapes, Bandlerfound thathewasable to imitatePerls’ therapeutic languagepatterns. In1973Dr.RobertSptizer,theownerofScienceandBehaviorBooks,askedBandlertoalso audio tape and transcribe a month-long workshop done by the famousfamily therapist Virginia Satir. Bandler was able to effectively reproduce hervoiceandbehavioralmannerismsaswell.SoonBandlerwasabletorunGestaltgroupsandeffectchangelikePerlsandSatir(DiltsandHallbom,2009;GrinderandPucelik,2013;Hall,2010a;McClendon,1989).

However,Bandlerfeltfrustratedthathewasnotverysuccessfulinteachingotherstodowhathedid.HeaskedGrindertohelphimfigureoutwhathewasdoing (the meta-patterns) so he could teach his skills to others. Grinder hadacquiredbrilliantmodelingskillsfromhisstudyoflinguistics.HetoldBandlerthatifhewouldteachGrinderthebehavioralskills,Grinderwouldhelphimtoreproducethem.Hesaid,“Ifyouteachmetodowhatyou’redoing,I’lltellyouwhat you’re doing” (Dilts and Hallbom, 2009). This collaboration was thebeginning of the new field of NLP (Grinder and Pucelik, 2013; McClendon,1989).

BothGrinderandBandlerwereunhappywiththetheoriesandtalktherapyofpsychotherapists and psychoanalysts. Bandler’s initial creative impetus camefromhisdissatisfactionwiththemodelsofpsychologyhewasstudyingatUCSCandhisfascinationwiththepracticalresultshesawfromtheGestalttherapyofFritzPerlsandthefamilytherapyofVirginiaSatir(GrinderandPucelik,2013;McClendon, 1989).Grinderwas influencedby the left-wingpolitical viewsofhismentor,NoamChomsky,andhadhimselfbecomeinvolvedinleftistpolitics.He considered psychotherapy the self-indulgence of the bourgeoisiewhowerewallowing in their problems. He wanted a more practical way of effectingchange.Hence,likeChomsky,hewasinterestedinthemorepracticalcognitivepsychology,whichexploredhowinformation isprocessed (DiltsandHallbom,2009;GrinderandPucelik,2013;Miller,2003).

The early 1970s was also the time when computer programming, and theconcepts behind it, began to be available for the non-specialist. Increasingly,peoplemadeparallelsbetweenthemindandcomputers(Miller,2003).TheNLPfounders were not interested in psychological theories—they wanted to knowhow,notwhy(DiltsandHallbom,2009).

AsGrinder phrased it, “the core question . . . inNLPmodeling is:Given

somegenius,what are thedifferences thatmake thedifferencebetweenhisorher behavior and the behavior of [merely] competent performers in the samefield?”(BosticSt.ClairandGrinder,2001,p.83).GrinderandBandlerchoseasmodelssomecontemporarygeniusesinbehavioralcommunicationsandtherapy.Because of Grinder’s background in linguistics, they started with verbalcommunication.Together they listened toaudio tapesandwatchedvideo tapesofFritzPerlsandVirginiaSatir(McClendon,1989).

During thisperiod,Bandler andGrinderwereneighbors and friendsof therenowned anthropologist and social scientist Gregory Bateson and his famouswife, Margaret Mead. Bateson viewed the mind as similar to a biologicalecosystem, in which all living organisms as well as all components of thephysicalenvironment interactwithoneanotherandfunctiontogetherasaunit.In his concept of the “ecology of mind” he emphasized the importance ofunderstandinghowideasinteractwithoneanotherinsociety.Bateson’ssystemstheorygreatlyinfluencedtheNLPfoundersinthedevelopmentoftheirconceptofthe“ecology”ofchange,aninquirythatinvolvedassessinghowachangeinaperson’smodeloftheworldmayaffectotheraspectsofhisorherlife.BatesonwrotetheForewordtothefirstvolumeofGrinderandBandler’slandmarkfirstbook,TheStructureofMagic(BandlerandGrinder,1975b).

Inlate1974,GregoryBatesontoldGrinderaboutthehypnotictechniquesofhis long-time friend, psychiatrist Milton Erickson. On Bateson’srecommendation, in1975GrinderandBandler traveled toPhoenix,Arizona toparticipate in Erickson’s seminars and observe his work with patients. TheirexperienceofEricksonprofoundlyaffectedalloftheirsubsequentwork(BosticSt.ClairandGrinder,2001;GrinderandPucelik,2013;McClendon,1989).

Thus, NLP was built on the foundation of the conceptual frameworkconstructed by Alfred Korzybski and Noam Chomsky. It developed from acombinationoftheHumanPotentialmovementpioneeredbyAbrahamMaslowand Carl Rogers; the Cognitive Psychology movement catalyzed by NoamChomskyanddevelopedbyGeorgeMiller,EugeneGallanter,andKarlPribram;theGestalt therapy of Fritz Perls; and the family systems therapy ofVirginiaSatir. To these influenceswere added the systems theory ofGregory BatesonandthehypnotherapyofMiltonErickson.

TheBeginningofNLP:TheMetaModelFromthebeginningoftheircollaborationin1972,GrinderandBandlernoticed

that language patterns were key to the success of the highly accomplishedpsychotherapists whose competence they were modeling. Intrigued by thetherapeutic brilliance of Fritz Perls and Virginia Satir (and later MiltonErickson),thetwoyoungmensoughttoreplicatetheselanguagepatternsintheirown workshops. They did not understand how they themselves were usingbehavior and language that affected change in their clients, so they began toanalyze their language patterns and formalize them so other therapists couldutilize them successfully. Bandler had an uncanny ability to imitate theselinguistic structures, and Grinder discovered that the analytical tools ofChomsky’stransformationalgrammarcouldbedirectlyappliedtoexplicatejusthowthepatternsworked toproducemarvelous results forclients (BandlerandThomson,2011;GrinderandPucelik,2013;McClendon,1989).

Grinder andBandler also learned that if they could properly challenge thewordsthataclientusedtotalkabouthisorherexperience,thishadtheeffectofalso challenging the presuppositions behind thewords. They found that whenpeople changed their languagepatterns they experienced change in their lives.Thisworkledtotheirfirstbook,TheStructureofMagic,volumeI,publishedin1974(BandlerandThomson,2011;McClendon,1989).

Thenameofthiswork,TheStructureofMagic,impliesthatthe“magic”thatoccurs in change work done by great therapists can be understood andcommunicated to others by analyzing the structure—not just the content—oftheir communications (Grinder andPucelik, 2013).AsVirginiaSatirwrites inthefirstparagraphof theForeword toTheStructureofMagic, I:“GrinderandBandlerhavecomeupwithadescriptionofthepredictableelementsthatmakechange happen in a transaction between two people. Knowing what theseelementsaremakesitpossibletousethemconsciouslyand,thus,tohaveusefulmethodsforinducingchange”(BandlerandGrinder,1975b,p.vii).

TheIntroductionwaswrittenbythefamousanthropologistGregoryBateson,whodeclaresthatheandhiscolleagueshadattempted“somethingsimilar”abouttwentyyearsearlier.Heexplains that, like the twoauthors,hehadendeavored“tocreatethebeginningsofanappropriatetheoreticalbaseforthedescribingofhuman interaction . . . [including] not only the event sequences of successfulcommunication but also the patterns ofmisunderstanding and the pathogenic”(BandlerandGrinder,1975b,p.ix).However,asBatesondescribes,heandhiscolleagues had used cultural contrasts and psychosis as a starting point ratherthan neurology and linguistics. Bateson writes that the two founders of NLP“havesucceededinmakinglinguisticsintoabasefortheoryandsimultaneously

intoatoolfortherapy....[They]havesucceededinmakingexplicitthesyntaxof how people avoid change and, therefore, how to assist them in changing”[emphasisadded](BandlerandGrinder,1975b,p.x).

In The Structure of Magic, I, Grinder and Bandler use Korzybski’s andChomsky’s concepts and terminology to explain how language not onlyrepresentsandcommunicates,butactuallycreates,people’smapsandmodelsoftheworld.Theydescribewhat theycall aMetaModelof language.TheMetaModelisaseriesofcategoriesofprocessesbasedontransformationalgrammar.These processes investigate the transformations that take place between ourperceptionsandexperiencesandhowwetalkaboutthem.Thelanguageweuseinourinternaltalktoourselves,aswellasthelanguageweusetocommunicatewithothers,isafunctionofandrepresentsourmodeloftheworld(BandlerandGrinder,1979,p.68;BosticSt.ClairandGrinder,2001,pp.148-49).

Thewriters explain that the threemajor processes in theways that peopleconstruct theirmaps of theworld are generalization, deletion, and distortion.2“Aperson’sgeneralizationsorexpectationsfilteroutanddistorthisexperiencetomake itconsistentwith thoseexpectations” (BandlerandGrinder,1975b,p.16).Theyclarifythat:

Humanbeingsliveinarealworld.Wedonot,however,operatedirectlyorimmediatelyuponthatworld,butratherweoperatewithamaporaseriesof maps, which we use to guide our behavior. These maps, orrepresentational systems, necessarily differ from the territory that theymodelbythethreeuniversalprocessesofhumanmodeling:Generalization,Deletion, and Distortion.When people come to us in therapy expressingpainanddissatisfaction,thelimitationsthattheyexperiencearetypicallyintheir representation of the world, not in the world itself. The mostthoroughly studiedandbestunderstoodof the representational systemsofmapsishumanlanguage.Themostexplicitandcompletemodelofnaturallanguage is transformational grammar. Transformational grammar is,therefore, a Meta Model—a representation of the structure of humanlanguage—itselfarepresentationof theworldofexperience.(BandlerandGrinder,1975b,p.179)

The founders expound on how the therapist can use knowledge about thestructural operation of a shared language as a toolset within thepsychotherapeuticinteraction.Theyemphasizethatsincepeoplecreatemapsof

the world and use thesemaps to guide their behavior, effective therapymustassist the clients in changing their maps. They provide a Meta Model forlanguage-basedtherapy,proposingMetaModelchallengestocontesttheclient’smodel so that s/hewill have alternativeways to view theworld and thereforemorechoiceinbehavior(BandlerandGrinder,1975b).3

The Structure ofMagic, volume I, is based on thework ofKorzybski andChomsky. Korzybski’s concept that the map is not the territory is thecornerstoneofthisbook,asarehisideasaboutthewaysinwhichlanguagebothrepresents and influences our map of the world. Chomsky’s transformationalgrammar is thebasis of theMetaModel.The authorswent beyondKorzybskiandChomsky, however, in clarifying theprocessesof linguistic representationandbydemonstratinghowthetherapistcanusethestructureoflanguageitselftochangetheexperiencesoftheclient(BandlerandGrinder,1975b).

Structure ofMagic, vol. 1 brilliantly poses some of the basic questions ofwhatwouldlaterbecalledNLP,andlaysthefoundationforthesubsequentworkin the field.However, it is very dense and difficult to read. Its jargon, drawnfrom linguistics, continues to haunt NLP today. The terms used in the MetaModel,suchaslostperformativesandunspecifiedreferentialindex,arederivedfrom complex linguistic terminology and obscure the usefulness ofunderstandingandmastering theprocesses towhich theyrefer.Asimpler, lessinsistently technical language and style would perhaps have induced moretherapists and other students to engagewith these concepts and tools, to theirverygreatbenefit.4

FurtherDevelopmentsinNLPThe class taught byBandler and supervised byGrinder in the spring of 1972expanded intoseveral trainingworkshopsandprograms.The firstMetaModelstudy groups met at the house of Frank Pucelik, Leslie Cameron, and JudithDelozierin1972.ThegroupincludedDavidGordon,StephenGilligan,TerenceMcClendon,ByronLewis, and (later) JamesEicher andRobertDilts (GrinderandPucelik,2013;McClendon,1989).IntheperiodbetweenthestudyofPerlsandtheemulationofSatir,thefocusshiftedfromGestalttherapyonthemselvestoexploringeachnewlinguisticpattern:firstofPerls,thenSatir,thenErickson(GrinderandPucelik,2013).

Bandler met Virginia Satir at a cocktail party during this period and wasintrigued by her very effective communication techniques in her system of

familypsychotherapy. In theseearlyNLPgatherings,BandlerconductedmanyofwhatSatircalledpartspartiesandfamilyreconstructions.SomeclassicNLPtechniques,suchasreframing(changingtheclient’sviewofthemeaningofanevent),developedduringthisperiod(McClendon,1989).

In 1974Bandler andGrinder developed the concept of the 4-tuple, whichreferstotheongoingflow(outsideofconsciousawareness)ofmultiplesensoryrepresentational systems: V (visual), A (auditory), K (kinesthetic), and O/G(olfactory/gustatory). Then they noticed that people had individual processingbiases toward one or more of these representational systems, and that thesebiasesareevidentinpeople’suseofverbalpredicates.Forexample,ifapersonsays, “I seewhatyoumean” rather than“Ihearyou,” thisoften indicates thats/he is oriented more toward visual processing than auditory, at least at thatmoment.Lateron,theyalsofoundthatso-calledsub-modalitychanges(changesinrepresentationalsub-distinctions)significantlyaffectpeople’sexperience.Forexample, ifaclientchangesavisual representation—an internalpicture—fromcolortoblackandwhite,thisusuallyimmediatelychangeshisorherexperienceofthesituation(McClendon,1989).

Alsoin1974BandlerandGrinderexperimentedwithauniqueapplicationofIvan Pavlov’s classical conditioning process, by which a desired responsebecomes reliably associated with a specific stimulus (McClendon, 1989).Around the turn of the century Pavlov had discovered that, by ringing a bellwhileheofferedfoodtoadog,hecouldcreateadirectassociationbetweenthedoghearingabellandfood.Thedogeventuallysalivatedwhenitheardthebelleven without the food being present. Pavlov’s finding was extrapolated topertain tohuman learning andwas the foundationof thebehaviorist schoolofpsychology, ledbyJohnB.WatsonandB.F.Skinner, thatwaspredominant intheUnitedStatesbetween1920andthemid-1950s.

In1949,theCanadianneuropsychologistDonaldO.Hebbdemonstratedthatthehumanbrain canchange (i.e., it hasneuroplasticity)becauseneurons forminterconnections when they are activated at the same time. As psychiatristsJeffreySchwartzandRebeccaGladding(2012)explain,“Whengroupsofnervecells (or brain regions) are repeatedly activated at the same time, they form acircuit and are essentially ‘locked in’ together” (p. 63). Hebb’s theory isfrequently summed up in the paraphrase, Neurons that fire together wiretogether (Doidge, 2007, p. 63; Schwartz andGladding, 2012). Thus, neuronalstructure can be altered by experience. Experience changes the brain, andultimatelyourgenes(Doidge,2007).5

Buildingonthesediscoveries,theNLPfoundersdevelopedanapplicationofconditioning that they called “anchoring.” This technique facilitates change inpeople by associating a kinesthetic, auditory or spatial trigger with a desiredinternalresponse.Theylearnedtouseanchoringinavarietyofways,especiallyto assist clients to eliminate unwanted emotional reactions and to have moreaccesstopositiveresources.Eventuallythegroupwasanchoringentire4-tuplesandportionsof4-tuplesandtheirrelevantsub-modalities,andapplyingthisnewmethodologytooutcomessuchaspaincontrolandthepermanentinterruptionofnegativebehaviorpatterns(McClendon,1989).

Perhaps the most remarkable discovery, also in 1974, was what thesebrilliant innovators called patterns of eye-accessing cues.Grinder andBandlernoticed that there is a correlation between eye movements and internalrepresentations.Theeyemovementsarecorrelatedwithspecificinternalsensoryeventsthatarethebasisofallcognitiveandemotionalexperience(GrinderandPucelik,2013;McClendon,1989).Thiswasanoriginaldiscoveryofmomentousproportions—afoundationalleapintheevolutionofNLP.

In1976,GrinderandBandlerpublishedTheStructureofMagic,volumeII.While involume I they focusonverbalcommunication, in the secondvolumetheydiscussamodelofcommunicationandchangeinvolvingtheothermodesofcommunication thatpeopleuse torepresentandcommunicate theirexperience.ThebookcontinuesthediscussionofVAKOGfromvolumeI.Italsodescribeshow to identify and match the client’s preferred representational system bymatchinghisorherpreferredverbalpredicates(GrinderandBandler,1976).Forexample, toconveythemeaning,“Iunderstandyou,”akinestheticpersonmaysay, “What you are saying feels right tome,” a visual personmay say, “I seewhatyouaresaying,”andanauditorypersonmaysay,“Ihearyouclearly.”

Thentheauthorsexplaintheprocessofswitchingoraddingrepresentationalsystems as part of therapy, and they address the issue of incongruity betweenwhatthepersonsaysandthebodyposture,gestures,toneofvoice,etc.Thereisalso a discussion of lack of semantic “well-formedness” inwhich the speakerplacesresponsibilityforhisorherfeelingsonanexternalsource(forexample,“Youmake me angry”) or assumes that s/he knows what others are thinking(e.g.,“HethinksI’mugly”).Finally,thereisadiscussionofhowfamilytherapyappliesalloftheseprocedurestothefamilysystem(GrinderandBandler,1976).

Structure II is a more comprehensive work than Structure I, since itdiscusses the five representational systems rather than only language. Also, itcontainsanumberofillustrationsofhowtousethetechniques.Brilliantasthis

work is, likevolumeI, it isdifficult to read.The language iscomplexandnoteasy tonavigate,andasa result thiswork is rarely read,evenbystudentsandteachersofNLP.

MiltonEricksonIn 1975, Bandler and Grinder wrote Patterns of the Hypnotic Techniques ofMiltonH. Erickson,M.D., volume I (Bandler andGrinder, 1975a). This bookcentersonidentificationofthevoiceandlanguagepatternsusedbyEricksoninhishypnotictherapy.IntheIntroduction,theauthorsreiteratethatthemapisnottheterritoryandreviewtheconceptsofdeletion,distortion,andgeneralization,as well as the various sensory representational systems. They then show howErickson works with these patterns within the context of his hypnotherapy(BandlerandGrinder,1975a).

InPatternsoftheHypnoticTechniquesofMiltonH.Erickson,M.D.,volumeII, published in 1977 (Grinder et al.), there is an in-depth description ofErickson’s patterns of hypnotic communication, such as trance induction andembeddedquestionsandcommands.AccordingtoErickson,hypnosisinterruptsunconscious patterns in behavior by means of a confusion technique. Thisrenders the subject available for (vulnerable to) new learning. Ericksonpersuaded the NLP founders that it is not possible to successfully coerce theunconsciousmind, sinceauthoritarian suggestionsareusually resisted. Instead,Erickson offered his model of what may be called “permissive” hypnosis, inwhich the unconscious mind is invited to allow itself to change throughtechniques involving artful vagueness, questions, suggestions and metaphors(Grinderetal.,1977).

GrinderandBandlernoticedthatErickson’shypnoticlanguagemodelistheinverseof theNLPMetaModel thatwasbasedon the techniquesofPerlsandSatir.Insteadofchallengingtheclient’smodeloftheworldbyrequiringthattheverbal description of it be made more specific (Meta Model challenges),Erickson uses deliberately vague and general language to enable the client towork at an unconscious level. This method has the effect of distracting theconsciousmind,thusallowingeasyaccesstotheunconsciousinordertogatherinformation from deeper levels ofmind or lead the client into amore deeplyalteredstateofconsciousness.Thepractitioner is thusable tospeakdirectly totheunconsciousmindwithoutinterferencefromtheconsciousmind,withallofits attachments to “reality” and the rules that govern the scope and speed of

changewithinit.Thus,whiletheMetaModelworkedwiththeconsciousmindindeveloping

afullerlinguisticmapbyquestioninggeneralizations,deletions,anddistortions,theMiltonModel,incontrast,allowedhighlyeffectivecommunicationwiththeunconscious by actually emphasizing and utilizing this lack of specificity(GrinderandPucelik,2013;McClendon,1989).AsStephenGilliganexplains:

A main purpose of the Meta Model was to develop a more completemappingofexperience.Theidea...wasthatthedeletions,distortions,andgeneralizations made (typically without awareness) in a representationalprocess, resulted in an impoverishedmap that led to limited choices.TheimplicationoftheMetaModelwasthatdevelopingmorecompleteandlessdistortedmapswouldallowotherchoicesandthussuperiorexperienceandperformance . . . .Buta second,equallyprominentemphasisof theearlydayswas learning to navigatewithout fixedmaps . . . . [anEricksonian]hypnotic induction isa setofcommunications thatde-framesordissolvesfixedmaps,therebyallowingnewexperiencesunhinderedbythemapbias.(GrinderandPucelik,2013,p.84)

The two volumes describing the work of Milton Erickson contain veryinsightful analyses of Milton Erickson’s therapeutic method and show itsprofoundinfluenceonthetwowriters.NLPhadnowbecomeacombinationofMetaModelmaneuversandEricksonianhypnotictechniques.

VirginiaSatirIn1975,inStructuresI,GrinderandBandlerhadattemptedtoprovideamodelofthecompetenceofsuccessfultherapistssuchasVirginaSatir.In1976GrinderandBandlerworkedwithSatirdirectly, seeking toapply theirnewdiscoveriesabout communication process to her work in the field of family systems andfamily therapy. Satir had been quite frustrated that she did not know how tocommunicatehermethodsandtheinternalprocessesbehindthemsothatotherscouldreplicateherknow-how.ShewrotethebookChangingwithFamilieswiththe two NLP founders to enable therapists to model and communicate hertechniques(Bandler,Grinder,andSatir,1976).

In this work, Satir uses some of Grinder’s and Bandler’s concepts andlanguage to describe her process. For example, she refers to their concepts of

map,referentialindex,MetaModelchallenges,complexequivalence,andsoon.However the book as a whole is written in much clearer language thanStructuresIandII,describingandclearlyillustratingherthinkingandprocesseswithouttheencumbrancesofspecializedcomplexlinguisticterminology.

CHAPTERIV

NLPAfter1976

NLPin1976By the end of 1976, Grinder and Bandler had combined Satir’s and Perls’languagepatterns andErickson’s hypnotic language anduseofmetaphorwithanchoring to create new processes that they called collapsing anchors, trans-derivationalsearch,changingpersonalhistory,andreframing.By1976theyhadalsohadmoreexperienceusingeye-accessingcues,andthisbecameamajortoolin the practice ofNLP.Anothermajor breakthrough that occurred during thisperiodwasthediscoveryof theneedtobuildrapportwiththeirclients,sothatthe clients felt safe enough to allow themselves to participate fully in thetherapeutic interaction.Thiswasaccomplished throughavarietyof techniquesinvolving physical and auditory mirroring and matching. The name “Neuro-LinguisticProgramming”wascoinedinearly1976,inspiredbytheolderfieldofneuro-linguistics, which explores the neurological basis of language (Dilts,2008;GrinderandPucelik,2013;McClendon,1989).

ROBERTDILTSIn 1977 a young member of the Santa Cruz NLP group, Robert Dilts, wascommissionedbyGrinderandBandlertowriteNeuro-LinguisticProgramming:The Study of the Structure of Subjective Experience. NLP, vol. I was firstpublishedin1978.IntheIntroduction,Diltsdiscussestheconceptofmodeling(emulating others) in general as well as the Meta Model and the variousrepresentational systems. Here, finally, is a readable explanation of theseconcepts.

ThenewcontributionthatthisworkaddstotheNLPmenuisaclarificationof the process of “cognitive strategies”—the sequences of sensory

representationsthatleadtoparticularoutcomesofexperience.1Diltsshowshowthe NLP practitioner can elicit and make explicit a heretofore unconscious“strategy”thataclienthastoachieveaspecificoutcome.Thenheillustrateshowto interrupt an existing dysfunctional strategy to make way for a revisedprogramming sequence that can actually deliver the original desired outcome.He discusses the procedures for installing a new strategy in the client’spatterning,primarilythroughtheuseofanchoring(Dilts,1980).

Thisisawell-writtenandclearexplanationofthevarioustechniquesofNLPextantatthetime.DiltsdescribesverylucidlytheprocessandutilizationofMetaModel challenges, representational systems, eye-accessingcues, and strategies,aswellasanchoring,reframing,pacing,andrapport-building.

BYRONLEWISANDFRANKPUCELIKIn1978twomoremembersoftheNLPcoregroupinSantaCruz,ByronLewisandFrankPucelik,alsotookontheprojectofwritingaclearexpositionofNLP.Magic Demystified was first published in 1980. The preface and introductionreiteratethethemethatNLPviewspersonalityandcommunicationasprocesses,not as part of a static model. The authors describe in very clear terms theargumentofStructureIconcerningtheroleof the threeunconsciousprocessesof generalization, deletion, and distortion in constructing our models of theworld(LewisandPucelik,1982).

Theauthorsposethequestion:Ifthemapisnottheterritory,whatcausesthedifferencesinthemapsofdifferentpeople?Theydiscusstheneuralconstraints(4-tuple,orVAKOG), thesocialconstraints(language, theacceptabilityofeyecontact,etc.),andindividualconstraints(personalhistoryandgeneticmake-up)thatconstitutethemapsofindividuals.Thisbringsthewriterstoadiscussionofhow these three constraints overlap, for example in complex equivalents. Themeanings associated with words are based on the individual’s “model of theworld which is also subject to the processes of generalization, deletion, anddistortion,aswellastoneurological,social,andindividualconstraints”(LewisandPucelik,1982,p.28).Hence,oneperson’sunderstandingofaword isnotnecessarilythesameasthatofanotherperson.

The authorsmake the interestingpoint that all behavior is communication.Thereareobservablepatternsofinteraction,primarilythroughspeechandovertgestures. In addition there is internal communication,which also affects us inexternallyobservableways.Someofthiscommunicationisconscious,butmuch

of it is outside of our conscious awareness (Lewis and Pucelik, 1982). Thepractitionercan takenoteofexternalbehavioral cues, suchasverbalpredicatepreferences, breathing, body posture, and eye-accessing, in order to externallytracktheseotherwiseentirelyinternaloccurrences.

Lewis and Pucelik clarify the Meta Model that Bandler and Grinder hadoutlined in Structure of Magic I. They explain that the Meta Model is theoverview of how humans use language to make sense of their world that ispresented through the senses. LikeNoamChomsky and the founders ofNLP,theseauthorsarguethattherulesoflanguageareinnateandthataperson’suseoflanguagerevealsthegeneralizations,deletions,anddistortionsthatparticipateingeneratingandstabilizinghisorhermapofreality.Aself-fulfillingandself-confirmingprocessofrealitycreationcontinuesindefinitely.Theseunavoidableconstraints,whichoccurnaturallyasaconsequenceofanyuseoflanguage,arecalled“MetaModelviolations.”Bychallengingthese“violations,”thetherapistcan assist the client to reassess and re-imaginemanyaspectsofhisorher lifeexperience.Theauthorsofferdetaileddescriptionsofmethodstoelicitaclient’sunconsciousMetaModelviolationsandhowtochallengethem.

This thin volume is a clearly written and very readable summary of NLPconceptsandprocedures.ItexplainsthecomplexconceptsofStructuresintermsthat the reader can easily understand. In addition, the authors outline theadvancesthathadbeenmadesincethatbookwaswritten.Forexample,theygointodetailedexplanationofeye-accessingcues,and theyexplainwhybuildingrapportandtrustwiththeclientiscrucial.ThisworkisanexcellentintroductiontoNLP.

STEVEANDREASAnotherlandmarkworkwaspublishedin1978.JohnStevens,wholaterchangedhisnametoSteveAndreas,editedsometranscriptsofa liveseminarpresentedbyBandler andGrinder.This collection of transcripts became the book calledFrogsintoPrinces.Theseminarwasfortherapists,toshowhowapplicationsofNLPtechniquescanimprovetherapeuticcommunicationwithpatients.

In the preface, Andreas proudly describes how NLP can cure phobias,overcome learning disabilities, eliminate most unwanted habits (smoking,drinking,over-eating,insomnia,andsoon),makechangesincouple,family,andorganizational interactions so they function inmore satisfying and productiveways, and cure many physiological problems. Additionally, Andreas writes,

NLP can determine the structure (key patterns and sequences of behavior) oftalentsothatitcanbetaughttoothers(BandlerandGrinder,1979).

Thebookisdividedintothethreemainsectionsthatwerepresentedonthreeseparate days in the original workshop. The first section discusses sensoryexperience: representational systems, and accessing cues. The speakersdiscussedhowtocreaterapportwith theclientbyusinglanguagetomatchtheclient’srepresentationalpatterns,andbyadjustingone’sownbodypositionsandmovements tomatch those of the client. This section also includes discussionaboutnoticingvisualandothersensory-accessingcuesinordertohelptheclienttobringunconsciousinternalrepresentationsintoconsciousawareness.

Theauthorsexplainthattheprocessbeginsbyaskingforspecificationofan“unspecified verb.” The combination of verb specification (“What does [verbyouareusing]mean,specifically?”)andnon-verbalspecification(bynotingeyemovements andbody shifts)will tell thepractitioner theprocessbywhich theclientcreateshis/herexperience.Theyofferanexampleofaclientsaying,“Myfatherscaresme.”Thepractitionermightthenask,“How,specifically,doesyourfatherscareyou?”or“Howdoyouknowthatyouarescared?”Whiletheclientistryingtoanswersuchquestions,his/hereyesandheadmaymoveupandtotheleft,wherethenervoussystemstoresimagesofthepast,ortheymaymovedownand to the right toaccess feelings. (Meanwhile,his/her facemaybecomepale,the eyes may water, breathing may become labored, and the shoulders mayhunchover.)AsBandlerdescribes, “Thecombinationof theunspecifiedverbsthat the person is using and the quite elegant non-verbal specification by eyemovements and body shiftswill give you the answer to the question,whethertheyeverbecomeconsciousofitornot.”(BandlerandGrinder,1979,p.69).

InSection I there are also discussions about communication andmodelingthatcontainsomeof themost famoussayings inNLP.Forexample, regardingmodeling,we read that, “if anyhumancandoanything, so canyou” (BandlerandGrinder,1979,p.36).Concerningcommunication,weencounter thenow-famousbrilliantinsightthat“themeaningofyourcommunicationistheresponsethatyouget”(BandlerandGrinder,1979,p.61).

This lectureclarifies thepoint thatmostperception isoutsideof consciousawareness.Thetherapistshouldinvestigatetheprocesses,notjustthecontent,oftheclient’sproblems.Ifweknowthesequencesofsensoryeventsthatcausethedifficulties,wecan scramble them to interrupt theunwantedpatterns.Wealsofind in this section Erickson’s hypnotic language for trance induction anddiscussion of some of the key concepts in Structure I (Bandler and Grinder,

1979).InsectionIIwehavediscussionofthetechniquecalled“changingpersonal

history” and clarification of the process of anchoring. The book discussesclassical conditioning and the capacity to deliberately associate certainintentional stimuli,mostly external kinesthetic (touch),with specific responsesintheformofemotionsandthoughts.Thenwelearnhowtoanchortheproblemstateanduseresourcestochangethemeaningtheclientmakesandtheemotionss/he associates with his or her personal history. When we collapse anchors,integrating new possibilities into the patterning that produces the presentlimitations, the client’s system then has more choice about which feelings toexperienceinrelationtothepainfulpastevent.Theauthorsspecifythatchoicemeanshavingalternativemultipleresponsestothesamestimulus.Wediscoverinthisworkthatanchoringcanbeusedintherapytoovercomefearandchangethemeaningsassociatedwithpainfulmemoriessothattheynolongeraffectourexperienceinthepresent.Thiscapacitytoreviseinternalprocessesalsoenablesus to eliminate phobias in a mere matter of minutes (although, in terms oftechnique,thephobiafixprocessisusuallycarriedoutwithouttheuseofexplicitkinestheticanchors).

The book explains that the therapistmust “join” the client’smodel of theworld to gain rapport, as a prelude to helping him or her find new possiblechoices in behavior.We do this bymirroring:matching the client’s behavior,both verbally and non-verbally. The therapist mirrors speech predicates andsyntax,bodyposture,breathing,voicetoneandtempo,facialexpression,andsoon.S/hepacestheclientsos/hecanthenleadhimorhertonewalternatives.Thebookalsodescribestheprocessof“futurepacing.”Inthiswork,wefindbrilliantinsightssuchasthestatement“Webelievethatallcommunicationishypnosis.That’sthefunctionofeveryconversation”(BandlerandGrinder,1979,p.100).

In section III, the presenters discuss new techniques, such as reframing.Reframing changes theway a person perceives or givesmeaning to an event.Thepresentersclaimthatreframingisthebesttreatmentforanypsychosomaticsymptom,andthatthetherapistshouldassumethatanyphysiologicalsymptomis psychosomatic.Also in this sectionwe learn how to communicatewith thedifferentpartsoftheunconscious(BandlerandGrinder,1979).

Although the book consists of transcripts from a three-day seminar fortherapists, itwas intended to be a simple explanationofNLP“for the laymanwhoknowsnothingaboutpsychologyor therapy” (McClendon,1989,p.115).Thiswork ismucheasier to read thananythingBandlerandGrinderhaddone

previously.ThediscussioninFrogsoftheconceptsinStructureismucheasiertounderstandthanthediscussioninStructureitself.Inadditiontoclarifyingthebasic tenets and practices ofNLP, thiswork adds the techniques of body andfacialcalibrationandeyeaccessingwhichBandler,Grinder,andtheSantaCruzgrouphadnotdiscovereduntilafterStructurewaswritten.In1978,NLPwasacompilation of theMetaModel, representational systems, eye-accessing cues,anchoring,reframing,strategies,hypnoticlanguage,andtechniquestocreateandadjustrapport.

PartingoftheWaysInlate1978,asaresultofincreasingtensionbetweenJohnGrinderandRichardBandler, the two founders ofNLP decided to go their separateways.BandlerandGrinderhadpreviously formedapartnershipcalledTheSocietyofNeuro-Linguistic Programming. Bandler bought John Grinder out and continued topromoteTheSocietyofNLP,asserting that it alonewas thevalidauthority inthe new field.2 Grinder partnered with Judith DeLozier to form Grinder,DelozierandAssociates(McClendon,1989).

From 1981 through 2000 Bandler filed a series of intellectual propertylawsuits againstGrinder. They finally settled the dispute in an agreement thatacknowledged them both as co-creators and co-founders of NLP. BandlercontinuedworkingthroughTheSocietyofNeuro-LinguisticProgramming,andGrinderworkedwithThe InternationalTrainersAcademyofNeuro-LinguisticProgramming. While Bandler continued developing and teaching changepatterns, Grinder focused on the business marketing applications of NLP(McClendon,1989).

JOHNGRINDERAFTER1978In1994,GrinderwroteabookwithMichaelMcMastercalledPrecision:ANewApproach to Communication that shows how to improve businesscommunication in the areas of negotiation, meetings, and interview skills(McMaster,1980).GrinderthencreatedPrecisionworkshopsacrosstheUnitedStates(McClendon,1989).

In2001Grinderco-authoredWhisperingintheWindwithCarmenBosticSt.Clair.InthisworkGrinderexpoundsonwhathecallsthe“NewCodeofNLP,”whichclaimstoprovideamuchmoresystematicapproachtoNLP.Theauthorsdiscuss the fundamental principles ofNLP in its historical context in order to

enable the reader todistinguish“true”NLPfromsomeof themoresuperficialdistortions. The book emphasizes the primary importance ofmodeling. It alsounderlinesthecriticaldistinctionbetweencontentandthestructureofexperiencein NLP therapy. While most talk therapy works with the content of humanexperience(whathappensinourlives,andwhyithappens),NLPtherapyfocuseson how the brain is generating thoughts and feelings in the client’s life. Thiswork also suggests a rigorous methodology for doing NLP research andcomments on the possible applications in business and other non-therapeuticmodalities(BosticSt.ClairandGrinder,2001).

Unfortunately for the layperson, the language in this book is almost asspecialized anddifficult to understand asbothvolumesofStructureofMagic.Nonetheless, thisworkmade an important contribution by opening new doorsregarding a methodology for research in the field of NLP and the possibleapplicationsofNLPinthewidersocialcontext.3

RICHARDBANDLERAFTER1978After1978,Bandler focusedondevelopingpatterns tochangeclients’ limitingbeliefs that prevent them from achieving their goals. He taught this materialaround theworld inNLP training programs. This workwas presented in twobooks published in the mid-1980s. The books were actually transcripts ofBandler’stherapysessions,editedbySteveAndreas:MagicinAction(1984)andUsingYourBrainforaChange(1985).

MagicinActionprovideseditedtranscriptsofBandlerworkingdirectlywithpeople and their problems. The first five chapters are demonstrations topsychologistsofhowheworkswithpeoplewhohavephobias.Chapterssixandsevenillustratehisground-breakingworkwithseminarparticipantsonchangingbeliefs.HoweverBandler includesvery littlecommentaryaboutorexplanationof the techniquesheuses,so thefirstsevenchaptersaremoreanexhibitionofBandler’sexpertisethanatooltoeducateothers(Bandler,1984).

Chapter eight is written in an entirely different style. This chapter is aresearch study that seems to have been tacked on at the last minute. It is atranscriptofacasestudywithcommentarybyadifferentperson,PeterGregory,of several sessions using NLP to cure a VietnamWar veteran’s PTSD. Thissectioniswritteninamuchmoreformal,academicstylethantheotherchapters,andistheonlysectionthatdiscussesthemethodology(Bandler,1984).

Using Your Brain for a Change is an edited version of the transcripts of

severalseminarsfortherapiststhatBandlerconductedin1982.Themainthrustof these seminars is that since most of our experience is subjective, we canradicallychangethatexperiencebyreprogramming(revising)thoseportionsofitthatwedonotlike.InthisworkBandlershowshowtousethebasictoolsofNLP to accomplish this kind of change. To prove Bandler’s points, the bookinterweaves descriptions and commentary with entertaining snippets of hisinteractionswithclients.However,incontrasttoMagic,therearenofullpatientcasehistories,sothereadermaywonderhowwellthesetechniqueswouldworkintherealworld(Bandler,1985).Acombinationoftheapproachesusedinthetwobookswouldmakeformoreinformativereading.

In 2008 Bandler published Guide to Trance-Formation, also an editedtranscript of a seminar for therapists. Here he explains the concepts andprocessesdescribedinStructureIandPatternsIoverthirtyyearsearlier,butinmuch clearer language. It contains much material included in a work hepublished with Grinder in 1981, called Trance-Formations: Neuro-LinguisticProgramming and the Structure of Hypnosis. However there are some newinsightsandtechniquesinthelaterversion.

InGuidetoTrance-Formation(2008),Bandlerdescribeshisuseofhypnosisin change work. He maintains that all thoughts and behaviors are hypnotictrances, in that they are patterned, repetitive, and habitual. “People are notsimplyinoroutoftrancebutaremovingfromonetrancetoanother.Theyhavetheir work trances, their relationship trances, their driving trances, theirparentingtrances,andawholecollectionofproblemtrances”(p.2).Heexplainsthat our brains quickly learnhow to automate all behavior, including limiting,negative,andevenself-destructivepatterns.However, thebraincanasquicklylearn how to change these patterns of behavior and thinking.We can use ourconsciousmind todirectandre-directourunconsciousactivity.Bandlerwritesthat, “Neuro-Linguistic Programming, sometimes described as the study ofsubjectiveexperienceandwhat canbepredicted from it, demystifiedhypnosisandbrought itsunderlyingstructure intoconsciousawareness”(Bandler,2008,p.294).

In thiswork,Bandler discusses how to useNLP to elicit thought patterns,inducehypnotic trance,andusehypnosis togeneratechange.Forexample, theauthor repeats the point made in Structure that challenging Meta Modelviolationsnotonlygivesthepractitionerinformation,butalsoallowstheclient’sconsciousmindtoaccesstheunconsciousprocess.Whatarethegeneralizations,deletions,anddistortionsintheclient’sspeech?Thisisthefirststeptorevising

theundesiredprogram.Bandlerprovidesmorethanthirtyself-teachingexercisesand four “trance-scripts”ofhis actualworkwith clientswith comments in themarginsaboutthetechniquesheisusing.Thisisaclearlywritten,veryreadablebook. It clarifies existing information about NLP as well as offers newperspectives.

ROBERTDILTSAFTER1978RobertDiltsfoundvaluein theapproachesofbothGrinderandBandler,sohestraddled both worlds. He wrote about applications of NLP, but he alsoincreasinglyfocusedonchangingbeliefsasawayofchangingone’s life—andsometimes he combined the two approaches. For example, he taught NLPtrainingprogramswithanemphasisonthewayourbeliefsaffecthealth,andonmethodstochangebeliefstoimprovehealth(McClendon,1989).

In hiswriting,Dilts, likeGrinder, now focusedmore on new applicationsoutside of the therapeutic framework. In 1981, Dilts wrote a book entitledApplications of NLP (published in 1983). After providing a synopsis of thehistory, concepts, and techniques of NLP, he shows how the processes heoutlines can be used in business communication, sales, family therapy,interpersonal negotiation, health, education, and creativewriting (Dilts, 1983).Thisbookseemstoconsistofaseriesofarticleswrittenatdifferenttimes,andtheorderissometimesconfusing.Nevertheless,itisclearlywrittenandprovidesanexcellentexplanationofhowNLPcanbeusedtoachievedesiredoutcomesindifferentvenues.

Dilts also increasingly explored how to change unwanted beliefs by usingNLP. In 1990DiltswroteBeliefs:Pathways toHealth andWell-Being (1990)andChangingBelief SystemswithNLP (1990). Theseworks describe how heusesNLPtochangeunwanted,limitingbeliefsaspartofsupportingbettergoal-achievement andmore fulfilling life experience. In thesebooks,Dilts presentsthe technique of re-imprinting and the process of installing new beliefs (SeeDilts,1980b,pp.viii–ix).

Dilts’s books that followed, Tools for Dreamers (1991) and Skills for theFuture (1993), focus on using applications of NLP to enhance creativity.StrategiesofGenius, vol.1-3 (1994) showshow touseNLP tomodel thewayseveralgreatgeniuses andhistorical figures thought andacted.Dilts continueswith this theme when he explores leadership in Visionary Leadership Skills(1996c)andinModelingwithNLP(1998a).

In1999DiltswroteSleight ofMouth:TheMagic ofConversationalBeliefChange(1999a).Inthiswork,Diltsexplainsthatwhathecallssleight-of-mouthpatterns are his attempt to encode someof the key linguisticmechanisms thatcharismaticindividualsusetopersuadeothersandtoinfluencesocialaswellasindividualbeliefsystems.4Hepointstoacommon,fundamentalsetofpatternsin the language of people who have shaped and influenced powerful socialchange in human history—people such as Jesus of Nazareth, Karl Marx,AbrahamLincoln,AlbertEinstein,MohandasGandhi,MartinLutherKing,andothers.Diltsexplains,“these‘SleightofMouth’patternsaremadeupofverbalcategories anddistinctionsbywhichkeybeliefs canbeestablished, shifted,ortransformed through language. They can be characterized as ‘verbal reframes’which influence beliefs and the mental maps from which beliefs have beenformed”(Dilts,1999a,pp.x-xi).

In 2003DiltswroteFromCoach to Awakener. Thiswork is based on theneurological levels model of the renowned contemporary anthropologist,GregoryBateson,whohadbeenastronginfluenceonGrinderandBandlerintheearliestdaysofNLP.Thismodelpostulatesthatthereisahierarchyoflevelsoflearning and change. Dilts argues that we need different types of support forchangeateachlevel.TheCoachworksonimprovingbehavioralcompetencies.TheTeachertargetsnewcognitivecapabilities.TheMentorempowerspeopletoacquirenewbeliefsandvalues.TheSponsorfostersgrowthattheidentitylevel.TheAwakener raises people’s awareness of the (quantum) field, which is thesource for desired change (Dilts, 2003). Dilts thus brilliantly differentiatesamong thediverseways thatNLPcan stimulatechange inaccordancewithanindividual’sneedsandlevelofpersonalevolution.

MoreRecentSchoolsofNLPIn the late1970s, therewas a turningpoint in thedevelopmentof the fieldofNLP.AsJohnGrindercomplains,therewasamovementawayfromthecreativeexploratoryspiritoftheearlydaystoafocusoncodingwhathadalreadybeendiscovered.NLPwastakenoverbypeoplewhopaid“primaryattentiontotheircontent(fixedcontentmodels)typically[resulting]inconfusingthemapsastheterritory, while also favoring the development of technocrats over creativethinkers” (GrinderandPucelik,2013,pp.90,102).However, thereweresomenewschoolsofNLPthatemergedinthe1980sandafterthatdidofferinnovativecontributionstothefield.Twoofthebetter-knownschoolswereformedbyTad

JamesandL.MichaelHall.

TADJAMESTadJames’systemisacombinationofbasicNLPtools,hypnotherapy,andaninnovation that James calls Time Line Therapy. The NLP and hypnotherapyaspects of his work are well presented but do not appear to offer anythingoriginal.However James’s time line therapy, inwhich he incorporates severalexistingNLPmethodsandhypnoticlanguagepatterns,isinnovative.

In Time Line Therapy and the Basis of Personality, written in 1985 withWyatt Woodsmall, James elaborates on a technique that uses a metaphoricaltimeline to regress the subject to events that appear to have occurred inchildhood or—depending on the client’s beliefs—in literal past lives. Theseevents are understood to be root-decision causes for negative conditionsaffecting theperson’spresentexperience.Fromapointofviewfloatingabovethe timeline, the client is afforded a dissociated view of events preceding andresulting in crucially limiting decisions. Through the use of an innovativerepresentational shift, the client is invited to discover that the apparent pastchoicesareavailableforrevision.Jamesclaimsthattheresultofthesetimelinechangesistheameliorationoroutrighteliminationofallsubsequentnegativeorlimitingeffectsoftheoriginaldecision.Thesecondandthirdpartsofthebook,whicharemostlywrittenbyco-authorWyattWoodsmall,areaboutconventionalNLPmeta-programsandvalueselicitation,withnotmuchthatisnewotherthana profiling system entitled Meta Program and Values Inventory (James andWoodsmall,1988).Insum,whilemuchofTadJames’workseemstoconsistofpreviouslyofferedmethodsofNLPandhypnotherapy,thenotionandpracticeofthetimeline—notwithstandingextravagantclaimsforthetechnique’sefficacy—doprovideavaluablecontributiontothetoolkitofNLPchangework.

MICHAELHALLL.MichaelHallisthefounderofwhathecallsNeuro-Semantics,whichhefirstintroduced in 1997 in his bookMind-Lines: Lines that Change Minds. Hallexplains that he and co-authorRev.BobbyBodenhamer created the school ofNeuro-Semantics as an advanced development of NLP. They developed anumber of new patterns usingwhat Hall calls theMeta-StatesModel. On hiswebsite, Hall writes that “Neuro-Semantics highlights much more fully andextensively the existence of multiple meta-levels . . . than does NLP” (Hall,

2007a). He claims to be guided by Korzybski in his focus on self-reflexivity“about howwe evaluate and then evaluate our evaluations and by that createhigherlevelsof‘mind’”(Hall,2007a).

