The title of Cathy and Marks TRANCE formation of America book, appears to have been taken from the NLP founders book TRANCE-formations. There are other connections too.
The more I read exposés like yours, Cathy, the more I think that anyone in the limelight is "in the club," be they Freemasons, Luciferians, or Satanists.
Very curious, all the similarities between the books. Can this really be just coincidence? Excellent research, connecting the dots. It's endless, and I am sure exhausting, but much appreciated by this community. The witches third hand reminded me of the Hidden Hand of freemasonry. Look over there, not over here.
I am guessing you have not had a chance to see inside the book nor research the authors a great deal. I actually just bought this book, used, quite recently. It so far appears to be a guide for learning hypnosis that is largely transcribed from a class and edited from that source.
NLP from what I've heard is the result of Richard Bandler studying and sistematizing the techniques of Milton Erickson, likely the most famous and respected hypnotist, arguably. Erickson was a very unique individual who developed keen observational skills while paralyzed from polio, and over the years. Erickson was able to recover himself from polio, which is a fascinating story of you get to read it. While Erickson very generously taught, especially therapists and doctors, his manner of teaching from what I can gather may have been more of modeling? The most prominent books attributed to Erickson now were put together by therapists who spent time with him, fascinated by how he worked with people: Zeig, Rossi, Haley... It seems that the systematic explanations for what Erickson did tended to be enunciated and analyzed by voices other than his own. I am still learning, so maybe I just haven't seen everything yet.
Anyways, Bandler has a very systematic mind. He attempted to frame Erickson's methods into elements that would be cut and dried and look more like concrete tools than like an expression of intuition and artistry (as it was with Erickson). Bandler appears to me to be the guy who sees a work of art and reduces it to a studied use of brush strokes and academic rules of art.
I don't see the book as very woo woo. I wonder how that cover art was chosen, as the book does not seem to match it, from what I see initially. I guess I'll look with curiosity. The artist seems to do a lot of watercolors, with marbling effects, much of which seems innocuous, but I guess I wouldn't know. The art on her website doesn't look like the book cover at all, and if anything, the book cover looks very crude artistically, in my opinion. I wouldn't