Hall concedes that NLPwas ameta-discipline from its inception, and hasalways taught and usedmeta-level information (for example, theMetaModeland Meta Programs). Also, he admits that, “co-developer Robert Dilts hascontributednumerousmeta-levelmodels” (Hall,2007a).However,Hall claimsthathisownmeta-statesmodelisthemostfullydescriptiveandcomprehensivemodel aboutmeta-levels. He says that in his meta-statesmodel, the focus onself-reflexivityprovidesawaytotrackthoughts-about-thoughts,feelings-about-feelings, and other states-about-states (meta-states). According to Hall, “thesystem that emerges from themeta-levels that govern the lower levels bringsabout an overall gestalt (or configuration of interactive parts) which in turn,define thecharacterof thewhole.”Heexplains that, “wesetupahigher levelframe-of-reference.Thepowertoidentifyaframeenablesustostepasidefromaframeandtosetawholenewframe”(Hall,2007a).Whenwereframemeanings,wecanimproveourperformanceinlife.Hence,thisnewframeempowersustopresentanew“strategyofexcellence”(Hall,2007a;Hall,2007b).

Hall’sMind-Lines(1997)essentiallyfocusesonchallenginglimitingbeliefsthrough the art of reframing conversations.NotwithstandingHall’s claims, thematerial in thisworkdoesnot appear tooffer techniques that arequalitativelydifferent from the meta-programs model in NLP, the books on reframing byGrinder andBandler, and theworks byRobertDilts such asChanging BeliefSystemsWithNLP andSleightofMouth.Mind-Lines directsus to analyzeourmapof theworld, sowe can changewhatdoesnot serveus.However,Hall’sfocus on self-reflexivity leads one to wonder about the extent to which justthinkingaboutanissueandreframingitverballycanchangeitsmeaningforus.It seems thatHall thoughtfullygreatlyelaboratedononeaspectofNLP to theexclusionof themanyothervaluable techniquesdevelopedby the foundersofNLP.

CHAPTERV

JonathanRice

BackgroundofJonathanRiceandNLPIn the mid-eighties a new branch of NLP sprouted and developed in a verydifferentwayfromtheotherschoolsofNLP.Thisnewiterationwasorganizedaround thework and teaching of Jonathan Rice. By 1985 the philosophy andmethodology of the NLP taught by Rice had developed in a substantiallydifferentdirectionfromthatofmainstreamNLP.

The founders of NLP were not interested in the field of psychology. Asdescribedabove,RichardBandlerandJohnGrinderdevelopedthenewfieldofNLP largely in reaction against the theories and contemporary practices ofpsychology(DiltsandHallbom,2009;GrinderandPucelik,2013;McClendon,1989). They taught their students that they did not have to study the field ofpsychology or have a degree in it in order to excel in NLP. Grinder told hisstudents that, “graduate school is where the limitations of one generation arepassed on to another” (Dilts and Hallbom, 2009). John Grinder later said: “Ibelieveitwasveryusefulthatneither[RichardBandlernorI]werequalifiedinthe field . . . [of] psychology and in particular, its therapeutic application”(Collingwood,1996).Thestudentswhogatheredaroundthefoundersthereforebelieved that the more expertise a person had in a subject, the more hisknowledgewasarchaic.ThenewfieldofNLPcouldbestprogresswithpeoplewhowerenotcontaminatedwiththeoldideas(DiltsandHallbom,2009).

JonathanRicejoinedtheNLPgrouparoundBandlerandGrinderin1975.Incontrasttotheothermembersofthegroup,mostofwhomwereundergraduatesatthetime,Ricewasanacademicallytrainedandlicensedpsychotherapistwitha Ph.D. He managed a community mental health clinic in Monterey andmaintainedaprivatepsychotherapypracticeinthenearbytownofCarmel.Ricehad attended a seminar given by the renowned family therapistVirginia Satir

andwas intriguedbyher excellent results. In the courseof reviewingwaysofspendingwhatlittleremainedofhisannualtrainingbudget,Ricecameacrossaflyer for a seminar to be given by Grinder and Bandler. The flyer describeddefinitebehavioral outcomes thatwouldoccur for allworkshopattendees.Forexample,theflyerpromisedthateachpersonattendingwouldacquiretheabilitytoimmediately“fix”phobias.Ricewasstruckbythespecificityoftheclaimedgoodresultssince,asaconventionally trainedpsychotherapist,hewasentirelyunaccustomed to training outcomes ever being stated in precise, behaviorallymeasurableterms(J.Rice,personalcommunication,June2011).

Mostpsychotherapistsat that timereliedonaprocess-orientedapproach tochange and healing rather than one that centered on the accomplishment ofspecificoutcomesfortheclient.Thethen-predominanttherapeuticparadigmwashumanistic psychology,which had been developed in the 1950s in reaction toboth murky, unending psychoanalysis and mechanistic behaviorism. AsexemplifiedintheworkofmasterssuchasCarlRogers,thehumanisticapproachemphasizedtheprimacyofthetherapist/clientrelationship.Thenature,quality,anddynamicsofthisrelationshipwerethemajordeterminingfactorsinwhethertheclientgotwell.

However,alongwithmanyothersatthetime,Dr.Ricenoticedthatsincethepsychotherapeuticexperiencewassodependentontheon-goingpresenceofthetherapist,whatgoodchangesdidoccurdidnotnecessarilystabilizeandcontinueafter the client left therapy. Also, he saw that frequently the psychotherapistprojected his/her own issues onto the client, with all involved then becomingentangled in the conflicts and mysteries of transference/counter-transferencedynamics.At thatpoint inhiscareerasaclinician,Ricewas lookingformorepractical ways of doing therapy, with the goal of creating tangible andmeasurable behavioral outcomes that could endure without his continuingpresence inhisclients’ lives (J.Rice,personalcommunication, June2011).Atthetime,thiswasatallorder.

In the fall of 1975, Rice went to the above-mentioned weekend seminartaught by Grinder and Bandler in Santa Cruz. Then he went to another threeweekend seminars and a ten-dayworkshop. In these trainings, he said, “I sawthem doing things that I didn’t know how to do” to achieve profound andpermanent behavioral changes, such as eliminating the experience of phobias.ThetrainersusedproceduresthatRicehadneverseenbefore,andthenshowedthe audience how they accomplished their remarkable results. Thus, Rice sawthattheNLPtechniqueswerereplicableandcouldaccomplishchangesinclients

that he knew he could not achievewith talking psychotherapy alone (J. Rice,personalcommunication,June2011).

Thesetrainingswereaimedtowardandattendedmostlybypsychotherapists.However, in the course of their presentationsGrindler andBandler frequentlyridiculedthecurrenttheoriesandmethodologiesofpsychology(J.Rice,personalcommunication,June2011).Theydidnotcallthemselvestherapistsorcoachesorscientists.Instead,theycalledthemselves“modelers.”Theirgoalwastomakeandteachamodelofhowtodosomethingthatworks.Theywerefocusedonthepractical uses of specific techniques that actually worked to effect change inpeople(DiltsandHallbom,2009).

Increasingly,becauseof thepowerandeffectivenessof the tools theywereevolving, Bandler and Grinder’s focus became centered on NLP techniquespurported to be rapid cures for nearly every life problem or challenge. Thetechniquesweremore andmore presented as stand-alone events, formulas forchangethatcouldbecombinedorchainedinsequencewithothertechniquestoproduceavarietyofoutcomesfor theclient (J.Rice,personalcommunication,June2011).BandlerandGrinderhaddevelopedanentirelynewfield,buttheirwork increasingly took on a quick-fix orientation that, although brilliantlyinnovative,was—fromRice’sperspectiveasapsychotherapist—superficialandlimiting.

During the late 1970s, Rice was apprehensive that Bandler and Grinder’scavaliericonoclasmandemphasisonformulaictechniquesallowedforlittlerealattentiontothebroaderecologyandemotionalwell-beingoftheirstudentsandclients. The founders often used their students as guinea pigs to test theirmethods, sometimes with devastating emotional consequences for theyoungsters. Rice was troubled by his perception that the NLP founders haddiscarded compassion along with many of the outdated theories andmethodologiesofconventionalprocess-focusedpsychotherapy(J.Rice,personalcommunication,June2011).

Rice was concerned that NLP, which had developed out of the fields oflinguistics, psychology, and Ericksonian hypnosis, had become divorced fromtheseroots.Ithadbecomesimplyanaggregationoftechniques,andhadfailedtodevelop into the more comprehensive system of effective and practicalpsychotherapythatRicehadbeenseekingforhisownpractice.Therefore,evenwhilehelearnedasmuchashepossiblycouldfromthemfrom1975to1978,hewascontenttoremainontheoutskirtsoftheprimaryBandler-Grindergroup.Atthe end of 1978, when the relationship between Grinder and Bandler

disintegrated, Rice completely disconnected himself from the NLP foundingcircle.Heneverrejoinedtheoriginalgroup,andhisworkproceededtodevelopalongaveryseparatetrack(J.Rice,personalcommunication,June2011).

Working from the perspective of his formal academic background inpsychologyandhisneedtorespondcreativelytothedemandsofadailyclinicalpractice, JonathanRicehimselfdeveloped thatwhichhehadbeenseeking.Bythemiddle1980shehadextendedtheNLPofthe1970sintohisownevolutionof it: a cohesive psychotherapy that combined the fundamental core ofdevelopmentalpsychologywiththeperceptualtoolsandpowerfulinterventionsof NLP. It was this synthesis, of the mid-1980s, that Rice then taught to hisstudents.TransformationalNLPevolvedfromtheteachingsofJonathanRice.

DifferencesbetweenMainstreamNLPandJonathanRice’sNLPThereare somekeydifferencesbetween theNLPdevelopedby JonathanRiceand taught to his students, and the way that most NLP is practiced today.Perhaps the most significant dissimilarity is the practice of NLP as acombination of discrete techniques (in conventional NLP) as compared toapplying NLP methodologies within the larger psychological context of aperson’s life. There are numerous other differences in style and technique. InRice’s approach, eye-accessing and other physiology cues are vastly moreimportantthaninconventionalNLP.Hepaysconstantattentiontoquestionsofbeliefandecology,andratherthanworkingfromascript,hecustomizesallre-imprintingactivityforeachclient individually.Also,Rice’swork isconductedconversationally,while seated facing the client, andmakes little use of spatialanchorsarrayedalongthefloorsuchasusedinconventionalNLPchangework.

NLPASTECHNIQUESVERSUSNLPWITHINPSYCHOTHERAPYAs described above,Grinder andBandlerwere fascinatedwith techniques forquick as well as powerful change; they largely ignored the contexts of theirclients’ problems and experiences. Indeed, they often denigrated traditionalpsychotherapy’s common practice of paying attention to past events andchildhood issues (J. Rice, personal communication, June 2011).Most of theirstudentsreflectedandinturntaughtthisapproach,anditbecamestandardasthe

basis for NLP practice up to the present time. One of the remarkable thingsaboutthesetechniquesisthatthismaterialishighlyeffectivemuchofthetime.Many students of conventional NLP become adept technicians of change andhealing without focusing on the childhood traumas that formed the basis ofpresentpatternsofbeliefandbehavior.

Thereismuchtobesaidforanytransformationmodalitythatcanopenthewaytoabetterfuturesoquicklyanddirectly,withouthavingtopayattentiontoone’spainfulpastexperience.However,withoutrespectfulacknowledgmentofthe strength and dignity that have come through such hard-won past learning,this process can fall short of providing a stablebasis for futuregrowth. Inhiswork as a psychotherapist, Rice found that acknowledging and reframing thepastisalmostalwaysthebestwaytocreategoodrapportwiththefuture.

JonathanRiceworkedwith conventionalNLPmethodologies as part of aninternally consistent psychotherapy that was inclusive of the client’s entireexperience. He used the information-gathering and behavior re-patterningtechniquesofNLPonlywhentheywereappropriateandusefulwithinhismodelof one-to-one psychotherapy, a model that emphasized attention to childhooddevelopmental stages and traumas—subjects inwhichmost conventionalNLPpractitionerswereat that timenot interested(J.Rice,personalcommunication,November2011).

InRice’s view, peoplewho came to his officewere usually stuck in self-limiting patterns of thought and behavior developed in response to childhoodtrauma. If these issueswere not resolved, the clientwould stay stuck in thesepatterns.EvenifisolatedNLPtechniqueswereabletochangeabitofbehavior,the patternswould likelymanifest in another form thatwouldbe equally self-limiting.Therefore,Ricefocusedonrevealingandresolvingchildhoodtraumaticeventsthatwerethebasisoftheadultclient’sproblemsinthepresent.HepaidmoreattentionthanotherNLPpractitionerstotheclient’sphysiologyasitwascorrelatedwith internal representations, since it offered clues to the origins ofthe imprints of childhood trauma (J. Rice, personal communications, January2015).1

Rice was oriented toward flexibility and creativity in addressing what theclient presented rather than proceedingwith specific, pre-packaged techniques(J. Rice, personal communication, January 2015).While his client work mayhaveincludedoneormoreofthestandardized,proceduralchangeformats,suchasthephobiafixorchangingpersonalhistory,heusedsuchtechniquesmainlytospecify and stabilize changes that had been set in motion through his

conversational interactionwith the client.Rice gradually extended and refinedtheNLPtoolboxspecificallyforthispurpose(J.Rice,personalcommunication,November2011).

STANDINGVERSUSSEATEDINTERACTIONThe dissimilarity betweenNLP as a series of techniques as compared toNLPmethodologiesincorporatedintopsychotherapyisexemplifiedbythedifferencebetweenstandingwhileperformingaspecifictechniqueandsittingwhilehavinga conversational interaction. Robert Dilts and most mainstream NLPpractitionersuse“walkingtimelines”astheirprimarymeansofeffectingchangein clients. The client physically stands and steps from one spatial anchor toanother. S/he walks on specific locations on the floor that have beenintentionally associated with a current problem state that the client wants tochange,suchasabeliefthats/heisunworthyornotcapableofsuccess,andthedesired resource state, such as a feeling of confidence and self-respect and abelief in one’s capabilities. The clients walk on a physically marked out(although imaginary) timeline that connects the spatial anchors on the floor(Dilts,1990).

Thiswalking timeline formathas anumberofbenefits. It assists clients tobecomemoreawareoftheirunconsciousexperience.Also,thisformatcanoftensupply important information about significant ecology issues, albeit at aconscious-mindlevel(sincethewalkingtimelinereliesprimarilyontheclient’sconscious experience and capacity to accurately self-report). Additionally, theprocess of actual physical movement onto and off anchored locations on thetimeline allows for effective association and dissociation, representationalmaneuversthatareanessentialpartofreorganizingalmostanyneuro-linguisticpatterning.Diltsbelievesthatthewalkingtimeline,becauseitisbasedonhavingtheclientmoveamongdiscretespatialanchors,alsohelpstosortandsegregateeventssotheycanbedealtwithoneatatime(Dilts,1990).

The walking timeline has several advantages over other anchoring-basedchangetechniques,suchastouchanchors(e.g.,squeezingsomeone’sarm).Forone thing,walking timelines involve usingphysicalmovement as an analoguefor emotional progression. The instruction to “take this [confidence] and stepinto that [upcoming family interaction]” is easier to grasp when the client isactuallysteppingfromanexternal“here”toanexternal“there”(steppingfromoneactualflooranchortoanother).

Awalkingtimelinealsohastheadvantagebeinghighlyprocedural,becauseitisliterallyastep-by-stepprocedure(havethepersondothis,andthenthat,andthenthis).Itisauniformprocessthatfocusesonaddressingspecificsymptoms.Itiseasilylearned,becausethestudentcanalwaysreadwhatthe“nextstep”isin the class manual. Also, it can be demonstrated to hundreds of peoplesimultaneously, in a mass audience venue, because each student can followalongwith theprocedural instructions.Becauseof itsexplicitandreproduciblenature, the walking timeline is the functional basis for a large number ofrelativelyquicktechniques.

Most mainstream NLP practitioners continue to mainly use the walkingtimeline, which utilizes floor anchors rather than touch anchors for changework.2Duringthe1980sandcontinuingtothepresent,Diltsandhisfollowersdevelopedaplethoraofflooranchortechniquesandstrategies.

Incontrast,Riceworkedwithclientswhilesittingandtalking,inthestyleofmodern(couchless)psychotherapy.Hetaughtaformatforinteractingwiththeclient for several hours, using multiple change interventions comprised of anumberofcontinuouslyinterweavingelementsratherthanaquick,one-processtechnique(J.Rice,personalcommunication,November2011).

Because theseated interactionformat isconversationaland,unlikewalkingtimelines,doesnotincludespecificprocedures,itprovidesmoreopportunityforreframing. Reframing by itself is a profound intervention. For example, inconversation,usingNLP tools thatare seamlessly interwoven in theexchange,the NLP practitioner can instill in the client the understanding that painfulincidentsinthepastformedthebasisforhisorherpersonalgrowthandcurrentknowledgeandskills.Suchreframingchangesthemeaningofthepast.Throughreframing,thereisashiftintheemotionsassociatedwiththenarrativeofwhathappened.Reframingcan involvemakingdirectchanges to the representationsof images or sounds from the past, but it is more usually accomplishedindirectly, through re-description and re-definition of the past, present, andfuture.

While he rarely used standing interventions such as the walking timeline,during the seated interactions Rice made frequent but subtle use of spatialanchors,mainly throughmodifyinghis postureormaking certaingestures.Heemphasizedtheuseofkinesthetic,visual,andauditoryanchoringasastandardpartofclientwork.Ricebelievedthat,comparedwithusingonlyself-generatedfloor anchors, this wider range of anchoring modalities allows for greaterprecision and control. This enables the practitioner to more accurately adjust

nuancesoftheanchoringprocesstomatchtheneedsoftheclientinthemoment(J.Rice,personalcommunication,November2011).

EYE-ACCESSINGCUESOneofthemostsignificantcontributionsofJonathanRicewashisextensionandrefinement ofworkwithwhatNLP practitioners call “eye-accessing cues,” orobservable eye movements that correlate with internal images of emotionalexperiences.ThefoundersofNLPdiscovered,formalized,andworkedwitheye-accessing patterns in the mid-seventies (McClendon, 1989). It had long beencommon knowledge that humans both generate and store experience throughinternalrepresentationsofthefivesenses:visual,auditory,kinesthetic,olfactory,and gustatory (sight, hearing, feeling and emotion, smell, and taste). Theserepresentations are in both conscious and unconscious awareness. However,GrinderandBandlerwerethefirsttocorrelatetheseinternalsensoryeventswithexternally observable, real-time changes in the physical body (Dilts andHallbom,2009).

Eyemovementsthatindicateinternalsensory(representational)eventswerethemostnotableandeasilyobservableoftheseearlydiscoveriesrelatedtobodychanges.GrinderandBandlerandtheirstudentsbeganusingtheseeye-accessingcues to gain immediate knowledge of the clients’ purely internal, and usuallyunconscious,processes.The founders soonnoticed that thepatterningof theseeyemovements was also an excellent source of information about a person’smost natural and preferred ways of processing information, and that, asdescribedbelow,theaccessesthemselvescouldbeusedtosupport thecreationofsafetyandrapportwiththeclient(Dilts,2008;McClendon,1989).

One of the most intriguing aspects of eye-movement patterns was whatbecameknownas“thehalf-secondrule.”Inthe1840s,theGermanphysiologistHermannHelmholtzhadfoundthatnerveimpulsesarenotbroughttoconsciousawareness immediately.Helmholtz and his assistant,WilhelmWundt, showedthat it takesa fractionofasecondforanysensorymessage to reach thebrain,andmoretimetoprocesswhatitis.Inthe1960s,neuroscientistBenjaminLibetdemonstratedinanumberofstudiesthatconsciousnessnormallytakesahalfofasecondtoprocessasensoryevent.Thatistosay,ittakesabouthalfofasecondbeforepeoplehaveaconsciousexperienceofasensation(McCrone,2006).3

What became known as the half-second rule was taught in CognitivePsychologyclasses in the1970s.RobertDilts tookclasses inpsychobiologyat

theUniversityofCaliforniainSantaCruzin1973,wherehelearnedthatittakesabout a half second for an externally or internally generated stimulus to reachconsciousawareness(R.Dilts,personalcommunication,October2014).HeandtheothermembersoftheNLPcirclefoundthatwhenaclientwasasked,“whatstops you from getting what you want?” as part of efforts to elicit consciousinformation, the client immediately made distinct eye movements. Theydiscovered that such eye movements are always correlated with internalrepresentationalevents.Askingthisquestioninrelationtoadesiredbutblockedoutcome would always produce nearly instantaneous, completely unconsciouseyemovements.The internalpictures,sounds,andfeelingsassociatedwith theunconscious eyemovements that took place within the first half secondwerealwayslinkedtoarepresentationthatpointedto theanswerto thisquestion(J.Rice, personal communications, November 2011 and August 2014; R. Dilts,personalcommunication,October2014).AsDiltsdescribes,“Ibeganapplyingthislawofperceptiontoidentifying[preconscious]responsestoquestionsand...calibrating limiting thoughtsandbeliefs fromthe timeIwasfirst involved inNLP[in1976].”InJune1980Diltsbeganwritingabookinwhichhediscussedapplying the half-second rule to identify limiting beliefs.The half-second rulewas also the basis for his biofeedback patent thatwas filed in 1983 (R.Dilts,personalcommunication,October2014).4

Mostpsychotherapistswill eventually ask their clients someversionof thequestion,“Whatstopsyoufromhavingwhatyouwant?”ForpractitionerswhoarenottrainedinNLP,orwhoareinadequatelytrained,thisquestionisusedtoelicit conscious content about the client’s experience. Some practitioners alsoask clients to describe the pictures or sounds that they are experiencing.However theclient is frequentlynotawareon theconscious levelofwhatwasactually being perceived, so the answers are usually about the content ofmemories stored in the conscious mind. The discovery and use of the half-secondruletogetaccesstotheclient’sunconsciouswasamajorbreakthrough.

RobertDiltsandJonathanRicebothmadeuseofthehalf-secondruleintheirpracticeandtrainings,buttheyuseditdifferently.DiltsreferstoitinaparagraphinhisbookBeliefs(Dilts,etal.,1990):

WhenIamworkingwithpeople,Ifrequentlyaskthequestion,“Whatstopsyou fromachievingyourdesiredoutcome?” I then look foran immediateunconsciousphysiological response thatcomesbefore theyhaveachancetoconsciouslythinkaboutit.(Thisiscalledthehalf-secondrule.)I’mnot

asinterestedintheverbalanswerasIamthenon-verbalcuesthatoccurinthefirsthalf-secondthatletsmeknowpreciselyhowthepersonisgettingstuck.(p.124)

Then,DiltsusesoneoftheNLPtechniquestodealwiththerepresentationsassociatedwiththisevent.Apreferredmethodistoresolveinternalconflictsbyintegrating eye movements. “This installs a new pathway for accessing herresourcesandgiveshermorechoicesaboutherbeliefsandbehaviors”(p.125).

Ricefoundadifferentwaytoworkwiththehalf-secondeye-accesscues.Hebelievedthatthisdiscoveryhadmonumentalsignificanceforpsychotherapy,andhe made it the center of his practice. As a psychotherapist, he had for yearsrealized that discussions about content are largely useless for gaining newknowledgeaboutthespecificsoftheclient’sunconsciousinternalprocesses.Herealized that“they [therapists in the1970sand1980s]hadno ideawhere theyweregoing”(J.Rice,personalcommunication,January2015).HeobservedthatanyconsciousunderstandingwasnotlikelytoleadtheNLPpractitioner,either,to something newly useful. Hence, Rice was driven to discover a replicablemethodologytoreliablyandpreciselyaccessinformationaboutearlylifetraumafromtheunconscious(J,Rice,personalcommunication,November2011).

Riceand theothermembersof theNLPgrouphadbeen taughtbyGrinderand Bandler from the earliest meetings to look for age regression, which thefounders had learned from the videos of Fritz Perls. Rice observed thatunmistakablephysiologicalsignsofageregressionalwaysaccompaniedtheeye-accessinthefirsthalfsecondafterheasked,“Whatstopsyou?”Herealizedthatthis was a key to accessing imprints of childhood traumas (J. Rice, personalcommunications,November2011).

Overtime,Ricenoticedthatthecloserheputthequestions“Whatwouldyoulike?”and“Whatstopsyou?”together,thestrongerwastheresponsethathegotfromtheclient.Accordingly,Riceformulatedwhathecalledthe“CoreSortingQuestions” as a way to quickly provoke the client’s brain into generatingunconsciouseyemovementsthatcouldbecorrelatedwithout-of-consciousnessinternal representations (usually images and sounds) connected with pasttrauma.5 Core Sorting involves asking only two or three of the five mainquestionsoftheOutcomeFrame,whichisasetofquestionsformulatedbythefounders of NLP originally to gather conscious-content information about theconcernsandgoalsof theclient.ButunlikeclassicOutcomeFramequestions,

Rice’sCoreSortingquestions are askednot somuch toget information aboutconscious content as to lead up to the question, “What stops you?” Thequestion’s purpose is only to elicit eye-accessing cues, which occurautomatically in the first one-quarter to one-half second after the client hearsthose words. While Rice often used the entire Outcome Frame information-gathering format as part of his interaction with clients, observing their eyemovements during the entire process, he specifically used the Core Sortingquestions as a way to be sure that he was pinpointing original sensoryrepresentations connected with childhood trauma that had resulted in self-limitingthoughts,emotions,andbehavior.RicealsousedCoreSortingquestionsasaway todemonstrate tostudents that thismethodofelicitingeye-accessingcues works reliably, again and again, in answer to the question “What stopsyou?”(J.Rice,personalcommunications,June2011,January2015,andAugust2014).6

Ricelearnedthathecouldhavetheclientdeliberatelyholdaspecificaccess,thus stabilizing the client’s attention on the difficult repressed past content.Usingrapportandskillful language,hecouldtheninvitetheclienttobringtheheretofore unconscious content revealed by the eye accessing into present,consciousawareness.Fromthisplace,itwasarelativelystraightforwardprocesstorecoverevenmoreawarenessofthecontentofthepastimprintedexperiences,includingarapid,consciousunderstandingofthedecisionsandbeliefsthatwereoriginally created during the moments of the imprinted past trauma (J. Rice,personalcommunication,November2011).

Nowthepractitionercouldtaketimetocarefullyandthoroughlyunpacktheliteralcontentofthepastexperiences,(i.e.,thespecificeventsinvolvingspecificpeople in a specific time and place.) Thus the therapist could gain access toinformation about events, decisions, and beliefs that had until now operatedunconsciouslyintheclient’sunwantedpatterning.Forexample,oncehenoticedageregressionRicewouldoftenask,“So—what’shappeningthere,what’sgoingon[inthatmaterialyouhavejustdiscoveredthatyouhaveconsciousknowledgeof now]?” The client would experience very strong feelings as s/he becameconsciouslyawareoftheeventsandemotionsassociatedwiththememoriesthatwere,untiljustafewsecondsearlier,completelyrepressed.Ricefoundthatthis“unpacking what stops you” process was indefinitely repeatable for eachindividual,as s/hewouldalwaysaccess in thesamewayswhenunconsciouslyencountering the same imprinted childhood experiences (J. Rice, personalcommunication,November2011).

Thus, Jonathan Rice expanded and refined a methodology that assistedclientstoresourcefullyregresstoanexperienceofthechildhoodtraumaduringwhichtheperson’sunconscioussystemhadacquiredtheimprintingthatbecamestabilized,was generalized, and then produced severe, apparently inexplicableconstraints on freedom and well-being. He now had a reliable way to nearlyinstantly provoke age regression and access original (or representative)unconsciousinstancesofpasttraumaticlearning.Althoughlongagorelegatedtothe realm of the unconscious, precisely because of its emotionally difficultnature, thispastcontenthadcontinuedtoaffect thebeliefsandbehaviorof theadultinthepresent.Ricefoundthatbybringingthesepictures,sounds,smells,or tastes to the client’s conscious awareness—while maintaining rapport andsafety here and now—he could assist the client to immediately recoverconscious awareness of the original childhood trauma that had generated apattern of core beliefs that formed the basis of the person’s identity. Ricerealized that this information from the unconsciouswas extremely useful as aplacefromwhichtobegintheprocessofre-imprintinglimitingbeliefs(J.Rice,personalcommunication,November2011).

Almostwithout exception, the situations and events revealed in the “Whatstops you?” eye-accessing process are inaccessible by other means. Materialrevealed in this rapid, often startling way is of a type and nature that almostnever arises in a conventional client/therapist conversation. It is nearly alwayscompletelysurprising to theclient,yet italwaysaccounts for theclient’smostpainful experiences of fear, lack, or limitation in life. A very thoroughapplicationof thisprocess isextremelyquick,amatterofonlya fewminutes.Once theoriginal imprints,and thedecisionsandbeliefsassociatedwith them,are unpacked, the practitioner can then choose among a variety of NLPapproachesandtechniquestobegintheprocessofbehavior,belief,andidentityrevision.

CHANGINGLIMITINGBELIEFSIn the 1980s, a number of participants in the original Bandler-Grinder groupexperimented with techniques and patterns to change beliefs that wouldeventuallybeassembledundertherubricof“belief-levelchange.”RobertDiltsandJonathanRiceindependentlyevolveddifferentwaystoworkwithbeliefs.

Robert Dilts based his work with beliefs on what he had learned fromGrinder and Bandler, including their interpretation of the work of Milton

Erickson.SinceDiltshadnotstudiedpsychologyorchilddevelopment,hedidnotusetheframesofpsychotherapy(DiltsandHallbom,2009).

In contrast, JonathanRicehaddevelopedhisunderstanding andworkwithbeliefs within the conceptual framework of psychotherapy and childhooddevelopment. Rice’s training was in childhood development, and he wasaccustomedtoapproachinghisworkwithclientsthroughthelensofbeliefsandchildhood belief development. He was extremely attuned to the positiveintentions (e.g., to survive or gain love) of decisions made by childrenexperiencing threat or loss at various stages of psychological development.Hence, Rice paid more attention than Dilts to the original (almost alwaysunconscious)decisionsmadeby thechild,decisions that thencontinuedas thefoundationofpatterningthatwouldmanifestaslifelongpainandlimitation.Heknew from his clinical experience that if clients could change beliefs anddecisions that had originated in childhood, this could influence the entireconstellation of their thoughts, emotions, and behavior (J. Rice, personalcommunication,June2011).

THEECOLOGYOFPERSONALCHANGEIn common NLP parlance, the term “ecology objections” refers to a client’susuallyunconsciousobjections toconsciouslydesiredchange. In thecourseofchangework,anecologyobjectionusuallyarisesbecauseofunconsciousfearsabout how a supposedly good outcome may affect one’s way of life, one’srelationships,one’sbelief system,or evenone’s core identity (BosticSt.ClairandGrinder,2001;Diltsetal.,1990).

In the 1987 transcription of the seminars led by John Grinder and JudithDeLozierentitledTurtlesAlltheWayDown:PrerequisitestoPersonalGenius,thetwotrainersoccasionallyalludetoecologyobjectionsastheclient’sconcernto avoid potential disruption of the stability of his or hermodel of theworld.However,theydonotpursuethissubjectindetailorexplainhowtoworkwithitinclients(GrinderandDeLozier,1987).

RobertDiltspaidmoreattentionthanthefounderstopossibleecologyissues.Hetaughthisstudents todoanecologychecktofindobjections to thedesiredoutcome.Heaskedclients to respond,onaconscious level, toquestionsaboutanyproblemsordifficultiesthatmightresultiftheyhadtheirdesiredoutcome,or whether any part of them has an objection to having the outcome (Dilts,1990).

Jonathan Rice also maintained that permanent change cannot beaccomplishedwithout addressingecologyconsiderations.However,becauseofhistraininginpsychology,RicepaidevenmoreattentionthanDiltstotheissuesof ecology that always surround the revision of beliefs. While Dilts usuallyasked clients to describe their conscious thoughts about possible ecologyproblems, Rice focused more on understanding and resolving unconsciousecologyobjectionstothedesiredstateexperience.Heusedbothcalibrationskillsand his extensive understanding of childhood development to reveal deeplyhidden patterning and meaning that, unnoticed and unaddressed, wouldeventually nullify the changes the client wanted (J. Rice, personalcommunication,June2011).

Becauseofhispsychotherapeutic training,Ricewasable tofollowthetrailof personal ecology and early belief formation into the intense and usuallynebulous territory of imprinted early childhood experience. Rice probed into,andevokedconsciousawarenessof, theearlychildhoodexperiencesandneedsthat were drivers for early decisions and essential behavior patterning thatremained to become mysterious—and apparently unshakeable—adultdysfunction.Ricetaughthisstudentsthatthroughrigorousrespectforthelargerecologyof the client’s experience across time, a practitioner’s revisions in theclient’soldpatterningwillmorenaturallyalignwithandsupportthefulfillmentof the client’s desired experience in the present and future (J. Rice, personalcommunication,June2011).

RE-IMPRINTINGAn imprint is a persisting constellation ofVAKOG representations that is theconsequenceofasurvivedtraumaticexperience,usuallyoccurringduringearlychildhood. These traumas include life-threatening (or apparently life-threatening)momentsofshock,loss,orpain.Thememoryoftheexperienceandtheaccompanyingemotionsare“imprinted”onthenervoussystem,alongwiththedecisionthechildmadeaboutthecauseandmeaningoftheexperienceinadesperateattempttomakethetraumaticsituationunderstandableand,therefore,more endurable.This decisionbecomes a belief, usually out of consciousness,thatguidesthechild’sactionsfortherestofhisorherlife.

Let us take as an example a child who survives an intensely frighteningabandonment, either an all-at-once event or pain and loss a little bit at a timeoveralongperiod.Thechildmayconclude,“Iamnotworthcaringabout.”This

decisionhelpsthechildtounderstandwhythingsarethewaytheyare,butitishorriblylife-limiting.

As discussed earlier, the experiences we learn to survive become theexperiences upon which our continued survival will depend. It is preciselybecausea traumatic situation is experienced tobe so life-threatening, and thenwassurvived,thatforourcreaturebrainsitbecomesanecessarykeytofurthersurvival. Therefore, it becomes what I have labeled as “quarantined.”“Quarantined patterning” remains untouched by later experience and learning.Theneurologicalimprintofthetraumaticexperience,andtheemotions,beliefs,and patterns of behavior that are associated with it, are fixed and madeunavailableforrevision;theybecomeunavailableforfurtherlearning,nomatterhow many experiences may occur throughout the person’s life that latercontradicttheoriginaldecision.

Thecreaturebraindoesnotcarewhetherornotthehumanbrainishappy;itcaresonlyabout itssurvival inphysical reality. In theremarkablenon-logicofcreature-level association, the terrible pain of abandonment (in this example)becomesnecessaryforcontinuedsurvivalpreciselybecause itcouldhavebeenfatal,butwassurvived.Becausethisterriblepainhasbeensurvived,itbecomesan experience profoundly associated with survival, and actually becomesessentialforfuturesurvival.Somethingthatisessentialforbasicsurvivalcannotbepermittedtochangeevenalittlebit,sothepatterningthatcontrolsitwillbequarantined.Onceitbecomesquarantined,unlessthereisanunusuallyeffectiveintervention, the patterning will never change. Consequently, the coredecisions/beliefsgeneratedbythispatterningwillneverreallychange,nomatterwhat happens later. The personwill go through his/her life both resisting andexpecting abandonment, hoping and working for love while waiting to beunwanted and left. The quarantined imprint patterning will manifest itself asrepeating isomorphic (things having the same shape) experiences, as similarsituations occurring again and again in the person’s life, and the person willdevelop a remarkable capacity to consistentlymake the “wrong choice” aboutpartners,friends,andbosses.

Occasionally, certain life eventsmaybreak throughaperson’squarantinedpatterningandreviseoutdatedbeliefs.Forexample, sometimesa“breakdown”will result in a “breakthrough” after a while. But this progression is rare.Normally,apersonwithawell-protectedbeliefabouthis/herworthlessnesscanwinaNobelPrize,andall thiswilldo isprove tohim/her thatevenworthlesspeoplecanbecomeNobellaureates.

There is good news, however: even quarantined imprints can be changedthrough skillful re-imprinting. Re-imprinting is a procedure to reorganizeinformationavailabilityandprocessinginthehumannervoussysteminordertorevise significant imprinted representations that form the basis of a person’sidentity, beliefs, and behavior. It can change patterns and neuro-linguisticprogramsnomatter how long theyhavebeen running andhowprotected theymaybeinthehumanoperatingsystem.

Re-imprintingisabasictoolineveryversionandschoolofNLP.Thereareonly minor differences between the basic steps of the procedure known asChangingPersonalHistory,which isusually taughtasa rudimentaryskill,andthe more advanced proficiency of re-imprinting. Both of these proceduresinvolvecreatingandcollapsinganchors tomove frompresent-state todesired-stateexperiences.However, theintention—andthereforetheactualprogression—of the two procedures is different. The technique of Changing PersonalHistory seeks only to add a resource that will allow the client’s painful orunpleasant feelings about a past event to feel better in the present. (Thename“Changing Personal History” is tongue-in-cheek, because of course thetechniquedoesnotchangeanythinghistorically.Itsimplyprovidesachangeofemotionalstatesabout thepast.) Incontrast, re-imprintingdoesnotnecessarilyseektomakeanythingfeelbetterorbebetterimmediately(althoughitoftenhasthis effect). Re-imprinting is a much broader endeavor to revise a number ofcomplex belief and identity-level meanings that have stabilized lifelonglimitations. During the process of re-imprinting, the practitioner seeks tounderstand and revise the interplay of whole clusters of out-of-date, hyper-stabilized beliefs. Re-imprinting is thus a process of significant internal maprevision that is intended to integrate into a person’s experience over time. Itrequires vastly greater rapport, experience, nuanced attention, and depth ofinquiryonthepartofthepractitioner.

The techniqueof re-imprintingdevelopedorganicallyand independently intheworkofbothRobertDiltsandJonathanRice.Bothmenhadastrongdesiretobeabletoworkwithissuesinvolvingbeliefs.Diltsdevelopedtheprocessofre-imprinting as a result of his association with Timothy Leary, the famous1960s guru of consciousness transformation. In the early 1980s Leary studiedNLP with Dilts to improve his abilities in public speaking, and they becamefriends. Leary explained to Dilts his theory that much of our internal andexternalbehaviorispatternedfromimprints.ThetheoryofimprintinginanimalscomesfromtheworkofKonradLorenz,forwhichhereceivedtheNobelPrize

in 1973. In discussions with Leary, Dilts realized that traumatic experiencesduring childhood frequently cause imprints that significantly affect thedevelopment of belief and identity across the span of an entire lifetime. ThisrealizationevolvedintoDilts’stechniqueofre-imprinting(Dilts,etal.,1990).

InhisbookChangingBeliefSystemswithNLP(1990),RobertDiltsexplainsthat an imprint is a belief or an identity-forming experience that occurred inearly childhood.The imprint is an archetype for how to feel and interactwithothers.Thus,one’searlyexperiencesaffectone’spresentemotionsandabilitytorelatewithothers.Theyalsocreateassociationsbetweeneventsandfeelings—for example, between abuse and pleasure—that are not always appropriate orhealthful for the child in the past or the adult in the present. InBeliefs Diltsstates:“Researchvalidates thatoftenpeoplewhohavebeenabusedaschildrenunconsciously get into relationships, as adults, that repeat their childhoodexperience.Forexample,oftenwomenwhohavebeenabusedaschildrenmarrymenwho abuse themas adults.Maleswhowere beaten as a childmay abusetheir own children. . . . People abused as children can imprint that this is thetypical behavior associatedwith fathers,mothers, husbands orwives (Dilts, etal.,1990,p.60).

Dilts writes, “if we can get back to the first belief and shift that one,everything else starts to rearrange itself” (Dilts, 1990, p. 116).Dilts describesTimothyLeary’sbreakthroughinsight:

Learycontended...thatundertheproperconditions,contentthathadbeenimprinted . . . could be accessed and reprogrammed, or ‘re-imprinted.’Learyconsideredimprintstobeassociatedwithcertainbiochemicalstates,andbelieved that if the state couldbe re-accessed throughdrugs (suchasLSD)apersoncouldbe ‘re-imprinted’andsubstitutenewexperiences forthose which had originally been associated during the initial imprintingperiod. . . .[AfterdiscussionwithDilts]LearybecameinterestedinNLPand hypnosis as other methods to change imprints that avoided theuncertaintiesandecologicalproblemsofLSD.(Dilts,1996b)

Jonathan Rice developed his own methodology for re-imprintingindependentlyofDiltsandLeary.HewasnotincontactwithDiltsafter1978.In1981RicemetShannonSobel, a bodyworkerwhocombinedpolarity therapyandGestalt therapy, andhewas invited to sit in on her client sessions.WhileobservingSobel’sworkRicenoticedprofoundageregressionintheclients,and

he and Sobel began to pay more attention to this process. They rememberedKonradLorenz’sstudyofanimalimprintingatveryearlystagesofdevelopment,andheandSobelbegantoteaseoutelementsofbeliefformationbytheclientsatthe ages to which they had regressed (J. Rice, personal communications,November2011andJanuary2015).

For many years, Sobel had used bodywork to shift her clients intoexperiencesof“ageregression.”Anage-regressedstateisaconditioninwhichaperson experiences present time through the emotions and belief filters of amuchyoungerversionofhim/herself.Intherapeuticsituations,theseregressionsaretypicallymadetochildhoodsituationsinwhichthreatortraumasparkedthecreationofbeliefsthatledtolifelongsufferingandlimitation.AsSobelandRiceworked together, they developed a format that combined her bodywork withNLP techniques.Theywould use one room to explore their client’s unwantedexperience. They would then move the client to another room in which theywouldelicitandstabilizetheresourcestatesthat,ifintegratedintothepatterningoftheunwantedpresentstate,wouldresultinanewintegrationthatwouldopentheway to theclient’sdesiredstate.Then theywould rapidlyphysicallymovetheclient from the second roomback into the firstone—thus“collapsing” thetwodifferentexperiencesintoeachother.Sobelreferredtothisprocessasaformofre-imprinting(J.Rice,personalcommunication,November2011).

ShannonSobeldiedin1984.Ricewasleftwiththequestionofhowtohelphisclientsaccessoriginalimprintedstateswithoutthebenefitofthebody-basedworkthatSobelhadprovided.Hefoundthatbyusingthehalf-secondeyeaccessmethod,hewasabletoaccessoriginaltraumastatesasreliably,andoftenmorereliably,thanwhenheandSobelhadaccomplishedthisthroughherbody-basedinterventions.Then,hecouldre-imprinttheclientwithtouchandotheranchorswhileseatedinoneplace(J.Rice,personalcommunication,November2011).

There are some striking differences in the way that Rice and Diltsimplementedthetechniqueofre-imprinting.Asdescribedabove,Diltspracticedre-imprintingmainlybyusingawalkingtimeline.Incontrast,becausehisworkwasbasedonhisexperienceasapsychologist,Riceconductedhisre-imprintingprocesses within a more conventional-appearing, seated, psychotherapeuticinteraction,usingmostlytouchratherthanfloor(spatial)anchors.

Also, Dilts paid less attention to the client’s emotions. The Dilts formatsweredesigned toattenuate theclient’sexperienceofunpleasant feelings.Rice,however, often centered his therapy on accessing emotional states as part ofmodifying the patterning that hadmade these experiences problematic for the

client in thepast. Inaccordwith the latest research inpsychologyat that time,Ricefoundthattheresultsofthechangeworkcouldbedeeperandlongerlastingif thework involved an experience of emotional release that accompanied thecognitiverestructuring(J.Rice,personalcommunication,November2011).

Another difference in the re-imprinting methods of Dilts and Rice is theextent towhich they includeda formatknownas“re-imprintingothers” in thesystem as a routine part of re-imprinting work. This format involves makingchanges in the client’s present experience of others who were significantparticipantsintheclient’sdifficultortraumaticpastexperience.

Dilts believed that, since limiting beliefs are usually a consequence of theclient’spastinteractionswithpeopleinthefamilyorsocialsystem,itisusefultohelp the client to take resources to these significant others (Dilts, 1990).Diltsinstructedtheclienttoassociateinto—thatis, toimagineseeingfromthepointofviewof—asignificantotherinthepastexperience,andtoviewtheincidentfromthatotherperson’spointofview.Heaskedtheclienttodiscernthepositiveintent of the other person’s behavior in the situation. Dilts then found anappropriate resourceandanchored it.The resourcewas thencollapsed into theclient’s past experiencebyhaving the client physically step into the internallyimagedotherpersononthespatialtimelinethatwasalreadymarkedoutonthefloor. Dilts’s students are taught to use this procedure—to collapse resourcestatesintointernalrepresentationsoftheclient’ssignificantothers—asaroutinestepinre-imprinting(Dilts,1990).

Rice did not always find it a best practice to include the technique of re-imprinting significant others, so he did not teach it as a standard procedure.Whileheshowedhisstudentssomeillustrativedemonstrationsoffinding“new”resources for others in the system, he was usually reluctant to rely on thistechniquetocreatebetterexperienceinthepresent.Hispreferencewastohavetheclientfindawaytoutilizetheoriginalexperienceasabasisforchangeinthepresent.Forexample,hebelievedthatinsomesituationsitwasmoreusefulforthe client to continue to have access to the original memory so s/he couldexperience that s/he had choice regarding how s/he felt about what happeneddespite theactualfactsofhowtheothersbehaved.Asanotherexample,itmaybe helpful for a client to understand that thingsmight not have been differenteven if theothershadbehaveddifferently.Also,withre-imprintingaswithallhismethods,Rice’sworkwasneverbasedona“recipecard”approach(i.e.,onewayof doing things that is presumed to be appropriate every timewith everyclient)(J.Rice,personalcommunication,November2011).

JonathanRiceusedNLPto improve theprecision,effectiveness,anddepthof his practice of psychotherapy. In the process he created a new paradigm,differentfromthatofGrinderandBandlerorDilts,thatwasneitherconventionalhumanistic psychotherapy nor conventional NLP. By folding the new field ofNLP into his experience as a psychologist and therapist, and by infusing andrevising NLP with this same experience, Rice achieved a vital synthesis thatstrengthenedandenrichedbothfields.

CHAPTERVI

TransformationalNLP

TheInfluenceofJonathanRiceJonathanRiceappliedmanyoftheinnovativediscoveriesofNLPinhisclinicalpsychotherapypractice.ItwastheoriginalSantaCruzgrouparoundBandlerandGrinder that first correlated externally visible changes in physiology withreliableunderstanding,inrealtime,abouthowapersonwasoperatinginternallytogeneratehisorherexperience.Itwasalsotheoriginalgroupthatdiscovered“strategies” (working with representational sequences that lead to particularoutcomes of experience) and thereby revealed the representational operationswithin the mind, which the behaviorists had considered to be an unknowable“black box.”Yet, after just a few years,muchNLP training and practicewasminimizing attention to these astounding discoveries and the remarkablebehavioralandperceptual tools thatweredevelopedbecauseof them.AsJohnGrinder later complained, some of the schools that called themselves NLPignoredthespiritofwhatthefoundershadtriedtodo.Theonesthatcamealonglater substituted easily-learned formulas in place of creative intervention(GrinderandPucelik,2013).Much importantmaterialwasdownplayedor justleftbehind.

Working on his own after the break-up of theSantaCruz group, JonathanRice continued to use the full scope of original techniques within hispsychotherapeutic process. Instead of viewing NLP as a set of stand-aloneformulas for treating symptoms, Rice taught his students that mastery of thephysiology-based perceptual/behavioral skill set was key to artful and rapidtherapeutic success. He said, “When in doubt, follow the physiology!” Heemphasized using multiple cues occurring outside of the client’s consciousawareness and control, such as eye movements and other physiologicalindicators,torevealandconnectinformationaboutsubtlecomponentsoftheall-

important intended positive outcomes that are always aspects of adaptation toearly childhood trauma. Rice leaned on research from the field of childhooddevelopmenttogroundandorganizetheconceptualandemotionalspaceswithinwhich he worked with ecology concerns and limiting beliefs. Throughdemonstration and example, Rice taught his students to eschew formulaicprocedures in favor of working within the psychological context of eachperson’slife(J.Rice,personalcommunications,April1985).

In1984RicewasaskedtobeatraineratLynneConwell’sNLPCenterforAdvanced Studies in Tiburon, California, a training center that Conwell hadacquired from its founder, Leslie Cameron Bandler. This is where Ricedeveloped and refined the teaching that had evolved from his decade ofexperience with integrating NLP with his own worldview and practice ofpsychotherapy(J.Rice,personalcommunication,June2011).

I became a student at theNLPCenter forAdvanced Studies in 1984, andtook aMaster Practitioner class taught byDr. Rice. It was at this time, fromRice, that I learned the sitting-and-talking style that is so different frommainstreamNLP.

In 1986 I attended the National Association of NLP Conference in SanFrancisco,andinthe1990sIattendedotherNLPconferencesinDenverandSaltLakeCity.Itwasmyexperiencethatwhilesomeofthetechniquesandclinicaltoolsthatweredisplayedattheconferenceswereinventiveandclever,muchofthematerialwas shallow.Mostof thepresenters seemed tobeunawareof thepsychological underpinnings of the symptomswithwhich theywereworking,and theywere apparently unconcernedwith the psychological contextswithinwhich they were operating. Additionally, the formulaic NLP they werepromoting usually did not include much attention to, and regard for, theemotions related to a particular issue, or for the broader emotional life of theclient.Iwasnotattractedtothisapproach.

I had experienced something radically different at the NLP Center forAdvanced Studies. Dr. Rice taught NLP from a position solidly within thecontext, history, and body of knowledge of the field of psychology, and hisperspective was also based on years of direct clinical experience. In Rice’spractice,heincorporateddeeppsychologicalknowledgeandpracticalknow-howinto the powerful frameworks of NLP change work, as well as used NLP tovastly enhance the scope andeffectivenessofhis clinicalwork. It appeared tome that Jonathan Rice’s integrative and holistic approach was much morepowerfulthaneithermainstreamNLPorconventionalpsychotherapy,andthatit

createddeeper,morestableandpermanenttransformationintheclient.IhadlearnedtheusualvarietyofNLPtechniquesattheCenterforAdvanced

Studies before studying with Rice. From Jonathan Rice I learned his “CoreSorting”formattoaccessandworkwithrepresentationsfromchildhoodtraumathat are usually not in conscious awareness, and I learned his method of re-imprinting.ButthemostimportantthingIlearnedfromDr.RicewashowtodoNLP-basedchangeworkinapsychologicalcontext.Someofhisstudentswerepracticing psychotherapists or had studied in the field, but what Rice taughtcouldalsobelearnedwithoutprevioustraininginpsychology.Hislecturesandlive demonstrations of change work naturally includedmany of the concepts,frames of reference, vocabulary, and clinical descriptions of the therapeuticprocessesofacreativeandhighlyexperiencedpsychotherapist.Incontrastwiththe mainstream NLP world at the time, Rice’s students learned about childdevelopmenttheoryandtheprimarymarkersforandconsequencesofchildhoodtrauma. By watching Dr. Rice, I also learned about the stance of thetherapist/client interaction, fromwhich I later developedwhat Iwould call “aproper programmer stance.” I learned fromhimhow tobe a goodpractitionerand therapist—someone whose scope of inquiry and capacity to respectfullyholdtheexperienceoftheclientaremuchbroaderthanthoseofsomeonewhoismerelyagoodoperatorofNLP“changetechniques.”Thisparadigm,combiningNLPandpsychology,whichoriginatedwithDr.Riceandwaspassedontome,hasbeenthebasisofmyownteachingandpractitionerworkforthepastthirty-fiveyears.

Transformational NLP now includes a number of elaborations on andextensionsofRice’smodel,andalthoughitborrowsfromandelaboratesonbothmainstreamNLP and conventional psychotherapy, it has evolved to become aunique paradigm. It incorporates material drawn from, or inspired by, themetaphysics of the perennial philosophy such as described byAldousHuxley(2009), the holographic model of the universe as explained by David Bohm(Friedman,1997;Peat,1997), thebasicpremisesoftwentieth-centuryquantummechanics,my own evolution of Bert Hellinger’s trans-generational, systemicconstellation work, and many frames and methods—neuro-linguistic andotherwise—that are unique and are the product of my constant curiosity andcreativityinthecourseofworkingwiththousandsofclientsduringmyyearsinprivatepractice.

TransformationalNLPcomparedwithConventionalPsychotherapyThere are some apparent similarities between Transformational NLP sessionsand psychotherapy. In Transformational NLP, the practitioner and client areseated facing one another, in private, and conversing. Viewed from theperspectiveofconventionalpsychotherapy,thislooksliketherecognizableeventcalledthetherapeuticinteraction.Yet, therearesignificantdifferencesbetweenthetwoapproaches.

CONTENTVERSUSSTRUCTUREOFEXPERIENCEIn conventional psychotherapy, the therapeutic interaction mainly involvestalking about the content of the client’s experiences and the emotions thataccompany them.Thisdiscussionofcontent,possibly incombinationwith thetherapist’s observations, suggestions, or assistance with problem solving,generallyconstitutesthescopeofthetherapeuticinteraction.

TransformationalNLPmayincludemuchofthisalso,withtheexceptionofproblem-solving suggestions. However, as psychiatrist Bessel van der Kolk(2014) points out, “the act of telling the story doesn’t necessarily alter theautonomic physical and hormonal responses of bodies” or change a person’sbehavioralpatterns(p.21).Self-defeatingbehavioralpatternsare“nottheresultofmoralfailingsorsignsoflackofwillpowerorbadcharacter—theyarecausedby actual changes in the brain” as the result of imprints of trauma (p. 3).Transformational NLP addresses these physiological as well as psychologicalissues.

Duringtheconversationwithaclient,theTransformationalNLPpractitioneris continuously noticing the client’s internal representational processes andevents.Weteachthepractitionertobecomeadeptatnoticingandworkingwithother-than-consciousaccessingcues, the fleetingexternalmarkers that indicatehow the person’s nervous system is operating to sustain his or her unwantedexperience. The practitioner uses these observations to reveal hidden patterns.S/hecanthendrawonthisinformationtodirectlyandindirectlycausechangeswithin the patterning—the instructions that create the experience—so that itbecomes possible for the client to havemore andmore of the experience thats/hedesires.There is an intentional,precise, andongoing revisionofmapandmeaning, of identity, and of relationship with self and others. Thus,Transformational NLP works through attention to both the content and the

representationalstructureoftheclient’sexperience.

TRANSFERENCEAnother key difference between Transformational NLP and conventionalpsychotherapy concerns the psychoanalytic process called transference. TheTransformationalNLPpractitioner/clientinteractionmayattimesincludesomeelementsrelatedtotransference,butgenerallythepracticeofNLP-basedchangework is not based on the dynamics of conventional psychotherapeutictransferenceandcounter-transference,doesnotinvolveexplicitadvicegivingorproblem solving, and is not critical of other persons in the client’s present orpast.Rather,theskillfulTransformationalNLPpractitionermodelsfortheclientawayofholdingandthinkingabouthimselforherselfthatmaybebeyondtheclient’spresentcapacity.Thepractitionercandothisbydemonstratingtheactualbehavior and attitudes that s/hewishes the client to acquire. For example, thepractitionercanregardtheclientwithmorerespectthantheclientisabletohaveforhim/herself.Thisprovidestheclientwithanewexternalreferenceforgreaterinternalself-respectandself-appreciation.

Thepractitionercanalsoregardandmakereferencetothesignificantothersin the client’s personal history from a different perspective from that of theclient.Howthepractitionerreacts(inthepresent)tothesepeople(intheclient’spast)canbegintoeducatetheclientaboutpossiblealternativewaystothinkandfeelaboutthoseindividuals.

Thisisaccomplishedconcurrentlywithdirectandindirectreframing.“Directreframing”isaccomplishedbysimplyredefiningtheclient’sexperience(whichIusuallyfindpresumptuousandrarelydo),orbyoffering theclientachance tore-perceiveeventsandbehaviors,causesandapparenteffects,inanewcontextorfromanewviewpoint.“Indirectreframing”canbealmostdirect,forexampleby helping the client to recognize the intended positive outcome of his or herbehavior. It can also be very indirect. For example, if the practitionerconsistently gestureswith one handwhendiscussing the reality of the client’salwayshavingoperatedfromamotivationof“intendedpositiveoutcome,”lateronthepractitionercancausetheclienttounconsciouslyconsiderthispossibilitybysimplygesturingwiththatsamehandwhilediscussingfailuresandmistakes.All of these tools accompany and support the ongoing activity of makingrepresentational revisions in the client’s patterns for creatingmeaning and forgeneratingexternalandinternalbehavior.

ATTENTIONTOPERSONALHISTORYANDFAMILYDYNAMICSAs in conventional psychotherapy, in my sessions with clients I am veryattentive to the ups and downs of the client’s personal history and the familydynamic. (This is unusual, if not unique, in the context of mainstream NLP-based change work.) It is my observation that most unwanted experience isstabilizedbyecologyconcerns that involveboth theneedforpersonalsurvivaland an equal, apparently competing need to ensure one’s continued belongingwithinone’sfamilyoforigin,nomatterhowpainfulsuchbelongingmaybe.

However,thereisacrucialdifferencebetweenmymethodologyandthatofmostpsychotherapists.Right fromthestartofany interactionwith theclient, Ibegin a continuing process of calibrating (observing and correlating) theperson’s physiology as it relates to the context of his or her factual familyhistory. Through this calibration process, as well as through words, I seekinformation about the client’s relationship to the family narrative, that is, thestory a family tells about itself and about each of its relevant members, bothlivinganddead.Mygoal isnotonly to identifyand revise theclient’sout-of-date safety patterning (automatic, ongoing internal representations that wereoriginally created to keep the child safe but are no longer beneficial for theadult),1butalsotousethetoolsofNLPtoclarifyandresolveanyobstaclestotheclient’sawarenessofhisorherirrevocablebelonginginthefamilysystem.

Inthecourseofdoingthis,Iamalsoworkingtoassisttheclienttograduallydevelopadifferentnarrative,arevisedinterpretation,ofhisorherpersonalpast—toshowhowthatparticularcomplexofpastexperiences,events,imprints,anddecisionswasanecessarypathtorecoveringfreedomandchoiceinthepresent,onthewaytoagreaterfulfillmentinthefuture.Thegoalisnottoovercomeornegate the past, but rather to incorporate it as part of the path to the futuredesiredstate.Myobjective is to reveal theclient’scommitment togrowthandlearningwithinhisorherlifetimethusfar,andtoshowtheclientthats/henowhastheconsciouschoicetomodifythetrajectoryofhisorherlifefromnowon.

COMPLETINGTHEEXPERIENCEAn important influence of psychotherapy on Transformational NLP is theendeavor to assist the client to complete the experienceof theoriginal painfultraumathatcontinuestoreverberateinhisorherlifedespiteallattemptstoavoidorrepressit.Whilethegoalofhelpingtheclienttocompletetheexperience—so

that it can be left in the past and stop affecting the present—is common inpsychotherapy, there are significant differences between the approach used byTransformationalNLPpractitionersandthatofmainstreampsychotherapists.

One very useful methodology practiced by some psychotherapists iscatharsis,thatis,encouragingtheclienttofullyfeelapasttraumaticexperienceandexpressthedeepemotionsoftenassociatedwiththemwhichhaduntilthenbeen repressed or ignored. Typically, the goal of catharsis is to allow anemotionalrelease,whichoftencausesthememoryofthetraumatofadeandtheaffect fromit todecrease.The intentofmanypsychotherapists isalso toassisttheclienttofindanincreasedsenseofautonomyoragency,andpossiblytohavenew cognitive understandings about the old experiences as well (Diamond,2009).

However,workingwithclients,Ihavelearnedthattheemotionalrelief,self-redefinition,andre-directionofthoughtgainedthroughcatharsisarepartialandtemporary, at best. Through catharsis, one does not generally complete thetraumaticexperiencestotheextentthattheycanreadilybere-patterned.Instead,the past experiences remain available to be repeatedly triggered into presentawareness.

Moreover, I have observed the interesting phenomenon that repeatedcatharsis can condition the client’s patterning to recurrently reactivate theunwanted past experiences in order to continue tomake them available to besurvived.Asdescribed inchapter I,ourcreature-levelconsciousness,ofwhichwe are not actually consciously aware, exists in an eternal “now.” For thecreatureneurology,theexperienceofthethreatandtraumahasactuallybecomelinkedtotheexperienceofsurvivingthetrauma.Oldeventsarekeptavailabletobereactivated,againandagain,rightnow, inordertoensurethattheorganismwillcontinuetosurvivethetrauma,rightnow.Whilethisprogrammingfulfillstheimperativesofa-temporalcreature-levelsurvival,itisobviouslyimmenselydisconcerting for the human being who is struggling to make sense of andattenuate the unpleasant thoughts, emotions, and events that are rising up sostronglyinhisorherpresentexperience.

OneofNLP’sbrilliantcontributionswas touncover theactual structureofrepression mechanisms, such as those discovered by Freud. In my practice, Inoticeboththecontentandtheautomaticrepresentationalstructureofunwanted—butrepeating—experiences,with theobjectiveofmakingtheinternal,out-ofconsciousness events that generate these unwanted experiences available forchanging. This allowsme to communicatewith the client’s creature self, past

self, andpresent self, so that the client’s entire systemcan thoroughly registerthat the past traumatic experience was in fact survived. Through use ofdissociation and anchors I can then recode the misperception of a retroactivethreatofdeath,henceeliminatingtheillusorysurvivalvalueofcontinuedpresentreactivationofthepasttrauma.

Thus, the Transformational NLP practitioner can assist the client incompletingtheexperienceofheretoforeresistedorblockedpasttraumassothats/hecanfinallybereleasedfromtheirgrip.Nowtheclientcancomeintomoreandmore rapportwithhimselforherselfabout thepastevents,andasa results/he can move more easily toward more creative and constructive futureexperience.(Whentherelevantpasttraumaticeventshaveoccurredinpreviousgenerations of the family, I accomplish much the same thing through theintervention called family constellations, which will be discussed in a latersection.)

In sum, Transformational NLP sessions are conducted in a contextresembling psychotherapy, in that the practitioner and client sit togetherprivately and talk about the client’s issues. However, this is a superficialresemblance.During theTransformationalNLPsessions,unlike inmainstreampsychotherapy,thereisacontinuousrevisionofbehavior,capability,belief,andidentitythroughbothverbalandrepresentationalmeans.

TransformationalNLPComparedwithMainstreamNLPTransformationalNLP incorporates all of thepresuppositions andmanyof thetechniques ofmainstreamNLP.Yet, there are substantial differences betweenTransformationalNLPandthemainstreamNLPapproach.

TECHNIQUESVERSUSTRANSFORMATIONALCONVERSATIONFor most mainstream NLP practitioners, NLP is a collection of changetechniques, an often quite extensive menu of procedures from which thepractitioner can select any number of discrete, standardized interventions. Thepractitioner discovers the desired state, identifies the problem state, and then“runsatechnique”thatwillchangetheclient.InconventionalNLP,ingeneral,talkingwiththeclientiswhatonedoestofindoutwhattechniquetouseto“fix”something.

Viewed through the lens of conventional NLP, a Transformational NLP

session would often appear to involve little explicit “NLP.” This is mainlybecause the skilled TransformationalNLP practitioner does not rely solely onovert,standardprocedurestorevisetheclient’smapofrealityandchangehisorherrelationshipwithselfandlife.Ibelievethatitiscriticalforthewellbeingofthe client that the practitioner take into account the broad scope of thepsychological and emotional context of the client’s experience rather than justjumpinwithpowerfulchangetechniquesthatmayproducepotentialunwantedsideeffects.

Since a person’s sense of identity and belief system provide his/herorientation in theworld, it isbest tochangeonlywhat isnecessary inorder todissolveresistanceandprogresstowardthedesiredoutcome.Also,achangeinbelieforidentityisoftenfollowedbyexperiencesofuncertainty,disorientation,and—sometimes—fear. It takes some time for the individual to adapt to theexperienceofnotencounteringaccustomedlimitationsorofhavingsignificantlydifferentpresuppositionsaboutlife.Itisthereforeimportantforthepractitionerto pay attention to themaintenance of homeostasis evenwhile simultaneouslyoperatingtodestabilizeunwantedpatterning.

Thelessthequantityofrevision,theeasieritwillbefortheclient’ssystemtoholdthechange,andthelessdifficultytherewillbewithmaintainingastable,yetupdated,personalecology.Therefore,whenmodifyinginternalandexternalbehavioral patterns,my goal is to provide the least amount of revision that issufficient to cause and stabilize desired changes. I pay close attention to howmuch changework can be donewithout destabilizing identity coherencemorethan is useful in the moment. This is best accomplished by using subtleapproaches most of the time and explicit change techniques only sparingly.When they are used in Transformational NLP, standardized procedures servemainly to stabilizeandsecure revisions thathavealreadybeen introduced intothe client’s cognitive and emotional processing through a continual flow andinter-mixingofmoresubtlemethods.

Myworkwithclientsinvolvesanongoinginterplayofinformationgatheringandreframingaboutpastevents.Ifthereisgreatrapportbetweenthepractitionerand theclient, reframingcanbeaccomplishedalmostasabackgroundactivitythatonlyoccasionallymovestotheforegroundoftheinteractionwiththeclient.Inadditiontonearlynon-stopreframing(whichisessentiallynon-stoprevisionof past, present and future), I employ subtle—and sometimes more overt—“changetechniques”astheyareneededandappropriate.

In the course of the session’s conversation, the Transformational NLP

practitioner pays close attention to the structure as well as the content of theclient’s experience. Throughout the session, the practitioner is continuallyreorganizingtheclient’sinternalrepresentationalprocesses.Thereisacontinual,in-the-momentrevisionofhabitualorimprintedrepresentationalprocessingthathas locked the client in past pain and complicated, or prevented, movementtowardhisorherdesiredfutureexperience.Theclient’spatternsofperception,thinking,emotion,andbehaviorarethusmodifiedevenwithoutrecoursetooverttechniques.When techniques do come into play, they are asmuch as possibleseamlesslyembeddedinthecontextoftheconversationalinteraction.

INTENDEDPOSITIVEOUTCOMESLikebothJonathanRiceandRobertDilts,TransformationalNLPteachesthatanimportant part of the practitioner’s work is to ensure that the truly benign,protectiveintentionsbeneathpastlimitationsarerespectedandincorporatedintonew perceptions and decisions. By promoting a respectful and appreciativeunderstanding ofwhat I call the intended positive outcomes of problem statesand experiences, the Transformational NLP practitioner supports clients to bemore inrapportwith themselvesregarding theirpreviouslyautomatic reactionsto fear and pain, overwhich they had no choice at the time.When people nolonger impelled to disrespect or attack their past and present experience, theyfeel less and less at odds with themselves, and this in turn greatly eases thehealing movement toward the desired state.My experience is that it is mucheasiertoimagineandstabilizefuturesuccessandwellbeingifoneisrelievedofperceptionsofpastfailure.Also,byencouraging—andevenrequiring—thattheclientholdhisorherpreviouschoicesandexperiencewithproper respect, thepractitioner opens the way for the client’s unconscious to release lingeringobjectionstothechangesthatcomewiththefulfillmentofthedesiredstate.

In conventional NLP, the concept of original positive intention oftenincludes anoperationalorientation towarddestroyingoldmeanings and limits.Inmyworkwithclients,incontrast,Ipointtothevalidityandpurposefulnessofallexperience,howevernegative,painful,orlimitingitwasorisexperiencedtobe. My intention is to cause the client to reevaluate past experiences andsituationsthathavealwaysbeenlabeledasexamplesoftheclient’smostsevereweakness,shortcoming,orfailure,andbydoingsotonoticethatthepasteventsand patterns were, without exception, the best possible solutions to crises ofsurvivalandpersonalvalidity.Atnopointisthereanintentiontowipeoutthe

previousdescriptionsofselfandtheworld,ortosimplyobliterateoldpatterningfor creature-level survival or soul-level devotion to all that has come before.Instead,asdiscussedabove,aprimaryobjectiveofthischangeworkistobringthe client into an experience of deep and respectful rapportwith the previousversions of themselves, so that there is nothing about them that needs to beabandonedordestroyed.

Thisconceptofintendedpositiveoutcome(IPO)takesthenotionoforiginalpositive intention somewhat further than the teachings of eitherDilts orRice.Transformational NLP underscores the principle that all experience, and allbehavior,withoutexception,aresourcedfromapositiveintentionthatmadetotalsenseatthetime.

WORKINGWITHECOLOGYTransformational NLP also offers additional perspectives on questions ofecologyandecology-relatedobjectionstochange.Commonly,NLPpractitionersviewecologyobjectionsasconsciousandunconscioussystemicconcernsaboutthe possible negative future consequences of present positive change. Thisperspectiveisimportantinmypracticeaswell.However,inmyworkthereisanadded element. Although I am asking the client about the future, I am alsoseekingtoprovidetheclientwithyetanotherwaytomorepositivelyreassesshisor her past.2While conventional attention to ecology focuses on avoiding orminimizingfutureloss,myapproachincludesattentiontofutureopportunitiesasameansofre-affirmingthenecessityandwisdomofpastchoices,nomatterhowpainful and costly those old choices have been revealed to be. The goal is toshowhow thepast—whatever it contains—leadsdirectly to thedesired future.Thus, I use inquiry about future concerns to evenmore deeply reconfirm theintendedpositiveswithinalloftheclient’spastlimitations.Thisapproachdoesnot replacemore conventional, future-oriented ecology checking, butworks inparallelwithit.

In addition, I have observed that, in actuality, ecology concerns arefrequentlyacontinuingbutretroactiveattemptonthepartoftheclient’ssystemto forestall negative developments in the past (developments thatmay ormaynothaveactuallyoccurred).Theclienthasbeenconfusing future,present, andpast,althoughnotconsciously,anddoingsoinwaysthataredetrimentaltowhats/hetrulywants.

Similarly, regarding desired life outcomes that have remained blocked or

unfulfilledforanysignificanttime,itisalmostimpossibleforahumanbeingtothink about the desired positive experience without immediately—instantly—loading up some of the pictures and soundtracks that are associatedwith pastfrustrationand failure.This isnot a faultyoperation—it ismerelyevidenceofoldsafetypatterningatwork,andit is thisverysafetypatterningthathasbeenblockingtheclient’smovementandfulfillmentinthisareaofhisorherlife.

Transformational NLP change work subtly assists the client to adjust thisamalgamationofpast,present,andfuturerepresentations(whichareproducingtheclient’s thoughtsand feelingsnow) so that theybecomemorealignedwiththeclient’sdesiredoutcome.TheadeptTransformationalNLPpractitionerwillnoticeandre-sorttheunconsciousinternalpicturesandsoundsthatproducetheconsciousnegativefeelings.Thepastcanbeputinthepast—visually,verballyand spatially—and the future can be opened to resourceful imagination andexploration.Thesechangescanbemadeobvioustotheclient,ortheycanbeleftjust outside of conscious attention, as parts of what has seemed to be just astraightforward conversation about present desires and difficulties. Because itworks with both unconscious structure and conscious content simultaneously,TransformationalNLPcanseemlikemagic.

RE-IMPRINTINGIagreewithJonathanRicethatalthoughre-imprintingtheparentorsignificantother person can sometimes be a useful intervention, it is not always the bestwaytoresolvethepresentexperienceofpastpain.Forme,evenmorethanforRice, re-imprinting others is an intervention to be used only as a last resort.Improperlyhandled,thetechniqueofre-imprintingotherscanmisleadtheclientinto thinking that the continuing bad effects of past negative experiences areimmutableunlesstheotherperson(s)willhavebeendifferentinthepast.

While Transformational NLP, like conventional NLP, changes the client’sexperience of andmeanings aboutwhat happened in the past, I usually do sowithout recourse to methodology that would appear to revise the facts of theexperienceof theclient’syoungerself.LikeRice, Igenerallyavoidasking theclienttoimagineothersbehavingdifferentlyinthepast.Iwilllamentthattheydidnot,andwonderaloudwhatitmighthavetakenforthemtodobetter,butIwillnotasktheclienttocancelanythingout.Iprefertolettheoriginalversionofeventsstand,andtoassisttheclienttomakenewandmoreusefulmeaninginthepresentdespitethewaytheothersactedinthepast.Thisdistinctionbetween

revision of past events and revision of present meaning about past events iscrucial.WhileforDiltsthegoalofre-imprintingsignificantothersseemstobeaway tomake the past be better in the client’smind now,mygoal is rather tosupporttheclient’spresent-tensechoicetocreateabetterexperiencenow,eventhough the past happened theway it did.My primary objective is to help theclientrealizethats/hehasmorechoicenow.

Another reason that Ihesitate to re-imprint significantothers is topreserveidentity coherence. It seems that one reason that people (unconsciously)maintaintheirlimitationsistosustainevidenceofpastinjusticeandinjury.Anintended positive outcome of someone’s maintaining hurt in the present isactually his or her profound reaching for, and even insistence on, acquiringchange—inthepast.Ibelievethatitisimportanttorespectthepositiveintentionbehind this continuing assertion of past damage, and therefore of beingaggrieved, because from the time that the adaptations occurred, the aggrievedstatushasfunctionedasacentralpartofthefoundationoftheclient’ssenseofself.Humanbeingsfrequentlyturntheirlivesintolivingmemorialsofpastlossandtrauma.

The technique of re-imprinting the parent is a form of personal identityrevision, often radically so. Because identity is about who and what weunconsciouslydeclareourselvestobethesameasandnotthesameas,revisingone’s internal representationsofone’spastbadparenteffectively revisessomeoftheinternalrepresentations(e.g.,rememberedvisuals)thathavefunctionedasa source of “I am not like that” identity stability. To ensure that the clientmaintains identity coherence, we should be careful to use re-imprinting ofparents,oranyotherdirect(i.e.,explicitlyanchored)re-imprintingofauthoritiesorperpetratorsinvolvedinpastneglectorabuse,onlyveryprudently.Eventhen,Ibelievethatweshouldonlytakeresourcestotheclient’srepresentationsoftheparentwhen that parentwas himself or herself a child—being careful to thenimaginetheparent-as-childgrowingupagain,toquicklybecometheparent-as-revised-parent—sotheclientcansensethepositivepossibilitiesthatmighthaveunfoldedforeveryoneinvolved.

WhileIdonotseektosubstituterevisedfacts(intheclient’smind)for theactualhistoricaldata,Idowanttoinduceafeelingofapositivedevelopmentalpathwheneverpossible.Wecanfacilitatetherevisionoftheclient’smapsothatthe system acquires access to new experiences ormeanings. The facts remainwhilethefeelingsandmeaningsareopenedtochangenow.Wecanthentransfertheseresourcefeelingsbacktotheyoungerself.Doingthisdoesnotchangethe

client’sactualhistory,butitdoeschangetheclient’sexperienceofthathistory.Whentheclientisabletoachievethiscrucialre-perceptionofpastevents,I

knowthatthereisalsoanewlyavailable“dis-integration”or“de-coherence”oftheoldautomaticpatterns,mechanisms,andinstructionsforcreatingmeaning.Itisnotsimply that theclient’sconsciousselfhasdiscoveredanewor reframedinterpretation of the past—it is also that the unconscious meaning-makingmachinery ismomentarilydisorganizedat adeep level. It is in thesemomentsthat themethodology of Neuro-Linguistic Programming, in contrast to simpletalk psychotherapy, becomes indispensable. This momentary de-coherence, orbreakdown,ofthemechanismsformeaningveryoftenopensthewaytorevisethe patterning (via reframing, re-imprinting, etc.) that has been generatingnegative experience. It affords us an opportunity for revisions inmeaning andemotionsthatcanbestabilizedinserviceoftheclient’sdesiredfuture.

METAPHORICALTIMELINEParallel to the “walking timeline” developed byRobertDilts, I developed the“metaphoricaltimeline”forseatedinteractionswithclients.Thisisaninvisible,imaginarylineoftimethatisexplicitlymarkedoutinactual,physicalspace,andasaresultofwhichallofthepastandfuturearewithinrangeofaneasyglancetotheleftandright.

When people externalize and visually objectify a representation ofthemselveshavingtheirownexperience,theynaturallyacquireperspectiveanddistance about past events that went into creating the painful previousexperiences.Thisisespeciallyimportantwhenthepractitionerisintheprocessof assisting a client’s unconscious to disclose information about importantaspectsofpastevents thathavebeengeneralized intosafetyprogramming thatmanifestsasself-limitingpatterns thatcontinuouslyrepeat themselvesinhisorherlife.

Peopleoftenunconsciouslygeneratepicturesofwhathappenedinthepastinthesameexternalphysicalspacetheyusetorepresentexperiencesinthepresent.Thiskeepstheemotionsofpasttraumaaliveinthepresent.Thepractitionercanchange the locationof the representations tomark out that the past events areactually in the past instead of the present. Even a slight gesture toward theclient’sleftside—whichiswherethebrainusuallycodesthatithappenedinthepast—whilementioning past events, has a strongmeaning that conveys to theunconsciousthattheeventsunderdiscussionarenotlocatedinthehereandnow.

Byusingcasual-appearinghandgesturesandsubtlechangesinvoicetempoand tonewhilediscussing thepastand imagining the future, thepractitioner isabletodirectlypointoutthelocationtotheleftoftheclientwherepasteventsoccurredandthelocationtotherightof theclient thatholdsrepresentationsofthe future.This lets theunconsciousknow, to the client’s immense relief, thatthepast isnotnowandit isdifferentfromthefuture.Itgeneratesanumberofnearlyspontaneousrevisionsintheclient’sfeltsenseofthepresenceofthepast.Theresultisthatpasteventsarenowperceivedasbeinginthepastratherthanthepresent,withtheclientnowpoisedtoturnamilestonecornerinthepresent.Theclientisnowonthewaytoabetterfutureexperiencethatonlyrequiresthepassageof some time tohaveunfoldedpositivelyandcorrectly. In thisway,askilledpractitionerisabletograduallyre-sortandre-narrateaclient’slifetimeofexperience.

This is usually the first time clients have been specifically instructed tocreateadissociatedpictureofthemselves.Mostpeoplehaveneverbeenaskedtomake,letalonetomove,aninternalvisualrepresentationoftheirpresentself.Itis a startling discovery for the clients that they have a choice about themechanics and representational characteristics of these internal visual events.Althoughtheymayhavehadtheexperienceofpicturingcontentintentionallyina “guided visualization” activity, almost certainly nobody had ever instructedthemtomakeastructural(locationanddistance)changeintheirinternalvisualexperience. Discovering the possibility of making such representationalmaneuvershasprofoundconsequencesandimplicationsforaperson’scapacitytobeatchoiceabouthisorherexperience.(SeeAppendixDforanexampleofhowIuseametaphoricaltimeline.)

W

CHAPTERVII

UniquePerspectivesofTransformationalNLP

hileTransformationalNLPbuildsuponmethodologiesofferedbyNLPand psychotherapy, it also incorporates perspectives that are unique.

Within theTransformationalNLPparadigm, the practitioner’s interactionwiththe client is enhancedby a variety of specific behavioral andperceptual skillsthatarenotpartoforbasedoneithertheconventionalNLPortheconventionalpsychotherapeuticmodels.

RapportAmaindifferentiatorbetweenTransformationalNLPandconventional changework,bothNLPandpsychotherapeutic,isover-archingattentionto—anduniqueperspectiveson—multipleaspectsofrapport.Theunder-pinningandmaingoalof Transformational NLP teachings can be summed up in the phrase: “Toincrease the experience of Rapport with Self, Rapport withOther-Selves, andRapportwithLifeItself.”

ThefoundersandleadersofmainstreamNLPrecognizedtheimportanceofrapport between the practitioner and the client, and it became basic to thepractice of good NLP. Rapport skills cover a broad range of perceptual andbehavioral abilities that enable deep connectionwith thosewithwhomwe areinteracting, on the unconscious as well as the conscious levels. This isaccomplishedbyuseofsubtlebehavioral(visual,auditoryandspatial)signals—which are based on finely tuned perceptual skills—by the practitioner to theclient’sunconsciousthroughsuchtechniquesasmirroring,matching,andpacing(Dilts,1980;LewisandPucelik,1982;McClendon,1989).

In TransformationalNLP,we emphasize that “rapport” ismore basic than

simplylikingsomeone,orbeinglikeableoneself,orbeingagreeableorpleasant,or showing empathy and caring, or making adjustments in the content ofconversation. Creating and maintaining good rapport necessitatescommunicating to another person’s creature neurology, on an other-than-consciouslevel,thatitisinasafeenvironmentinwhichtheflowofexperiencewillcontinuetobealignedwithitswellbeing.Creature-levelrapportisbasedonanabsenceofthreat.Itisgeneratedbyprovidingsomeone’screaturebrainwiththeexperienceofbeinginthepresenceofaroughapproximationofitself.Thecreature brain has no ego and no voice, but if it did it would continually askitself, when in proximity to another creature, “Am I with like kind?” If theanswer is affirmative, then creature fear and threat are naturally reduced,allowingthehumantofeelmoretrustingandopenwiththeotherperson.Whenthe“creatureself”islesswaryandonalertabout“what”s/heisinproximitytoandinteractingwith,thenthe“humanself”hasaneasiertimerelatingtoothers.

InTransformationalNLPwealsotaketheunderstandingandapplicationofrapporttoanotherlevel.Wedoeverythingwecantoencourageourstudentsandclients to experience what we call “Rapport with Self.” The experience of“RapportwithSelf” ismore complex than the creature-level rapport describedabove. It is adistinctlyhuman, fourth-brainexperience.Being ingood rapportwithoneself isnot thesamethingas likingor lovingoneself.Wecandescriberapportwithoneselfastheawarenessthatonehastherighttoexist,thatonehasvalueandameaningfulpurposeinlifeandtheworld,thatonehasthecapabilityto connect with, respect, and appreciate the different (possibly conflicting)aspectsofoneself,andthatonehas thecapacity toexperienceconnectionwithothers.

An important component of what we call “Rapport with Self” concernsfindingandholdingastanceofappreciationandrespectforoneself in thepastand present, notwithstanding the self-limiting thought and behavior patterningthatonewouldliketochange.TheTransformationalNLPpractitionersupportsclients to be more understanding of and compassionate with themselvesregardingtheirpreviouslyautomaticreactionstofearandpain,overwhichtheyhadnochoiceatthetime,andwhichhaveengenderedpatterningthattheywouldnow like to modify. This sense of rapport with oneself, when a person is nolonger impelled to disrespect or attack his or her past and present experience,allowsclientstobelessandlessatoddswiththemselves,andthisinturngreatlyeasesthehealingmovementtowardthedesiredstate.

Conventional NLP is very effective in assisting the client to achieve a

desired state. It contains many powerful tools for “annihilating blocks” and“overcominglimitations”ofthepresentstate.Intheprocessofusingthesetools,however, mainstream NLP can convey the message to clients that their mainshortcoming has been a lack of desire and ability to defeat some aspect ofthemselvesandtheirnatural inclinations.While thedesiredoutcomesmightbeimportant and useful for the person within a narrow range of current lifenecessity,theprocessitselfcanbedisrespectfulandevendamagingtothelargerscopeofaperson’slifeandrelationshipwithhim/herselfovertime.

Itisnotentirelybeneficialforaperson’swellbeingandself-imagetoreviselimiting patterning without also respecting and appreciating the previousversionsof themselves.Rapportwithourselves isbasedon including (inotherwords,“consentingtothefactsof”)allofourexperienceinthepastandpresent,includingthoseaspects thataredisappointingorpainful,despiteour instinct toresistordenynegativeandpainfulexperiences.Whenweareatoddswithourexperience,we are unavoidably at oddswith ourselves. To be in rapportwithourselvesandwithourexperience, it ishelpful toacknowledgethatwearethecreator of our experience—and to respect and appreciate all the brilliance thatwent intoourcreationofwhowewere in thepastandwhowenoware in thepresent. This understanding can empower us to change in the way we want,enjoyablyandgracefully,withouthavingtogotowarwithpartsofourselves.Inmyclasses and therapy sessions, I assistmy students and clients to come intomore rapportwith, andappreciate, all versionsof themselves:who theyare inthepresent,andalsowhotheywereinthepastandwhotheyarebecominginthefuture.

In Transformational NLP, “Rapport with Other-Selves” includes theconventionalNLPrapportskills,butitgoesfarbeyondthatskill-set.Iteachmystudents that rapport with clients is based on the practitioner including andconsenting to and respecting all of the client’s experiences, no matter hownegative and painful. For changework to be permanent and for it to becomeseamlessly integrated into the client’s psyche, it is necessary for both thepractitioner and the client to acknowledge and respect the original positiveintentionof theunwantedbehavior. It is important for thepractitioner and theclienttounderstandthatpeoplealwaysdothebesttheycanwiththealternativestheyhaveavailableontheirmapoflife.Therefore,theyshouldacknowledgeandvalue the efforts of thepast versionsof themselves that haddone theworkofacquiringandperfectingthebestpossibleprogrammingunderthecircumstances.TheadeptTransformationalNLPpractitionerhasrapportwith—andteachesthe

clienttohaverapportwith—everythingthatfallswithintherangeoftheclient’sexperience, past and present, as well as that which they both desire for theclient’sfuture.

Toexperience“RapportwithLifeItself”istohaveastateofmindinwhichoneisnotatoddswiththeprocesses,events,orapparentoutcomesoflife.Thisstate of mind must persist even if—and especially when—one is workingdiligently to radically change these events. There is little to be gained byattacking the mirror that reflects our choices and intentions back to us. Wepresupposethattheprocessesoflifehavenofaults,andthatthemechanismsoffeedback about our state of affairs, individually and collectively, are reliablealthoughandbecausethey“lackcompassion.”ThereisanadageintheHumanPotentialmovement:“Ifgravitywerecompassionate,noonewouldeverbeableto trust walking.” Every human must learn to respect gravity as an entirelyreliableteacherandirreplaceableaidtolearningaboutafoundationalaspectofthehumanskillset:walkingupright.Similarly,having“RapportwithLifeItself”ishavinganawarenessthatwearealwayssupportedinallofourlearninginthisworld.Withoutthisunderstanding,lifeisastrugglethatiscruelandunfair.Withthisstance,lifeisapreciousopportunitytoacquiremoreandmorewisdomandalignmentwithNaturalLaw(howeverhardwonandheartbreakingthelearningmaybe)asabelovedchildoftheUniverse.

Inorder tobeable toencourageclients to learn toexperience rapportwithself,others,andlifeingeneral,practitionersmustfirstbeabletoexperiencesuchmulti-levelrapportwithinthemselves.AtNLPMarintheclassesarefocusedonthepersonaltransformationofourstudents,whethertheyareproceedingalonga“practitioner track” or not. We teach an array of innovative personal andprofessional skills in thecourseof supporting the fulfillmentof each student’shuman and spiritual potential. This is accomplished without asking people toacceptanydogmaordiscipline,orsuggestingthatindividualscanimprovetheirlives and circumstances by turning against themselves or others. The mainchannelthroughwhichthistransformationoccursistheexperienceofincreasingrapportwithoneself,withotherselves,andwithLifeitself.[SeeAppendixEforadescriptionofhowTransformationalNLPpromotespersonaltransformation.]

PractitionerStanceInthemodelofTransformationalNLP,muchoftheclient’schangeisfacilitatedthrough what we describe as the therapist’s “practitioner stance.” The

practitioner stance is a self-defined body of values and presuppositions aboutoneselfandone’srelationshipwithlife.Thisconstellationofbeliefs,values,andcommitments goes considerably beyond conventional prescriptions such ashavinggoodrapportorunconditionalpositiveregard.

Asanexample,one’spractitionerstancecanincludeattentiontomakingsurethatoneisworkingwithone’s“properweight.”Thisconceptisinspiredbytheteaching of Bert Hellinger. It refers to a person’s expression of energeticpresenceandinfluence,whichareafunctionoftheself-respectingassessmentofhisorherlifeexperience.ForHellinger,thesequalitiesandcapabilitiesdevelopas a consequence of certain kinds and intensities of life experience. InHellinger’sconstruct,asemi-literatepersonwhoworked ina factory for thirtyyearstosupporthisorherfamilywouldlikelyhavemoreweightthanacollegestudentwhopursuesadeepstudyofsomethingbuthaslittlelifeexperienceorahighly educated and accomplished professional who has never participateddirectly in the raising and support of children.Other factors that add to one’sweight are one’s age, history of service, training, and general experience ofparticipationintheupsanddownsoflife.1

In Transformational NLP, to work with one’s proper weight refers to theabilityandresponsibilityofpractitionerstoensurethattheydonotasserteithermoreorlessofthisweightedlifeauthority,or“phenomenologicalgravity,”thantheyactuallyhave.Apractitionerwhoassertsmoreweightthanisproperlyhisor hers is generally specious and unbearable, while one who asserts less isusually not sufficiently useful to the ones whom s/he seeks to serve. Forexample,ithasbeenmyexperiencethatalthoughs/hehasnotlivedlongenoughtoacquiremuchweight,a twenty-three-year-oldpractitionerwithagoodsenseofproperweightcandoveryeffectiveandrespectfulworkwithaclientfortyormore years his or her senior.Without correctly calibrating and occupying theproper weight, the young practitioner would likely slide into a stance oflightweightuselessnessorinsultingpseudo-authoritativeunpleasantness.

Other aspects of practitioner stance include conscientious attention toparticipating with the client from a place—a stance—that recognizes that theclientisasoulwhoisequallywise,creative,andfree.Althoughtheclientmaynot recognize these attributes in him/herself, the practitioner must alwaysmaintainthisperspectiveaspartofassistingtheclienttoacknowledgeandmoredeeply incorporate an awareness of his or her own validity. Moreover, theTransformationalNLPpractitionerhasaconsciouscommitmenttoalwaysholdtheclientandtheclient’sexperiencewithmorerespectandappreciationthanthe

clientmaybeabletogenerateforhim/herselfatthemoment.Aproperpractitionerstancealso includes thepresupposition that therewill

beapositivesumrelationshipbetweenthepractitionerandtheclient.Thisisafoundational stance that thepractitionerassumes in relation to life,others, andoneself. In this paradigm, the practitioner’s intention to benefit from theinteractionistheveryfoundationofarespectfulrelationship.Thebenefitforthepractitioner includes, for example, learning andgrowing, feeling fulfillment inachievingagreed-ongoals,andtheunfoldingofadeepconnectionwithanotherperson. Inpractical terms, thenatureof thepositivesuminteractioneliminatestheneedfor thepractitioner toguardagainstassumingeitheravictimizedoraperpetrating stance in relation to the client. The deep respect for all humanexperience that is required in a “proper practitioner stance” enables thepractitionertoforgotheseductionofself-importanceinrelationtotheclient.

At NLP Marin, we do not offer a formula or procedure through whichstudentsareinstructedtofindthisplaceofvaluingandrespectingallofhumanexperience. Instead, I try to provide a continuingmodeling of this life stance,bothexplicitlyandimplicitly,ineverythingIteach.Inthepresenceofaproperlyexpressed practitioner stance, the client’s resistance to his or her previousexperience—as well as inappropriate attachment to well-intended butunproductive attempts to “overcome” the past—gradually dissolves. This isbecause, inTransformationalNLPallattentionpaidtopastexperienceactuallyoperates not to focus on old wrongs, but rather to resolve old resistance topresentandfuturesolutions.

PractitionerDesiredOutcomesOthershifts in theviewsof theTransformationalNLPpractitioner (inorder toappropriately assist the client) involve what I call programmer outcomes orgoals. One of the main practitioner objectives is to directly and indirectlyeducatetheclientaboutwhos/hereallyisinrelationtothelifeissuesthatareathand.Ourfoundationalpresuppositionis that the individual isaspiritualbeingandthecreativesourceofhisorherfullexperience.Withthisview,onelearnstoexpandone’sabilitytoloveoneselfandtoexperienceothersasamirrorandevenanaspectofthatself.Thispresuppositionisrarelypresentedexplicitly,yetit underlies all discussion and interaction. During a session, the skilledpractitionercontinuallyweavestogethermultiplerepresentationalandlinguisticinterventionsthataccomplishthisgoal.

Anotherkeyprogrammeroutcomeconcerns thepractitioner’sperceptionofdifferentmeaningassociatedwiththeclient’spastandpresent,andhowitisthatthis path leads to the client’s desired future. The Transformational NLPpractitioner is taught to always presuppose that the client’s unwanted presentexperience—nomatterhowgreatitspainorlongitsduration—isalwaysbetter(more bearable, more survivable, somehow more favorable) than what itreplacedinthepast.Wepresupposethatallunwantedpresentstaterealitiesarethe legacy of fulfilled choices regarding a previous desired state. The presentproblemsaremerelybrilliantsolutionsthathaveover-stayedtheirwelcome.

Bypresupposingthisout-of-dateintendedpositivity,thepractitionercanaddnew information into the client’s systemwithout the practitioner having to sethimself or herself at odds with anything in the client’s previous learning andpatterning.Theseadditionsandadjustmentsmaybeaccomplishedbothovertlyandcovertly.Overtly,thepractitionerdiscusseswiththeclientwhats/hewouldlikeand interactswith theclient tohelpconceive thedesired future.However,evenwhenthefutureisnotexplicitlythetopicofdiscussion,andevenwithoutthe client’s conscious awareness, the skilled practitionermaintains an internal,steadyintentionaboutandimagingofthatfuturefortheclient.Thepractitionermakeshisorherowninternalrepresentations(VAKOG)oftheclient’sdesiredstate.

As discussed in the next chapter, in terms of a world view that is morequantum than Newtonian, there is no distinction between objective andsubjectivereality;thereisno“inhere”versus“outthere.”Althoughmostpeopleare still governed bymainly Newtonian reality expectations, my observationsoverthecourseofmymanyyearsinpracticeconfirmtheviewofmanyquantumscientists and philosophers that the thoughts of one person can influence thethoughts and behavior of another.Within the focused and profoundly benignfield of a session of change work, the practitioner has an extraordinaryopportunity to help co-imagine, and therefore to help co-create, the client’sdesiredstate.Whileexternallytheclientandpractitionermaybediscussingtheclient’spast,andmaybepayingexplicitattentiontowhathasnotbeenworkingin the client’s life, a portion of the masterful Transformational NLPpractitioner’s inner attention is always directed toward finding the images,sounds, and feelings that can best be used to encourage the client’s system torealignitselfwiththefulfillmentofhisorherdesiredfutureexperience.

WhenIamworkingwithaclient,myinternalrepresentationsoftheclient’spastandfutureexperiencesarenotnecessarilyspecific,buttheyaresufficiently

clear that, in their presence, the client’s system is encouraged to releaseobjections and resistance to appropriate resolution toward what the client isconsciously choosing. In the course of doing this, I also assist the client toexperienceemotionallywhat lifewillbe like in thedesiredfuturestate,and tochangehisorherheartandmindaboutthepastandpresentbyviewingthemasthe path to that desired future. The practitioner can use his or her ownperceptions and responses to the client’s past pain to create a template, orfoundation, upon which the client will begin to spontaneously generate newmeaningsabouthisorherpersonalhistory.AlthoughIaccomplishmuchoftheprocessdescribedabovepurelyinternally—thatis,withinmyownawarenessasthe practitioner—I am careful to continually calibrate and confirm theaccompanyingchangesintheclient’sexternalphysiologyandbehavior.

RespectingAllExperienceOurstudentsaretaughtthataspractitioners,theymustrespectalloftheclient’sexperiences,eventhoseexperiencesthatareextremelynegativeandpainful.Theword “respect” is most often used to indicate approval and high regard.However, this is far frommy use of theword in this case. There is only oneusageoftheword“respect”thatdirectlyconveyshowImeanittobeusedinthecontext of transformation changework. It conveys themeaning of “recognizeandacknowledge thesignificance”of theexperienceorperson.Ananalogy is,“Theysaythatanoldsailorhas learnedtorespect thesea.”In thissentence, itdoesnotatallmatterwhethertheoldsailorapprovesofthesea,orifheadmiresitorholdsitinhighregard.Thesearenotrelevantstatesormeaningsforsailorsas they accomplish their work. The sea will not be affected by the sailor’sattitudeabout it.However, the seadefinitelyaffects the sailor’swellbeingandprogressonit.Theseaisverybig;thesailorissmallcomparedtoit.

In like fashion, the proficient Transformational NLP practitioner mustrespect the experience of the client. Without this respect, progress isquestionable and the client’s life becomes just an obstacle that impedes thepractitioner’s success. If the practitioner happens to admire the client and theclient’s experience through life, then so much the better, but this is not anecessarycondition.Whenproperrespectispresent,admirationorthelackofitis almost a moot issue. The important factor is that practitioner occupies aproperlyrespectfulstanceinrelationtotheclient’slifeexperience,includingallitsfacetsandincludingeveryonewhohasparticipatedinitwiththeclient.For

example, if theclienthasorhada tremendouslycruelandabusiveparent, it isessential that the practitioner be able to respect this parent—not condone orapprove, but simply respect, as it is meant in this distinctive and incrediblyimportantway.

PerceptionoftheNatureandMeaningofthePastMost people inWestern culture, includingmostNLP practitioners, regard thepastasafaitaccompli,afixedrealitythathascausedthepresent.However,what“actually happened” in the past is malleable, shaped by a person’s selectivememory.Therearebillionsoffactsinone’simmediateenvironmentthatoccurevery second of one’s life. Cellular biologist Bruce Lipton writes that thesubconscious mind processes some 20,000,000 environmental stimuli persecond,butonlyfortyofthemareinterpretedbytheconsciousmindinthesamesecond (Lipton,2005).Humansmust selecta setofvery fewfacts toperceiveandprovidethenarrativeandmeaningthattheygivetothepast.

Nevertheless, tomaintain identity coherence, peoplemust experience theiridentity—who they are—as the product and natural progression of a story ofwhatoccurredintheirpast.PsychologistStanleyB.Klein(2001)pointsoutthattheselfisnotonlyaconceptoranimage,butalsoone’smemoryaboutoneselfandone’slife.“Oursenseofselfisverymuchtiedupwiththe‘story’ofwhatwe have experienced and what we have done.” This view goes back to JohnLocke,whointheseventeenthcenturywrotethattheselfconsistsentirelyinthecontinuityofmemory.DavidHume in theeighteenthcenturyargued that “ourself-narrativealsoincludeseventsthatweknowmusthavehappened,givenwhatwedoremember—whethertheyactuallyhappenedornot”(Kihlstrom,Beer,andKlein,2001).SigmundFreudin the twentiethcenturyaddedthat the importantmemories are stored in the unconscious and are not always consciouslyaccessible. Carl Rogers was probably the first to study the self as a memorystructure empirically, and his work has been replicated and continues to beexpandeduponthroughthepresenttime(Kihlstrom,Beer,andKlein,2001).AsHarvardprofessoremeritusofEnglish,PaulJohnEakin,pointsout,memoryofthe narrative of our lives is “not only literally essential to the continuation ofidentity,butalsocrucialinthesensethatitisconstantlyrevisingandeditingtherememberedpasttosquarewiththeneedsandrequirementsoftheselfwehavebecomeinanypresent”(Eakin,2000,pp.293–94).

TransformationalNLPassiststheclienttochangethemeaningofthepastso

that thismeaningbecomescongruentwitha future inwhichhisorherdesiredpositivechangesare fulfilled.Obviously, thechangedmeaningof thepastandrevised content of the future are created and exist in the “right now” of theclient’s interaction with the practitioner. The Transformational NLP approachallows the client to perceive that a different and better future experience isautomaticallyunfoldingbecauseof,ratherthandespite,pastevents.

Asdescribedabove,inmypracticeIassisttheclienttotransformobjectionsabout the past experience into an understanding that they were previoussolutions thatarenowoutdated. I teach theclient torespectandappreciate thepastasapreviouslyfulfilleddesiredstate.Currentproblems,alongwithallthelimiting behaviors and thoughts that go with them, are merely obsolete andfossilizedpastsolutions.Whenwe“resolve”thefossilizedpast,weareactuallyrevising the meaning-making machinery that was itself the source of theunwanted previous experience. Inappropriate or destructive past behavior andeventsarerevealedtobeourbestpreviousattemptstomovetowardourpresentchoices and new possibilities for congruently achieving our true desired state.Throughreframing,andbyre-representationofpastsituationsandevents,clientsaresupportedtonowperceivethepastaspartofapathtoaninevitablepositivefuture.Iwantmyclientstorecognize—andactuallyexperience—thattheyhavecreatedapast thathasoperated flawlessly tocatalyzecertainnewchoices thatwillinevitablyopenintoanexperienceoffuturefulfillment.

As discussed previously, one of the main practitioner goals inTransformational NLP change work is to achieve the most identity revisionpossiblesoastobeinalignmentwithdesiresandintentionsforthefuture,whilesimultaneouslyassuringthattheclientcanmaintaintheessentialelementsofhisor her identity coherence. We can accomplish identity revision through theprocessesof“reweighting” thebrainneurons thatstore the representations thatcoalescetobecomeournarrativeofthepast.NeuroscientistSebastianSeunginhis landmarkworkConnectome (2012)uses the term“reweighting” to refer totheselectivestrengtheningorweakening(oreventhecreationorelimination)ofconnections among brain nerve synapses. As neuroscientist Jeffrey SatinoverexplainsinhisworkTheQuantumBrain (2001),“Dependingontheirweights,theconnectionseitherenhancethesignaltheyaretransmittingordiminishit”(p.20). It is experience that modifies the neural weights and connections. TheTransformational NLP practitioner provides this experience through thetechniques of reframing and re-imprinting as well as other anchor-basedmethodologies. This process can change the feeling and meaning of what

happened,asitisexperiencedinthepresent.Itchangestheclients’relationshipsbothwithactualpasteventsandwiththemselvesinthepast.

When we revise the apparent meaning of past events, we also revise themeaningoftheresultsthattheyhavecausedtomanifestinthepresent.Whileononelevelpastfactscannotbechanged,thepresentmeaningsaboutthefactscanbe changed. The presentmeaning of the past facts is the same as the presentresult.Ifwechangethemeaningofpastfacts,wecanchangethepresentresult.Hence,wecan actually revise the resultsofpast facts, as for examplewhenaclientnolongeridentifieshimselforherselfasbeingavictimorevenasurvivor,butratherasthecreativeconsciousnessatthesourceofhisorherexperience.

Thisprocesscomestotheedgeofreplacingtheofficialfactswithdifferentfacts.Whenweputourattentiononotherfactsoraspectsof thepast,notonlydoesthemeaningofthefactschange,butwecanviewthefactsinacontextthatmodifies theperceptionof the actual facts themselves.Through reframing andre-imprinting, the present thus changes the past. The different present statenecessitates a revised perception of the past, and this new perception actuallybrings the client to the border of a different narrative of the past. Thus, theTransformationalNLPpractitionerhelpstheclienttoradicallytransformhisorher relationship with that internal vortex of memories and emotions that isusuallylabeled“thepast.”Thegoalistoempowertheclienttoviewthepastnotas a fixed source of immutable loss, but rather as a dynamic wellspring ofcreativedecision-makingandlearning.

ThisapproachtothepastissupportedbytheviewsofNobelLaureateDanielKahneman,thefounderofbehavioraleconomics.Kahnemanexplainsthatthereis a profound difference between the experience of being happy andremembering theexperienceofbeinghappy.Theexperiencingself lives in thepresent,buttherememberingselfisastoryteller.Theyaretwodifferentselves.Ourmemory tells us stories.Acrucial part of the remembered story is how itends.Astoryisdefinedbychanges,significantmoments,andendings.Mostofour life experiences are lost to memory. We consider ourselves happy if weremember a good story rather than remember the experiences themselves(Kahneman,2010).

Sincethepastexistsonlyintheclient’smindnow,whilewecannotchangethe facts of what happened in the past, we can reweight and revise the veryrepresentations that generate themeaningof those events in thepresent.Whatreallyhappenedisnotasimportantaswhat“whathappened”meanstousnow.With change work such as reframing, re-imprinting, and representational

reweighting,wecanrevisethefeelingandmeaningofthepast,whichamountstochanging thenarrativewithoutdeletingordenying the facts. Ifweconsiderthepresentmomenttobehowthestoryends,asKahnemanmaintains,ahappierendinginitselfchangesthestoryofthepast.

HopeforaBetterPastOne of the most curious features of human beings is their unconscious butpersistenthopethatthepast(orsomepartsofit)willhavebeendifferentthanitwas. InNLP, it is common knowledge thatwhen peoplewhowant to changepain-sustaining thought and behavior patterns have great difficulty changing,there may be an “ecology problem,” or concern about the possible unwantedconsequences of otherwise good changes. In conventional NLP, the locus ofattentionforallecology-relatedlossesisconcernaboutthefuture:Whatisitthatwevalue thatmightbecompromisedor lost in the futureasaconsequenceofnewchoicesandchangesthataremadeinthepresent?Veryoftentheanswerstothis and related ecology concerns have to dowith loss of relationship, loss offinancialstability,lossofopportunityorfreedom,andsoon.Thisinquirymakescompletecommonsense,butmyexperiencehastaughtmethatsomethingelseisinvolved, something that limits present change even more than caution (bothconscious and other-than-conscious) regarding possible future loss. Thatsomething else is the entirelyout-of-consciousness concern about loss of hopeforabetterpast.Myexperienceisthatwheneverchangesthataredoneproperlyandrespectfullywillnotgo in,orwhen theywillnotstick, thisconcernaboutpastlossisalargepartofthereason.

Maintaininghopeforabetterpastisneveraconsciousendeavor.Itmakesnosense in reason. Instead, all hope for a better past is mediated through ouremotions.Althoughtheemotionsthemselvesaredetectable,themechanismsthatgive rise to them are not noticeable in conscious awareness. Yet the feelingscreatedbythemechanismsarestrongenoughtosadlycontaminateourabilitytomakechoicesand follow throughwith thesechoicesabout important things inourlives.

Oneof thedrivers forholdingontoorotherwiseavoiding the resolutionofpresentpain,inordertopreventthelossofhopethatthingswillhavebeenbetterin the past, iswhat I call “SufferingObligations ofLove” (SOL). “Suffering”hasauniquedefinitionhere:itcanbedescribedas“theterriblethingswedotoourselvesinanunworkableefforttosay‘Iloveyou’tosomeoneelse.”2Itseems

thatpeopletendtosufferforsomepartoftheexperienceoftheirancestors.*Asfar as we know, humans are the only creatures who use Suffering tocommunicate love, and the only creatures who compromise their present andfuturewellbeinginanefforttoimprovetheexperienceoftheirforbears!Thisisanunconsciousattempttobelongtothefamilyandassuageourguiltathavingescaped their fate. Ifourpaindiminishes,wehave thebad feeling thatweareabandoningtheoneswelove(abandoningthemintheirpresentandourpast!),soweunconsciouslyfindwaystomaintainourpainbyarrangingthingssothatourownliveswillnotimproveuntiltheirsdointheirpresent(whichofcourseisimpossible,sinceitisourpast!).Or,onthoseoccasionswhenwecannotavoidsomeimprovementinourownexperience,wecanstillaccomplishmostofthesameoutcomebyarrangingtofeeljustasbadaswealwayshave,nomatterhowmuchbetterthingsget.Ofcourse,whenthedisparitybetweenhowbadourlivesfeelandhowgoodtheyactuallyaregetstobetooinexplicable,westarttofeelquite crazy. When this crazy feeling gets to be too much, a simple generalcollapseofmostofthegoodthingsinourliveswillalwaysservetorealignouractualrealitywithourunpleasantfeelingsaboutourreality.

Onadeeplyother-than-consciouslevel,allpresentpainthathascomefrompast trauma is coded as an indication that the trauma is not over. When thetraumaisnotover,becausewecontinuetofeelitsnegativeandawfuleffectsinourpresent,thenthegameisnotover.Aslongasthegameisnotover,thereissome hope that the outcome can change. As long as the outcome can stillchange,thereisapossibilitythatwe,andthepeoplewecareabout,canstillwin—whatever that might mean—and this gives us hope. A real and lastingresolution of our painwould end our hope to have had a better past, and thisendingorlossofhopecanfeelunbearable.

One way that an SOLmaintains past pain and violation in the present inserviceofabetterpastisbyfixingthingsupsothat,againandagain,wefailtochange. When someone or something in life presents us with a positive,workable resolution for our pain, a resolution for which we have no doubtlonged and toward which we have often worked diligently and admirably,perhapsforyearsordecades,thedesireforthatbetterfuturemightbeincrediblystrong,butonewayoranotherwedonotreallyallowourselvestherevisionsandhealing.This isbecause,onanunconscious level,weholdontoaforlornhopethatthingsthatwereterribleandheartbreakingcanstillgetbetterinthepast,sothattheywon’treallyhavehappenedthewaytheydid.

Inanotherexample,hopeforabetterpastcanbehopeforjustice.Thewords

that describe how thisworks are these: “Attention perpetrators frommy past!Whatyoudid tome(ormyancestors)wasso,socruel,andso,sowrong,andmyhumiliationanddefeatatyourhandswasso,socomplete, thatIwillneverlettheresultsofallthatchange.IfIallowmyselfadecentlyabundantandjoyfullifenow, Iam just saying thatwhatyoudid tomewasokay,and Iwillnevergive you that.My life ofmiserywill bemy personal ‘holocaustmemorial’, aperpetualindictmentthatwillpointatyourguiltforalltosee.”Wetendtousethefeltexperienceofourpresentlossandpainasevidencethatweweretreatedunjustly and that we are now continuing to work—retroactively but veryconscientiously—toachievebetteroutcomesinthepast.

Obviously, to assist people to wean themselves from these entirelyunworkableanddestructivehopestructuresrequiresustohaveimmenserapportwiththem,aswellaslimitlessrespectfortheirexperience,allcombinedwithacheerfully edgy annoyance that they are continuing to harm themselves inserviceofthepast.Thisisalladjustable,andwecanendthesuffering,butwecannotchangethingsuntilboththeclientsandwecanappreciateandrespecttheloving intentions behind their every continuing hurt and loss.Thenmagic canhappen.

Themethodof assistingpeople to losehope for a better past in serviceoftheir better present and future entails a quantum perspective. In Newtonian(“classical”)physics,causesprecedeeffectsandeffectsareconsequenttocauseson the unidirectional “arrow of time.” Past events on the time arrow are notavailable for revision. But in a quantum frame, timemoves both ways on itsarrow—past-to-futureandfuture-to-past.Whenwere-imprintpast traumasandthebeliefstructuresthatcomefromthem,weareworkinginboth theclassicalNewtonianandthequantumapproaches.Classically,wearecausingsomeofourlocalneurons tomakenewconnectionswithnewpotentials fornewresponsesandnewmeaningsaboutthepast.Butquantumly,weareinawayrevisingthepast itself—actually organizing something different to have happened on ourpersonaltimearrow.Whenwere-imprintatrauma,weareinasensearrangingforthingsinthepasttohavehadthepotentialtohaveunfoldeddifferentlyinourlives.WearenotviolatingNewtoniancausalitywhenwedothis,becausewearenotreplacingonepersonalhistorywithanother.Wearemerelyusingourhumanfaculties to create and stabilize a relevantparallel probability inour consciousand unconscious mind. The availability of this parallel probability generatesrelief,notamnesia.Relieffromlife-longsufferingalwaysmakesfurthergrowth(differentexperience)moreavailable.Abetterpastmakestherealityofabetter

futuremoreprobable.

ConsentingtothePastAspart of preparingmy clients to accept and benefit from change in the past(whichis,ofcourse,onlyinourmindsrightnow),Ieducateandempowerthemtofirst“consent” tohavinghadthispast.Aresistedexperience isveryhard tochange, and all painful experience is instinctively resisted. A painful pastexperiencemustbe“completed”beforewetrytoreviseit,becauseallunwantedexperience continues until it is completed. Completion of an old experiencebeginswith consenting to the fact of our having had the experience, just as itwas,nomatterhowpainfulandtraumaticthingswere.

This“consentingtothepastjustasitwas”isnotthesameascondoningwhathappened. Consenting is also not the same as accepting what happened orsurrendering--acceptance and surrender arebothmorepassive thanconsent. InTransformational NLP, the act of consenting is a confirmation that theexperience happened theway it did.Whenwe consent to a tragic and painfulpastwearenotsaying,“It’sokay,”becauseitisdecidedlynotokay—butwearesaying,“Okay,ithappened.”Thisconsentisthefirststepinmakingiteasiertochangetheunwantedpresentconsequencesofpastexperience.Consenttowhathappenedhelpstodissolvetheresistancetothepastthathasoperatedtokeepoldpatterningaliveinthepresent.

Ashumans, inorder to resist something,wemustcreate representationsofwhateveritisthatweareresisting.Thatis,inordertoputourattentiononwhatwe do not want to experience, we have to be thinking about this experience.Sincetheinternalrepresentationsthatallowustoresistanexperiencearealmostidentical to the representations of the experience itself, the resistance againstunwantedexperienceactuallybringslittlecomfort.Instead,itcreatesevenmorevivid representations anda stronger impressionof thatwhichwedonotwant.Hence,resistancenowtowhatwasexperiencedthenonlyoperatestomakethencontinue now, which is precisely the opposite outcome from what is trulywanted.

However, when we learn to consent to the past rather than resist it, therepresentationsthatcreatetheimpressionoftheunwantedfeelingsandmeaningsare actually revised, and it is this revision that opens the way for a rapidresolutiontopastblocksandimpairments.Whenweconsent,thepastcomestorest;itlosesmomentum.Itiscompleteandcompleted.Wecanacknowledgethe

traumaandpermittheemotion,andthisallowstheclienttomoveon.Nowwearefarmoreavailabletoaskourselves,“...and,whatwouldIlikenow?”

Ordinarily, the Transformational NLP practitioner supports the client toconsent topast events exactlyas theyareperceived tohaveactuallyoccurred.However, sometimes these events were so horrific or heartbreaking that theclient is simply not able to even imagine consenting to them. For the personpresently bound up in past trauma, “consenting” seems to be the same asapprovingorcondoningwhathappened.Inthesesituationsitisnecessarytobeclearthatalthoughwedonotcondonewhathappened,weneverthelessneedtostopresistingthefactthatithappened.

In such circumstances, the practitioner can sometimes assist the client toconsent by helping him or her to view the past figures and events from adifferent perspective. Sometimes this “different perspective” is literal—itinvolves having the client change a visual sub-modality of distance, angle, orheight.Moreoften,theperspectivechangeisfigurative.Forexample,Ihelptheclientperceivehowapersonwhohurttheclientcouldhavebehavedifs/hehadbeenmoreinformed,moreaware,lessafraidregardinghisorherownsafetyorbelonginginthefamily,andsoon.ThekeyquestionthatIposetotheclientis,“If[thatperson]couldhavedoneitdifferently,woulds/hehave?(S/hecouldn’t,so s/he didn’t, and s/he neverwill, have done it differently, but if s/he could,woulds/hehave?)”TheunderstandingthatIamseekingtoevokeintheclientis,“Yes,ofcourse.”Iftheanswer“yes”isnotavailableintheclient’sthinkingorfeeling,thenthisquestionispremature—IwillnotposethequestionuntilIcanbesurethattheclienthasthewherewithaltocometothisnewperspective.Thismomentary re-perception of the significant other(s) can go far toward helpingtheclienttoconsenttowhathappenedinthepast,andtotherebyfindinhimselforherselfastrongersenseoftheauthoritytohavechoiceaboutthefuturethatisappropriateforwhos/hereallyisnow.

For deep and lasting change, the practitioner as well as the client mustactively consent to the operation and effects of the client’s past creations. Igradually invite clients tobothexperienceandconsent to thepast so that theycanbegintoconsenttotheinevitabilityoftheirbetterfuture.

TheClientistheSourceoftheExperienceTransformationalNLP teaches students to presuppose that theoutcomeof anysituation, interaction, or event reflects the true—and usually non-conscious—

intentionbeneaththatexperience.TheTransformationalNLPpractitionerpointsouttotheclientthat,behindthecreationandunfoldingofallofhisorherpastexperience, something of the client’s own consciousness has been at work.Repressing or feeling victimized by the memories and unpleasant emotionsassociated with the past inevitably leads to a diminishment of mental andphysicalintegrity,culminatinginsufferinganddisease.Instead,thepractitionerreframesthemeaningofpasteventssothattheclientrecognizesthewisdomofhisorherpastandpresentcreations.

Thepower in thisstrongerformulationcomesnot just fromitsassertionofsomething positive having been at work in previous times, but also from therecognition that there has been something active within the client’s ownconsciousness—some kind of agency, a force of intelligent and personalintention—behind the creation and unfolding of all of one’s past experience.Working in this expansive inclusion frame preserves our dignity as consciousbeings by fully respecting, and even learning to appreciate, the legacy of ourchoicesovertime.Thisnotonlyfacilitatesthehealingofthepast,butempowersthe client to more consciously exercise personal choice for the present andfuture.3

TheTransformationalNLPpractitionershowstheclient—bothexplicitlyandthroughconversational implication—that theclient ishim/herself thesourceofallpastandpresentexperiences.Theclientcan,therefore,changethefeelingandmeaning of the past and present. For example, in a Transformational NLPsessionImightexplaintotheclient,“Yoursystemisgeneratingandsustainingsome pictures and sound tracks right now that are producing these really badfeelings,andthroughthosefeelingsalotofunpleasant,limiting,andnotusefulmeanings. While your system has been hijacking you into bad feelings andlimitingbehavior,ithasalwaysbeenoperatingintheserviceofyoursafetyandwellbeing. However, these bad feelings and limiting behavior patterns are nolongerappropriateforyourlifeandwhatyouwantnow.You’vehadaproblemwith this processing for some time and you’ve been wanting a differentexperience. We just want to revise the patterning so it is an up-to-date andrespectfulexpressionofwhoyouarenow.”

* In thisbook, Iwillbeusing twoversionsof theword“suffering.”There isgenericsuffering,printedwithalowercase“s,”whichreferstothewordasitisuniversallyusedforveryunpleasantexperiencesthatallhumanshaveincommon.Whenthewordappearswithanuppercase“S,”asin“Suffering,”itreferstotheparticularexperienceofattemptingtorectifyoramelioratethesufferingofourforebearsbyreplicatingtheirpainandlossinourlivesnow.

T

CHAPTERVIII

AlignmentwithQuantumPhysics

hereisanotherfundamentaldifferencebetweenTransformationalNLPandconventional schoolsofNLP.Asageneralization,wemay say thatmost

NLP practitioners, as well as mainstream psychotherapists, continue to workwithin the conceptual frameworkofNewtonianphysics.My approach ismorealignedwith thediscoveriesofquantumphysics.Thisalignment informsallofthephilosophyandmethodsthatIteachatNLPMarin.

TheNatureofRealityandConsciousnessTheclassical orNewtonianview is that all reality is avastmachineofmatterand energy obeying universal and eternal laws. Although scientists havedisputed whether light itself exists as particles or waves since at least theseventeenth century, this wave-particle dichotomy did not interfere with theclassical conceptual framework that all phenomena in the universe, includinghumans, follow laws that are fixed, deterministic, and predictable (Rosenblumand Kuttner, 2006). Thus, in the past two centuries science was generallyequatedwithmaterialismanddeterminism.

The field of psychology also followed this scientific model. Even today,despite the growth of the field of humanistic psychology, mainstream viewsconcerningpsychologyandbiologyaswellasphysicsarestilllargelyinformedbytheviewthathumansaredeterminedbytheirgenes, theirenvironment,andtheaccidentsoftheirpersonalhistory.Whatthismeanstomosttherapistsisthatthebestpossibility toalleviate theclient’sproblemsis toworkbackwardfromtheperson’spresentpain to thephysicaloremotionalcauses thatcreated it. Ifwecandiscoverwhytheproblemoccurred,wecanunderstandandaddressthesymptomsinthepresent.

Therevolutioninscientificthinkingatthebeginningofthetwentiethcentury

forced scientists to open their minds to new possibilities about the nature ofspaceandtime.In1900,MaxPlanckshowedthatlightenergyisnotcontinuous,but rathermanifests in discrete quanta (later named photons) (Rosenblum andKuttner,2006).In1905,AlbertEinstein’sTheoryofSpecialRelativity,withtheequation e=mc2, showed thatmatter and energy are really the same thing indifferent forms, and that one form can be converted into the other (Friedman,1997).EinsteinechoedthephilosopherImmanuelKantwhenhedeclared,“Timeand spacearemodesbywhichwe thinkandnot conditions inwhichwe live”(Friedman,1997,p.60).

In the 1920s quantum scientists confirmed, through rigorousexperimentation,thetheorypostulatedbyphysicistLouisdeBrogliethatatomscanbehaveeitherasawave(energy)orasparticles(matter),dependingonthearrangement of the experiment. In 1925 Ervin Schroedinger formulated theequation that described thewave function of atoms andmolecules, aswell aseverythingmadeofatomsandmoleculesintheentireuniverse(RosenblumandKuttner, 2006). Richard Feynman, the quantum physicist whowon the NobelPrize in 1965 for his contributions to the development of quantumelectrodynamics, explained that all atomic objects,whether electrons, protons,neutrons,photons,orquarks,sometimesbehavelikewavesandsometimeslikeparticles. In their unmanifest aspect, atomicobjects areonlywaves spreadoutover space. These waves become manifest by collapsing into particles(Feynman,1965;Nave,2012;Wolfe,1985).

Thequestionthathasbeenconsumingtheattentionofquantumphysicistsforthepastseveraldecades is:Whatcauses thewavetobecomeaparticle?In the1920s,quantumscientistsmadetheastoundingdiscoverythatthecrucialfactorthatmakesawavebecomeaparticle is theactofobservation.Anunmeasuredelectron isalwaysawaveofpotential,butassoonas it ismeasured(observedwithaninstrument),itcollapsesintoaparticle(Friedman,1997;RosenblumandKuttner,2006).“Thatis,untilwe‘look,’thereisnoobjectivereality,butratheranunderlyingstateofpotential....thispotentialisreallyasuperpositionofallpossiblestates”(Friedman,1997,pp.61–62).AsDeepakChopraexplains,“Theworld is a reflection of the sensory apparatus that registers it. . . . All that isreally ‘out there’ is raw, unformed data waiting to be interpreted by . . . theperceiver”throughthesensesandconsciousness(Chopra,1993,p.11).Quantumobjects are actually non-local waves that become particles only whenconsciousnessfocusesthemsothattheycanbeobservedinoneplace(Goswami,1993;Friedman, 1997).Thus, theobserver actually creates a particle from the

quantum wave. It is the consciousness of the observer that participates inbringingpossibilitiesintoactualities.

Yetanotherastonishingdiscoverywasthateveryelementintheuniverseisconnectedwithand influenceseveryotherelement regardlessof spaceor time(Friedman,1997;RosenblumandKuttner,2006).PhysicistJohnStewartBell’stheorem of quantum entanglement demonstrates that particles influence oneanotherinstantaneouslynomatterhowseparatedtheyarebylongdistances.Thisis because we live in an interconnected universe in which everything affectseverything else (Friedman, 1997). Quantum scientists such as Amit Goswamiand John Hagelin explain that all matter in the universe, including atoms, ismadeofconsciousnessandiscontainedinaunifiedfieldofconsciousness.Thisfield of consciousness, and therefore all elements in it, is non-local, andthereforeallofitinfluenceseverythingelse(Goswami,1993;Hagelin,2006).

Thisallseemsverycounter-intuitive.Howdo theseprinciplesrelate tooureveryday experience, which seems to function according to Newtonianprinciples? One scientist who attempted to bridge the gap between quantumscience and everyday experience was the renowned quantum physicist DavidBohm.

DavidBohmexplains that“matterandmindare twoaspectsofoneoverallreality . . . matter is the form that consciousness takes when introduced orprojected into our everydayworld” (Friedman, 1997, p. 124).More precisely,“matteristheformtakenbyconsciousnesswhenaprobabilityselectedfromthehidden domain is projected into the level of space-time” (Friedman, 1997, p.136).

According to Bohm, there are three aspects, or levels, of the one overallreality.There isanaspectof reality that isunmanifestaswellas thatwhich ismanifest. The unmanifest reality,which he calls the implicate order, is a vastocean of energy and unlimited potential. Our everydayworld is themanifest,explicate order, which contains matter, space, and time. A third aspect ofexistence is what Bohm calls the superimplicate order, and is a field ofinformation. Bohm says that information is what determines space and time(Friedman,1997;Peat,1997).

Thus,matterandmindaredifferentaspectsofonereality.Theobjectsinourthree-dimensionalworldofindividuationandmatteraremerelysmallwavesinavast ocean of energy which has limitless implicate possibility. This infinitepotential can be described aswave functions that, through the operation of anobserver’s consciousness, can be manifested in the world of our sensory

experienceasparticlesofmatter. Inbetweenobservations, theparticlesdonotpass through space-time, but rather jump in and out of the field of a sea ofinfinitepossibilities(Friedman,1997).

DavidBohmexplains that insteadofhavinga linearcausalitybetweentwodistinct events, causation is non-local—any part of thewhole affects all otherparts (Sheldrake, 1995a; Peat, 1997). The “implicate order” underlies bothphysical reality and thought, so “it transcends the usual materialist-idealistdichotomy.”Thisimplicateorderis“awholenesswhichembracespartsandsetsup relationships between them. They’re linked together within a new whole,whichdidn’texistbefore.”Hence,thereisan“implicitintelligenceinmatterasitevolves,”and“it’sactuallynotmovingcausallyinasequencebutisconstantlycreated and replicated” by being continuously being projected out of andreabsorbedbackintotheimplicateorder(Sheldrake,1995a,p.244).

Bohmturnsscienceupsidedownwhenheexplainsthatoneprojectioninthemanifestworlddoesnotdirectlycauseanother. Instead,allcausationoccurs inthe implicate order, and therefore is non-local. The implicate order projectsforms into the explicate (manifest) order,which then injects these forms backinto the implicate order,where they are re-projected outward. It is an infinitefeedbacksystem.Alloftheinfluencingofformsoccursintheimplicatefieldofall possibilities, and is influenced by many factors other than the immediateexternalcause.

The explicate forms include thoughts aswell asmaterial objects.While intheexplicateorderconsciousnessisseparatefrommatter,intheimplicateordertheyarenotseparate.Thus,inBohm’sconceptthemanifestworldcaninfluencethe implicate field of all possibilitieswhich then projects a newmanifestation(Friedman,1997).Itisaneternallyevolvinguniverse,withthepotentialandthemanifestationsinfluencingoneanotherinaninfinitenon-localinterconnection.

Theimplicationsof thisscientific theoryarehuge.Thismeansthat there isno deterministic path for experiences from cause to effect. Although,statistically,electronsasagroupoperateaccordingtopredictableprobabilities—which are the basis of all calculations in such fields of physics as electricalengineering—eachindividualelectronappearstobefreetochooseitsownpathin the universe. While such individualistic choices are not probablemanifestations in reality, they are nevertheless possible. As Amit Goswami(1993) declares, “Quantum physics . . . challenges old concepts, such asdeterministictrajectoriesofmotionandcausalcontinuity.Ifinitialconditionsdonot forever determine an object’s motion, if instead, every time we observe,

thereisanewbeginning,thentheworldiscreativeatthebaselevel”(p.42).Inotherwords,ateveryjuncturewecanchooseanew.

QuantumphysicistFredAlanWolfe,inhisarticle“QuantumConsciousness”(1985),maintainsthatthewave-particledualityofquantumphysicsisalsotrueof the brain. He explains how the physical brain itself, with all its neuronalnetworks,canbechangedbyobservation,orself-reflection:

What we call the brain is the particle-like behavior of our observations.Whatwecallthemindisthewavelikebehaviorofatomicobjects,invisibleandunobserved.Mind is thenanoutgrowthof thebasic lawsofquantumphysics togetherwith the actionsof theobserver,which . . . [are] actsofconsciousness.

Forexample,oneactofconsciousnesscouldcauseachangeinquantumsurface waves acting along the thin membranes covering our neurons.These waves are associated with the movements of the protein-gatemoleculesembeddedintheneurons’walls.A“particle”observationwouldmomentarily“freeze”themolecules’positions,resultingintheappearanceofthought.Anothercomplementary“wave”observationwheretheproteinsremainedunobservedwouldproducechangesintheenergyofthesewaves,resultinginthearousaloffeelings.(Wolfe,1985)

My practice of Transformational NLP corresponds with the conceptualframeworkofDavidBohm,AmitGoswami,andFredAlanWolfe.Itoobelievethatpeoplearenotdeterminedby theirpast.While informationaboutpeople’sbackgroundshaspredictivevaluestatistically,itdoesnotpredictinanabsolutesense the path of growth of an individual. Instead, the conscious observationsand intentions of the client and the practitioner, as well as specific NLPtechniques, can influence the client’s experience of freedomand choice in thefuture.

TheFutureInfluencesthePastQuantum physics also informs the Transformational NLP view of therelationship of the past and present to the future. The renowned scientist andphilosopherTerenceMcKennamaintains that the future attracts the present toitself. Biochemist Rupert Sheldrake explains that evolution in psychology aswellas innatureseemstoentail“apullingfrominfrontrather thanapushingfrom behind” (Sheldrake, McKenna, and Abraham, 1992, pp. 7–8, 31). It all

existsalready,andonlyneedstobemanifested.I too believe that, in a very real sense, instead of the past determining the

presentandfuture,thefuturecanactuallyinfluencethepast.Myworkisbasedonthepremisethatpeopleyearntowardfulfillmentoftheirhumanpotential.Weoperateasifthereisafutureversionoftheclientthatiscallinghimorherintoalignmentwithitself.

Thisview is substantiatedby the findingsof quantumphysics.For severaldecades after the electron was discovered in the late nineteenth century,physicistsexploredhowelectronsproduceanelectric field (American Instituteof Physics, 1997; Pais et al., 1997). By the 1930s, physicists noticed thatelectronsnotonlygenerate their electric fields, they also interactwith andareaffectedbythefieldstheygenerate!Inhis lecturewhenheacceptedtheNobelPrizeinDecember1933,quantumphysicistPaulDiracexplainedtheprocessbywhichthefieldofelectromagneticradiationcreatedbyelectronsinturnactuallycreatesotherelectrons(Dirac,1933;Feynman,1965;Hestenes,1983).In1945,quantumphysicistsJohnWheelerandRichardFeynmandevelopedtheabsorbertheoryofelectromagneticradiation.Thistheoryusesmathematicalequationstoexplain the integration ofmagnetic and electric fields over time.Wheeler andFeynmanshocked theworldby theirexperimentduringwhichnotonlydidanatomemitlight,whichwasabsorbedbyasecondatomsometimeinthefuture,but thesecondatomsentawavebackintimetotheoriginalemittingatom.Inotherwords,thefutureliterallyinfluencedthepastandmergedwithittocreatethepresent(Feynman,1965;Friedman,1997).

Wheelerwritesthathumans,throughconsciousness,createtheirownreality.Realityconsistsoftheinterpretationsthathumansmakeaboutwhattheyobservethrough the senses and instruments of measurement. There are numerousexperimentsshowingthatthepasthasnoexistenceexceptasitisrecordedinthepresent. These experiments show that one’s observation not only creates apresentrealitybutalsocreatesapastappropriatetothatreality.Inotherwords,howweobservesomethinginthepresentcaninfluencewhatactuallyhappenedinthepast(Friedman,1997;RosenblumandKuttner,2006).

WheelerandGoswamipursue this lineof reasoningeven furtherdown thetemporal rabbit hole. They explain that our choice of how we interpret ourobservations in the presentmoment creates not only a probable past that goeswithit,butalsoacorrespondingprobablefuture.Likewise,whatwechooseforthe future can determine the present as well as the past (Friedman, 1997;Goswami,1993).

AtNLPMarin,Iteachthatthefuturecreatesthepresentagainstabackdropofthepast.Thismeansthatthroughourawarenessandchoices,bothconsciousandunconscious,wearealwaysselectingwhichprobablefuturewewouldlikethepresenttobethepastof.Theunconsciouschoicesarewhatwecallbeliefs.

Inmypracticeofchangework,Iactonthepremisethatthefieldofpotentialthoughts,emotions,andactionsfunctionsasthemastersourceofpossibilitiesforwhateachpersonthinksanddoes.Inturn,people’sactionsastheyevolvealsoaffectthefieldofpotential.Thought(desire)activates(conveystheclientintoarelationshipwith)aprobablefutureinwhichthegoalisfulfilled.Thisfutureisone ofmany probabilities. In that future, the present becomes the past (of thefuturegoal).Thiscreatescoherencebetweenthefutureandthepresent.

Thefuturecreatesthepresentinthesensethat,intheillusionoflineartime,thepresentisalwayswhatprecedesandthereforeleadstothefuture.Thepresentisthepointofpower,thatis,wherethechoicesaremade.Itisinandfromthepresent thatwemake our selections ofwhich alternative futures and pastswewouldliketobethepastandfutureof.Inthepresenttheclientchoosesafutureforwhichhewantsthepresenttobethepast.Thatpictureofthefuturecreatesitspast,whichisthepresent.Thispresentthusleadsinevitablytothefuture.Thepresent is the future’s past, and is thereforewhat has already occurred on thewaytoa(now)pre-existingfuturefulfillment.

Therefore,onceweselectafuture,andthenconsenttothepresentbecoming,andtoalwayshavingbeen,thatfuture’spast,thenwecreatethepotentialofanapparentlinearchainofeventsthathasalreadyunfoldedfrompasttofuture.Itisthefuture that isdoingthecreatingofapastcongruentwith itselfandit is thepresentthatchoosesitselftobecongruentlythepastofaparticularfuture.Thepresentdoes thechoosingabout thefuture,but it is thefuture thatdoesall thecreatingofthepast.

Accordingly, in the framework of Transformational NLP, causationworksfrom future to past, aswell as from past to future,moving in both directionssimultaneously and continually. This perspective allows the TransformationalNLP practitioner to encourage the positive inevitable. We work to shift theviewpoint of the client from past and future to different presents. Aspsychologist Philip Zimbardo writes in The Time Paradox (2008), andphilosopherEckhartTolle explains inThePowerofNow (1999), there isonlythe present.What the client chooses to observe affects both the past and thefuture,sincetheybothactuallyexistinthepresentintheperson’smind.

The client facilitates this alignmentwhen s/hebecomes coherent about the

inevitabilityof thepath that leads to thedesired future,andmakeshim/herselfavailable to it. Inmywork, I presuppose this possibility and process and uselanguage that supports this presupposition. I assist the client to create anexperienceandstoryofhowthefuturehasbeenaccomplishedthroughwhat ishappening in the present based on a revised version of what happened in thepast.AsIexplaintomyclientsandstudents,“Thepasthasoperatedflawlesslyto catalyze certain new choices and learning in the present, so that these newchoiceswillhaveinevitablyopenedintofuturefulfillment”(Buchheit,2011,p.145).

I

CHAPTERIX

TheFamilySystem

nTransformationalNLPthereisastrongemphasisonboththelocalandnon-localworkingsoffamilysystems,andespeciallyonpatternsofunconscious

trans-generational loyalty. Humans appear to replicate family pain anddysfunctiongenerationaftergeneration,withaninstinctiveprecisionthatisbothhorrifyingandunconscious.Eachfamily,andeachindividualwithinthefamily,demonstratestheworkingsandeffectsofwhatIcallthestructureofdevotionalpatterning.RobertDiltsexplainsthat“inordertobeloyal,inordertokeeptheirallegiance, their affiliation with their family, they have to follow the familypattern.Itiskindoflike:‘WhoamItobeanybetterthanthosepeoplewhoaremymodels,mymentors?’ Furthermore, if they transcended the family patterntheyhavenorolemodels;theyareontheirown”(Dilts,1990,pp.129–130).

Inmywork, I pay evenmore attention thanDilts towhat I call SufferingObligationsofLove.IaminspiredbytheworksofAnneSchutzenberger,RupertSheldrake,ErvinLaszlo,andBertHellinger,whichprovide thecontext formyefforts toaccess theenergetic imprintsof thefamilysystemacrossgenerationssothatdysfunctionaldevotionalpatterningcanberesolvedintheserviceoftheclient.

InfluencesonTransformationalNLPANNEANCELINSCHUTZENBERGERAnneAncelinSchutzenbergerisarenownedFrenchpsychotherapistwhofoundthat,asshedescribesintheprefacetoherbookTheAncestorSyndrome(1998),“We continue the chain of generations and, knowingly or not, willingly orunwillingly,wepaydebtsofthepast:aslongaswehavenotclearedtheslate,an‘invisibleloyalty’impelsustorepeatandrepeatamomentofincrediblejoyor

unbearablesorrow,aninjusticeoratragicdeath.Oritsecho”(p.xii).The Ancestor Syndrome provides case studies (which Schutzenberger calls

genosociograms) of recurring patterns of occurrences that continue in familiesfrom generation to generation. Schutzenberger finds that all humans haveinherited, negative feelings and imprints of patterns of behavior. Importantevents and traumas experienced by our ancestors have been imprinted on ourgenetic structures and reveal themselves generations later.We seem thereforeimpelled to unwittingly re-enact the life events of previous generations, as iftherewereasortof invisibleloyalty.Forexample,Schutzenbergerrelateshowthedateofa tragedyin thepast,even500ormoreyearsago,canbestored inunconsciousmemory and acted out by following generations. Such acting outmay include not only coincidences in dates or behaviors, but also in healthproblems and accidents that seem to repeat generation after generation, andwithoutplausibleexplanation.

InTheAncestorSyndrome,Schutzenbergerillustrateshowshehasbeenableto assist her clients to overcome seemingly irrational fears and otherpsychological and even physical health problems by discovering andunderstanding the parallels between their own lives and the lives of theirforebears.Shewrites,“fidelitytoancestors,whichhasbecomeunconsciousandinvisible (invisible loyalty), governs us. It is important to make it visible, tobecomeawareofit,tounderstandwhatimpelsusandpossiblyseeifwemaynothavetoreframethisloyaltyinordertobecomefreeagaintoliveourownlives”(Schutzenberger,1998,p.43).Shearguesthatwemustrememberthepastwithallitspaininordertoendthesufferingandmoveonwithourlives:

Thetherapist’sroleistoaccompanyclientsbyhelpingthemtorediscovertheir“history”throughspeakingit,tobeabletorepresentittothemselvesinacoherentmanner,tobeabletoseethethreadandthemeaning.And...helpingclientsfinallyleavethechaos,theunthinkable,theunspeakable,theunspoken—and the repetition—and fully accept and shoulder their familyhistoryandtheirpast.(Schutzenberger,1998,p.139)

Sheexplainsthat:

Wecanreframeanevent:acursecouldbecomeablessing...whenwesee,whenweunderstand . . . a context is transformed . . . and thingschange.Thesubjectcanbreathe,gets ridof theweightof thepast,oftenhisbody

changes,hislifechanges.Hebecomesanotherperson...and(sometimes)in addition is cured of serious or even life-threatening illness.(Schutzenberger,1998,pp.128–129)

RUPERTSHELDRAKETheworkofRupertSheldrake,anEnglishbiochemistandplantphysiologist,isalso a key influence inmywork. Sheldrake explains that there are organizingfields,whichhecallsmorphogeneticfields,whichdeterminethedevelopmentofplants and animals. Sheldrake believes that morphogenetic fields work byimposingpatternsonotherwiserandomactivity.Thesemorphogeneticfieldsarenot fixed, but evolve and are transmitted from past to future members of aspeciesthrougha“morphicresonance”(Sheldrake,1995a,p.13).

Sheldrakeexplainsthatformativecausationactsinanon-localfashion,thatis,itoperatesinstantaneouslyacrossspaceandtime(Sheldrake,1995b).Onceaparticularformhasbeenlearnedbyasystem,itwillbemoreeasilylearnedbyasimilarsystemanywhereelseintheworld.Forexample,“Ifananimal,sayarat,learnstocarryoutanewpatternofbehaviour,therewillbeatendencyforanysubsequentsimilarrat(ofthesamebreed,rearedundersimilarconditions,etc.)to learnmore quickly to carry out the same pattern of behaviour” (Sheldrake,1995a,p.14).

All members of a species influence the field, and this influence iscumulative.Theformandbehaviorofeachindividualisinfluenced,inadditiontoenvironmentandgenes,bytheformandbehavioroftheentirespeciesbothinthe past and present, and in turn exerts an influence on it. Like Lamarck andDarwin, Sheldrake believes that acquired characteristics are inherited(Sheldrake,1995b).

InANewScienceofLife:MorphicResonance (1995a)Sheldrakeposesthequestion:

If morphogenetic fields are responsible for the organization and form ofmaterial systems . . . where do these field-structures come from?” [Heanswers that] “they are derived from themorphogenetic fields associatedwithprevioussimilarsystems:themorphogeneticfieldsofallpastsystemsbecome present to any subsequent similar system; the structures of pastsystemsaffectsubsequentsimilarsystemsbyacumulativeinfluencewhichactsacrossbothspaceandtime.”(p.13)

Inotherwords,whatwehave called the lawsof nature are actuallymore likehabits(Sheldrake,2005).

Sheldrakedoesnotspeculateonhowthefieldsofneworganismscameintoexistenceinthefirstplace.Instead,hereachesthestartlingconclusionthat“theinvisibleorganizingprinciplesofnature,ratherthanbeingeternallyfixed,evolvealongwith thesystems theyorganize. . . .The fields themselvesevolve.Theirexpressionisaffectedbytheconditionsandhabitsoflife,aswellasbygeneticmutations”(Sheldrake,1995b,pp.114,225,313).

Sheldrake’stheoryofmorphicresonanceextendsfromtherealmofplantandanimaldevelopmentandbehaviortohumanbehavior,memory,andcognitioningeneral. InThePresence of thePast (1995b)Sheldrake explains thatmorphicfieldsare theorganizingprinciplenotonlyofanimalandhumanbehavior,butalsoofsocialandculturalsystems,andofmentalactivity,allofwhich“containaninherentmemory”whichinfluencesothersystemsaroundtheworld(p.113).“In the human realm, there aremany examples of parallel social and culturalpatterns that seem to have originated independently in different parts of theworld”(p.289).

Sheldrakeproposesthateachindividualisinfluencedbythemorphicfieldofthe collective memory of its species, as well as by the memory of theindividual’spersonalpast.Thesememoriesarenotstoredinthebrain.Hewritesthattherearenomaterialtracesofmemoriesinthebrain.Thebrainremembersbytuningintothemorphicfield.Thememoriesarestoredinthemorphicfield,andbecomeaccessiblethroughresonancefromourselvesinthepast.Thisself-resonance is the basis for individualmemories and habits aswell as learning.Humansareinfluencedbymorphicresonancenotonlytoourselvesinthepast,butalsotoothersinourfamilyandsocialgroupsinboththepresentandthepast(Sheldrake,1995b).

DAVIDBOHMQuantumphysicistDavidBohm,inaninterviewwithSheldrake,maintainsthathis own ideas are consistent with those of Sheldrake. Bohm too believes thatthere is a collective consciousness that springs from the interconnectivity ofeverythingintheuniverse.Thetwoscientistsagreethatthereisasortofcosmicmemory,akintotheHinduconceptoftheAkashicrecords(Sheldrake,1995a).

ERVINLASZLO

ThebrilliantscholarErvinLaszloinhislandmarkworkScienceandtheAkashicField (2004) took this theme even further in his study of the scientificapplicabilityoftheancientwisdomoftheAkashicrecords.Heclaimsthatwhatiscalledthequantumvacuumisnotreallyavoid,butinsteadaunifiedfieldofconsciousnessthatcarriesandstoresinformationandenergy.Laszloarguesthattheuniverseandevolutionarenotmerelyacombinationofrandomevents.Theinformationfieldlinkstheentireuniverseandnatureaswellasconsciousnessina holographic manner. The interconnectedness that quantum physicistsdiscoveredonthelevelofatomsandsubatomicparticlesischaracteristicofallmatterandlife.

Laszlo thus shows the connectedness between consciousness and thephenomenalworld.Heexplainsthatthisfieldofinformation“linksallthingsintheuniverse,atomsaswellasgalaxies,organismsthesameasminds”(Laszlo,2004, p. 3). Like Bohm, Laszlo maintains that information is a process thatactuallyformsthephenomenaintheworld(Laszlo,2004).TheAkashicFieldisa reservoir of information that stores all information—about all past, present,andfutureeventsandpotentialforevents—holographicallyinwavepatterns.Allthe possible permutations and combinations that exist as potential—as wavepatterns—in the Akashic Field may or may not get materialized (i.e., madeobservable). If they become manifest, their exact details are recorded in theAkashicField(Laszlo,2004).

Laszlo (2004) clarifies that this information,which is stored forever in theAkashicField,canbeaccessedacrossanydistanceortimeperiod.Hespeculatesthat telepathiccommunication,forexample, is transferredfaster thanthespeedoflight.Everyperson’sconsciousexperience,includingthatoftheancestorsinthepast,isstoredandavailabletobeaccessed.Laszlowritesthat:

Normally themostdirectandevident resonanceoccursbetweenourbrainandthehologramweourselveshavecreated.Thisisthebasisoflong-termmemory. . . . [w]e do not address the memory stores in our brains: we“recall” the information from the hologram that records our experiences.Suchrecallcouldinvolvemorethanjustourownexperiences.Ourbrainisnot limited to resonatingwithourhologramalone; it canalso resonate inthe harmonic mode with the holograms of other people, especially withthosewithwhomwehave(orhad)aphysicaloremotionalbond.(p.116)

Thus,Laszlomakesthecasethatourbraincanbecometunedtotheholographic

record of another person. The Akashic Field connects everything witheverythingelse,includingthepresentwiththepastandevenwiththefuture.

BERTHELLINGERBert Hellinger independently found a way to work with a similar concept ofcosmic memory in his unique system of psychotherapy that he calls familyconstellations.WhilehewasnotdirectlyinfluencedbythescientifictheoriesofSheldrake,Bohm,orLaszlo,orevenbySchutzenberger,hefoundintheirworksaconfirmationofwhathehaddiscoveredinhisownworkwithclients.

In a panel discussion in 1999, entitled “ReViewing Assumptions,”Sheldrake,Schutzenberger,andHellingersharedtheirideaswiththepublicandconfirmed that they had independently discovered, through different venues, aforcethatconnectsallhumansthroughspaceandtime.SheldrakeexclaimsthatHellinger’s constellations are an example of morphic fields in action.Schutzenberger agreeswithHellinger that people seem to be punished for thesinsoftheirancestors.Shepointsoutthatwhenapersonbegspardonforwhatwas perpetrated by his or her ancestors in past generations, very often the“curse”isresolvedandtheindividual’scurrentsymptomsdisappear(Hellinger,Schutzenberger,andSheldrake,1999).Whiletheseoriginalthinkerssharemanyideas,Hellingerprovidesamethodologyforresolvingfamilyentanglementsthatisunique.

Hellingerexplainsthattherearerigidlawsforwhathecallsthefamilysoul,according to which certain events are repeated again and again over manygenerationsinanattempttoachievebalancebetweenoppositessuchasguiltandinnocence, perpetration and victimization, and so on. There is an unconsciouscommonconscienceinthefamilysoulthatworkstopreservetheintegrityofthegroup.Hence, a childmay (unconsciously) take on the fate of an ancestor orbalanceout in somewayanaction that isnot life supportingbymanifestingasymptomthat isat theoppositeextreme.Unconsciously,children’s loyaltyandinnocentloveblindlyperpetuatetheharmdonetoorbyearliermembersoftheirfamily(Hellinger,Schutzenberger,andSheldrake,1999).

According toHellinger, the force thatbinds the family togetherover spaceandgenerations is love.There isanatural flowof love in thefamily,which isvery often hidden and distorted. When there is a psychological or even aphysiological problem, the basis usually can be found in an interference ordistortionintheflowoflove.Hellinger’sgoalistodiscoverthehiddenpatterns

of theflowof love infamilies,so that theproperflowcanberestoredand thefamilyrelationshipshealed(Hellinger,1998).

Whilethedynamicsthatoperateinrelationshipsystemsarenormallyhidden,Hellinger found a way to make them visible through the methodology of thefamilyconstellation.Theconstellationsrevealtheforcesoperatinginthefamilysystemthatcausegreatsuffering.Eventssuchasanabortion,theexclusionofafamilymember,atraumaofanancestor,amurder,orsomeotherfamilysecretcan lead to entanglementswhich cause psychological despair or physiologicalmalfunction in the client, seemingly without valid cause in the present. Veryoften, the entanglement is in the formof theunconscious longingof the adultchild to takeon the fateof theancestor inanattempt tosomehowbalance thesystem.This is the child’s attempt to love andbelong to the familymembers,both living and dead, by loyally living out the consequences of another’s life(Hellinger,1998;1999).

Hellinger explains that, “In systemic family therapy, we’re interested indiscovering people’s entanglements in the fates of previous members of theirfamilies.This issomething thatcomes to light ina familyconstellation.Whenit’soutintheopen,theycanfindaresolutionoftheentanglementmoreeasily”(Hellinger, 1999, p. 1).He continues, “A person is entangledwhen he or sheunconsciouslytakesoverthefateofanearliermemberofthefamilyandlivesitout” (Hellinger, 1999, p. 3). The resolution is to bring the family members(livingordead)andtheoriginalissueintothesystembybringingthemintotheconstellation,andacceptingandhonoringthem.Inafamilyconstellation,“Thedead are brought back into the picture so they can be reintegrated. Manyillnessesanddisturbancesareattributable to theexclusionof rightfulmembersofasystem,andtheseareoftenthedeadmembers.Whentheyarebroughtbackin,theothersarefree”(Hellinger,1999,p.58).

Hellinger clarifies that this does not mean that we justify the action thatbroughtuspain.Itonlymeansthatweacceptthatithappenedratherthanrepressitor reject the familymemberwhocaused thepain.Whenwerejectsomeone,we become just like him or her. When we accept and acknowledge that ithappened as it did, we can accept and acknowledge ourselves as we are.Weweep for the action, without judging, accusing, or attacking the perpetrator.Likewise,whentherepresentativeoftheclientdiscoversthatsufferingonbehalfoftheancestorsdoesnothelptheancestors,s/heisencouragedtoacknowledgeand consent to what happened in the past and leave it with them. Suchacceptance leads to reconciliation and a transformation in the person’s

psychology, and very often a disappearance of the disturbing symptoms(Hellinger,1999).

In a constellation that is either facilitatedbyHellinger or conducted in hisstyle,aclientpresentstheissuethathasbroughthimorhertothetherapist.Theobserverssitinawidecirclefacingthecenter.Whenthefacilitatorinitiatestheconstellation,thespaceinsidethecirclesomehowbecomesafieldthatprovidesinformation that is beyond the boundaries of local time and space. (SeeAppendixFformoreinformationaboutthewaythatthefacilitatorofaHellingerfamily constellation sets up the field.) How is this possible?Hellinger (1998)says,“I’munabletoexplainthisphenomenon,butIseethatit’sso,andIuseit”(p.xii).

Hellinger views hiswork as being phenomenological.He is an empiricist,observing and acknowledging what he sees in the constellation rather thandecidingwhat needs to be done in advance.He is interested inwhat really isgoingon, rather thanhowit shouldbe.Hellinger isadamant thatheand thosewho try todo this typeofworkmust relinquish theory in favorofobservation(Hellinger, 1998; 1999). “Standing in a constellation as a representative givesconvincingexperientialevidencesuggestingweareallconnectedtooneanotherin unexpected ways. It’s not a matter of belief, but of taking seriously therepresentatives’feltexperience”(HellingerandBeaumont,1999,p.9).

Once the unconscious connections with the fates of family ancestors arebrought to light, the therapist—without being judgmental and abstaining fromprovidingtheoriesaboutthefamily—offers:

Healing words and ritual movements that “remember” forgotten andexcluded family members, that dissolve hidden identifications and thattransformdestructive loyalties.Therapistsmove therepresentativeswithintheconstellation,allowingthemtocomparetheeffectofdifferentpositions,andofferthemexperimentalsentences.Carefulobservationoftheeffectofthesentencesandmovementsisessential.Accuratelyformulatedsentencesname thehiddendynamics that cause terrible suffering . . . and they alsopoint the way to healing . . . [w]hen love and spontaneous connectionbetween estranged persons occur, we know we are moving in the rightdirection.(HellingerandBeaumont,1999,pp.9–10)

In a constellation, when the representative of the dead perpetrator and therepresentative of the dead victim reconcile with each other, this heals the

symptomsofthelivingonbothsides(Hellinger,Schutzenberger,andSheldrake,1999).

Hellinger originally viewed family constellations as a form ofpsychotherapy. In an interview in 2004 he explains that, “we let the clientchoose and place representatives, then intervened according to our ideas, andaccording to our understandings of the orders of relationships, and looked forgood solutions. First we looked at the problem, and then for the solution”(Schenk,2004b).

In later years, however, Hellinger has evolved in a new direction. He nolongerintervenesasafacilitator.Instead,heencouragessilentconstellations,inwhich the representatives move on their own accord. Hellinger calls theseorganicallyunfoldingevents“movementsoftheSpiritMind”inspiritualfamilyconstellations. Hellinger explains that it had become apparent to him that therepresentatives were in immediate contact with a larger field than the familysoul. He believes that there are forces of the Greater Spirit that have effectsbeyondtherepresentedfamilysystemandwhichcannotbeinfluencedbythem.Heseesthattherepresentativesaresuddenlybroughtintocontact“withforcesoffate,inthefaceofwhichwearepowerless”(Schenk,2004b).

Hellinger points out that the movements of the participants are often incontradictiontoourownconceptsofwhattheyshouldbe.Hesaysthatwhenwedisrupt suchmovements,we cannot effect real change.Onlywhenwe refrainfromactingcantherealhelpbegin.

A new power has taken the leading place. I submit to this power, andsuddenlyIknowwhetherIhavetodosomethingandwhatIhavetodo....BeyondfamilyconstellationsandmovementsofthesoulInowmovewithspirit . . . spirit takes over now and exerts completely different ways ofactingthanthemovementsofthesoul.(Schenk,2004b)

Sinceeverythingisguidedbyspirit,therearenogoodorbadpeopleoractions,sowemustrefrainfromjudging.Instead,welookforreconciliation.

Since,accordingtoHellinger,thesoulwillmovetowardresolutionwithoutneed for interference, the facilitatormust help in away that is different fromwhatwas done in the previous type of family constellation. S/hemust remainaloofandnotvestedinanyparticularoutcome.Inthemovementswithoutwordsthe unhealed situations reveal themselves, and with further movements, thehealingoccursthroughreconciliation.Hence,thehelpingisnolongerintentional

acting, but rather allowing it to happen. Much of the current Hellingerconstellation is done in silence, so for one or two hours the participants justmove around as they feel inclined without receiving instructions or talking(Hellinger,2006;Schenk,2004a;2004b).

AsHellingerexplainsduringtheconstellationhedidinWashington,D.C.inJuly2006:

ThemovementsoftheMind,oroftheSpirit...arevery...veryslow,andthey takea long timetodevelop. . . .Manypeoplecannotstand that. . . .Theywanttodosomething.Ifyoudosomething,youspoilit!But...IgowiththemovementofthatSpirit,ofthatMind.Iamintunewiththat.Howdo I get in tune with that? I am in a connection of well-wishing witheverybody—whateverhappened,witheverybody—becauseonceyouenterintoconnectionwiththesemovements,youletgoofthedistinctionofgoodorbad.Althoughitmayappearherethatthereweresomevictims...andsomebody was [injuring] them, they are all on the same level—nodifference.Onceyouenterintothesemovements,yougivethemaplaceinyourheart,equally,andthenyouareinapositiontounderstandwherethemovementsgo,andwhomyouhavetochoosetoadd....Andsometimesyouhavetointervenewhenyouseesomeoneisescapingtheissue,andyouknowtheissue,becauseyoufeelthattoo....

Now,ifyoucomparethat tothefamilyconstellationsyouareusedto,you see, it is quite different, quite different. The facilitator does not doanything. Doesn’t talk anything, doesn’t ask anything, doesn’t want toknowwhatanybodyisfeeling....[t]hemaininterferenceinthemovementoftheMindisyourcuriosity,becausewhatyougetwhenyouarecurious...is...afractionofthetruth,justafraction,andtheunimportantfraction,andyouloseyourconnectionwiththatmovement.(Hellinger,2006)

Hellingerasksparticipantstobearandevenfullyagreetotheconflictasthefirst step toward reconciliation, thus resolving the usual distinctions betweengoodandevil.Thetherapistmustreleaseallmoraljudgment,andagreetowhatis. S/he accompanies the client rather than practices therapy on or to him/her.Hellingerdeclaresthat:

Agreatforceisatwork,somethinggoodthattook...[us]intoitsservice...[t]hatwhichwedo,isnotdependentonwhatwethink.Thismovementtakesusalongwith it, irresistible. . . . Ifweobserve thingsas theyare, it

becomesquiteclear:TheDivine,theprimalpower,thepowerwhichmovestheworld,willstheconflict.(Schenk,2004b)

Our task, then, is tocome toapositionof loveof everythingandeveryoneasthey are, with the movements toward reconciliation within families, ethnicgroups,nations,andsoonbeingthemeansofhealingandgrowing.

Recently,Hellingerhasmodifiedhismethodologyevenmore.Now,heisnotso interested in theemotionalorpsychologicaldynamicsof the family. In factthese days, since the mid-2000s, he usually does not work with the familysystem at all. Increasingly, the only participants are the subject and arepresentative for the future, or the subject and a representative for thedysfunction. Hellinger believes that the resolution of the dysfunction comesthroughthemovementoftheSpiritMind,ortheGreatSoul,withoutinterferencefrom the facilitator (Hellinger, 2004a).Nevertheless, he still does occasionallyinterveneifhefeelsguidedtodoso.

FamilyandsystemicconstellationsatNLPMarinI have been tremendously educated and inspired by Bert Hellinger’sextraordinarywork in systemic constellations.When I sawHellinger workingwithclients,inperson,duringhisfirsttrainingworkshopintheUnitedStates,Iwas awestruck by his ability to quickly and straightforwardly explicate theusually baffling operation of trans-generational entanglement and suffering. Iobserved the remarkablecapacitiesofHellinger’smethod to reveal theelusivemechanisms whereby—through the workings of an entirely positive drivetoward healing—the experience of love actually becomes distorted anddestructive in families and relationships. I was amazed to discover an evendeeper significance in the classic NLP presupposition that all experience issourcedoutofsomekindofintendedpositiveoutcome.Hellinger’sexplicationoftherulesoflove’sworkinginfamilies,whathecallsOrdersofLove,showedme that devotionally distorted efforts to fulfill intendedpositive outcomes canreachmuchfurtherthantheusualchild/parent/grandparentgenerationalscopeofconventional family healing work. Indeed, the imperatives of these intendedpositivescansometimesreachentirecenturiesintothefamily’spast.

Today, numerous students of Hellinger’s work are doing systemicconstellationsallovertheworld.ManyofthesepractitionersareseverallearninggenerationsremovedfromHellingerhimself.Somesystemicconstellationwork

thatwas inspiredbyHellingerhas takennewdirectionsandevolutions,asonewouldexpectfromabodyofideasandmethodsasfertileandimportantashis.Iam pleased and honored to be a part of this extension and unfolding ofHellinger’s work, and I am gratified to be able to contribute some importantdifferencesinpurposeandmethodologyandinthegeneraltenorofthework.

One significant difference between Hellinger’s newer formats and myconstellationsisthatIcontinuetoworkwithfamilydynamicsthathavebeenatplay in family systems across generations. As in Hellinger’s originalconstellations,Isometimesworkwithrepresentativesofspecificmembersofthefamily: the classic representations ofFather,Mother, Sibling(s),Grandparents,and soon.However, I have also enterednew territory, representing the forcesandfactorsthathavecompelledthefamilyintocertainkindsofdisorderedanddysfunctional behavior across generations. Frequently, the only person beingrepresentedintheconstellationistheclient,withtheotherrepresentationsbeinga Force, or a Flow, or some other kind of dynamic element that has beenaffecting the family’s wellbeing. Such representations might be labeled, forexample, “ThatWhich Impels theFamilyTowardCruelty”or “Whatever It IsThat Has Been Distorting the Family Toward Illness.” These constellationscontinue to be about family dynamics, even though they are about thearchitecture of the dynamics rather than directly about family membersthemselves.

AnotherkeydifferencebetweenmyapproachandHellinger’s (bothclassicHellingerandthemoresilentandsublimeSpiritMindworkofcurrentHellinger)isthatIamcomfortableworkingwithafocusedintentiononfindingasolution(or resolution, which I hear as “resolution”) for the client, rather than only amovement toward it. Instead of just letting the movement unfold withoutinterference, I believe that the constellation process often benefits from somegentle guidance toward resolution of the problem. Hence I, as the facilitator,frequentlyintervene,althoughIalwaysstaywithintheboundariesofwheretheconstellation goes. Sometimes this gentle guidance may take the form of mybeing clear that I do not knowwhat the resolution is. This acknowledgementinevitably invitesanadditionalclarityorprecisionofperceptionon thepartofthe representatives that then allows the constellation to unfold in a productiveway.

Another dissimilarity concernsHellinger’s insistence on silence during theconstellation. I agree with Hellinger that showing the client the patterns ofentanglement is in itselfa therapy. Ibelieve,however, that totalsilenceduring

the constellation is dismissive of human experience. It deletes the narrative ofthe client’s experience. Through the narrative, we can connect the dots aboutwhat the hidden dynamics are. Chaos is revealed to really be an orderlyevolution toward resolution. I rarely ask the representatives to speak to oneanother within their roles, but I am constantly inquiring about what theirexperienceintheirrolesis.Thissharinginformsmeandengagestheattentionoftheobserverssittingaroundthecircle.Thisattentionseemstocontributetotheenergy of the field, and provides a more dynamic movement among theparticipants.Thedynamic seems tobeasauthenticas ina silent constellation,and as much a manifestation of Spirit, but the movement is faster and theresolutionquicker.

In the constellations I facilitate, very serious work is often accomplishedwith humor and laughter. I often provoke shared laughter about the client’sspecificfamilypredicamentsaswellasaboutthemoreuniversallyexperienceddilemmasandcommontragediesofhumanbeings.Ifindthatoccasionallybeingvery light about that which is usually heavy and dark often has good effects.Humorprovokesamomentarychangeofperspective,providinganopportunityfor some dissociation from the serious or tragic events andmeanings that areunfolding within a few feet of everyone in the physical space in which theconstellation is happening.Whenamomentof laughter is over, I observe thatthevarious elements in the system—informational, emotional, and energetic—can be quickly brought back togetherwith noticeablymore clarity and powerthan were available previously. A moment of silliness can often reframe theinformation and events that are revealed in the constellation. This releasestension,affordsthefacilitatorbetteraccesstoinformation,andallowstheentiresystem to work more readily and productively with the serious issues of theclient’slife.

Inaddition,itismyimpressionthatIamevenmorefocusedthanHellingeron showing adult children that they willingly, albeit unconsciously, suffer inorder to assert the blamelessness of their parents and ancestors. Very often,while people consciously make bitter accusations against parents and familyabout neglect, abuse, and cruelty, they simultaneously—and entirelyunconsciously—create or allow relationships, situations, and experiences thatrecapitulate the original abuse. In constellations, I have found that thisphenomenoncanoftenbe representedby thesewords:“DearMother/Father, ifthis [terrible situation] is thebestyoucanofferme,your lovingchild, then inyourhonor,andtoprotectyoufromallaccusationandblame,Iwillmakesure

thatnoonetreatsmebetter,seesmebetter,ordoesabetterjobwithmethanyouhave—Ipromise.Iwilllivemylifeinawaythatshowseveryonethatyouwererighttodowhatyoudid.”Asmentionedpreviously,IcoinedthetermSufferingObligationsofLove(SOL)todescribethisdevotion-drivenurgetoreplicateandextendtheagoniesandperpetrationsofpreviousgenerations.

Another fascinating phenomenon is the proclivity of people to imitateexactlythosetraitsthattheyderideintheirparentsandthathurtthemsomuch.Thisexperiencecanbecapturedinthephrase,“Tohonoryou,andtoeaseyoursuffering,andtoamendthebadexperiencesandconditionsofyourlife,Iwillbelikeyou, Ipromise!”Theseunconscious lovingsentiments,and thedestructivedecisions and actions towhich they give rise, are always directed toward pastevents and toward family members who may have already died. Thus, suchSufferingdevotionisalwayscompletelypointless.Itiscompassionwithoutanygoodeffect.Itisaseverelydistortedexpressionoflove.

MorethanHellinger,Iamintenttorevealthedynamicsoftheclient’sSOLstructuresandbehaviors,makingexplicittheunconsciousprocessesandactionsthroughwhichancestraltragedyandlossarereplicatedinthepresentgeneration—although usually with some conversion to other forms of expression. Forexample, one ofmy clients had an inexplicable, severe, and occasionally life-threatening gastro-intestinal medical condition. His constellation revealed thatthismanifestationofillnesswaslinkedto,andwasattemptingtoreplicate,someexperiences of events from the Armenian genocide during which nearlyeveryoneintheclient’sfamilyhadperishedacenturyearlier.Theclientpartiallyreplicated theexperienceofdeathbybayonet in theabdomen,whichwashowmembers of his family had been killed, by presenting symptoms of severegastro-intestinalillnessandpain.

Ofcourse, theclienthasnoconsciousawarenessofanSOLentanglement.Indeed, the idea that onewoulddeliberately compromiseone’sownwellbeingon behalf of people caught in a nightmare from a century ago would seemabsurd. Yet, in the constellation such entanglements are revealed as anunconsciousbutirresistibledesiretotrytodosomethingtohelpthosewhocamebefore.

Themaintaskofconstellationfacilitatorsistohelpclientsreveal—toandforthemselves—boththeexistenceandtheoperationalnatureoftrans-generationaldevotionalentanglements.Properlydone,constellationsexplicatewhathasbeenoccurringinthefamily,andalsoopenthewayforclientstore-chooseaboutthemeans theywould like to use, henceforward, to demonstrate love and respect.

Thesocialsettingwithinwhichconstellationsareusuallyconductedprovidestheclientwithasafe,interactivespacewithinwhichtogathernewinformationthatcan lead to new choices. The field effect of the constellation, the mysteriouspresence of windows into the past and future of the client and the family,somehow empowers the client to make new choices that are not merely newinsights or ideas, but the actual basis of a new template the family can use—across generations—to find less distorted means to say “I love you.” In theformat of the constellation, we are actually able to resolve the devotionalentanglements that have distorted the flow of love and themovement towardwellbeingacrossgenerations.

Time—or,moretothepoint,theabsenceoftheusualeffectsandexperienceoftime—isafundamentalaspectofthequantum,non-localnatureofnearlyallworkwithintheconstellationfield.Withinthefieldoftheconstellationalltimeis right now. For example, if there are five generations interactingwithin thefield, each generation is fully present in its own now, although they areobviously in past and future states relative to one another. Amazingly, trans-generational family interventions accomplished within the constellation field“now”appear toaffectboth thepastandthefutureof theclientandhisorherfamily.

I am more aligned with Hellinger’s newer, more explicitly spiritualperspective thanmaybe immediatelyapparent.Webothbelieve that there isaforcebeyond the family soul thatmovesusall toward reconciliation.Webothbelieve that the therapist cannot use his or her mind alone to figure out thesolution.HellingeropenshismindtothemovementofSpirit(whichhereferstoastheConsciousField),andallowsittoguidebothhimandtherepresentativestoward movements that will resolve the discordance in the system. As thefacilitator, I too intend to be an instrument of theConsciousField, and amasmuchapartofthemovementoftheFieldaseachoftheotherparticipantsintheconstellation.MyintentionandpracticeistofacilitatefromwithintheConsciousField rather than as an outside observer or authority. This approach seems toallowmostconstellationstomovetoamoretranscendentlevel.

UnlikeHellinger,however,IworkalmostexclusivelyinwhatItermaveiledformat with respect to the sharing of information with representatives andobservers. This is done to ensure that the information and work of theconstellation are sourced solely fromwithin the Field (or, asHellingerwouldsay, guided by Spirit) and not by himself or the participants. In Hellinger’sconstellations, at least when he was still working with representatives for

specific familymembers, usually everyone knew from the beginningwhat thefamilystoryordysfunctionwas,andwhatissuetheclientwantedtoresolve.Asa consequence of doing open interviews, the observers as well as therepresentatives were provided with explicit knowledge about who wasrepresenting which living or dead member of the system, or which nation ornationality,orwhichdiseaseorbodyorgan,etc.

In contrast, in the veiled format, no one knows who represents whom orwhat.Theclient’s interviewwithme isdone inprivate. Iwrite the roles toberepresentedon individual cards,whichare folded so that thewriting ishiddenfromview.The client or I choose the representatives.The cards are randomlypresented to the representatives without anyone—not the client, nor therepresentatives, nor the observers—knowingwho has receivedwhich card. InmostinstancesIsimplywalkintothemiddleoftheconstellationcircleandaskparticipantstoselectacardforthemselvesandthen,afterputtingthecardawaywithoutlookingatit,positionthemselvesinthewaythat“feelsright.”EvenIdonot knowwhom the representatives are representing, until I need to know inorder to understand what to do next. Without fail, the roles specified on theunviewed index cards proceed to unerringly unfold themselves within andthroughtheexperienceoftherepresentatives.

Veiled constellations are clear demonstrations of the availability of non-local,orquantum, information.Noneof the informationandexperience that isrevealed by representatives (before I, as the facilitator, unveil the issues androles)canbeaccountedforintraditionalNewtonianterms.Asanexample,attheverybeginningofoneconstellation,withinmomentsoftheroles’arrivalintotheawarenessof therepresentatives,oneof themscreamed,grabbedhishead,andfelltothefloorinanexperienceofagonizingpain.Uponaskingtoseethecardthatthisrepresentativehadbeengiven—whichhadbeenfoldedovertwiceandgiventotherepresentativerandomly,withouttherepresentativeeverlookingatit—I found the words: “Great Uncle/severely disabled/headwound/WWII/ignoredbyfamily.”

The information that allows something like this tooccur is obviouslynon-localinnature.Sometimesparticipantsandobserversarenottoldanythingatallaboutwhoorwhatisbeingrepresenteduntiltheveryendoftheconstellation,or,if the client wants anonymity, perhaps nothing will be revealed even then.Amazingly,thereisalmostalwaysresolutionandreconciliationthatchangesnotonly the patterns and experiencewithin the constellation, but also the patternsandexperiencewithintheactuallivesoftheclientsandtheirfamilies(andvery

oftentherepresentativesandobserversaswell).In constellations, I am always focused on one main question: “Out of

devotiontowhomorwhat is theclientsuffering(andSuffering)becauseofanSOL?” In addition to Hellinger’s Orders of Love, I use other concepts fromdifferentsources.Iamgreatlymovedbythestatementofawisesoul:

Myobservationis...thateverytimeIamconfrontedwiththeexperienceof moving forward, I am inclined to resist and avoid becomingmore ofwhatIalreadyam. . . [because]everytimeIamconfrontedwithmovingforward, I am also confrontedwith allowing someone else to staywheretheyare....Myexperienceisthatthesourceofsufferingisinthewayswesuffer for other people in an unworkable attempt to say I love you.(Kaskafayet channeled through E. O’Hara, personal communication, July1977)

This frame of Suffering, which is from the teaching of a master namedKaskafayet,antedatesHellinger’sconstellationworkbymorethanfifteenyears.(SeeAppendixGforadescriptionofmyencounterwithKashkafayetandhowhis teachings influenced my work.) I use the term “devotional Suffering” tocapture and synthesize the essence of the views of both Kaskafayet andHellinger.

I also teach and practice an integration of constellation-like work—investigating clients’ Orders of Love and Suffering Obligations of Love—inone-on-oneprivate sessions. Inmyworkwith individual clients I occasionallysetup(eitherthroughvisualizationintheclient’smindorbyusingindexcardsrepresenting family members) a constellation-like format for gathering trans-generational family information. InadditionIcreatedasimple,yet remarkablypowerfulvisualformatcalledTheFamilyBleachers,inwhichmanygenerationsof thefamilysitorstand in thebleachersofagymnasiumorfootballstadium.Throughsuchmethods,withproperguidance,itisusuallypossibleforaclienttogainaccesstotheoriginsoftheirpersonaldevotionalSuffering.

Inmyprivatesessionswithclients,IcontinuetoposethequestionsuccinctlyarticulatedbyJonathanRice:“Whatare theVs(pictures)andAs(sounds) thataremakingthenegativeKs(feelings)?”(J.Rice,personalcommunication,April1985). Inaddition toworkingwith thenegative feelings related to thedrive tosurvive,Ialsoinvestigatehowfeelingsofdevotiontotheancestorscreatelimitsanddamageintheclient’slife.Whataretheother-than-unconsciousVsandAs

thatdrivepeopletodothosethingsthatcausethemsuffering,bothonthelevelofsurvivalandthelevelofdevotiontoourfamilymembersandancestors?

TheuniqueconceptualframeworkofTransformationalNLPisreflectedinaphrase I use concerning the two main unconscious drives in people’s lives:survival patterning and devotional patterning. I teach a model of what I call(tongue-in-cheek) The Oreo of Eternal Doom, in which the pain of humanbeings is like thesugary filling in themiddleofanOreocookie.Humans findthemselves sandwiched between the mandates of safety and survival and thecompulsion to compromise or destroy their ownwellbeing out of devotion totheir ancestors. The former is programming that at one time may have beennecessaryorusefultosurvive,butisoutdatedandcausestremendoussufferingin the present. The latter is a massively distorted and entirely unconsciousattempt to remedy the losses and tragedies of preceding generations. ThroughTransformationalNLP’scombinationofNLPproceduresinaformatresemblingpsychotherapyandourevolutionofthefamilyconstellation,wecanreviseboththesurvivalandthedevotionalpatterningthatcreateobstaclestolivingwithfreechoiceinthepresent.

P

CHAPTERX

ManifestingAlternativeRealities

erhaps themost fascinatingwork I have done is based onmy interest inpotentialalternativerealities.JohnGrinderandRichardBandlerhadstudied

Carlos Castaneda’s books about his experiences with the Native Americansorcerer,donJuanMatus, tounderstandhowtoassistpeople inchanging theirreality.1Castaneda’s descriptionof don Juan’s sorcery strongly influenced thefounders and therefore the development ofNLP (McClendon, 1989;Dilts andHallbom,2009).TransformationalNLPtakesthisworkevenfurther.

InfluenceofCarlosCastaneda’sDonJuanDonJuan’sbasicpremise is that theworldofeveryday life isnot real,or“outthere,”aswebelieveitis.Instead,theworldweallknowisonlyadescriptionofthe world that has been instilled in each child by his or her culture from themoments/heisborn.Theperceptualinterpretationsthatmakeuptheworldrununinterruptedlyinourmindsandarerarelyquestioned(Castaneda,1972;Keen,1972).

The teacher explains thatpersonalpowerdependsonhowclearlyapersoncan “see.” For don Juan, “seeing” means to experience the world directly,withoutthepreconceptionswehavebeentaughtsinceinfancyandoutsideofthedescriptionswehavelearnedtocallreality.Whenwecan“see”clearly,thenwecanbegintodevelopthefreedomtoperceiveanddescribetheworldaswewish.Inotherwords,wewillbeabletorewriteourpersonalstories(Keen,1972).

DonJuanelaboratesthatinorderforapersontoreally“see,”s/hefirsthasto“stoptheworld”(Castaneda,1972,p.14).InaninterviewwithSamKeenforthemagazinePsychologyToday,CarlosCastanedaclarifiesthat“whenwestoptheworld,theworldwestopistheoneweusuallymaintainbyourcontinualinnerdialogue.Onceyoucanstop the internalbabbleyoustopmaintainingyourold

world. The descriptions collapse. That is when personality change begins”(Keen,1972).

Castaneda learned fromdon Juan a number of different techniques to stoptheworld.Sometimespsychotropicplantswereusedtostoptheflowofordinaryinterpretations. Another technique was to disrupt one’s routines. A third waywastolearntoobserveandmanipulateone’sdreams.Yetanothermethodwastofocusonthenoisesintheoutsideworlduntilthemindgottiredanddroppedintothegap(Keen,1972).

Thus, don Juan was helping Castaneda to experience the space betweenthoughts so that he could begin to see the possibility that his thoughts andperceptionscouldbechangedatwill.Likemysticsinallculturesthroughouttheages, theNativeAmerican shaman demonstrated that experiencing the gap orsource of thought was the first step to recognizing that one had created thethoughts and could just as well have other thoughts. However, accessing thesourceofthoughtisnotbyitselfsufficientforthepersontobeabletocreateanew reality. To choose a new reality, one needs an alternative possibledescription of the world, that is, new information (Castaneda, 1972). It isnecessary to provide the subconscious with new information so that one canchoosedifferentthoughtsaboutoneselfandtheoutsideworld.

Castanedaelucidatesthat,“OneoftheearliestthingsdonJuantaughtmewasthatImusterasemypersonalhistory”(Keen,1972).Todothis,andtosupportlearning to change realities at will, one has to avoid being known andcategorizedbyothers.Heclarifies,“Themoreyouareknownandidentified,themoreyourfreedomiscurtailed.Whenpeoplehavedefiniteideasaboutwhoyouareandhowyouwillact,thenyoucan’tmove....Iflittlebylittleyoucreateafog around yourself then youwill not be taken for granted and youwill havemore room for change” (Keen, 1972). Thus, even the information that othershaveaboutyoucanimpactyourownconsciousness.

In thisway, don Juan taught Castaneda that he could change his personalhistorybygoingtothesourceofthoughtandchangingtheinformationfromthatlevel. Bandler and Grinder believed that they could do this with hypnosis,anchoring,and reframing (McClendon,1989;DiltsandHallbom,2009).Later,DiltsandRiceaddedre-imprinting.

LikeBandlerandGrinder,IwasdeeplyaffectedbytheteachingsofdonJuanand read all of the books by Carlos Castaneda. I was also influenced byCastaneda’s public teaching programs, held in the 1990s. These events wereprimarily focused on teaching shamanic magical passes, formalized physical

movementsthathadbeenpasseddownbythesorcerersindonJuan’slineageforthousandsofyears,inamodernizedformthatCastanedacalledTensegrity.(SeeAppendixHformyexperienceofCarlosCastaneda’sTensegritytraining.)Themagical passes consist of a complex series of physical movements, theperformance of which (according to Castaneda) would redistribute a person’senergyinordertoopenuptheabilitytoperceiveenergyfieldsandtheirflowinhumanbeingsaswellasintheuniverse.Onceapersonbecameconsciousoftheenergy fields, s/he could utilize andmanipulate them (Castaneda, 1995). Thiswas a first step to freeing oneself from the confines of inherited, rigiddescriptionsofreality,includingone’spersonalbeliefsandidentity.

ChangeofLifeVersionaswellasLifeVisionIn Transformational NLP I also offer additional maneuvers of consciousness.Like don Juan, I strongly emphasize the direct and indirect re-telling of one’sstorybycreatingachangeofvision,which is anessentially linear,Newtonianendeavor in the traditionof JonathanRice.This is a changeofperception thatleads toa re-interpretationof thecauses,effects,motivations,andmeaningsofone’slifeexperience,allbasedontheremembered,established“facts”ofone’shistory.

HoweverTransformationalNLP,likedonJuan’steachings,canalsoinvolvecreatingachangeoflifeversion,notjustofvision.Thisinvolvesmorethanjustnew discovery and interpretation. I facilitate the creation of a new version ofourselvesandourworldbyselectivelycallingforththeinfluenceandeffectsofwhat did not occur.This endeavor tomanifest an alternative reality is alignedwithsomeoftheimplicationsofquantummechanics.

QuantumphysicistDavidBohmelucidatesthat:

Beforeaquantummeasurementisregistered,therearevastpossibilitiesforalternative outcomes, each of which is present within the field ofinformation associated with the quantum potential—each of them ispotentially “active.” But after themeasurement has been registered, onlyoneofthepossibilitiesbecomesanactuality.Informationaboutalternativepossibilitiesisstillpresentwithinthequantumfield,butithasceasedtobein an “active form” and cannot affect the future of the quantum system.(Peat,1997,p.297)

Transformational NLP, however, sometimes taps into these alternativepossibilities in such a way that they actually can influence the future. Forexample,thepractitionermayasktheclienttoimagineastoryabouthis/herlifethat s/hewisheswere true insteadofwhat actuallyhappened.This canhave avery beneficial effect on a client who is unwilling to stop being negativelyaffectedinthepresentbyhisorherparticularlyabusiveactualpast.Itisahumaninstinct to base one’s identity on resistance to past horror, but this resistancecannotleadtofullhealingandfuturefreedom—oneremainsalivingmemorialtothepastnightmarerealities.Therefore,askingsuchclientstoimaginehavinghadamorelovingparent,alongwithallthefeelingsthatcomewithhavingbeennurtured by that parent, can create a positive opening that would not havedevelopedinanyotherway.

AsneuropsychologistRickHanson(2013)describes,“imaginedexperiencesbuild neural structures through mechanisms similar to those that actual, liveexperiences use” (p. 105). David Bohm explains that our thoughts andwordscauseobjectivechemicalchangesinthebrain:Hewrites,“Words...unfoldinthebrain,producingchangesinitschemistrythatpermeatethewholebody....[These] somatic reactions . . . in turn modify our thinking.Words, thoughts,feelings, and intentions have their objective correlate as chemical processeswithin the brain; likewise, objective chemical processes have their subjectivecorrelatesinmovementsofthought”(Peat,1997,pp.278–279).

While the facts of a person’s history remain the same, the effects of apotential alternative reality can be manifested in the person’s nervous systemandother-than-consciousprocessesformakingmeaning.PsychiatristBesselvander Kolk (2014) explains that reworking the past to create new, alternative,virtualmemoriesthatlivesidebysidewiththepainfulrealitiesofthepastcanprovideantidotestomemoriesofhurtandbetrayal.Theclientstillknowswhatthefactsofthepastwereandare,buts/hesuffersfromthemless.

Itisimportanttonotethatwearenotendeavoringtochangethememoryoftheactualfactsofwhathappenedinthepast.Instead,theobjectiveistochangethemeaningofwhatthoseactualpastexperiencesmeannow.Anexperienceofapotential alternative reality both takes away much of the negative chargeassociatedwiththememoryoftheactualpastandenablestheclienttoconceiveofhavingmorechoiceinthepresent.

However,while offering an imagined better past can often support havingnewandhealingchoicesnow,theimaginationshouldneverbeusedtoremovethe need formaking new choices about the present and future. Similarly, the

activityof“re-imprintingsignificantothers”canbeusedtoeasepresentpainandextendpresentcomprehensionofwhatactuallyhappened,butshouldnotremovetheopportunityandnecessitytomakenewchoices.

Our challenge and task is to choose a betterway for ourselves despite thestrugglesofthepast—nottoobviatetheneedforloving,healingre-choosingbyarranging for there to have been no fear or struggle to beginwith.Again,wewanttofindawaytochangeourfeelingsaboutwhathappenedinthepast,notthe facts themselves, since our feelings determine what the meaning of whathappened. Enabling the nervous system to experience a potential alternativerealitycanfacilitateachangeinthemeaningofwhatactuallyoccurred.

Anotherexampleofworkingtomanifestanalternativerealityisthesystemicfamilyconstellation.InthepreviouschapterIdiscussedtheformatofthefamilyconstellationsIfacilitate,theirpotentialintermsofchangingconsciousness,andthesimilaritiestoanddifferencesfromthoseofBertHellinger.Inthissection,Iwilldiscussfamilyconstellationsasawaytomanifestchangesinexternalrealityaswellasininternalconsciousness.

I teachmy students that it is thework of the practitioner to complete no-longer-usefulthreadsofcauseandeffectwithintheclient’slifeandworld,andreplacethemwithrevisionsinwhatwemaycallthe“topologyoffamilykarma.”Topology is the mathematical study of shapes that preserve the essentialpropertiesofthespacetheyoccupy,despiteanystretching,bending,ortwistingthatmaybeapplied.Topologicallytransformedshapescanappeartotheeyetobeentirelydifferentthings,althoughtheyremainidenticalatthelevelofthecoremathematicsthatdescribesthem.Likewise,inthetrans-generationalworkingsoffamilysystems,theperceivable“shape”ofouterfamilyeventsmayormaynotberecognizablysimilartowhathappenedinpreviousgenerations,buttheforcesunderlying these events are identical. I teach that it is the task of theconstellation facilitator to recognize these important trans-generational coresymmetrieseventhoughtheymayappearasradicallydifferentshapesfromonegeneration to another. In constellation-format family dynamics, the goal is torevealandmodify—outsideofspaceandtime,becausethatiswherethechangesinconstellationsoccur—the information thathasgivenrise to theshapeof thewaythingshavebeen,sothateventscanunfoldinnewwaysintheclient’sandthefamily’sfuture.

Asdiscussedpreviously,changesinthefamily’spastbymeansofcorrectivemovementsinconstellationsarealwaysaccomplishedinthe“now”momentsinwhich the constellation is taking place. For example, if now during the

constellation the representativeofaparentwhoabandoned the family—in (theconstellation’srevelationsabout)events thatoccurredahundredyearspast—issupported to reconnect with and remain properly supportive of children andgrandchildren, the family consciousness, which transcends generational limits,immediately gains access to a different “past” geometry that governs the flowandexpressionof lovein thefamily.Althoughpastfactsremainunaltered, theevents and experiences that becomepossible for the family in the present andfuturecanchangeasifthepastfactshadbeendifferent.

This process has different effects from those of re-imprinting the client orsignificantothers.Re-imprintingchangesaperson’sinternalpatterningwithoutrequiring a related shift in family consciousness across time. Constellationschange systemic realities, which can support corresponding changes in one’spersonal thoughts, feelings, and outer behavior. If we were to describe thisphenomenon in David Bohm’s terms, we would say that the movements ofintentionandconsciousnessthatoccurinaconstellationallowadifferentsetofexplicateeventstounfoldfromtheinfinitefieldofimplicatepastpotentials.

Forexample,inafamilyinwhichatragiclosswasdeniedorignoredinanearlier generation, it is likely that a least some descendants of the ones whoexperiencedthelosswillexperiencesimilarlosses,albeitinamannerorinwaysthathaveanentirelydifferent-appearingshape.Eventsthatoccurredinavillagethatwaswipedoutbyinvaderscangiverise,generationslater,tocontemporarylivesinwhichpeoplearewipedoutbyverydifferent-appearingforces,suchaspoliticalorfinancialdevastation.In thecontextof theconsciousnesscalledthefamilysoul,oneofthemainlaws(whatBertHellingercallsOrdersofLove)thatgovern wellbeing is, “No one may be forgotten, denied, or cast out for anyreason.”Beginning from the presently available facts of the client’s unwantedexperience (tragic financial loss, in this example), it is the facilitator’s task todiscoverwhatpersons,eventsorsituationswereforgotten,denied,orexcluded,or were simply allowed to go unacknowledged, during the progression ofgenerations.When the relevantdeleterioussymmetry isperceived, the revisionof theunderlying structure is accomplishedbyhaving (the representatives for)theoneswhooriginallyturnedawayfromthevictimsturntowardthemnow,intheconstellation,andperhapssay thewords,“Nowweseeyou.Wecouldnotbear to see you before, but now we see you.” In some mysterious way, thisreconciliation now during the constellation often changes the relevantgeometries of the family’s past in service of its future. Illnessesmysteriouslydisappear, “accidents” stop happening, familymembers change their attitudes,

andsoon.Asimilar topologicaladjustment in theclient’s familyhistorycanoccur in

thecourseofasessionofone-on-onechangework.It isaccomplishedthroughthe practitioner’s attention to possible symmetries across generations. In thissituation, the practitioner’s task is to imagine a new shape that can serve toorganizetheunfoldingoffuturepersonalexperienceandfamilyevents.Thiscanalsobedescribedasfindinganewattractor,anewideaaroundwhichfuturelifeeventscanbeimagined.Thisisaccomplishedasamaneuverofconsciousness,amomentaryadjustmentinthepractitioner’sattentionandintention.Itcanbeassimpleas imaginingnewoptionsfor theclient’smapofreality.Itmayormaynot be in the client’s best interests for the practitioner to present these newoptions explicitly to the client.Eitherway, thismaneuver expands the fieldofavailable probabilities within which the practitioner and client are workingtogether towardamorepositivefuture.Evenwhenunspoken, itmaysomehoweven affect the client’s psyche more directly, in some mysterious way. Thisintentionofthepractitionerforabetterfuturefortheclientprovidesaguidelinefortheveryprocessandpathtoaccomplishthisgoal.

I believe, in the languageofbiologistRupertSheldrake, that such changescanalsobemanifestedinthelargermorphogeneticfield,andtherebyinfluencetheevolutionofhumanityatlarge.Anyindividualorganismbothinformsandisinformedby theexperienceofeverybeingof that type,bothnowand throughtime (Sheldrake, 1995a, 1995b). Hence, the experience of all humans affectsevery human. Every person who imagines a more positive past, present, andfutureforhim/herselfiscontributingtothewellbeingofeveryone,everywhere.

However, humans tend to value the whole track of our experience andlearning,notjusttheresultsofourprogressinthepresent.Hence,allofthisre-versioning of heretofore fixed past events needs to be accomplished within aframework of continued awareness of and respect for the client’s personalecology.Iteachmystudentstosupportthemovementsandchangesinbothlifevision and life version while remaining within the context of our personalhistory.

AllschoolsofNLParebasedonKorzybski’sinsightthatthemapisnottheterritory. As NLP evolved, so did the ways that practitioners viewed therelationshipbetweenthemapandtheterritory.Asdiscussedabove,GrinderandBandler began their NLP journey by developing the Meta Model. The MetaModelworkswiththeconsciousmindtocreateafullerandlessdistortedmapbychallenging theout-of-consciousnessviolationsofgeneralization,deletion, and

distortionthatlimittheclient’srepresentationalflexibilityand,consequently,hisorheraccesstoawiderrangeoflifechoices(GrinderandPucelik,2013).Thisapproachcanbesummedupbysaying:“themapisnottheterritory,butlet’sgetthemmorecorrelated.”

Then the founders discovered the work of Milton Erickson, and theysubsequentlydistilledfromitwhattheytermedtheMiltonModel.TheinverseoftheMetaModel,theMiltonModelallowseasieraccesstotheunconsciousmindby utilizing, rather than challenging, the effects of Meta Model violations.Ratherthanaskingtheclientforspecificity,theMiltonModellanguagepatternsworkthroughhypnoticgeneralizationandartfulvagueness.Thegoalistoloosenor even dissolve the client’s habitual patterns of representing and makingmeaningofexperiences,sos/hecanmoreflexiblyandcreativelynavigateintheworldwithout a fixedmap (Grinder andPucelik,2013).This approachcanbesummedupbysaying:“themapisnottheterritory,solet’sdissolvethemapsowe can act without fixed preconceptions about the contents and rules of theterritory.”

TransformationalNLP adds a newperspective on the relationship betweenthemapandtheterritory.Myworkwithclientsandmyteachingsarebasedonthis premise: “the map actually creates the territory.” As quantum physicistsobserve, the events that unfold in our lives appear to mirror our personalconsciousness, that is, our beliefs and emotions. The consciousness of theindividual participates in bringing one of many alternative probabilities intoactual manifestation (Friedman, 1997; Rosenblum and Kuttner, 2006). I basemuchofmyworkwithclientsonthisfoundationalassertionofquantumscience.Transformational NLP describes, analyzes, and works with what Grinder andBandler called “the structure of magic”—not only in the frame of the MetaModel and theMiltonModel, but also of themoremysticalways that humanbeingschooseandmanifesttheirexperience.PerhapsCarlosCastanedaanddonJuanwouldconsidersuchmaneuversofconsciousnesstobeaformofsorcery.

T

CHAPTERXI

CanPeopleReprogramThemselves?

his history of the profound contributions and innovations in the field ofNeuro-LinguisticProgrammingupthroughthepresenttimemayleadsome

readers to inquire:Why botherwith all this changework?There is a trend incontemporary society in which many people believe that humans can changetheirprogrammingandtheirrealitybytheirownintentionalone.Aplethoraofpublications suchasTheSecret and theAbraham-Hickswritingsmaintain thattheLawofAttractionguarantees that realitywill conform toourdesires ifwefocusclearlyonthem.

Even modern science increasingly supports this worldview. Quantumphysiciststellusthatthereisnoobjective,externalrealityotherthantheonewecreateinourownminds(Friedman,1997;Rosenblum,2006).InhisacclaimedworkMindful Universe: Quantum Mechanics and the Participating Observer(2010),theeminentquantumphysicistHenryStappmaintainsthattheworld“isconstitutednotofmatter,asclassicallyconceived,butratherofaninformationalstructure that causally links . . . the psychologically described contents of ourstreams of conscious experience with the mathematically described objectivetendencies that tieoutchosenactions toexperience” (p.38).Stappargues thathumanconsciousnessinfluencestheobjectiveworldintheprocessofobservingit. “The subject’s conscious effort is actually causing what his consciousunderstanding believes, on the basis of life-long experience, that effort to becausing”(p.48).AccordingtoStapp,whatweperceiveastheobjective,physicalworldactuallyconsistsofcloudsofprobabilities.Thequantumwavefunctionscontainmany alternative quantumpossibilities, and collapse into one “reality”onlywhen consciousminds select it. “The acquisition of knowledge does notsimplyrevealwhat isphysically fixedandsettled; it ispartof theprocess thatcreatestherealitythatweknow”(p.160).Hence,aperson’sconsciousintentionandchoicescaninfluencephysicalreality.Similarly,DeepakChoprawritesthat:

Allthatisreally“outthere”israw,unformeddatawaitingtobeinterpretedbyyou, theperceiver.You take“a radicallyambiguous, flowingquantumsoup,”asphysicistscallit,anduseyoursensestocongealthesoupintothesolidthree-dimensionalworld...thereisnocolorinthenaturalworld,andnosound . . .no textures . . .noscent . . . inshort,noneof theobjectivefactsuponwhichweusuallybaseour reality . . . [hence]youcanchangeyourworld...simplybychangingyourperception.(Chopra,1993,pp.11–12)

Chopra(1993)furtherelucidatesthat:

A reaction anywhere in space-time, including past, present, and future,causesashiftintheentirequantumfield....everyintentionisatriggerfortransformation. As soon as you decide that you want something, yournervous system responds to reachyourdesiredgoal. . . .Thismeans thatwhenyouhaveadesire,youareactuallysendingamessageintotheentirefield—yourslightestintentionisripplingacrosstheuniverseatthequantumlevel . . . [and] the field has the organizing power to automatically bringfulfillmenttoanyintention.(pp.85,103,106)

It seems that the views of contemporary quantum scientists have much incommon with those of mystics. The great mystics from all cultures and timeperiodstellusthatitisconsciousnessthatcreatesouruniverseandperceptionsofreality,andthat,indeed,matter,energy,andconsciousnessareonlydifferentaspectsofoneWhole(Friedman,1997;Peat,1997;Goswami,1993;MaharishiMaheshYogi,1990);Hagelin,2006).

Recent discoveries in science seem to support this perspective. QuantumphysicistJohnHagelin(2006)writes:“Inthelastdecadewehadthesuperstringrevolution—thediscoveryofasingle,universal,unifiedfieldofintelligencethatunderliesandpervadesusall,aunified fountainheadofall thediverse lawsofnaturethatupholdtheuniverseateverylevel”(p.11).

Itwould seem that our awareness of theUniversalConsciousness, and theunderstandingthatwearemanifestationsofit,andhavethesamepropertiesasit, should itself be sufficient to propel us into the realmof freedom frompastprogramming. However, we have all had the experience of not having ourdesiresfulfilled,andfindingthatouroldlimitingbeliefsarestilldeterminingourpresentreality.Scientistsandmysticsalikehavetriedtounderstandwhyweare

soboundbyourpast.QuantumphysicistDavidBohmwaspreoccupiedwith thequestionofhow

peoplecanchangetheirrealitythroughintention,andprovidedatranscriptofhisdiscussionaboutitwiththeIndiansageKrishnamurti.Inthisdiscussion,Bohmpoints out that thought is conditioned by heredity, tradition, culture, andenvironment to falsifyanddistortourperceptionof reality.Thebrainwants toreduceallperceptionsandactionstohabit.Bohmobserves,“Traditiongoesbackto that feeling of belonging to the family and to the community, of beingapproved of because you are not only doing what they say, what you’resupposedtodo,butbelievingwhatyouaresupposedtobelieve,andbelievinginwhat [youare told tobelieve] is real.This tradition includes thebelief thatwehave a correct consensus as to what is real, a belief that we don’t create ourreality”(KrishnamurtiandBohm,1999,p.92).

Likewise, cellular biologist Bruce Lipton (2005) tells us that ourprogramming is much stronger than our conscious awareness and will. Heexplainsthatourconsciousthoughtshaveaneffectonbehavioronlywhentheyare in harmony with subconscious programming. He elaborates, “Thefundamentalbehaviors,beliefsandattitudesweobserve inourparentsbecome‘hard-wired’ as synaptic pathways in our subconscious minds. Onceprogrammedintothesubconsciousmind,theycontrolourbiologyfortherestofour lives . . .unlesswecanfigureoutaway to reprogramthem”(p.164).Heemphasizesthatpositiveaffirmationsarenotenough:“Noamountofyellingorcajoling by the conscious mind can ever change the behavioral ‘tapes’programmedintothesubconsciousmind”(p.170).

Lipton (2005) maintains that there is, however, a way to change humanprogramming. He writes that the evolution of the prefrontal cortex allowshumans toobserve theirownbehaviorandemotions.Becauseof thisability tobe self-reflective, humans have the ability to edit and reprogram theirsubconscious.Nevertheless,Liptonadmitsthatitisextremelydifficulttochangetheprogrammingofthepowerfulsubconsciousmind.

In contrast, Krishnamurti maintains that the solution to programming isdeveloping the ability to love unconditionally. He maintains that onlyunconditional love can break down perceptions of limitation and separationamong people and create a new brain that sees the reality of Oneness(Krishnamurti and Bohm, 1999). However, he does not explain how we canlearn to love unconditionally if we are not first de-programmed from long-standingpatterningthatcreatesfearandtheexperienceofseparation.

Deepak Chopra (1993) clarifies why so few people have been able toreprogram their ownminds: “[Whenyouhave an intention] the result yougetback from the field is the highest fulfillment that can be delivered to yourparticular nervous system” (pp. 106–107). In otherwords,we have to be in aself-realizedstateinordertobeabletofulfillourintentions.Onlywhenweareinsuchade-programmedstatecanweimmediatelymanifestourdesiresbecausethe Creational Source will mirror their fulfilled forms back to us. As Chopra(1993)explains,wemust liftourawarenessbeyond the immediateconfinesofspaceandtime,andfromthatlevelwecancreateourownrealityinthemanifestworld. Only when a person attains the self-realized consciousness of identitywiththeUnifiedFieldcanhis/hereveryconsciousintentionbefulfilledvirtuallyautomatically.

Thequestionremains:Howcanweproduceanervoussystemthatsupportsand fulfills our intentions so thatwe canbe independent agents, free from thepast? Chopra and many other scholars, scientists, and researchers as well asmysticsclaimthattherearetechniques,suchasmeditation,thatcanbringustothisawarenessofandidentificationwiththeUniversalConsciousness(Chopra,1933;Hagelin,2006;Wheeler,2009).However,ourexperience in theWestaswellasintheEastisthatmostpeoplewhohavepracticedmeditationandothertechniques formany years have not become enlightened.While they seem tohave benefited from these practices, the great majority have not attained thedegree of self-realization thatChopra has.Despite achieving better health andgreaterhappiness,theirpatternsofthoughtandbehaviorcontinuetobeboundtoagreatdegreebypastconditioning.

Eventhosewhobecomeself-realizeddonotnecessarilybecomeentirelyfreefrompastprogramming.Apersonreachesenlightenmentwhens/herealizeshisor her identification with the Pure Consciousness of the Unified Field.EnlightenedpeoplehavetheabilitytoaccesstheSourceofinfinitepotentialandenergy, andmayevenhave theability to affect theprocessesof energetic andmaterialmanifestation.While they continue to seek experience in life and theworld,theynolongeridentifywiththeirpersonalexperiences,orpersonality,orbehavior,orevenwiththeirownbeliefsandthoughts.Hence,althoughtheyareuniqueindividualswithdistinctivepersonalitytraits,theynolongersufferfromseparation(Chopra,1933;Hagelin,2006).

Yet, while a person in an enlightened state of consciousness lives in the“eternalnow”anddoesnotact fromstressfromthepast,s/he isnot infallible.S/hecanstillhavefaultylogic.S/hecanalsohavepersonalitycharacteristicsthat

come from past conditioning. Long-term meditators and other seekers havelearned from experience that it is a mistake to assume that enlightenmentautomaticallybringswithitfreedomfrompastpersonalityorbehaviortraits.InVedic philosophy, such ingrained habits of personality and thought are calledlaishavidya,orleftoversfromthepast.Eventhosewhoattainthehigheststatesofenlightenmentmaydemonstrate some traitsofpersonality, suchasangerorjealousy, which do not seem to be aligned with their high state ofconsciousness.1

Thisdistinctionbetweenenlightenmentandfreedomfrompastconditioninghasbeenunderstoodbymysticsforthousandsofyears.IntheBhagavadGitaweread: “Creatures everywhere follow their own nature. Even the enlightenedfollowtheirownnature...whatcanrestraintaccomplish?”(MaharishiMaheshYogi, 1990, p. 229). The scripture explains that, “Even if youwere themostsinful of all sinners, you would cross over all evil by the raft of knowledgealone”(p.308).“Knowledge”herereferstoknowledgeofthenatureofReality,andtheabilitytoattainpermanenttranscendentalconsciousness.Thelastversesof theBhagavadGita reiterate thatevenanevil-doercanattainself-realization(Beck,2001).

Thus, even themost spiritually developed people do not seem to have thecapability to substantially revise their own neural programming withoutassistance.Althoughtheymayhavemoreabilitytowitnessratherthanidentifywiththepersonality,andtheirnervoussystemsaremoreflexible(andthereforeitiseasierforthemtochange),itseemsthateventheycannotreliablysucceedinachieving the change they may want in their programming by themselves. Itseems to require some outside influence to assist a person to change personalbeliefs and identity as well as thought and behavior patterns that areprogrammed into the nervous system. While meditation and other spiritualpractices can make us much happier because we identify less with ourpersonalitiesandhistories,ifwewanttohavemorechoicewehavetobeabletonotonlytranscendourconditionedprogramming,butactuallychangeit.

Howcanwechangeourprogramming?Toanswerthisquestion,wecanlookatthefindingsofmodernscience.QuantumphysicistsPaulDirac,JohnWheeler,and Richard Feynman made the amazing observation that electrons not onlygeneratetheirownelectricfields,buttheyactuallyinteractwiththeirfields,andare in turn affected by the very fields they generate (Dirac, 1933; Feynman,1965;Hestenes,1983;Nave,2012).DavidBohmelaborated that the implicateorder(thequantumfield)unfoldstoanexplicateorder(manifestreality),which

re-enfolds to affect andchange thepotential in the implicate,which is alreadyunfoldingasapotentiallydifferentexplicate,andsooninacontinuousfeedbackloop(Friedman,1997,p.105).

Considering that the Field contains infinite possibilities, what determineswhich path an electron will take?Why does one possibility becomemanifestrather than another? The answer, as the scholar Ervin Laszlo explains, isinformation (Laszlo, 2004). The Field of all potential is a reservoir of bothenergy and information. This field contains information about everything thateverhappenedandthepotentialforanythingthatcouldhappeninthefuture.Allthedifferentpossibilitiesexistaspotential (wavepatterns) in the field.Anyofthese possibilitiesmay ormay not getmaterialized. The element that decideswhether one potential event—rather than another out of an infinite number ofpotential events—will become manifest, is information. Information is theprocessthatactuallyformsmanifestphenomenaoutofthefieldofenergy.

Similarly, each human consciousness creates a unique field. As Sheldrakedescribes, humans interact with and are affected by their own consciousnessfields.Peoplegeneratea field thataffects thecreationofwhat theyexperience(Sheldrake, 1995a; 1995b). The process of manifestation of each individual’sconsciousnessandexperienceisdeterminedbyinformation.

Inordertochangethetrajectoryofaperson’slife,justlikechangingthepathofanelectron,itiscriticaltoprovideappropriatenewinformation.Itseemsthattoaccomplishsuchchange it isnecessary first toaccess thedeepest levelofaperson’ssubconsciousandfromthatlevelchangetheinformationfromwhichitgenerates new manifestations in the world. In Deepak Chopra’s words, “Tochange theprintout of thebody, youmust learn to rewrite the softwareof themind” (Chopra, 1991, p. 12). JohnGrinder andRichardBandler embarked onjustsuchasearchforwaystoaccessthesubconsciousmindinordertochangethe information inpeople’spsyches thatgive rise to self-limiting thoughtsandbehavior.

T

Conclusion

hroughout history people have considered mental as well as physicalsuffering to be an inevitable part of life.The evolutionofHomo sapiens

several hundred thousand years ago included the development of the brain’scerebralcortex,whichisresponsibleforperceiving,thinking,andunderstandinglanguage.Therearefourmainsections,orlobes,inthecerebralcortex.Twoofthem, the parietal lobe and the occipital lobe, are involved in receiving andprocessingsensoryinformationandvision.Theothertwolobes,thefrontalandtemporallobes,allowustothinkabstractly.Thefrontalandtemporallobesaretheonesthatmakeusdistinctlyhuman—andalsoneurotic(LeDoux,1998).

The frontal lobe, specifically the prefrontal cortex, enables humans torepresentinformationnotcurrentlyintheenvironment.Thisallowsustoguideourthoughts,emotions,andbehaviortoachieveagoal.Itprovidestheabilitytocontrol our impulses, anticipate and plan for the future, make decisions, andsolveproblems.However,bygivingusthefacultytoimaginethatwhichisnotactually present, these wonderful human capabilities also enable us to worryaboutthefuture.Wearecontinuouslybesiegedbyconcerns—andtheemotionsthat drive them and give them such significance for us—about our finances,relationships,health,goals,apparentfailures,and the inevitabilityofdeathandwhat might, or might not, lie beyond it (LeDoux, 1998). Our fears aboutsufferinginthefuturecauseustosufferinthepresent.

Thetemporallobeisinvolvedwithmemory,emotion,andlanguage.Locatedin the temporal lobe is the hippocampus, which is involved in formingmemories. Also found in the temporal lobe are the amygdala and the limbicsystem,whichgovernsuchprimaryemotionsasfear,rage,andpain.Justaswehave thecapacity to imagine futures,wealsohave theability tomaintainpastmemories and emotions in the present. This allows us the capability to learnfrompastexperience,butitalsomakesthepastdifficulttoforget.Weroutinelyrunthefilmofpastgrievances,andtheiremotionalimpact,overandoveragaininourminds(LeDoux,1998;MacLean,1990).

NeuropsychologistRickHanson(2013)explains thathumanmemoryhasanegativebias.Negativeemotionsaffectusmuchmorestronglyandforamuch

longertimethanpositiveones.Thebrainhasevolvedtobeconstantlyscanningfor threats.This negativitybias inourmemory is a remnantof theStoneAgebrainthatstilllivesinhumansinthetwenty-firstcentury.“Thenegativitybiasistilted toward immediate survival, but against quality of life. . . . This is thedefault setting of the Stone Age brain” (pp. 29–30). Hanson elucidates thatpositive and negative emotions use different memory systems in the brain.Negative emotions are fast-tracked into long-term memory storage, whilepositiveemotionsusuallydonotreadilygetconvertedintoneuralstructurethatis transferred into long-termmemory. “Your brain is likeVelcro for negativeexperiencebutTeflonforpositiveones”(p.27).

Thus, the evolution of humans has provided for the development of thefrontallobes,whichcauseustoworryaboutthefuture,andthetemporallobes,whichcauseustobedeeplywounded,againandagain,byourexperienceofthepast. Unlike all other species, with rare exceptions, humans are not able toautomatically live in the present moment. Our evolution and ability to thinkabstractly have come at the price of great suffering as a natural part of beinghuman.

Throughout history, people in all cultures have located the source of theirsuffering in forces beyond their control. Many religions have taught thatsufferingispartofthehumanheritageofsinasaresultofdefyingGodorgods,whetheratthebeginningofcreationorinoureverydaylives.Withtheadventofthe Enlightenment, there was a widespread assumption that the scourges ofhunger, war, and disease were themain causes of suffering, and that if thesecouldbeameliorated,peoplecouldfinallyliveinpeaceandhappiness.However,thistheoryhasprovedtobeincorrect.Inthecontemporaryworldmanymillionsofpeoplehaveanabundanceoffoodandothernecessitiesandliveincountrieswith peaceful circumstances, with medical advances that have eradicated theworst diseases and promise a longer and healthier life than ever before. Yet,there seems to be no end to the suffering, even among thosewho possess themostmaterialwealth.

In the twentiethcentury,differentschoolsofpsychologyhaveattempted toscientifically investigatewhatmakes people theway they are and to discovermodernmethodstoalleviatesuffering.BehaviorismwasthedominantparadigmofpsychologyinAmericainthefirsthalfofthetwentiethcentury.FoundedbyJohnWatson in 1913, behaviorist psychologywas an attempt to scientificallydetermine notwhy people feel and act the way they do, but rather how theirbehaviorcanbesystematicallymodifiedbyexternalinfluences.

The behaviorists believed that psychology should only be concerned withwhat can be seen and measured (i.e., observable behavior). They were notinterested in the mind’s subjective, inner experiences because these are notobjectivelymeasurable.Theymaintained thatanydiscussion thathypothesizedwhy people are the way they are, that was curious about internal events andinternalbehavior,wasmoreproperly thedomainofhumanismandphilosophyrather than psychology. Behaviorists argued that the physical brain, like themind, is a “black box”—nothing can be known aboutwhat goes on inside it.However,knowingwhatisinsidetheblackboxisnotnecessaryfordetermininghowbehaviorisaffectedbystimulifromtheenvironment(Miller,2003).

Following the lead of Watson, psychologist B. F. Skinner popularizedbehaviorism. Skinner maintained that people are essentially a compound ofconditioned reflexes determined by their genes and external environmentalinfluences. He argued that behavior, including thoughts and emotions, can beexplained as a product of environmental factors and can be modified bymanipulating conditions and eventswithin the environment. Influenced by theclassicalconditioningtheoryofIvanPavlov,thebehavioristsbelievedthattherewas no difference between animals and humans regarding behavior, as bothcould be conditioned in similarways.Behaviorist psychologistsmeasured andquantifiedconditionedresponsestostimuliwiththegoalofbeingabletopredictandcontrolhumanbehavior(Miller,2003).

However,intheearly1960sthemodelsofCognitivePsychologychallengedand generally supplanted the behaviorist paradigm. In 1960 George Miller,EugeneGalanter,andKarlPribramwrotePlansandtheStructureofBehavior,inwhichtheyclaimedtobeabletoexplainwhathappensinthe“blackbox”ofthehumanmind.TheypresentedtheirT.O.T.Emodel—Test,Operate,Test,Exit(often restated asTrigger,Operate,Test,Exit)—toexplicateblackboxevents.Extrapolating from the operation of control programs created for digitalcomputers, these authors reasoned that human beings must have internalsignaling that provides cues for when to begin cognitive operations, how toknowwhen these operations are in process, and how to knowwhen they arecomplete so that the next operation can commence. Of course, all of thissignalingoccurssoquickly,andisoftensofarfromconsciousawareness,thatitis generally not part of our actual experience (Miller, Galanter, and Pribram,1960).

In 1980 John Grinder and Richard Bandler, in collaboration with theirstudentsRobertDilts,LeslieBandler,andJudithDelozier,explainedhow they

used this work as the basis for what, in their novel Neuro-LinguisticProgramming terminology, they called “strategies.” In the languageofNLP, a“strategy” is a sequence of internal and external sensory representations thatleadstoaparticularoutcome.Theoutcomemightbeabitofexternalbehaviororanymomentof internalexperience.Aproperstrategyelicitationcanreveal theunconscious representational events that produce the experience of making adecision, or perhaps the experience of continuing indecision, or a moment ofstrongmotivation,oroneof entire lackofmotivation,orof anythingelse thathumansareabletoexperience(Dilts,Grinder,Bandler,etal.,1980).

The T.O.T.E. strategy elicitation procedure provides information that ismuchmorehelpfulthansimplyguessingaboutblackboxeventsbasedonone’sownassumptionsaboutwhatmakespeoplethewaytheyare.UsingT.O.T.E.stohelporganizeexternalperceptionsabouttheeventsofinnerexperienceisagreatimprovement over having to rely on and interpret vague statements from theclient,suchas“Somethingisreallybotheringme.”(SeeAppendixIonT.O.T.E.strategies.)

Nevertheless,byitselftheT.O.T.E.modelisstill tooimprecisetobereallyusefulinchangework.Itsimprecisionliesmainlyinitsunavoidablerelianceonthesubject’sconsciousreportingaboutverynearlyunconsciousinternalevents,andthisobviouslypresentsthepractitionerwithseverelimitations.Thus,whiletheT.O.T.E.model diminishes themystery of internal processes somewhat, itstilldoesnotprovidesufficientspecific informationabout these invisible innerevents,anditdoesnotprovideanyinformationatall thathasnotalreadybeenmediatedthroughthefiltersofconsciousattention.

Theobjectiveofknowingaboutspecificblackboxevents is tomake theseoperationsavailableforspecificrevision(re-programming).However,wecannotactuallyrevisehowexperienceisbeingcreateduntilwecanreliablynoticeandtrackthespecificinternalrepresentationsthatarerelevanttothisexperience.Tobe truly useful as tools for understanding the actual, immediate, operationalstructureandeventsoftheclient’sexperience,T.O.T.E.eventshadtobemadeexternally confirmable. Whereas the developers of the T.O.T.E. knew thatsomethingwashappeninginternally,theyhadnowaytoknowspecificallywhattheeventsoccurringoutsideoftheclient’sconsciousawarenessactuallywere.

In the mid-1970s, the founders of NLP discovered the crucial missingobservationaltools.Whattheydescribedasrepresentationalaccessingcues(eyemovements,pupildilation,breathingshifts,skincolorchanges,andsoon),areother-than-conscious behavioral events that are externally observable and

confirmable.However, the actual content of these other-than-conscious eventsremainednebulous.Althoughthepractitionernowknew,reliably,thattheclientwas making internal pictures, it was often unclear what these pictures wereactuallyabout.

In the late 1970s, some members of the NLP group discovered that theycouldreliablyusetheclient’sunconsciouseye-accessingmovements,especiallythoseoccurringinthefirstfractionofasecondafterbeingaskedcertainspecificquestions,togainaccesstoimmenselyrelevanteventsanddecisionpointsintheindividual’s personal history. Jonathan Rice realized that the information soderived,whichwasoftenfromlong-forgotteneventsanddecisionsstoredinthedeepunconscious,wasofanaturethatmadeitextremelyunlikelythatitwouldeverhavearisenthroughtherapeuticconversation.Hewasexcitedtofindthathecouldgain this access immediately andatwill in the therapeuticmoment, andthattheinformationobtainedtherebywasconfirmableandthemethodologywasreplicable (J.Rice,personal communication,November,2011).Thisdiscoverytransformed the T.O.T.E. ideas from vague concepts into a practical,immediatelyusefultoolforassistingintheprocessofprofoundchangework.

Using the half-second eye access, a sufficiently skillful practitioner cannoticethefleetingexternalevidenceofcrucial,unconsciousinternaleventsand,whenthetimeisright,cancausetheseeventstorepeatinwaysthatallowthemto then be brought into the client’s conscious attention without guesswork orinterpretation.Thus, theblackboxcanbeopenedtoexternalobservation—andthereby both the operational programming and the experience created by thisprogrammingcanbemadeconsciously,almostmiraculously,accessibletoboththe client and the therapist. The unwanted experience and the patterning thatgenerates it are now available to be specifically noticed and intentionally andpreciselyrevisedsothattheclientcanhavetheexperiences/hedesires.ThiswasanextremelysignificantturningpointintheevolutionofNLPandpsychology.

WithintheintellectualatmosphereoftheHumanPotentialmovementandtheCognitive Revolution, John Grinder and Richard Bandler had based theirexplorations of how the mind works on the brilliant discoveries of AlfredKorzybskiandNoamChomskyandmodeledthepsychotherapeuticapproachesofFritzPerlsandVirginiaSatir.TheyalsolearnedMiltonErikson’spermissivehypnotherapy so they could access the unconscious mind through tranceinduction and other hypnotic processes. Grinder and Bandler were moreoverstronglyinfluencedbyCarlosCastaneda’sdescriptionofdonJuan’ssorceryandmetaphorsintheserviceofchangingpersonalhistory(McClendon,1989;Dilts

and Hallbom, 2009). Additionally, they experimented with such psychicphenomena as mind reading and induced hallucinations (McClendon, 1989).These led to thedevelopmentof techniques—suchas those forage regression,deeptranceidentification,andtrans-derivationalsearch—togainrapidaccesstopastexperiences,primarilyforuseinchangepatterns.

Later, Robert Dilts collaborated with Timothy Leary, the legendaryproponent of LSD, in developing re-imprinting, while Jonathan Ricesimultaneously worked out his own method of re-imprinting through hisobservationofbody-basedenergyworktherapies.Ricealsousedthediscoveryof the half-second eye access to evolve a reliablemethodology in his clinicalpractice forbothobserving representational structure andprecisely eliciting itsassociated unconscious content, eliminating much of the projection andguessworkthathadplaguedtherapistsandhealingpractitionersuntilthen.

Subsequently, my own work has taken these innovations even further. Itincludes several forms of systemic and trans-generational interventions,originallyinspiredbyBertHellinger,toacceleratetheresolutionandredirectionof forces that distort the expressionof love. I have alsodevelopedothermap-altering methodologies that help to create and allow the desired alternativerealitiesinstudents’andclients’personallives.

These innovations in reality-altering change work notwithstanding, theschool of Transformational NLP that I founded remains firmly grounded inBandler’s and Grinder’s original discoveries about the external calibration ofinternalrepresentationalevents.Inhumansasinanimals,thecreaturebraindoesnotacquireorprocessinformationintheformofconceptsorhigh-levelhumanlanguage.Creatureexperienceisprogrammedinandgeneratedthroughsensoryprocesses, throughaprogramming languageofpictures, sounds, smells, tastes,andfeelings(VAKOG).Thehumancandecidewhats/hewouldliketobelieveandexperience,buttheactualcapacitytochangeone’sbeliefsandexperienceisaccomplished through modification of the creature-level neural programming.With NLP, the desired outcome of destabilizing and deconstructing obsoletepatterningcanbeachievedbydirectly revising thesights,sounds,andfeelingsthatformwhatweexperienceasourthoughtandbehaviorpatterns,ouroutdatedbeliefs,andevenour identity.Aswereviseout-of-datesurvivalpatterning,wemakeroomforthenewperceptions,behaviors,andbeliefs—aswellastheself-defined,more up-to-date identity—that we choose to have in our present andfutureexperience.Thesedesiredbehavior,thought,andbeliefpatternscanthenbeinstalledbythepractitioner,andpermanentlyacquiredbytheclient,through

skillfulanddeliberateNeuro-LinguisticProgramming.Krishnamurtipointedoutthatalllimitationsarethesameinthattheyrestrict

freechoice,andallofthemarebasedontheillusoryperceptionthatwecannotcreateourownreality.AlfredKorzybski startedan intellectual revolutionwithhisquestformethodsbywhichpeoplecanchangetheirrealitybychangingtheirneuralprogramming.Whenwehavethechoicetobecomeandtoexperienceourtrueselvesdespitepastconditioning,wewillknowexperientiallythatrealityisourowninventionwithinanongoingprocessofcreation.Wewillnolongerbetrapped in a hyper-stabilized reality thatwe have inherited and learned in thepast that is incongruentwithwhoweare learningandgrowing tobenow.Wewillhavemuchmorefreechoicetocreatetherealitythatincludeswhatwetrulydesire.

Building on the foundation laid by Korzybski, John Grinder and RichardBandlerdevelopedbrilliant techniquestoreprogramthenervoussystem.Thesetechniques were refined and popularized still further by Robert Dilts and hisstudents.However,increasinglythetechniquesbecameisolatedfromthecontextanddynamicoftheperson’sunderlyingconsciousness.Workingindependently,JonathanRicealsoexpandedandrefinedthetoolboxofNLPtechniques,butheintegratedthemintohispracticeofpsychotherapy.Usinghypnoticpatterninghelearned from Milton Erickson as well as other subtle methods, Rice guidedpeople through both the content and the representational structure of theirsubconscious,andfromthatlevelempoweredthemtoactuallycreatetherealitytheydesired.

Myownworkhas followed in the footstepsof JonathanRice. I frequentlyusemainstreamNLP tools and skills to elicit informationabout the contentofthe client’s experience, paying continuous attention to subtle representationalaccessingasameansforstayinginreal-timeawarenessoftheperson’sinternalsensoryevents.Igatherinformationaboutbothlifecontentandrepresentationalstructure regarding the client’s desired state as well as the present stateexperiences. I use this information to revise the client’s patterning—utilizingconventionalNLPaswell asRice’sapproachandmyownmethodologies—sothattheclientcanhavetheexperiences/hedesires.

Like Jonathan Rice, I do change work not as a series of stand-aloneinterventions,butratherwithinacontextthatnoticesandrespectsthetrajectoryandpurposesoftheclient’sentirelife,includingpayingattentiontotheclient’spast.ThechangeworkthatIpracticeandteachisbasedondeepappreciationofand respect for every aspect of human experience—past and present, positive

andnotpositive.Inaddition,Ihaveincorporatedaconceptualframeworkdrawnfromthequantumworldviewaswellasfromancientandcontemporaryspiritualwisdom,andaddednumerousnovelmethodologiesthatIhavedevelopedinthecourse of my experience with clients. I believe that this new synthesis ofpsychology,NLP,andpracticalspiritualityfulfillsmoreofthepromiseofeachfield, and creates a new paradigm for supporting personal transformation andhappinessandthefulfillmentofhumanpotential.

APPENDIXA

ResearchonNLP

In the middle 1980s a number of articles in The Journal of CounselingPsychology and by the National Research Council, in addition to paperspresented at other psychological conferences, concluded that there is no firmempirical evidence supporting certain NLP claims. For example, theseresearchersfoundnoevidencethatprimaryrepresentationalsystems(VAKOG)can be identified by sensory predicates in a person’s language and eyemovementpatterns,or thatpredicatematchinghasbenefits in counseling. InapaperpresentedtotheFourthEuropeanCongressofHypnosisinPsychotherapyand Psychosomatic Medicine in 1987 in Oxford, England, M. Heap (1988)writesthatthecurrentstateoftheresearchrevealsnoevidentialsupportfortheclaimsofNLP.ThisconclusionwasreiteratedinthearticlesbyC.F.Sharpley(1984;1987)andB.Beyerstein (1995).A researchcommitteeworking for theU.S.NationalResearchCouncilin1988alsofoundnoscientificsupportforNLPclaims(DruckmanandSwets,1988).

However, these negative conclusions have been contested on the groundsthat the researchers involved in the studies had inadequate training orcompetenceinNLP.Forexample,P.ToseyandJ.Mathison(2007)declared:

TherehasbeenvirtuallynopublishedinvestigationintohowNLPisusedinpractice.Theempiricalresearchconsistslargelyoflaboratory-basedstudiesfromthe1980sand1990s,whichinvestigatedtwoparticularnotionsfromwithin NLP, the `eye movement’ model, and the notion of the primaryrepresentational system’, according towhich individuals have a preferredsensorymode of internal imagery indicated by their linguistic predicates.(GrinderandBandler,1976;ToseyandAnderson,p.9)

According to the authors, this is not sufficient information on which to baserelevantconclusions.

AmorerecentdiscussionofthescholarshiponNLPemphasizesthat:

Thepreponderanceof thepublished literature largely comesdownon theside arguing against NLP but for entirely the wrong reasons; they nevertestedNLP,onlytheirownmapsofwhattheythoughtitwas....Themostcited of these studies were flawed by consistent errors of fact andinterpretation.ThefirstoftheerrorsisanassumptionaboutthebasictenetsofNLP.MostofthestudieswerebasedupontheideaNLPstandsorfallson the validity of the PRS [preferred representational system]—which isassumedtobeafoundationalconstructofthefield—anditsassessmentbyEACS [eye-access cues] and conversational predicates. Theseinterpretationswerewrong at the time of the research and remainwrongtoday. These publications have resulted in the accumulation of falsefindingsregardingthetheoreticalvalidityofNLP.Theseconderrorappearsto be an over reliance on the historical researchwith the assumption thatthatresearchtestedtheactualclaimsofNLP.ManyofthestudieseitherdidnotinvestigateNLPinsufficientdepthtounderstandwhatwasandwasnotcentral to it while others simply relied on the conclusions of previousresearchers.(Gray,Liotta,andCheal,2012)

TherearemorepositiveclaimsforNLPinarticlesbyC.E.BeckandE.A.Beck(1984) aswell asE.L.EinspruchandB.D.Forman (1985).Additionally, theEuropeanAssociationforNeuro-LinguisticPsychotherapy,whichpromotesthetrainingandpracticeofNLPasaformofpsychotherapy,collectedanimpressiveamountofscientificresearchdoneinthe1980sand1990stoshowthebenefitsofusingNLPtechniquesinpsychotherapy(AssociationforNLP,n.d.).In2001,Neuro-LinguisticPsychotherapy(NLPt)wasrecognizedbytheUnitedKingdomCouncil for Psychotherapy as an experimental form of psychotherapy(Mcdonald, 2001), and in 2002 the Neuro-Linguistic Psychotherapy andCounseling Association was formed (Neuro-Linguistic Psychotherapy andCounselingAssociation,2014).

Yet, to this day NLP is derided as a pseudoscience; it is still not takenseriously by the academic, psychiatric, ormedical professions (Devilly, 2005;Lilienfeld,etal.,2003).Thisdismissiveattitudeisprobablyexacerbatedbythehyperbolic claims of some over-enthusiastic advocates of NLP who are notrestrictedby theconstraintsof academicdiscipline.For example, theclaimbyNLP practitioners that eye movements correlate with the internal

representationalprocessissometimesmisinterpretedas“eye-accessingcuestelluswhat someone is thinking.”This is,ofcourse,over-simplifiedanddistortedinformation.Infact,credibleschoolsofNLParecarefultomakethedistinctionthat eye-accessing cues reveal nothing aboutwhat someone is thinking, onlyabouthows/heisdoingit.

AnotherpointofdenunciationisthatnotenoughresearchhasbeendonetoverifythescientificvalidityoftheclaimsofNLP.However,asofFebruary17,2017,intheNLPResearchDataBasethereare366articlesonNLPresearchthatdatefromDecember15,1997(Kammer,2016). Itseemsthat thereareenoughstudies supporting various claims of NLP to at least warrant further research.Although the costs inmoney and time for large-scale research areprohibitive,effortsinthisdirectionarecurrentlyunderwaybysuchdedicatedgroupsastheNLPResearchandRecognitionProject(Bourke,2015).

APPENDIXB

SurvivalEquivalence

Inmypractice,Ihaveagainandagainobservedtheconflictbetweentheprimalsurvival imperativesofourcreatureneurologyandthehappinessandvaluesofthehumanmindandheart.ThecuriousphenomenonatthebasisofthisconflictiswhatIcall“survivalequivalence.”

Theprimary criterionof creature neurology is physical survival: heartbeat,bloodpressure,respiration,andsoon.Thisneurologyispatternedtovalueandmovetowardanyexperiencethatenhances thepossibilityofsurvival.Creatureneurology does not think, speak, or analyze, but if it did, the one question itwould use to evaluate its performance would be, “Are we dead yet?” If theanswer is“no,” then—forthiscreatureneurologyanditsassociatedpatternsofperceptionandbehavior—whatitisdoingisonehundredpercenteffective.

The creature neurology is also programmed to notice significant threats tosurvival.Ifitfindsitselfinasituationinwhichitscontinuance—itssurvival—isprofoundly threatened, it notices the situations, events, sense perceptions, andemotionalstatesthatarepartofthisinextremisexperience.Ifitdoesnotperish,the creature neurology is programmed to regard these in extremis events andsensationsashavinggreatsurvivalvalue.

Oncethesurvivalvalueofanear-fataleventestablishesitselfatoraboveacertain threshold, the experienceof that eventbecomesan importantmeansofensuringsurvival.Thatis,thecreatureneurologywillseekoutreplaysofnear-fatalpast traumabecause thisnear-fatalpast traumahasneveronceresulted indeath. Events and experiences that have been assigned a high survival valuebecomeameansofnotperishing.Thecreatureneurologythereforetendstoseekout and/or invoke these experiences aspart of ensuring itswell-being.For thecreature self, the traumatic events are equivalent to—that is, identical with—continuedphysicalsurvival.Thus,wehaveasurvivalequivalence.

Obviously, this is very confusing and difficult for the human beingwhoselife isbeing routinelycompromisedby thecreatureself’songoingendeavor to

ensurephysicalsurvivalbyputtingitselfintoreplaysofterriblesituationsfromwhich it did not perish. The last thing the human self wants more of—forexample,theexperienceofbeing“shamedtodeath”inarelationship—isexactlythe thing that the creature self continually locates and promotesmore of. Theimplications of theworkings of this survival equivalence patterning as part ofourhumanprocessforselectingmatesandbusinesspartnersarestaggering.

APPENDIXC

AlfredKorzybski

IntheprefacetothethirdeditionofScienceandSanity(1994),AlfredKorzybskiexplainsthebasisofthenotionthathumannatureisfixed.Becausehumansareable to use language to summarize and generalize their experiences and passthemon to others, this saves others fromhaving to reinventwhat had alreadybeendiscoveredandfrommakingthesamemistakes.Eachgenerationcanbeginwheretheformerleftoff.However,thiscanleadtostagnation.Thereasonthatsomeprimitivetribeshavenotprogressedforthousandsofyearsisbecausetheyhaverefusedtodepartfromtime-honoredhabitsandprejudices.

Korzybski seeks to change this mentality through his transformationalgrammarandhisinnovativeapproachtoindividualtherapy.Heexplainsthatthetherapistmusttellthepatientto“rememberthatyourwordsoccurontheverballevels [showing himwith a gesture of the hands the hanging labels], and thattheyarenottheobjectivelevel”(1994,p.421).Korzybskiinstructsthetherapistto:

Wave the hand, indicating the verbal levels; then point the finger to theobjectivelevel,and,withtheotherhand,closeyourownlips,toshowthatontheobjectivelevelonecanonlybesilent.Whenperformedrepeatedly,thispantomimehasamostbeneficial, semantic,pacifyingeffectupon the“over-emotionalized”identification-conditions.(1994,pp.421–422)

AccordingtoKorzybski, therearegreatpsycho-physiologicalbenefitsfrompracticing this technique to become aware of abstracting from sensoryperception.He explains that the neurologicalmechanisms of the twoways ofthinking are themselves different. Ifwe orient ourselves by verbal definitions,ourorientationsdependmostlyonthecorticalregionsofthebrain.Ifweorientourselves by the facts, this involves thalamic factors and cortically delayedreactions,which necessitate a process orientation in life. This brings about an

integration of the cortical and thalamic functions. This physiological change,accordingtoKorzybski,canitselfdomuchtohealthepsychologicalimbalanceofmanypeopleinmodernsociety.

WhileKorzybski’smethodofdiscipliningthemindwasextremelylaboriousand difficult, it was a pioneering effort that was a landmark in our culturalhistory. It laid the foundation for development of the far more simple andeffectivemethodsofNLPandsubsequentlyofTransformationalNLP.

APPENDIXD

AMetaphoricalTimeline:Temporal/SpatialSorting

An example of how I use ametaphorical timeline is a technique I developedcalledtemporal/spatialsorting.Theclientisaskedto“pleasemakeapicture,inyourmind,ofyoufromyesterday.”Assumingthattheclientissittingoppositeme,Iaskhim/hertomovethepicturesothatitisbehindmeandslightlytotheleftofhis/hervisualcenterline.Theclientisthenaskedtoimaginea“timeline”extendingfromthe“selfyesterday”tothe“selfnow.”Practitionerandclientcanthen extend this imaginary line of time from “now” into an indefinite future.Thisisaccomplishedbyhavingtheclient,whiletheheadisfacingforward,lookupandtotherightandextendingthetimelineout.Dependingonthetopicandthedesiredoutcome,theclientmightimaginethisfuturetimelinetobeoneyearinthefuture,orfive,orten,orwhateverseemsmostsupportiveforthematerialthatisbeingworkedwith.Thenextstepistoasktheclienttolookupandtotheleft(withheadstraightandonlyeyesmoving),andtoimagineanapproximatelyfour-year-old version of him/herself. The client then visually draws a timelinefromthefour-year-oldselfovertotheselffromyesterday,thuscompletingwhatIcalla“lifetime-at-a-glance.”Inthisformat,theclientdiscoversthatthefarpastno longer connects directly to the present.The present is connected onlywithyesterdayandthefuture.

The “lifetime-at-a-glance” aspects of the temporal/spatial sorting formatprovide several important benefits. Within moments, the client is actuallylooking“back”intothepastandlooking“toward”thefuture,separatingtheminhis/hermind temporally as well as spatially.Moreover, when the flow of theinteraction calls for the client to “step into”his/herpast or future experiences,s/he actually has a spatial change away from the “space in time” called thepresent.Theclientcanmovetoanother“placeintime,”pastorfuture,nearorvery far in either direction, without leaving his/her seat, and then have the

experienceof returningagain toapresent that is—figurativelyand literally, inthe space of the consulting room—not contaminated with the past orunproductively intimidatedby the future.Evenmore importantly, thepast andfuture are not directly connected, except through the experience of physicallocation and conscious choices that can only occur “now.” The necessity tomaketwoimaginary90-degreeturns—oneastheclientmovesfromthepasttothe now, and the other as the client moves from now out toward the future(“connect in right here, and turn the corner now”)—prevents the past fromfloodingover into the future.This is invaluable ineven themostbasicchangework.Of course, anything desirable can be intentionally carried from the pastintothefuture,orviceversa,inwhateverwaysservetheunfoldingoftheclient’sdesiredstateexperience.Inmostofmyclientsessions,Iusethetemporal/spatialsortingmethodmoreorlesscontinuallyfortheentiresession.

APPENDIXE

HowNLPMarinPromotesPersonalTransformation

SomepeopleparticipateinNLPMarintrainingssothattheymaylearntheNLPtoolboxforuseinworkandprofessionalapplications.Otherstakethecoursestoexperiencepersonaltransformation.Manypeopleareeagertohavebothkindsofexperiences. Whichever focus a person may have, everyone ultimately gainsboth benefits—personal change and professional growth—because these twooutcomesarealwaysconnected.

The class format at NLP Marin combines the presentation of NLP (bothconventionalandTransformationalNLP) theoriesand tools forcommunicationandchange,frequentlivedemonstrationsofeverythingrelatedtowhatisbeingtaught, andmuch student practice of thematerial. Students are encouraged tospeakupwithquestionsandcomments,andtoshareabouttheirexperiencesandpersonal stories.Whenstudents talkabout the traumasandotherchallenges intheirpersonalhistories,theydiscoverthattheyarenotuniqueoraloneintheseexperiencesandthattheotherstudentshavesimilarissues.Whentheydescribethepersonalityandbehaviorpatterningtheyhavethattheydonotwant,theyaremoreandmoreabletodis-identifywiththem.Studentslearnthatwhotheyareisnottheirpersonalityorbehaviorpatterning,oreventheirbeliefs,andthatanyofthiscanbechanged.Thisdis-identificationisreinforcedasthestudentspracticethechangeworktheyarelearning.

Whenthetrainerdoesachangeworkdemonstrationwithastudentwhohasvolunteered towork in front of the class, everyone in the room benefits. Thestudents learnbywatching thedemonstrationhowit is thathumanscreateandgetcaughtinout-dated,self-limitingpatterning,andhowthisoldpatterningcanbe revised. Inaddition tohavingachance toobserve theorybeingputdirectlyinto practice,many students spontaneously identifywith the experience of thedemonstrationsubjecttotheextentthatthechangeworkintegratesintothemas

well. Because we do not discuss problems without also describing andimplementingsolutions,theverypainandconfusionthataresuchalargepartofbeing human become catalysts that open the way to better, more fulfillingexperiencesinthefuture.

Thestudentsareaskedtoapplynewideasandtoolsalmostimmediatelyaftertheyarefirstoffered.Theyspendmuchofeachclassdaysittinginsmallgroups,trying out every newmethod that is presented.A teaching assistant facilitateseachpracticegroup,answeringquestionsandassistinginanywaythatmaybehelpful. Each student takes a turn programming another student, beingprogrammed, and observing one student program another. Each of thesepositionsprovidesanopportunitytopracticerapportwiththeothersinthegroupand,most importantly, topracticekeepingrapportwithoneself.Whenstudentspracticewith one another, the so-called subject, programmer, and observer allexperiencehealingandchangethatbringsthemclosertotheirpersonalgoals.

ThisformatoflearningandpracticingTransformationalNLPprovidesdeepunderstandingof thematerial for use in professional applications and to assistothers to achieve their goals. It also enables deep personal transformation byupdatingthestudents’patternsofbehaviorandemotionssothat their livescanbecomemorecongruentwithwhotheyreallyareandwanttobeinthefuture.

APPENDIXF

TheHellingerFamilyConstellation

InpreparationforaHellingerfamilyconstellation,thefacilitatorinterviewstheclient to acquire information about the family. The information about familyhistory that isdeemedusefulforHellingerconstellationwork isquitedifferentfrom what is usually valued in conventional family therapy interactions. Thefacilitator seeks to gather information only about some specific facts andhistoricaleventsinthefamily’sexperience.S/heisnotinterestedintheclient’sdescriptionsofthepsychologicaloremotionalrealityofthefamily,suchas,“Mymotherwasdistantandcold.”Instead,s/heisinterestedinstatementsoffamilyfact. For example, the facilitatormight ask, “Howmany childrenwere in thefamily?”“Didanyonedieyoung,orloseachild?”“Whowaslostorcastout?”“Whowas in a war, especially in combat?” “Who has a particularly difficultfate?”

This information gathering allows the facilitator to select which familymemberswillberepresentedastheconstellationopens.Theclientorfacilitatorthenchoosesparticipants(fromamongthegroupthatispresenttoparticipateinthe constellation) to represent these people. One by one, the client walks theselected representatives to a place somewherewithin the space defined by thecircle of seated participants and places each one so that, in terms of his/herlocationinrelationtotheotherparticipantsandthedirections/heisfacing,theresultingconstellationissimilarinfeeltotheclient’sintuitiveimpressionoftheactual family system.The client then sits downnext to the facilitator, and theconstellationisconsideredtohavebegun.

Almost immediately, the various representatives begin to have someimpressionofthethoughts,emotions,bodysensations,orotherawarenessofthepeople they are representing. It is important to note that the representativesreceive no external or local information from the facilitator or client. Unlikesome other approaches, such as family system psychodrama, there is nocoaching, no molding of representatives into gestural complexes or body

postures,andnoindicationoftheclient’sexperienceofanyoneinvolvedinthesystem.Indeed,itispossiblethatsomeofthefamilymembersbeingrepresentedwill have lived and died generations before the client was born. This is trulyquantumtherapy.

APPENDIXG

TheInfluenceofKaskafayetonTransformationalNLP

InJuly1977IwasinvitedtoameetingledbyapersonnamedEdwardO’Hara,during which O’Hara channeled a teacher named Kaskafayet. Anotherparticipantatthosemeetingswrote,asdictatedbytheteacher,“Thepurposeofthe Kaskafayet trainings is to illuminate your relationship with your UltimateSelf, and to discover the compassionate intention behind your every action,thereby releasing your ability to manifest your true intentions in the world”(MedicineEagle,1991,p.222).

I was struck by the teacher’s explanation that having desires is not a badthing. “Desire is the grease in the wheels of your spiritual machinery”(Kaskafayet as channeled by E.O’Hara, personal communication, July 1977).ThiswasakeyconceptinmylaterunderstandingofNLP.

At one of the sessionswithKaskafayet, I heard thewords that profoundlyaffectedmy thinking and provided the foundation formuch ofmyworkwithTransformationalNLP:

Myobservation is andhasbeen that every time I amconfrontedwith theexperienceofmovingforward,Iaminclinedtoresistandavoidbecomingmore of what I already am.My experience has demonstrated tome thateverytimeIamconfrontedwithmovingforward,Iamalsoconfrontedwithallowingsomeoneelsetostaywheretheyare.

Ithasbeen indiscoveringmoreandmoreworkableways to reconciletheillusionofconflictinthisdilemmathathascontributedthemosttomyown conscious evolution. To be more direct, my experience is that thesource of suffering is in the ways we suffer for other people in anunworkable attempt to say I love you. (Kaskafayet as channeled by E.O’Hara,personalcommunication,July1977)

The question that filled my consciousness for two decades was how toresolve (or, as I like to put it, to resolve) what I came to call our SufferingObligations of Love. Twenty years later, in 1997, I observed a systemicconstellationfacilitatedbyBertHellinger.IwatchedHellingerputintopracticean elegant and subtle, although direct and flexible, format for explicating andresolving the universal dilemmas inherent in these Suffering Obligations. Asdiscussedinthetext,ItooktheprinciplesofHellinger’swork,whichHellingertermsOrdersofLove,andevolvedthemas thebasisformyownconstellationformats. This work continues today as an integral part of NLP Marin’scurriculum and public offerings. I have also developed a number of moreexplicitly NLP-like formats that assist my clients to resolve the dilemmasinvolvedinwhatIcalltheirdevotionalpatterning.

APPENDIXH

TheTeachingProgramsofCarlosCastaneda

TheteachingprogramsofferedbyCarlosCastanedainthe1990swerepresentedinhugeeventspacessuchastheConventionCenterinAnaheim,California,andwere attended by thousands of people. These public performances marked aradicaldeparturefromthehidden,deeplyesotericcharacteroftheteachingandlearningformatsthatwereattheheartofthe10,000-year-oldlineageofdonJuanand Carlos Castaneda. At one of these events, which I attended, Castanedaexplained thatheandhis fellowapprenticeshadhad todecidewhether to takeapprentices themselves, and thus continue the lineage, or allow the lineage tocome to an end.He said that they had concluded that the age of closely heldesotericteachingwasover,andtheyhadchosentoallowthelineagetoendwiththem.However,whiledecliningnewapprentices, theydecidedtomakecertainaspects of the teaching broadly available to the general public. These publiceventsweremostly focused on teaching amodern version ofwhat Castanedacalled shamanic magical passes. These were a complex series of physicalmovementsthatwereintendedtoenhancetheabilitytoperceiveandreorganizeenergy in oneself and the external world. Castaneda labeled these exercises“Tensegrity,”atermhetookfromarchitectandscientistBuckminsterFullerthatalludestointerconnectivityinnature(Castaneda,1995;Castaneda,1995–2012).

Iattendedtwooftheselargeseveral-dayeventsinAnaheim.IalsoattendedseverallecturesthatCastanedaofferedinmoreintimatevenues,suchasasmallauditorium at Mills College in Oakland, California. At one of these lectures,CastanedaobservedthatdonJuanMatuswouldneverappearbeforeevenasmallgroup,norwouldanymemberofwhatwascalledthesorcerers’party,theotherindividuals of don Juan’sgenerationwhowerewithin this ancient lineage.Heexplainedthatforthousandsofyearssorcerershadalwaysdealtwithonlyafewpersonsatatime,becauseinalargergrouptheywouldhavebeenoverwhelmed

by the act of seeing so many people in the same place at the same time.Castanedasaidthatithadtakenyearsforhim(Castanedahimself)todevelopatolerance for such large-scale seeing, but that it was part of what was thenrequiredofhiminthenewexotericformoftheteaching.

APPENDIXI

StrategiesinOurNeuralProgramming

AsdiscussedintheConclusion,inNLPterminologyastrategyisasequenceofinternalandexternalsensoryrepresentationsthat leadstoaparticularoutcome.For example, everyone has a decision strategy for knowingwhen it is time tocleanthehouse.Wecanelicitthisstrategy,inveryrudimentaryform,byaskingthe person, “Howdo you knowwhen it is time to clean the house?” (Triggerrepresentation) and “How do you know when the house is ‘clean enough’?”(TestandExitrepresentations).IfthepersonlacksaTriggerrepresentation,theindividual will not initiate house cleaning. If the person lacks Test and Exitrepresentations, and the concurrent representational events that allow thecomparisonsthatgenerateameaningofcleanenough,thenheorshewillneverstopcleaning! (NLPpractitioners are taught to consider compulsions tobe theresultofdysfunctionalstrategies,i.e.,strategiesthatlackadequateTestandExitoperations.)

TheOperaterepresentationsbothleadtoandaretheconsequenceofexternalbehavior that makes the house cleaner. Whoever or whatever determines thenatureandcontentof theT.O.T.E. representationsandsequencesbecomes thatwhich determines the behavior and experience of the human. (Dr. Skinner’spigeons had Dr. Skinner to determine their T.O.T.E. representations. Humanshaveparentsandfamilies.)

Wemayimaginethesimpleactivityofpouringwaterfromapitcherintoanempty drinking glass in elementary T.O.T.E terms: First, theremust be somekindofTriggeringevent, and the representation that communicates about it inthehumanoperatingsystem.Theremustbesomethingthattellsusitistimetopourwater into theglass.Next,wemustperformanOperation thatputswaterintotheglass.Obviously,thisOperationinvolvesmassivelycomplexperceptualandmotoreventsthatwewillsimplysummarizewiththewordpouring.Butletusconsider thefunctioningof thissimpleT.O.T.E.sofar: Ifwedonothaveapitcher, a glass, and somewater, or ifwe cannot get access to them, or ifwe

cannotperceivetheirpresenceintheenvironmentwithsufficientaccuracy,orifwecannotimagineouragencyinthematter,wecannotpourwaterintotheglass.

There areT.O.T.E.s.withinT.O.T.E.swithinT.O.T.E.s that operationalizethebeliefswithinbeliefswithinbeliefsthatgenerateandsustainourrealitiesineveryinstantofawareness,choice,andactionforallpossibilitiesandevents.Forexample, in very simplistic terms, a lifelong, dysfunctional water pouringT.O.T.E.mightleadtothebeliefthat“thereisneverwaterforme!”Conversely,a lifelong belief that “there is never water for me!” will require T.O.T.E.functions that produce perceptions and outcomes to confirm this belief as aconditionofrealityintheenvironment.

Having briefly noted the presence and roles of the Trigger and Operatefunctions within our water pouring T.O.T.E., let us now consider the all-important Test step.What lets us know when to stop pouring water into theglass?Ofcourse,ouranswerwillbethatwewillknowtostopwhentheglassisfull enough.But how dowe knowwhen the glass is “full enough”?Wewill,eachofus,knowtoOperate—topourwater—untilourTesttellsusthatwehavematched the condition called enough.But howdowe know that that really is“enough”?TheansweristhatweTestandTestandTest—compareandcompareandcompare—untilwenoticethattheconditionofexternalreality,ourexternalvisual of the state of the glass/water interaction, matches some internalrepresentation of the outcome we are seeking to accomplish. In other words,withouthavingtoplanorthink,wepourwaterintotheglassuntilthelevelofthewater in the external glass matches the amount of water in the (not veryconsciouslypresent)internalpictureoftheoutcomeweareseeking.WeOperateuntiltheTestproducesamatch,andthenweExitfromtheT.O.T.E.IfwecannotTrigger,Operate,Test,andExit in functionalways,wewillneverbegin tofillour glass, or always under-fill our glass (a condition of ongoing deprivation,perhaps!),orwewillcontinuetofillanalreadyfullglass,whichisagoodwaytocreate a mess that will require some cleaning up (another fairly commonconditioninlife).

Ourwater pouringT.O.T.E. example is valid in its simplisticway, but formoresignificant life issues,consider thesequestions:Howdoyouknowwhenyou have worked hard enough? How would you know that you were kindenough?Howdoyouknowyouarelovedenough?Eachofthesequestions,andalltheotherslikethem,mayservetoevokesomekindofunconsciousawarenessthatmayormaynotleadtotheavailabilityofaconsciousresponseintheformof a verbal answer. Whether the response is conscious or not, an indefinite

number of T.O.T.E. operations are in play beneath all of this conscious andunconscious experience. The acquisition of theT.O.T.Emodel begins to codeourexperienceintoasyntaxofunderstandable,highlygeneralized,yetdiscretecognitive operations—the most basic of the basic building blocks of ourexperienceoftheactualmoment-to-momenteventsofbeinghuman.

A

DefinitionsofKeyTerms

sdiscussedabove,thefieldofNeuro-LinguisticProgrammingdevelopedfromacombinationofseveralfieldsofpsychology(primarilyhumanistic

psychology,cognitivepsychology,gestalttherapy,andfamilysystemstherapy)as well as the discipline of linguistics (which Noam Chomsky considered abranchof psychology) and the clinical hypnotherapyofMiltonErickson.Thisentire intellectual construct was built on the foundation of the conceptualframework provided by Alfred Korzybski. All of these contributing fields ofintellectual endeavor have their own perspectives and vocabulary that are notfamiliartomostpeoplewhoarenotinthatfield.

The founders ofNLP utilized concepts and terms from all of these fields.After John Grinder and Richard Bandler went their separate ways, each newbranchofthisfielddevelopeditsownvocabularyandaddeditsnewtermstotheNLP lexicon. Hence, it is a daunting task to compile a comprehensive list ofdefinitionsofkeytermsandconcepts.Nevertheless,wewillattempttoprovidedefinitionsforthosetermsthatarethemostsignificantandrelevanttothisbook.

AnchoringAnchoringistheprocessofcreatinganassociationofonethingwithanotherinthemindoftheclient, throughanyofthefivesenses.ThisisanapplicationofIvan Pavlov’s classical stimulus-response conditioning process, which is theassociation of a particular stimulus with a highly predictable response. Allhumans(aswellashigheranimals)havenaturallyanchoredreactionstocertainvisuals,sounds,tastes,orsmells.Thesenaturallyacquired,automatic,relativelypermanentstimulus-responseassociationsareoccasionallyusedaspartofdoingNLP change work. However, most anchoring-based change work utilizesintentionally created, highly reproducible anchors associated with desiredemotions,experiences,andresourcesintheclient’sneurology,sotheclientcanautomatically access these new states of resourcefulness and capability in theappropriate situations (Bandler and Grinder, 1979; Dilts, 1999b; McClendon,1989).

BuildingRapportInNLP, rapportbuilding ismainlyaccomplishedbybehavioraloperationsandevents that work beneath the level of the conscious personality. Thus, thismethodology is not about becomingmore likeable or charming. Itmost oftendoesnoteveninvolvemakingadjustmentsattheleveloftheinformationcontentthatisexchangedinanygivenhumaninteraction.Rather,rapportis influencedthroughslightbehavioralshiftsthatallowthepractitionertocommunicatetotheclient’s creature neurology that it is in a safe environment. This other-than-conscious signaling also supports the client’s conscious self to feelmorewellandsafethenwouldbethecaseifthecreaturewereinastateofevenminimalfight/flight alert. This is accomplished through such techniques as mirroring,matching, and pacing (Buchheit, 1995-2016; Dilts, 1980; Lewis and Pucelik,1982;McClendon,1989).

CalibrationCalibration is the process of observing someone’s external behavior andappearance to obtain information about the person’s internal process andexperience.TheNLPpractitionercalibratestheclientbylearningtoobserveandrecognizeexternalvisual,auditory,andkinestheticbehavioralandphysiologicalcluestotheotherindividual’sinternalmentalandemotionalprocesses.Becausethe external physiological indicators, such as changes in breathing and skincolor,almostalwaysoccuroutsideofconsciouscontrol,calibrated informationishighlyreliable.Thepractitionercanasktheclientwhats/heisexperiencing,and thenwatch for repeating physiological indicators. The practitioner can bequitecertainthattheclient’scalibratedphysiologywillalwayscoincidewiththepreviouslycalibratedemotionsandthoughts.Forexample, theclientwillshowhis or her own physiology for “sadness.” If the practitioner observes thecalibrationforsadness,thenitisextremelylikelythattheclientissad,whethertheclientisconsciouslyawareoftheemotionornot(Lewis,andPucelik,1982;O’ConnorandSeymour,1990).

ChangingPersonalHistoryThe technique of changing personal history is not about changing the facts ofone’s experience; rather, it is a method of revising how one responds in thepresent tomemoriesof thosepast facts.Thegoal is to integratenewresourcesintothememoryofpastsituationsinordertocreateimprovementinfeelingsand

abilities in the present. The practitioner temporarily associates or anchors twodifferent experiences: A first anchor is used to momentarily stabilize theunwantedpresentfeelingsthatarearisingasanautomaticresponseconcerningapainfulpastexperience;asecondanchoristhencreatedtomomentarilystabilizea sense of resourcefulness andwell-being. The practitioner then collapses thetwo anchors. The result is a new and permanent association between the pastpainandanexpandedsenseofunderstandingorwell-beingaboutthepastpain.It is an intentional, direct, structural revision in the building blocks of presentexperience and the consequent flow of meaning in the client’s present life(BandlerandGrinder,1979).

CollapsingAnchorsCollapsingAnchors isa technique tocause twoormoreexperiences thathaveheretoforenotbeenneurologicallyassociatedtobecomepermanentlyconnectedor combined in the client’s present and future experience.This techniqueusesintentionally created anchored responses to combine the states, resources,emotions,orotherexperiencesthathavebeenassociatedwiththeseanchors.Theanchors themselves are temporary—it is the result of combining them thatremains permanently in the client’s experience (Bandler and Grinder, 1979;Dilts,1980;McClendon,1989).Forexample,usingcollapsinganchorswecanpermanently associate an experience of enjoyable, focused attention (that onemight automatically encounter when pursuing a sport or hobby) with theexperience of sitting in boringmeetings. Assuming that this combinationwasdeterminedtobedesirableandusefulfortheclient,theresultwouldbeagreatlyincreased capacity to choose to participate resourcefully in previously boringmeetings.

ComplexEquivalenceAtermcarriedoverfromlinguistics,complexequivalencereferstothemeaningthat a person attaches to a word or action. It usually describes complexes ofother people’s behaviors that have an equivalenceon the client’s internalmap(Lewis and Pucelik, 1982). For example, for some people, being left tothemselvesduringtimesofupsetmaybeacomplexequivalenceforbeinglovedand respected,while for anotherperson thevery samebehavior—being left tooneselfduringtimesofupset—isacomplexequivalenceforbeingdisrespectedand not cared for. Complex equivalence is usually abbreviated as CEq

(pronounced“see-ee-kew”).

EcologyThe notion of ecology in NLP is based on the work of the renownedepistemologistandanthropologistGregoryBateson,whopointedoutthatchangeinthehumanpsyche,asinallprocessesinnature,mustbeviewedincontextofits environment (Bateson, 2000). He taught the founders of NLP that it isnecessarytoassesshowthedesiredchangemightaffecttheclient’smodeloftheworld.An“ecologyobjection”ariseswhenaclient is faced,oftenatanother-than-conscious level,with the loss of a pre-existing secondary gain associatedwiththeproblemstate,orwithaneruptionofnewdifficultiesthatmaydevelopprecisely because of the fulfillment of the desired state experience. It is theunconscious concern regarding how having the outcome may affect one’srelationships, career, belief system, values, or identity (Bostic St. Clair andGrinder,2001;Buchheit,1995-2016;Dilts,etal.,1990).

In Transformational NLP, the concept of ecology expands to includeattention to the individual’s significant but unconscious concern about painfullossthat“willoccur”inthepast,notonlylossinthepresentorfuture.Infact,wefindthatthecontinuinghopeforabetterpastforeveryoneisoneofthemaindriversthatholdshumanslockedintopatternsof“devotionalpain.”

EricksonianHypnosisMilton Erickson’s hypnotherapy greatly influenced the work of Grinder andBandler. Erickson utilized a permissive hypnosis in contrast to traditionalhypnosis, which most often uses direct commands. He taught that theunconscious mind usually resists authoritarian commands. Erickson’s form ofhypnosis interruptsunconsciouspatterns in thoughtsandbehaviorbymeansofvaguelanguageandmetaphors.ThustheMiltonModel,whichdeliberatelyusesambiguous,general language, is theoppositeof theMetaModel,derivedfromthe work of Virginia Satir, which attempts to achieve greater and greaterspecificity(Grinder,DeLozier,andBandler,1977;McClendon,1989).

Eye-AccessingCuesEye-accessing cues are specific, externally observable and confirmablemovements of the eyes that correlate with specific internal sensory

representations that are the basis of cognitive and emotional experience. Therepresentationaleventsthataremosteasilyavailableforreal-timeobservationbyusingeye-accessingcuesarevisual recallandconstruction,auditory recallandconstruction, internal voice, andolfactory, gustatory, andkinesthetic (referringtoeither touchoremotion)events.Inotherwords, thepractitionercanobserveeyemovements that, in the immediatemoment, correlatewith internal images,sounds,smells,tastes,touch,oremotions.Whiletherepresentationsthemselvesaremomentary and fleeting, they arise continuously, almost always outside ofconsciousawareness,andareinterpretedbyusasreality.Theeye-accessingcuestell thepractitionernothingaboutwhat someone isexperiencing,merelyabouthow, in sensory terms, the experience is being generated in the moment.Althoughtheinternalrepresentations,suchasapicture,maybeaboutthepastorfuture, they and the feelings associatedwith them are actually in the present.With NLP, the present feelings associatedwith representations about the pastcan be modified, thereby changing the meaning of the past (Buchheit, 1995-2016;Dilts,1980;LewisandPucelik,1982;McClendon,1989).

4-TupleTheterm“4-tuple”isatermfromtheearliestdaysofNLP.Itreferstothefoursensory representational systems:V(visual),A (auditory),K (kinesthetic),andO/G(themergingofolfactoryandgustatory intoone representational system).Very early on, the NLP founders noticed that different people had dissimilarprocessingbiasestowardoneormoreoftheserepresentationalmodalities.Later,theyalsonoticedthatthefeelingandmeaningofanygivenexperienceishighlydependent on specific combinations of sub-modalities (representational sub-distinctions), and that these are easily changeable. For example, if a personchanges an internal image from color to black andwhite, thiswillmost oftenchange the experience associatedwith that image, although the contentof thatpast experience—the events that occurred—remains entirely unchanged (Dilts,1980;LewisandPucelik,1982;McClendon,1989).

ImprintAn imprint inmost animals is the triggering of an innate instinctive behavior,suchasattachmenttoparents,duringacriticaltimeperiodintheyounganimal’sdevelopment. The theory of imprinting in animals comes from the work of

zoologist Konrad Lorenz, for which he received the Nobel Prize in 1973. Inhumansanimprintiscausedbytrauma,eitheronethatisveryintenseorseveralthat are less intense,usuallyat averyyoungage.A traumacreatesan imprintwhen it threatens physical survival or the coherence of the child’s still-developingidentityorwhenitcompromisesthechild’sexperienceofbelongingin the family. Children always seek to understand why a devastating eventoccurred,sotheymakedecisionsaboutwhyithappened,aboutthe“rulesoftheworld,” and about what it means about themselves, and this coalesces into astabilized,life-longbeliefaboutthemselvesandtheirrelationshiptotheworld.

Neurologically, the sense impressions of the trauma’s triggeringcircumstances and subsequent events, along with the emotions and beliefsengenderedbyit,cometogethertostabilizea“compellingreferenceexperience”which is “imprinted” on the nervous system. Once imprinted, the thoughts,emotions,andbeliefsassociatedwith the traumaticeventareusuallynolongeravailable for further learning no matter how many experiences contradictingthese beliefs are acquired in the future. We may call such beliefs and thebehavior patterns that gowith them “quarantined.” Since quarantined patternsaredirectlyassociatedinthecreaturebrainwiththesurvivalofalife-threateningemergency,theimprintremainsinthesystemandiseasilyreactivatedinfuturesituationsthatappeartobeisomorphic(havingthesameshape)withtheoriginaltraumaticevent(Buchheit,1995-2016;Dilts,1990).

IntendedPositiveOutcomes(IPOs)OneoftheoriginalandmainpresuppositionsofNLPistheideathatallbehaviorandallexperiencearesourcedfromsomekindofpositiveintention.ThismodelisreferredtoasOriginalPositiveIntentions(Bandler,Grinder,andSatir,1976;Dilts,1998b,1996a).Thisconcept is similar towhatmanypsychologists term“secondary gains,” the possibly beneficial by-products associated withinappropriate or dysfunctional patterns of behavior. Transformational NLPexpandsonthisconcept,usingthetermIntendedPositiveOutcomestorevealtoclients the validity and purposefulness of all of their experiences, howevernegative,painful,orlimitingtheymayhavebeen(Buchheit,1995-2016).

LimitingBeliefsBeliefs are automated, usually unconscious convictions about the nature ofreality.Manybeliefs are inherited as children from family and culture.Others

areformedbydecisionsthatchildrenmakeaboutlifeandthemselvesataveryyoungagetoexplainhowandwhythingsarethewaytheyare.

Ourbeliefsconstructourouter aswell asour innerworlds.Beliefsare thefilters we automatically use to perceive our inner and outer worlds, and theycontrolthepatterningweusetoautomaticallymakesense(meaning)outoftheseperceptions. Whatever we believe, we will have evidence for in our lives.(Beliefsarenotthesameasfaith,sincethewholepointoffaithistobelievethatforwhichwehavenoevidence.)Ourbeliefsdetermineourexperience,andourexperiencereinforcesourbeliefs,whichdetermineourexperiences,adinfinitum.

Inthecontextofpersonalgrowthendeavors,a“limitingbelief”referstoanunwanted belief that overrides current choices by imposing a reality thatconflictswithwhatthepersonwants.Suchbeliefsusuallycomefromdecisionsmadeby theveryyoungchild toexplain traumaticevents.Forexample, if thechild spilled milk on mother’s nice dress when s/he was two years old andmothergotveryangryandshoutedthats/hewasclumsy,thechildmighttrytomake sense out of it by generalizing, “I can’t get anything right.” If similarinteractionsoccurredseveraltimes,andthechildwasmadetofeeltremendouslyashamed or otherwise attacked because of them, this generalization mightstabilizeintoabeliefabouthim/herself.Apersonwhohasthebeliefthat“Ican’tgetanythingright”willinevitablymanifestthisbeliefinhis/herlife.Alllimitingbeliefsarebeliefsthatarenolongerusefulorappropriateinone’slife,andtheycanberevised(Buchheit,1995-2016;Dilts,1990;Dilts,etal.,1990).

MetaModelIn NLP, being meta refers to the perceptual maneuver of shifting one’sperspective or view of something to a position above or beyond the level atwhichonecustomarilyperceivesand/orthinks.AMetaModelisahigher-levelperception or observation of a person’s model of reality. The concept of theMetaModel isderived from theworkand therapeutic styleof family therapistVirginia Satir. Codifying Satir’s brilliant therapeutic instincts, Grinder andBandler elucidated and taughtMetaModel “challenges” as a methodology toreveal and perhaps revise unquestioned assumptions and beliefs about reality.TheMetaModelutilizes specificquestions toobtain informationaboutbeliefsbasedonMetaModel“violations,”i.e.,informationthatisdistorted,generalized,and/or deleted. The practitioner challenges the client’s words and thereby thepresuppositions behind the words (Bandler and Grinder, 1975b; Grinder and

Pucelik,2013).

MetaProgramsMetaprogramsare filters thatdeterminewhichofourperceptionsare selectedfor attention and represented internally.Hence, theyare thekeys to thewayapersonformsinternalrepresentationsandhabituallydirectsbehavior.Accordingto theEncyclopediaofSystemicNeuro-LinguisticProgrammingandNLPNewCoding, there are seven key Meta program patterns: (1) Does the personapproachproblemsbygoingtowardagoalorawayfromtheproblem?(2)Doess/he focus on the past or present or future, and is s/he concerned more withshort-termorlong-termgoals?(3)Doess/henoticethegeneralpicturemorethanthedetails?(4)Istheperson’sframeofreferencetheviewsofothersorinternaltohim/herself? (5)Doess/he tend tonoticesimilaritiesordifferencesbetweenhim/herself and others? (6) In solving problems, does s/he focusmore on thechoice of goal or the procedure involved in achieving the goal? Also, is theindividual’smain focus on self, the other, or the team? (7) Is his/her thinkingstylepredominantlyorientedtowardthevision,action,logic,oremotion?(DiltsandDelozier,2000).

Modeling“Modeling” refers to the ability of skilledNLPpractitioners to elicit and thenreproduce in others the verbal, cognitive, and behavioral patterns (neuro-linguisticprograms)ofaspecificindividual,usuallyanexceptionalpersonwhois an exemplar of excellence. In addition to utilizing the language and keybehavioralpatterns,modelingmakesavailablethe“strategies”ofthepersonwhois beingmodeled. InNLP, “strategies” are sequences of internal and externalrepresentations (pictures, sounds, feelings, smells, and tastes) that lead toparticularoutcomesandexperiences(Dilts,2005).

Neuro-LinguisticProgramming(NLP)Neuro-Linguistic Programming is the study of the structure of subjectiveexperienceandthemodelingofhumanexcellence.NLPprovidesproceduresandtools for understanding and changing human experience and behavior. It is amodel(ratherthanatheory)ofhowpeopleprocessinformationandtheresultingeffectsonbehavior, thoughts, feelings, andoverallperceptionof theworldwe

experience(GrinderandBandler,1976).NLP is different from all other therapeutic modalities in that it canmake

information about certain purely internal processing events—called sensoryrepresentationsandsequences—externallyaccessibleandconfirmable.NLPcanreveal,inrealtime,theinternalrepresentationaleventsthataregenerating,andthatactuallycomprise,aperson’sexperienceinthemoment.Itdoesnotmatterwhetherthatexperienceisunderstoodtobeaboutthepast,present,orfuture:itis all generated and presented now. Out-of-conscious sensory accessing cues(VAKOG), especially eye-accessing cues, are the main doorway to therevelationoftheseunconsciousinternalevents.Mostpeoplecanbecomeawareofwhatwearefeelinginthemoment,butweare(almost)neverconsciousofthepicturesandsoundsthatareleadingtoandgeneratingthosefeelings.

Ourinternalsensoryeventsarewoventogethertocreateourmapsofreality,the internally generated and maintained constructions whereby we create andsustain our experiences of self and others and of life itself. Because NLPprovides the skilled practitioner with access to the basic source code thatgenerates personal experience, s/he can assist the client to revise theseinstructionsforreality.Thiscapability,combinedwiththepractitioner’ssenseofthe positive purposes and intentions that were seeking fulfillment through theold,out-grownpatterning,allowsthepractitionertosupporttheclienttorapidlymake the changes in behavior and beliefs that s/he truly wants, as well as toimprovehisorherabilitytocommunicateandconnectwithothers.

The meaning of the words in the name “Neuro-Linguistic Programming”points to the conceptual framework and goals of this new discipline. Neuroreferstothenervoussystem,theneuralpathwaysthroughwhichourexperienceis received and processed via the five senses: visual, auditory, kinesthetic,olfactory, and gustatory. Linguistic is about the content of this experience. Itincludestheprocessesofbothverbalandnonverbalsignalingthroughwhichoursensoryrepresentationsarecodedandgivenmeaning.Thissignalingconsistsofpictures,sounds,feelings,tastes,andsmells,aswellasthewordsthatrepresentthem.Programmingisthewaythecontentisorganizedinourmindstoproduceour thoughts and behaviors and our model of the world. A trained NLPpractitionercandiscoverandadjusttheseprogramstoassistpeopletohavenewexperiencesinlifethataremoreinalignmentwithwhattheywant(BandlerandThomson,2011;Buchheit,n.d.;Buchheit,1995-2016).

OutcomeFrame

OutcomeFrameThe Outcome Frame is the basis of information-gathering procedures in allschoolsofNLP,althougheachschoolmayuseaslightvariation.AsexplainedinEncyclopediaofSystemicNeuro-LinguisticProgrammingandNLPNewCoding,“ThebasicpurposeoftheOutcomeFrameistoestablishandmaintainafocusonthe goal or desired state during any technique or process—that is, to beconstantly ‘outcome oriented.’ Establishing an Outcome Frame involvesevaluating any activity or information with respect to its relevance to theachievementofaparticulargoalordesiredstate” (DiltsandDelozier,2000,p.905).ThebasicquestionsaskedinaconventionalOutcomeFrameare:(1)Whatdoyouwant?(2)Whatishappeningnow?(3)Whatstopsyoufromgettingwhatyouwant?(4)Whatdoyouneedinordertogetwhatyouwant?(5)Howwouldyouknowifyouweremovingadequatelytowardyourgoal?(6)Haveyouevergotitbefore?Whatdidyoudothen?(Dilts,1980,p.161).

The Outcome Frame practiced in Transformational NLP is very differentfrom that in conventional NLP. In conventional NLP, the information that isgathered from the client is almost entirely about the content of his/herexperience.InTransformationalNLP,theinformationgatheredisequallyabouttheunconsciousstructureoftheclient’spatterning.ThebasicTransformationalNLPOutcomeFrameconsistsof fivequestions: (1)Whatwouldyou like? (2)Whatwillhavingthatdoforyou?(3)Howwillyouknowwhenyouhaveit?(4)Where, when, and with whom would you like it? (5) How will having thisoutcomeaffectothersignificantaspectsof,andpeoplein,yourlife?Whatmightyou lose that you value,when you can have this desired outcome? (Buchheit,1995-2016).

InTransformationalNLP,anOutcomeFrameinteractionisanexplorationofthe client’s life, not merely the rote execution of five questions. As such, askillful Outcome Frame interaction can last for hours and is a significantintervention in itself. It changes the client’s relationshipwith him/herself, andwith his/her past, present, and future. As such, a skillful Outcome Frameinteractioncanlastforhoursandisasignificantinterventioninitself.Itchangestheclients’relationshipwiththemselves,andwiththeirpast,present,andfuture.

Also, in Transformational NLP the Outcome Frame is as much aboutgatheringstructuralinformationasitisaboutcollectingcontent.Wearealmostmore interested in the VAKOG structural information that any person willcontinually offer, outside conscious awareness, as s/he talks about his or herexperience.WearealmostmoreinterestedintheVAKOGstructuralinformationthatanypersonwillcontinuallyoffer,outsideconsciousawareness,astheytalk

abouttheirexperience.Forexample,ifapersonisabouttosaysomethingaboutatopicthatcarriesastrongchargeofjeopardyorlackofsafety,s/hewillalmostalways “check in”with internal pictures or soundtracks having to dowith theoriginalpersonsandeventsinrelationtowhichthefearpatterningwasoriginallyestablished. These eye-accessing cues are likely to be the keys to makingspecificrevisionsinsafetypatterninglaterinthesession(Buchheit,1995-2016).

ReframingA frame refers to the context of an event that provides the event with itsmeaning.Theframeisformedbyaperson’smapoftheworldandhis/herbeliefssurroundingtheevent.Reframingistheartofchangingtheclient’sviewofthemeaningoftheevent.Itincludesviewingtheeventfromadifferentperspective.While the facts remain unchanged, what these facts mean is now different(BandlerandGrinder,1979).

Re-imprintingRe-imprintingisthetheoryandmethodologyevolvedseparatelybyRobertDiltsandJonathanRice tore-organize informationprocessing in thehumannervoussystem. Re-imprinting is a procedure to alter significant imprintedrepresentationsthatformthebasisofone’sbeliefsandidentity.Thetechniquesofre-imprintingarebasedonasimplermethodologycalledChangingPersonalHistory,whichutilizesachangeformatknownasCollapsingAnchors.However,the technique ofChanging PersonalHistory seeks only to add a resource thatwillmakethepainfulfeelingsaboutapasteventfeelbetter in thepresent.Re-imprintingisnotanattempttomaketheclientfeelbetterimmediately.Instead,itseeks to revise whole clusters of meanings that produce unwanted limitationsconcerning the client’s identity, beliefs, and behavior (Dilts, 1996b; J. Rice,personalcommunication,November2011).

TransferringResourcesAresource(oraresourcestate)isabelief,skill,behavior,knowledge,sensation,person,object,orawareness thatsupportsorcontributes to the fulfillmentofadesiredoutcome.TheNLPtechniquefortransferringresourcesmakesitpossibleto achieve immediate cross-contextual learning through direct representationalintervention.Forexample,aresourcestatecalled“confidence,”whichisalready

associated with and is part of a person’s successful athletic activity can betransferredto—madeavailablewithin—theunrelatedcontextofofficemeetings.Since it involves direct duplication and transfer of a previously stabilizedcapability,thismethodoperatesinstrongcontrasttoonlytalkingaboutobtainingaccess to new learning and capability. If a person does not himself or herselfalreadyhavetheparticulardesiredresourceavailableinanycontextofhisorherlife, then the same good effectmay be accomplished be asking the person tosimplyimaginetheexperienceofsomeoneelsewhodoesappeartopossessthedesiredresource.Oncethepersonstepsintothedesiredexperience,withall itsrepresentationalcomponents,thepractitionercancollapsethisresourcefulnessoftheotherpersonintotheclient’sownpatterning,whereitbecomespermanentlyavailable as a natural aspect of life. This variation of transferring resources iscalledtheNewBehaviorGenerator(Grinderetal.,1977).

WalkingTimelineAwalkingtimelineisaformatusedbymostschoolsofNLPtoaccomplishthere-imprintingofbeliefand identity issues.A“timeline” ismostoftenasimplemarkingoutofexternalspatialanchorsonthefloor.Onesimplyimaginesalineon the floor that runs from the past through the present to the future. Simple,explicitmarkersareoftenused—indexcards,forexample—toindicatetheplacein time of one’s birth, the present moment, and the process of an unfoldingfuture.Variousotherspecificpointsontheexternaltimelinearethenassociatedwith the particular life events that are of interest, such as moments of pasttrauma, the present state (how things are now), and the future or desired state(how thingswill be after the changeswill be integrated).Byhaving the clientfiguratively walk through time by literally, physically walking backward andforwardon themarkedout,external representationof theprocessof time—thetimeline—the NLP practitioner is able to re-imprint the client’s experience(Dilts, 1990). This method is an alternative to re-imprinting by using visual,auditory, andkinesthetic anchors in a format that looks like (although it is farfrom)conventionalsittingpsychotherapy.

Notes

INTRODUCTION1. Recently, a growing number ofNLPpractitioners are finding clientswho are disenchantedwith the

traditional talk psychotherapies. The relatively few NLP practitioners who work in a mannerresemblingpsychotherapydonotfocusondiagnosisandtreatmentofmentalillnesswitheitherdrugsor counseling. Rather, their preferred approach is to help clients overcome their self-perceivedproblems through the application of specific NLP techniques that challenge existing language andthoughtpatternsandre-imprintnewones.Also,asmallnumberoflicensedpsychotherapists,mostofthemlocatedintheUnitedKingdom,arebeginningtobemoreopentousingNLPasanadjuncttotheirmainapproachintheirpractices,especiallyintherelativelynewfieldofBriefPsychotherapy.Theyarefinding thatNLP can often greatly improve the effectiveness of psychotherapeutic practices (Wake,2008).

CHAPTER11. MacLean’sconceptualizationof theseveral-in-onestructureof thebraincontinues topredominate in

thefieldofneuroscience.Despitesomecontroversyregardingtherange,extent,andinteractionoftherolesplayedbyeachstructure,MacLean’sworkremainsthebasisformuchofthecurrentresearchinthefield(Dalgleish,2004;Joseph,2001;LeDoux,1998,2003).

2. The date given for the extremely rapid development of what is known as the Fourth Brain variesaccordingtodifferentsourcesfrom30,000to50,000BP.

3. AnotherrecenttheoryisthatwhenhumansmigratedfromAfricatoEurope,theywereforcedtoadapttothecoldweatherbycreatingtechnologiesforclothingthatwouldkeepthemwarm.TheNeanderthalshadalreadyadapted to thecoldbyhavingstockierbodies.When theclimatebecameextremelycoldaround30,000yearsago,theHomosapiensalreadyhadthetechnologytocreatewarmerclothing.TheNeanderthals did not have the ability to adapt fast enough, so they became extinct (Gilligan, 2007;Collardetal,2016).

4. NeuroscientistReginaSullivan’sresearchsupportsthisviewofwhatIcall“survivalequivalence.”SeethetranscriptofhertalkatTuftsUniversityinFebruary2014(Sullivan,2014).ItisalsosupportedbytheworkofpsychiatristBesselvanderKolk,(VanderKolk,2014).

5. A“limitingbelief”referstoanunwantedbeliefthatoverridescurrentchoicesbyimposingarealitythatconflictswithwhatthepersonwants.Suchbeliefsusuallycomefromdecisionsmadebytheindividualwhens/hewasaveryyoungchild toexplain traumaticevents.Ourbeliefsdetermineourexperience,and our experience reinforces our beliefs, which determine our experiences, and so on in a never-endingcycle.

CHAPTER21. The term “cognitive psychology”was popularized in 1967 byAmerican psychologist Ulric Neisser

whenhepublishedhislandmarkbookonthesubjectentitledCognitivePsychology.However,aworkcalledCognitivePsychologyhadalreadybeenpublishedbyThomasVenerMoorein1939.

2. Forexample,seetheone-sentencementionofKorzybskiinStructureofMagic,vol.II,p.25(GrinderandBandler,1976).

3. ForanexampleofthecontroversyregardingtheSapir-WhorfHypothesis,seethearticlebyAsh(1999)“TheSapir-WhorfHypothesis.”

CHAPTER31. In 1971, Richard Bandler led gestalt therapy groups with Frank Pucelik, a twenty-seven-year-old

studentwhohadreturnedfromserviceinVietnamandworkedwithlocal troubledanddrug-addictedyouth.Thetwoyoungmenrantwoorthreetherapysessionsaweek.BandlermetGrinderinSeptember1971,inauniversity-mandatedsensitivitytraining(encounter)groupforwhichGrinderwasthefacultysponsor. In 1972, Bandler askedGrinder to observewhat theywere doing in the groups. The threeyoung men experimented with the encounter group format and began to develop the Meta Model.UnderGrinder’sinfluence,from1972to1974theyusedNoamChomsky’stransformationalgrammartomodelthelanguagepatternsofPerlsandSatir.AccordingtoPucelik,bythemiddleof1973BandlerandGrinderbecamethemainleadersofwhatbecametheMetaModelgroup,andPucelikwasrelegatedtotheroleofleaderofthestudents(GrinderandPucelik,2013).

2. Although they sound negative, the terms “deletion,” “distortion,” and “generalization” are notindicationsoftheclient’scognitiveerrorsorflawsofcharacter.Rather,theyaretheessentialuniversalmodeling processes by which a human being converts lived experience into language about thatexperience. In turn, these habituated patterns of language support specific cognitive, perceptual, andbeliefbiasesthatthendeterminewhichrealitieswillbeavailableto(perceivedby)theclient.Thus,thecycleofexperiencegivingrisetolanguage,andlanguagethenbindingthepossibilitiesofexperience,continues.

3. ThetermMetaModel“challenges”issomewhatmisleading.TochallengeaMetaModel“violation”isnottobeconfrontationaloraggressive.Itismerelytoaskformorespecificinformationortootherwiseinducethespeakertoreconsiderwhathasjustbeensaid.Thisprocessisbothsubtleanddirect.Itcallstheclient’sattentiontolimitationsthatarebothrevealedandsustainedbystructuralpatternsinhisorherspokenlanguage(BandlerandGrinder,1975b).

4. InFrogsintoPrinces(1979),BandlerandGrinderprovideamuchmoreclearlywrittendiscussionofthecontentofStructureofMagic,vol.1.Also inhismore recentwork,Guide toTranceFormation(2008),Bandlerexplainstheseconceptsmorelucidly.

5. Inactuality,SigmundFreudhaddeveloped the theoryofbrainplasticity sixtyyearsbeforeHebb. In1888 Freud wrote that when two neurons fire simultaneously, this firing facilitates their ongoingassociation.In1891,inhisbookOnAphasia,hestatedthatthebrainisplasticandcanreorganizeitself,andin1895,inProjectforaScientificPsychology,hedescribedhowsynapsescanbechangedbywhatwe learn. Also Ivan Pavlov, in his later years, argued that the brain is plastic. The discovery thatthoughts can changebrain structureoverturnsDescartes’ viewof the immutabledualitybetween themindandthebrainthathasdominatedWesternthinkingforseveralcenturies(Doidge,2007).

CHAPTER41. The strategymodel elucidated by Robert Dilts inNeuro-Linguistic Programming: The Study of the

StructureofSubjectiveExperience,vol.I(1980),isbasedontheworkdonebyGeorgeMiller,EugeneGalanter,andKarlPribraminPlansandtheStructureofBehavior(Holt,RinehartandWinston,1960).In thiswork, these scholars outline the T.O.T.E. (Test. Operate. Test. Exit.)model. The chapter on“Plans for Speaking” reveals the authors’ intellectual agreement with the ideas of NoamChomsky,whichinturnstronglyinfluencedJohnGrinder.

2. LeslieCameronBandlerdivorcedRichardandteamedupwithMichaelLebeau(wholaterbecameherhusband) and David Gordon. They set up an organization in Larkspur, California called The NLPCenter for Advanced Studies. The three of them developed and promoted Leslie’s model of NLP(McClendon,1989).

3. StevenAndreaswroteabrilliant,comprehensivereviewofWhisperingintheWindin2003,whichcanbeaccessedathiswebsite:www.steveandreas.com/Articles/whispering.html.

4. Diltshadfirstconsciouslyrecognizedandformalizedthesepatternsin1980whenhewitnessedRichardBandlerusethemduringaseminar.ListeningtotheverbalreframescreatedspontaneouslybyBandler,Diltsrecognizedthattheyhadthesamestructuresasthoseusedbyothereffectiveleadersandteachers(Dilts,1999a,p.x).Hetookthetermsleightofmouthfromtheexpressionsleightofhand,whichisatypeofmagicdonebyclose-upcardmagicians.“TheverbalpatternsofSleightofMouthhaveasimilarsort of ‘magical’ quality because they can often create dramatic shifts in perception and theassumptionsuponwhichparticularperceptionsarebased”(Dilts,1999a,pp.6–7).

CHAPTER51. Psychotherapy is based on the understanding that all behaviors—whether physical, emotional, or

psychological, and whether interpreted as positive or negative—are the manifestations of the entirepsycheasanorganicunitratherthanexistasindependentandisolatedphenomena.AsSigmundFreud,the fatherofpsychoanalysis, explains inStudies inHysteria (1895),bothphysical andpsychologicalself-defeatingbehaviorsareoftensymptomsofrepressedtraumaticevents.Ifthesymptomischangedwithout addressing the trauma that caused this manifestation, the client will often simply developanothersymptom.Anexampleisthepersonwhostopssmokingandsoonafterstartsover-eating.Thegoalofpsychoanalysisandmostpsychotherapyistofindthetraumathatwasburiedintheunconsciousmindoftheclientandcontinuestocausethesymptom.Thetheoryisthatwhenthetraumaisbroughttotheconsciousmind,itsimpactwilldissipateandtheclientwillhavemorechoice.

Mainstream NLP practitioners tend to disregard this model and instead focus on the unwantedbehavior itself.While thespecificbehaviormaychange, theremaybeunwantedconsequences if thereasonthisbehaviordevelopedinthefirstplaceisnotaddressed.TransformationalNLPpractitionersusethehalf-secondeyeaccesstobringtoconsciousawarenessthechildhoodtraumathatresultedintheunwanted patterning, and employ the method of re-imprinting to dissipate its emotional andpsychologicalimpact.Thenthelimitingpatternofbehaviorcanbechangedwithoutbeingconvertedtoanotherunwantedsymptom.

2. TimHallbom,oneofthemostpopularcontemporaryteachersofmainstreamNLP,explainsthatinhisexperience,theneurologyismoreavailableforchangewhenthepersonisstandingorwalkingratherthansitting.Also,hebelievesthatitiseasiertoaddatouchanchorifnecessarywhenthepractitionerstandsnexttotheclient(T.Hallbom,personalcommunications,August2014).

3. Doing experimentswith electrodes in the brains of nearly a hundred patientswhowere undergoingbrainsurgeryunderthesupervisionofneurosurgeonBertramFeinstein,neuroscientistBenjaminLibetspentnearlyfiveyearsresearchingtheconnectionbetweenbrainsandconsciousstates.Hefoundthatitnormally took about half a second before the patients noticed and reported a sensation as being inconscious awareness. Libet published the results of these experiments in the Journal ofNeurophysiologyin1964(McCrone,2006).

In1983,Libetdiscoveredthattheawarenessofadecisiontoactwasconsciouslyperceivedasanintention about a third of a secondafter the impulse to actwas noted in the brain’smotor planningareas. A decision to act is made by unconscious neuronal processes in the brain and precedes theconscious choice to perform the action. In otherwords, our decisions occur beforewe are aware ofthemand they are outside our control.Our thoughts, desires, impulses, and intentions are concealedfrom our experiencing selves until after the fact! Hence, much of our mental lives are driven bysubconsciousorpreconsciousdrives.Thisexperimentcausedagreatdealofcontroversywhenitwaspublishedduringtheearly1980s,sinceitseemedtoimplythatthereisnofreewill.Libetaddressedthisconcern by demonstrating that a person had the freewill to block the action after the impulsewasgeneratedwhens/hebecameawareofit(McCrone,2006;SchwartzandGladding,2012).

4. RobertDiltsexplainsthat“Thehalf-secondrulewasthebasisformybiofeedbackpatent,filedin1983,inwhichIdemonstratedthatgivingfeedbackontherateofchange(firstderivative)ofanautonomicreaction(i.e.,galvanicskinresponse,heartrate,bodytemperature,etc.)acceleratedaperson’ssenseofcontrolbecauseitmovedtheperceptionofthechangeintothehalf-secondwindow.Mostbiofeedbackdisplayschangesintheabsolutevalueoftheresponses,which(dependingonthetypeofresponse)cantakeuptotwosecondstomanifest.Therateofchange,however,happenswithinthefirsthalfsecond”(R.Dilts,personalcommunication,October2014).

5. Dr. Rice described to me how he developed the Core Sorting questions. He and a colleague,psychotherapistSusanMehra,PhD,werewatchingavideotapeofLeslieCamerondemonstratinghowtoworkwithaclient.

She[Leslie]hadbeengatheringinformation[fromtheclient]....Visiblygettingfedupwiththeclient’s storytelling, sheburst outwith ademand: “Iknowwhatyouwant, butwhat stopsyoufromgettingit?”

Now,toplacethisincontext,SusanandIhadspentmanyhourspracticingseeingandhearingsensorystatesandstatechanges,sowewereprettyfinelytunedtochanges...especiallytoageregression.

InthesecondortwoafterLesliemadeherdemand[onthevideotape]Susanreachedoutandpushedpauseonthetapemachine.

She asked, “Did you see that profound age regression?” I said, “I saw something—run itback.”Sowespentthenexthourortwocheckingthetapeandtryingout,“Whatdoyouwant?Whatstopsyou?”oneachother.Leslieeventuallygotintothewoman’sageregressionbyothermeans,but[SusanandI]leftourpracticesessionrealizingwehadsomethingnewthatwasworthexploring.

Asaclinicalpsychologistindailypractice,Iimmediatelysawtheusefulnessofnoticingandunpackingtheeyeaccessofthefirsthalfsecondafteraskingthetwoquestions(Whatwouldyoulike? What stops you?) as a way to get directly to the source of the client’s issue. (J. Rice,personalcommunication,August2014)6. The importanteyeaccessoraccessesusuallyoccurwithin the firsthalf secondafter the triggeringquestion—“Whatstopsyou?” [fromhaving theunfulfilleddesiredstate]—isasked.However,occasionallytheonlyphysiologyvisibleinthefirsthalfsecondisthatofsurpriseorconfusion.Then,afteranothersecondortwo,theeyesmovetothe quadrant in which the relevant past traumatic event has been stored. The experiencedpractitioner can tell the difference between the two types of reaction by calibrating thephysiology. If the client’s eyes stay in visual/kinesthetic synesthesia, which to the untrainedobservermay look like a blank stare, the practitioner can ask the client to “raise” the bubblecontainingtheimageuntiltheclientcanseeit.

CHAPTER61. The term “safety patterning” is another label for “survival patterning” or “survival programming.”

Paradoxically,“safetypatterning”putsthehumanwhomitservesintosituationsthatareactuallyunsafeagainandagain,becausethesesituationsareisomorphicto(havethesameshapeas)experiencesthatweresurvivedinchildhood.So,while“safetypatterning”maynotbethebestwayforthehumantobeactuallysafe,itisa100percenteffectivemeansofensuringthatwewillnotdieinthepast!

2. MostNLPpractitionersuseaversionofthequestion,“Whatwillyouhavetogiveupinordertohavewhatyouwant?”However,Iprefertoask,“Whatmightyoulose,thatyouvalue,whenyoucanhavewhat you want?” The questions are similar, but each evokes different responses. It seems that theconventional“Whatwillyouhavetogiveup?”formulationaskstheclienttosortforbalefulevidenceof previous excess and bad decision-making. The question “Whatmight you lose, that you value?”seemstobelessblamingoraccusing.

CHAPTER71. IattendedanumberofworkshopswithBertHellingerduringtheperiod1997–2007duringwhichhe

talkedabouttheconceptofweightasafunctionofaperson’slifeexperience.Hellingerdidnotwriteaboutthismodelinanyofhisbooksorarticles,butIfoundthistheoryveryusefulinmyownworkandelaborateduponitasitpertainstothepractitionerstance.

2. Ifirstheardthisphrasein1977fromachanneledmasternamedKaskafayet,whoseteachingsgreatlyinfluencedmywork.ThisinfluenceisdescribedfurtherinChapter9andinAppendixG.

3. InhisbrilliantworkTheRoadLessTraveled(1978),M.ScottPeckillustratesasimilarconceptthroughthe ancient Greekmyth of Orestes and the Furies (as dramatized in the trilogyOresteia written byAeschylus in the fifth century B.C.E.). It is when Orestes took total responsibility for his actions,insteadofblaminghisfamilybackgroundorthegods(fate),thathewasabletohealfromhismentalillness.

CHAPTER101. Amy Wallace, who wrote Sorcerer’s Apprentice: My Life with Carlos Castaneda (2003), was a

memberofthegrouparoundCarlosCastanedaforsevenyears.Afterhediedin1998sheclaimedthatshehadbeenhiswife, thathewasafraudandhisbookswerefiction,andthathehadneverbeenanapprenticeofashamannameddonJuanMatus.

IhaveseennothinginherbookthatindicatesthattheCastanedabooksarenottruthful,whetherinfactor(inplaces)inmetaphor.AccordingtowhatWallacewroteinherbook,shewasnothiswife,norevenintheinnermostcircle.Asoneofhisfollowers,shewaspartofwhatsheherselfdescribesasthe“harem”ofwomenwithwhomCarloshadsex.

Wallace complains of the terriblewayCastaneda treatedhis disciples. It seems that either he letpowergo tohisheadandbecamealmostpsychopathic inhiscruelty,orhewasdoing things thathethoughtwouldhelphisdisciplesbecomeenlightened.Forexample,sleepingwithfemalefollowersissomethingthatgurusfrommanytraditionsdowiththeideathatitwillhelptheevolutionofthewomenby receiving their (the gurus’) energy—although this practice can easily turn into very self-servingactivity.

ItseemstomethatthejuryisstilloutregardingwhetherthebooksbyCarlosCastanedaarefactualaccounts of his experiences with a shaman named don Juan, or metaphorical analogies, or simplyfictionalflightsofhisimaginationtoprovidecontextforhismanypearlsofmysticalwisdom.Whetherthey are true or not, or howmuch is true either factually ormetaphorically, there ismuchmaterialdrawnfromtheeasternandwesternaswellasindigenouswisdomtraditionsthathasgreatlyinfluencedourculturefromthelate1960stothepresentday.

CHAPTER111. DeepakChopra’steacher,MaharishiMaheshYogi,talkedabouthisownteacher’ssearch,whenhewas

ayouth,forateacherwhowasnotonlyenlightenedbutalsodidnothavewhatheviewedasnegativepersonalitytraitssuchasatendencytowardangerandjealousy.Maharishialsocautionedhisstudentsthatonecannotassesspeople’sstateofconsciousnessbytheirexternalbehavior.EllieSchamberwasinthepresenceofMaharishiMaheshYogiseveraltimesduringtheperiodof1972–1976whenthegreatteacher discussed these topics (E. Schamber, personal communications, 1972-1976). In anothertradition, David Bohm was distressed to discover that his teacher, Krishnamurti, despite all hisdiscussion about this topic, had not been able to change his own conditioning and behavior (Peat,1997).

References

Ash, R. (1999). The SapirWhorf hypothesis. Retrieved fromhttp://www.angelfire.com/journal/worldtour99/sapirwhorf.html.

American Institute of Physics. (1997–2014). Discovery of the electron. Retrieved fromhttp://www.aip.org/history/electron/.

Andreas,S.(2003).WhisperingintheWind.[ReviewofthebookWhisperingintheWindbyC.B.BosticSt.ClairandJ.Grinder,J.].Retrievedfromhttp://www.steveandreas.com/Articles/whispering.html.

Association for NLP. (n.d.). See what ANLP can do for you. Retrieved from http://www.anlp.org/anlp-history.

Bandler,R.(1984).Magicinaction.Cupertino,CA:MetaPublications._________.(1985).Usingyourbrainforachange.Moab,UT:RealPeoplePress._________. (2008).Guide to trance-formation:How tohandle thepowerof hypnosis to ignite effortless

andlastingchange.Deerfield,FL:HealthCommunications.Bandler,R.,andGrinder,J.(1975a).PatternsofthehypnotictechniquesofMiltonH.Erickson,M.D.(Vol.

1).Cupertino,CA:MetaPublications._________.(1975b).Thestructureofmagic:Abookaboutlanguageandtherapy(Vol.1).PaloAlto,CA:

ScienceandBehaviorBooks._________.(1979).Frogsintoprinces(Andreas,S.,Ed).Moab,UT:RealPeoplePress.Bandler,R.,Grinder,J.,andSatir,V.(1976).Changingwithfamilies:Abookaboutfurthereducationfor

beinghuman.PaloAlto,CA:ScienceandBehaviorBooks,Inc.Bandler,R.,andThomson,G.(2011).Thesecretsofbeinghappy.Devon,UK:I.M.Press,Inc.Bateson,G.(2000).Stepstoanecologyofmind.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.Beck, C. E., and Beck, E. A. (1984). Test of the eye-movement hypothesis of Neurolinguistic

Programming:Arebuttalofconclusions.PerceptualandMotorSkills58,pp.175–176.Beck,S.(Trans.).(2001).Bhagavadgita.Retrievedfromhttp://www.san.beck.org/Gita.hml.Beyerstein, B. (1995). Distinguishing science from pseudoscience. Retrieved from

http://www.dcscience.net/beyerstein_science_vs_pseudoscience.pdf.Boas, F. (1862–1942). Franz Boas papers. Retrieved from www.amphilsoc.org/mole/view?

docId=ead/Mss.B.B61-ead.xml.Bostic St. Clair, C. B., and Grinder, J. (2001).Whispering in the wind. Scotts Valley, CA: J and C

Enterprises.Bourke, F. (2015). Bibliography of NLP research. Retrieved from

http://www.researchandrecognition.org/#!bibliography/cuks.Bowman,C.andBrownell,P.(n.d.).Preludetocontemporarygestalttherapy.Gestalt!4(3).Retrievedfrom

http://archive.today/4iVd.Buchheit,C.(2006).Usingourbrainsforachange.Retrievedfromhttp://nlpmarin.com/using-our-brains-

for-a-change-2/._________.(1995-2016).NLPMarinMasterPractitionerCertificationTrainingManual.SanRafael,CA:

NLPMarin._________.(n.d.).WhatisNLP?Retrievedfromhttp://nlpmarin.com/what-is-nlp/.Castaneda,C.(1972).JourneytoIxtlan:ThelessonsofDonJuan.NewYork:SimonandSchuster._________. (1995).Carlos Castaneda’s Tensegrity: Redistributing dispersed energy 2 [Video]. Beverly

Hills,CA:LauganProductions._________. (1995–2012). Carlos Castaneda’s tensegrity: The contemporary expression of the practical

wisdomoftheshamansofancientMexico.Retrievedfromhttp://www.cleargreen.com.Chomsky,N.(1957).Syntacticstructures.TheHague:MoutonandCo.Chopra,D.(1991).Perfecthealth:Thecompletemind/bodyguide.NewYork:HarmonyBooks._________.(1993)Agelessbody,timelessmind.NewYork:HarmonyBooks.Collard, M., Tarle, L., Sandgathe, D., Allan, A. (2016, August 3). Faunal evidence for a difference in

clothing use betweenNeanderthals and earlymodern humans in Europe. Journal of AnthropologicalArchaeology.Retrievedfromhttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278416516300757.

Collingwood, C and J. (1996). An interview with John Grinder 1996. Inspiritive. Retrieved fromhttp://www.inspiritive.com.au/interview-john-grinder-1996/.

Cummings, J.L., andMiller,B.L. (2007).Conceptual andclinical aspectsof the frontal lobes. InB.L.MillerandJ.L.Cummings(Eds.),Thehumanfrontallobes:Functionsanddisorders,2nded.(pp.12-24).NewYork:GuilfordPress.

Damasio,A.R.(1994).Descartes’error:Emotion,reason,andthehumanbrain.NewYork:AvonBooks,Inc.

Darnell, R., and Irvine, J. T. (1997). Edward Sapir. Retrieved fromhttp://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/biomems/esapir.html.

Dediu,D.andLevinson,S.(2013).Ontheantiquityoflanguage:theinterpretationofNeandertallinguisticcapacitiesanditsconsequences.FrontiersinPsychology4(397).

Devilly,G. J. (2005). Power therapies and possible threats to the science of psychology and psychiatry.AustralianandNewZealandJournalofPsychiatry39,pp.437–459.

Diamond, S. (2009, September 27). Anger and catharsis: Myth, metaphor or reality? Retrieved fromhttp://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/evil-deeds/200909/anger-and-catharsis-myth-metaphor-or-reality.

Dilts,R.(1980).Neurolinguisticprogramming:Thestudyofthestructureofsubjectiveexperience(Vol.1).Cupertino,CA:MetaPublications.

_________.(1983).Applicationsofneurolinguisticprogramming.Capitola,CA:MetaPublications._________.(1990).ChangingbeliefsystemswithNLP.Capitola,CA:MetaPublications._________.(1991).Toolsfordreamers.Capitola,CA:MetaPublications._________.(1993).Skillsforthefuture.Capitola,CA:MetaPublications._________.(1994).Strategiesofgenius(Vols.I–III).Capitola,CA:MetaPublications._________. (1996a).Bringing light into thedarkness:Theprincipleofpositive intention.Retrievedfrom

http://www.nlpu.com/Articles/article2.htm._________. (1996b). The influence of Timothy Leary on re-imprinting. Retrieved from

http://www.nlpu.com/Articles/article4.htm._________.(1996c).Visionaryleadershipskills.Capitola,CA:MetaPublications._________.(1998a).ModelingwithNLP.Capitola,CA:MetaPublications._________. (1998b). Reframing: The principle of ‘positive intention.’ Retrieved from

http://www.nlpu.com/Patterns/pattern2.htm._________. (1999a). Sleight of mouth: The magic of conversational belief change. Capitola, CA:Meta

Publications._________.(1999b).Anchoring.Retrievedfromhttp://www.nlpu.com/Articles/artic28.htm._________.(2003).Fromcoachtoawakener.Capitola,CA:MetaPublications._________. (2005). Introduction to: A proposed distinction for neurolinguistic programming. Retrieved

fromhttp://www.nlpu.com/Articles/essarticle.htm._________. (2008). The discovery of eye accessing cues. Retrieved from

www.nlpiash.org/Conferences/2008Conference/Ebulletins/tabid/248/EntryID/10/Default.aspx.Dilts,R.,andHallbom,T.(2009).EarlydaysofNLP[DVD].SanFrancisco,CA:NLPCA.Dilts, R. and Delozier, J. (2000).Encyclopedia of systemic neurolinguistic programming and NLP new

coding.Retrievedfromhttp://nlpuniversitypress.com/.Dilts, R., Hallbom, T., Smith, S. (1990). Beliefs: Pathways to health and well-being. Portland, OR:

MetamorphousPress.Dirac,P. (1933).Theory of electrons andpositrons.NobelLecture,December 12, 1933.Retrieved from

http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1933/dirac-lecture.pdfDoidge, N. (2007). The brain that changes itself. New York: Viking Penguin. Retrieved from

http://www.stellarpoint.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/The-Brain-That-Changes-Itself.pdf.Druckman, D. and Swets, J. A. (Eds.). (1988). Enhancing human performance: Issues, theories, and

techniques.Atlanta,GA:NationalAcademyPress.Eakin,P.J.(2000).Autobiography,identity,andthefictionsofmemory.InD.L.Schacter(Ed).Memory,

brain,andbelief(pp.293–294).Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress.Einspruch,E.L.,andForman,B.D.(1985).Observationsconcerningresearchliteratureonneurolinguistic

programming.JournalofCounselingPsychology,32(4),pp.589–596.Feynman, R. P. (1965). The development of the space-time view of quantum electrodynamics. Nobel

Lecture, December 11, 1965. Retrieved fromhttp://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1965/feynman-lecture.html.

Friedman,N.(1997).Thehiddendomain.Eugene,OR:TheWoodbridgeGroup.Gilligan, I. (2007,December).Neanderthalextinctionandmodernhumanbehaviour:The roleofclimate

change and clothing. World Archaeology 39, 4, 499-514. Retrieved fromhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/40026145?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents.

Goleman,D.(1995).Emotionalintelligence.NewYork:BantamBooks.Goswami,A.(1993).Theself-awareuniverse.NewYork:PenguinPutnam,Inc.Gray,R.,Liotta,R.,andCheal,J.(2012).Researchandthehistoryofmethodologicalflaws.InL.Wake,R.

Gray,andF.Bourke(Eds.),TheclinicalefficacyofNLP:Acriticalappraisal(pp.194–216).London:Routledge.Ascitedin:Gray,R.M.,35yearsrevisited:Conceptualerrorsinscientificinquiry,acasestudy.Retrievedfromhttp://nlpwiki.org/35-years-revisited-3.

Grinder, J., and Delozier, J. (1987). Turtles all the way down: Prerequisites to personal genius. ScottsValley,CA:GrinderandAssociates.

Grinder,J.,andBandler,R.(1976).Thestructureofmagic:Abookaboutcommunicationandchange(Vol.2).PaloAlto,CA:ScienceandBehaviorBooks.

Grinder, J., and Pucelik, R. F. (Eds.). (2013).The origins of neurolinguistic programming. Bethel, CT:CrownHousePublishing.

Grinder,J.,Delozier,J.,andBandler,R.(1977).PatternsofthehypnotictechniquesofMiltonH.Erickson,M.D(Vol.2).Cupertino,CA:MetaPublications.

Hagelin, J. (2006). Consciousness is the unified field. Light of Consciousness: Journal of SpiritualAwakening,18(1),11–15.

Hall,L.M.(2007a).Neurosemantics:Notquiteeverythingabouteverythingyouwant toknowabout thenewfield.Retrievedfromhttp://www.neurosemantics.com/ns-writings/introducing-neuro-semantics-2.

_________. (2007b). The newest code of NLP. Retrieved from http://www.neurosemantics.com/nlp-critiques/the-newest-code-of-nlp.

_________. (2010a). The invigorating 1970s. Retrieved from http://www.neurosemantics.com/nlp/the-history-of-nlp/the-invigorating-1970s.

_________. (2010b). NLP and the human potential movement. Retrieved fromhttp://www.neurosemantics.com/nlp-advanced/nlp-and-the-human-potential-movement.

Hall,L.M.,andBodenhamer,B.G.(1997).Mindlines:Linesthatchangeminds.GrandJunction,CO:E.T.Publications.

Hanson,R. (2013).Hardwiringhappiness:Thenewbrain scienceof contentment, calm,andconfidence.NewYork:HarmonyBooks.

Heap.M.(1988).Neurolinguisticprogramming:Aninterimverdict.InM.Heap(Ed.),Hypnosis:Currentclinical,experimentalandforensicpractices(pp.268–270).London:CroomHelm.

Hellinger,B.(1998).Love’shiddensymmetry.Phoenix,AZ:Zeig,TuckerandCo.,Inc._________.(1999).Acknowledgingwhatis.Phoenix,AZ:Zeig,TuckerandCo.,Inc._________.(2006,July).BertHellingerdemonstratesmovementsofthespiritmind[DVD].Presentationat

workshopinWashington,DC.Retrievedfromwww.hellingerdc.com/store_videos.php.Hellinger,B.,andBeaumont,H.(1999).Touchinglove(Vol.2).Heidelberg,Germany:Carl-Auer-Systeme

Verlag.Hellinger.B.,Schutzenberger,A.,andSheldrake,R.(1999).Reviewingassumptions[Video].Phoenix,AZ:

Zeig,Tucker,andTheisen,Inc.Hestenes, D. (1983). Quantummechanics from self-interaction.Found Physics 15(1), 63–87. Retrieved

fromhttp://geocalc.clas.asu.edu/pdf-preAdobe8/QMfromSI.pdf.Huxley,A.(2009).Theperennialphilosophy.NewYork:HarperPerennialModernClassics.James,T.,andWoodsmall,W.(1988).Timelinetherapyandthebasisofpersonality.Cupertino,CA:Meta

Publications.Joseph,R.(1996).Neuropsychiatry,neuropsychology,andclinicalneuroscience(2nded.).Baltimore,MD:

WilliamsandWilkins.Kahneman, D. (2010). The riddle of experience vs. memory [Video]. Retrieved from

http://www.ted.com/talks/daniel_kahneman_the_riddle_of_experience_vs_memory.html.Kammer, D. (Ed.). (2016). Neurolinguistic programming research data base. Retrieved from

http://www.nlp.de/cgi-bin/research/nlp-rdb.cgi.Keen,S. (1972).SeeingCastaneda.PsychologyToday.Retrievedfromhttp://www.nagualism.com/carlos-

castaneda-interview-psychology-today.html.Kemmer, S. (2008a). Biographical sketch of Edward Sapir. Retrieved from

http://www.ruf.rice.edu/`kemmer/Found/sapirbio.html.Kihlstorm, J. F., Beer, J. S., and Klein, S. B. (2001). Self and identity as memory. Retrieved from

http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~kihlstrm/SelfIdentityMemory.htm.Klein,S.B. (2001).Aself toremember:Acognitiveneuropsychologicalperspectiveonhowselfcreates

memoryandmemorycreatesself.InC.SedikidesandM.Brewer(Eds.),Individualself,relationalself,collective self (pp. 25–46). Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press/Taylor and Francis. Retrieved fromhttp://socrates.berkeley.edu/~kihlstrm/SelfIdentityMemory.htm.

Korzybski, A. (1994). Science and sanity: An introduction to non-Aristotelian systems and generalsemantics(5thed.).Englewood,NJ:InstituteofGeneralSemantics.

Krauss, L. M. (2012, July 6). Higgs and the holy grail of physics. Retrieved fromhttp://www.cnn.com/2012/07/06/opinion/krauss-higgs-particle/CNN.

Krishnamurti,J.,andBohm,D.(1999).Thelimitsofthought.London:Routledge.Laszlo,E.(2004).Scienceandtheakashicfield.Rochester,VT:InnerTraditions.LeDoux, J. (1998). The emotional brain: The mysterious underpinnings of emotional life. New York:

Touchstone.LeDoux, J. (2003, October). The emotional brain, fear, and the amygdala. Cellular and Molecular

Neurobiology, 23(4/5). Retrieved fromhttp://www.ekmaninternational.com/media/4634/fearbrain%20amygdala%20joe%20ledoux.pdf.

Lewis,B.A.,andPucelik,F.R. (1982).Magicdemystified:An introduction toNLP.LakeOswego,OR:MetamorphousPress.

Lilienfeld, S. O., Lynn, S. J., and Lohr, J. M. (Eds.). (2003). Science and pseudoscience in clinicalpsychology.NewYork:Guilford.

Lipton,B.(2005).Biologyofbelief.SantaRosa,CA:MountainofLove/EliteBooks.MaharishiMaheshYogi(Trans.).(1990).Bhagavadgita.NewYork:PenguinArkanaBooks.McCall, G. J. (2006). Symbolic interaction. In P. J. Burke (Ed.), Contemporary social psychological

theories(pp.1–4).PaloAlto,CA:StanfordUniversityPress.MacLean,P.D.(1990).Thetriunebraininevolution:Roleinpaleocerebralfunctions.NewYork:Plenum

Press.

McClendon,T.L.(1989).Thewilddays:NLP1972–1981.Cupertino,CA:MetaPublications.McCrone, J. (2006). Dichotomistic: Benjamin Libet’s half second. Retrieved from

http://www.dichotomistic.com/mind_readings_chapteronlibet.html.McDonald,L. (2001).Neurolinguisticprogramming inmentalhealth. In J.FranceandS.Kramer (Eds.),

Communicationandmentalillness(pp.297–302).London:JessicaKingsleyPublishers.McMaster,M.,andGrinder,J. (1980).Precision:Anewapproachtocommunication.BeverlyHills,CA:

PrecisionModels.Massey, D. S. (2001). A brief history of human society: The origin and role of emotion in social life.

Retrievedfromhttp://wwvv.asanet.org/images/members/docs/pdf/featured/masseyaddress.pdf.MedicineEagle,B.(1991).Buffalowomancomessinging.NewYork:BallantineBooks.Miller,B.L.(2007).Thehumanfrontallobes:Anintroduction.InB.L.MillerandJ.L.Cummings(Eds.).

Thehumanfrontallobes:Functionsanddisorders(2nded.)(pp.3-11).NewYork:GuilfordPress.Miller, G. A. (2003, March). The cognitive revolution: A historical perspective. TRENDS in Cognitive

Sciences7(3),p.141.Retrievedfromhttp://www.cs.princeton.edu/~rit/geo/Miller.pdf.Miller,G.,Galanter, E., and Pribram,K. (1960).Plans and the structure of behavior. NewYork:Holt,

RinehartandWinston,Inc.Moore,T.V.(1939).Cognitivepsychology.Chicago:Lippincott.Nave, C. R. (2012). Lamb shift. Retrieved from http://hyperphysics.phy-

astr.gsu.edu/hbase/quantum/lamb.html.Neisser,U.(1967).Cognitivepsychology.NewYork:Meredith.National Geographic Society. (2016). Geonographic project. Retrieved from

https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/neanderthal/.Neurolinguistic Psychotherapy and Counselling Association. (2014). See what ANLP can do for you.

Retrievedfromhttp://www.anlp.org/anlp-history.Nowell, A.; Walker, C.; Cordova, C.E.; Ames, C.J.H.; Pokines, J.T.; Stueber, D.; DeWitt, R.; and al-

Souliman,A.S.A. (2016).MiddlePleistocene subsistence in theAzraqOasis, Jordan:Protein residueandotherproxies.JournalofArchaeologicalScience73,36-44.

O’Connor, J., and Seymour, J. (1990). Introducing neurolinguistic programming. London: Thorsons(HarperCollins).

Pais,A.,Weinberg,S.,andQuigg,C.(1997).100yearsofelementaryparticles.BeamLine27(1).Retrievedfromhttp://www.slac.stanford.edu/pubs/beamline/pdf/97i.pdf.

Peat,D.F. (1997). Infinitepotential:The lifeand timesofDavidBohm.Reading,MA:Addison-WesleyPublishingCompany,Inc.

Peck,M.S.(1978).Theroadlesstraveled.NewYork:SimonandSchuster.Read,A.W. (1990). Formative influences onKorzybski’s general semantics. InM.Kendig (Ed),Alfred

Korzybski:Collectedwritings,1920–1950(pp.xxiii–xxiv).Pittsboro,NC:TownHousePress,Inc.Rincon,P. (2016).DNAhintsat earlierhumanexodus fromAfrica.BBCNewswebsite.Retrieved from

www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-37408014Rosenblum,B.,andKuttner,F.(2006).Quantumenigma.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.Satinover, J. (2001).The quantum brain: The search for freedom and the next generation ofman.New

York:JohnWileyandSons.Schenk,A. (2004a).Movements of the soul. InterviewwithAngela Schenk inBertHellinger’s Spiritual

Family-Constellations[website].Retrievedfromhttp://www.family-constellations.org/index.html._________. (2004b). Moving with spirit. Interview with Angela Schenk in Bert Hellinger’s Family-

Constellations[website].Retrievedfromhttp://www.family-constellations.org/moving_with_spirit.htm.Schutzenberger,A.A.(1998).Theancestorsyndrome.London:Routledge.Schwartz,J.M.andGladding,R.(2012).Youarenotyourbrain.NewYork:Avery.Seung,S.(2012).Connectome:Howthebrain’swiringmakesuswhoweare.NewYork:HoughtonMifflin

Harcourt.Sharpley,C.F.(1984).PredicatematchinginNLP:Areviewofresearchonthepreferredrepresentational

system.JournalofCounselingPsychology31(2),pp.238–248._________. (1987). Research findings on neurolinguistic programming: Non-supportive data or an un-

testabletheory.CommunicationandCognitio34(1),pp.103–107.Sheldrake,R.(1995a).Anewscienceoflife:Morphicresonance.Rochester,VT:ParkStreetPress.Sheldrake,R.(1995b).Thepresenceofthepast.Rochester,VT:ParkStreetPress._________. (2005). Morphic resonance and morphic fields: An introduction. Retrieved from

http://www.sheldrake.org/Articles&Papers/papers/morphic/morphic_intro.html.Sheldrake, R., McKenna, T., and Abraham, R. (1992). Chaos, creativity and cosmic consciousness.

Rochester,VT:ParkStreetPress.Stapp,H.P.(2011).Mindfuluniverse:Quantummechanicsandtheparticipatingobserver(2nded.).New

York:Springer.Thornton,S.P.(nd).SigmundFreud(1856-1939).InJ.FieserandB.Dowden(Eds),Internetencyclopedia

ofphilosophy:Apeer-reviewedacademicresource.Retrievedfromhttp://www.iep.utm.edu/freud.Tolle,E.(1999).Thepowerofnow:Aguidetospiritualenlightenment.Novato,CA:NewWorldLibrary.ToseyP.andMathison,J.(2007).FabulouscreaturesofHRD:Acriticalnaturalhistoryofneurolinguistic

programming. University of Surrey paper presented at the 8th International Conference on HumanResourceDevelopmentResearchandPracticeAcrossEurope.OxfordBrookesBusinessSchool, June26–28,2007.

VanderKolk,B.(2014).Thebodykeepsthescore:Brain,mind,andbodyinthehealingoftrauma.NewYork,NY:Viking.

Wake,L.(2008).Neurolisticpsychotherapy:Apostmodernperspective.LondonandNewYork:Routledge.Wallace,A.(2003).Sorcerer’sApprentice:MylifewithCarlosCastaneda.Berkeley,CA:Frog,Ltd.Whorf,B.L.(2012).Language,thoughtandreality(2nded.).Cambridge,MA:MITPress.Wolfe, F. A. (1985). Continuum: Quantum consciousness. OMNI 7(12), pp. 1–2. Retrieved from

http://www.fredalanwolf.com/myarticles/omni%20continuum.pdf.Wysong,J.(n.d.).AlfredKorzybskiandgestalttherapy.Retrievedfromhttp://www.gestalt.org/alfred.htm.Zimbardo,P.,andBoyd,J.(2008).Thetimeparadox.NewYork:FreePress.

Index“Inthisdigitalpublicationthepagenumbershavebeenremovedfromtheindex.Pleaseusethesearchfunctionofyoure-Readingdevicetolocatetheterms

listed.”

ANewScienceofLife(Sheldrake)Abraham,R.Abraham-HicksaccessingcuesageregressionAkashicFieldAkashicrecordsalternativerealitiesAmericanInstituteofPhysicsamygdalaAncestorSyndrome,The(Schutzenberger)anchoringanchorscollapsingusesofAndreas,Steve

ApolloApplicationsofNLP(Dilts)archaicpre-humansAsh,R.

Bandler,LeslieCameronBandler,RichardChangingwithFamiliesCognitiveRevolutionandconditioningprocessanddevelopmentofNLPdonJuanMatusandFrogsintoPrincesKorzybskiandMetaModelnervoussystemreprogramingand

PatternsoftheHypnoticTechniquesofMiltonH.Erickson,M.D.RiceandsensoryeventsstrategiesTheStructureofMagic,Vol.1TheStructureofMagic,Vol.2

Bandler-GrindergroupbreakupofSantaCruzBateson,Gregory

Beck,C.E.Beck,E.A.Beer,J.S.behaviorismbeliefschangingDiltsguiltlimitingRiceTransformationalNLP

Beliefs(Dilts)Bell,JohnStewartBeyerstein,B.BhagavadGitablackboxeventsBoas,FranzBodenhamer,Bobby,Mind-LinesbodyandfacialcalibrationBohm,DavidBohr,NielsBosticSt.Clair,C.B.WhisperingintheWindBowman,C.braincapacitytochangecerebralcortexconflictamongbrainscreature(reptilianandpaleomammilian)brain

effectofexperienceonemotionalbrainfourthbrain(modernhuman)memorysystemsoflimbicsystemneomammalian(newmammal)brainobservationpaleomammalian(oldmammal)patternreweightingprimatereptilianStoneAgeBroglie,Louisde

Brownell,P.

calibrationCameron,LeslieCastaneda,Carlosteachingprogramsofcatharsis

causationformativeinTransformationalNLP

cerebralcortexcerebralneocortex.ChangingBeliefSystemswithNLP(Dilts)changingpersonalhistoryChangingwithFamilies(Bandler,Grinder&Satir)charismaticpeople,linguisticmechanisms/patternsof

Cheal,J.childdevelopmentchildhoodtraumasre–imprintingChomsky,NoamCognitiveRevolutionandinfluenceonJohnGrinderSyntacticStructuresChopra,Deepak

classicalconditioningtheoryclient,thesourceofexperienceclinicalhypnotherapycognitivepsychologycognitivebehavioraltherapy(CBT)CognitivePsychologymovement,theCognitiveRevolution,theChomskyGallanterMillerPribramcollapsinganchors

collectiveconsciousnesscommunication/communicationproblemscomplexequivalenceconditioningprocessConnectome(Seung)ConsciousFieldconsciousness.seealsoUniversalConsciousnesscollectiveobservationandrealityandSheldrakeTransformationalNLP

constellationsfacilitatorsmethodcontentvs.structureofexperienceConwell,Lynne

CoreSortingQuestions

CoreSortingQuestionsCreationalSourcecreaturebraincreaturefeelingscreatureneurologycreature-levelrapportCro-Magnonculturalrelativism

Damasio,Antonio,Descartes’ErrorDarwin,CharlesDeLozier,JudithstrategiesTurtlesAlltheWayDownDenisovans

Devilly,G.J.devotionalpatterningentanglementsSufferingDilts,RobertApplicationsofNLPbeliefsBeliefsChangingBeliefSystemswithNLPFromCoachtoAwakenereye-accessingcuesfamilypatternshalf-secondruleKorzybskimeta-level

modelsModelingwithNLPoriginalpositiveintentionsre-imprintingtechniqueSkillsfortheFutureSleightofMouthstrategies

StrategiesofGeniusToolsforDreamersVisionaryLeadershipSkillsDionysusDirac,PaulDoidge,N.Druckman,D.Dyer,Wayne

Eakin,PaulJohnEastAfricanpre-humanEcologydefinitionofDiltsRiceTransformationalNLP

Eicher,JamesKorzybskiandEinspruch,E.L.

Einstein,AlbertelectromagneticradiationemotionalpainemotionalprogressionemotionalreleaseemotionsandreasonEncyclopediaofSystemicNeuro-LinguisticProgrammingandNLPNewCodingentanglementsHellingerTransformationalNLP

environment,external,influencesofErickson,MiltonEuropeanAssociationforNeuro-LinguisticPsychotherapyexternalenvironmental,influencesofeye

movementdesensitizationandreprogramming(EMDR)eyemovements,seeeye-accessingcueseye-accessingcuesRiceandFamilyBleachers

familyconstellationfamilypatternfamilypsychotherapyfamilysoul

familysystemsFeynman,RichardField,theForman,B.D.fourthbrain,developmentofFourthEuropeanCongressofHypnosisinPsychotherapy

4-tuplesFreud,SigmundFriedman,N.FrogsintoPrinces(Bandler&Grinder)FromCoachtoAwakener(Dilts)frontalandparietallobes,in

HomosapiensFuller,Buckminsterfuture,theinfluenceonthepastGalanter,Eugene

CognitiveRevolutionPlansandtheStructureofBehaviorGeneralSemanticsgenosociogramsGestaltApproach&EyewitnesstoTherapy,The(Perls)GestalttherapyGilligan,StephenGladding,RebeccaGoleman,DanielGordon,DavidGoswami,AmitGreatSoulGreaterSpiritGrinder,DeLozierandAssociatesGrinder,JohnChangingwithFamiliesCognitiveRevolutionconditioningprocessdevelopmentofNLPdonJuanMatus,influenceonFrogsintoPrincesKorzybski,influenceofMetaModelNewCode

PatternsoftheHypnoticTechniquesofMiltonH.Erickson,M.D.Perls,influenceofPrecisionRice,influenceonsensoryeventsstrategiesTheStructureofMagic,Vol.1TheStructureofMagic,Vol.2TurtlesAlltheWayDownWhisperingintheWindHagelin,John

half-secondeyeaccessmethodhalf-secondruleHall,L.MichaelHallbom,TimHanson,RickHeap,M.Hebb,DonaldO.Heisenberg,WernerHellinger,BertHelmholtz,HermannHestenes,D.hippocampusHomoheidelbergensisHomosapiensHumanPotentialmovementhumanprogramming

humanprogrammingquantumscienceandhumanisticpsychology

Hume,DavidHuxley,Aldoushypnotherapy,theMiltonModelhypnoticlanguage

identityimplicateorderimprintintendedpositiveoutcome(IPO)interactionwithclients,standingvs.seatedinternalrepresentationsInternationalTrainersAcademyofNeuro-LinguisticProgrammingJames,Tad

Joseph,RhawnJournalofCounselingPsychologyKahneman,Daniel

Kammer,D.Kant,ImmanuelKaskafayetKeen,SamKemmer,S.Kihlstrom,J.FKlein,StanleyB.Kolk,BesselvanderKorzybski,AlfredCognitiveRevolutionandmapvs.territoryNLPandPerls,influenceonScienceandSanityKrishnamurti

Kuttner,F.

laishavidyaLamarck,J.B.languagepatterns,MetaModelLaszlo,ErvinScienceandtheAkashicFieldLawofAttraction

Leary,TimothyLeDoux,JosephLewis,ByronMagicDemystifiedLibet,Benjamin

lifevision/versionLilienfeld,S.O.limbicsystemlimitingbehaviorpatternslimitingbeliefsLiotta,R.Lipton,BruceLocke,JohnLorenz,Konradlove

MacLean,Paul

MacLean,PaulTheTriuneBrainMagicDemystified(Lewis&Pucelik)mapvs.territory

Maslow,AbrahamMathison,J.Matus,donJuanMcCall,G.J.McClendon,TerrenceL.McDonald,L.McGilchrist,IanMcKenna,TerrenceMcMaster,MichaelMead,MargaretMemoryMetaModelMetaModelvs.MiltonModelmetaprograms

Meta-DynamicsmetaphoricaltimelineMiller,BruceMiller,GeorgeCognitiveRevolutionandPlansandtheStructureofBehaviorMiltonModelofhypnosis

MindfulUniverse(Stapp)Mind-Lines(Hall&Bodenhamer)ModelingwithNLP(Dilts)morphicfields

narrativetherapyNationalAssociationofNLPNationalResearchCouncilNave,C.R.Neanderthalsneomammalian(newmammal)brainNeuro-LinguisticProgramming(NLP),definitionintellectualhistoryofNLPCenterforAdvancedStudies

NLPMarinNLP,researchonNLPResearchandRecognitionProjectNLPResearchDataBaseNLPtechniquesanchoringbuildingrapportcalibrationchangingpersonalhistorycollapsinganchorseye-accesingcuesMetaModelchallengesnewbehaviorgenerator,theoutcomeframetransferringresourceswalkingtimelineNeuro-LinguisticProgramming(Dilts)Neuro-LinguisticPsychotherapy(NLPt)Neuro-LinguisticPsychotherapyandCounselingAssociationNeuro-Semantics

NewCodenewmammalbrainNewton,IsaacNewtonianworldview

O’Hara,E.opposablethumbOrdersofLoveOreoofEternalDoomOriginalPositiveIntentionsOutcomeFrameinteractionout-of-conscioussensoryaccessingcues(VAKOG)Pais,A.

paleomammalian(oldmammal)brainpast,theconsentingtofossilizedfutureinfluencesonhopingforabetterpastperceptionofthepastpatterningdevotionalquarantinedreweightingofsurvivalPatternsoftheHypnoticTechniquesofMiltonH.

Erickson,M.D.Vols.1and2(Bandler&Grinder)Pavlov,IvanPearson,SharonPeat,D.F.Perls,Frederick(Fritz)audio/videotapesofTheGestaltApproach&EyewitnesstoTherapyGestalttherapyofinfluenceof

AlfredKorzbskionpersonalhistorychangingfamilydynamicspersonaltransformationandTransformationalNLP

Planck,MaxPlansandtheStructureofBehavior(Miller,Pribram&Galanter)potentialalternativerealityPowerofNow,The(Tolle)practitionerstancePrecision(Grinder&McMaster)preferredrepresentationalsystem(PRS)prefrontalcortexpre-humansPresenceofthePast,The(Sheldrake)Pribram,KarlCognitiveRevolutionPlansandtheStructureofBehaviorprimatebrain

process-orientedapproachprogrammeroutcomes/goals,andTransformationalNLPprogrammerstancepsychologybehavioristschoolofhumanisticridiculeofPsychologyToday

psychotherapycatharsisandNLP

Pucelik,FrankMagicDemystifiedPureConsciousness

QuantumBrain,The(Satinover)“QuantumConsciousness”(Wolfe)quantumentanglementquantumphysicsKorzybski,influenceonTransformationalNLP,influenceonquarantinedpatterning

rapport,buildingrationalbrainRead,A.W.reasonandemotions(Damisio)reframingre-imprintingDiltsRiceTransformationalNLPrepresentationalaccessingcuesrepresentationalsystems(VAKOG)reptilianbrainresources,transferringrespectingallexperience“ReViewingAssumptions”Rice,Jonathanaccessingpersonalhistorybeliefsbody-basedenergyworktherapieschangeworkeye-accessingcues

half-secondrulemethodsre-imprintingTransformationalNLP,influenceonviewsonconventionalNLP

Robbins,AnthonyRogers,CarlRosenblum,B.

Russell,Bertrand

SantaCruzgroupSapir,EdwardSapir-WhorfHypothesisSatinover,Jeffrey,TheQuantumBrainSatir,VirginiaChangingwithFamilies(withBandlerandGrinder)Schenk,A.

Schroedinger,ErvinSchutzenberger,AnneAncelinTheAncestorSyndromeSchwartz,Jeffrey

ScienceandSanity(Korzybski)ScienceandtheAkashicField(Laszlo)seatedvs.standinginteractionsecondarygainsSecret,Theselfandmemoryself-reflexivitysensoryrepresentationsSeung,Sebastian,Connectomeshame-basedrelationshipsSharpley,C.F.Sheldrake,RupertANewScienceofLifeThePresenceofthePastSkillsfortheFuture(Dilts)Skinner,B.F.

SleightofMouth(Dilts)sleight-of-mouthpatternsSobel,ShannonSocietyofNeuro-LinguisticProgramming,Thespaceandtime,natureofspeech,capacityforSt.Clair,BosticStapp,Henry,MindfulUniverseStevens,John.seeAndreas,SteveStoneAgebrainStrategiesofGenius(Dilts)strategiesStructureofMagic,The,Vol.1,(Bandler&Grinder)StructureofMagic,The,Vol.2(Bandler&Grinder)

Suffering,devotionalSufferingObligationsofLove(SOL)survivalsurvivalequivalenceSwets,J.A.SyntacticStructures(Chomsky)systemicconstellationsHellingerTransformationalNLP

systemstheory

talktherapytemporallobetemporal/spatialsortingtechniqueTensegritytheoryofspecialrelativitytherapeuticinteractionthinkingbrainThomsonThornton,S.P.TimeParadox,The(Zimbardo)timelinewalkingmetaphoricalTransformationalNLPOutcomeFrameTolle,Eckhart,(ThePowerofNow)Tools

forDreamers(Dilts)Tosey,P.T.O.T.E.model

T.O.T.E.modeltrans-derivationalsearchtransferenceTransformationalNLPandtransformationalconversationsvs.techniquestransformationalgrammar

trans-generationalloyalty/interventionstraumatriggerrepresentationTriuneBrain,The(MacLean)TurtlesAlltheWayDown(Grinder&DeLozier)uncertaintyprincipleUnifiedFieldUnitedKingdomCouncilforPsychotherapyUniversalConsciousnessU.S.NationalResearchCouncilVAKOGvanderKolk,BesselveiledconstellationsverbalreframesVisionaryLeadershipSkills(Dilts)walkingtimeline

Watson,JohnB.Wheeler,JohnWhisperingintheWind(Grinder&BosticSt.Clair)Whorf,BenjaminWolfe,FredAlanWundt,WilhelmWysong,J.

Yogi,MaharishiMahesh

Zimbardo,Philip,TheTimeParadox

AbouttheAuthorsCarlBuchheithasaPh.D.inTranspersonalPsychologyfromtheInternationalUniversityofProfessional

Studies.CarlbeganstudyingNeuro-LinguisticProgrammingin1979.His

careerinNLPbeganattheNLPCenterforAdvancedStudies,foundedbyLeslieCameron-Bandler,wherefrom1985to

1989hewasanNLPtrainerandfrom1986to1989alsotheCenter’sowner.From

1993tothepresentCarlhasbeentheownerandDirectorofTrainingatNLPMarinin

SanRafael,California.Carltravelsglobally,lecturingaboutandteachingtheinnovativemethodologythathecalls

TransformationalNLP,buthismainfocuscontinuestobeonworkingwithstudentsandclientsdirectly.Currentlyheteachesthirty-fivethree-daytrainingweekendsper

year,andonweekdaysheworkswithfifteentotwentyindividualsorcouplesperweekinhisprivatepractice.ItispossiblethatCarlhastaughtmoreclassesand

workedwithmorepersonalclientsthananyNLPtrainer/practitionerintheworld.

EllieSchamberhasaPh.D.inEuropeanIntellectualandCulturalHistoryfromtheUniversityofCaliforniaatBerkeley.SherevisedherPh.D.dissertationintoabook thatwas published byUniversity Press in 1984. She has taught at LoneMountain College, the University of Arizona, Mississippi State University,SoutheasternLouisianaUniversity, andKaplanUniversity.Since2008shehasfacilitated distance-learning courses atBostonUniversity. She also tutors highschool students for theSATandadults in improving theirwritingand readingcomprehension.ElliebecameastudentofCarlBuchheitatNLPMarinin2000,andhascontinued tostudyandpracticeTransformationalNLPsince then.ShecurrentlyresidesandworksinMillValley,California.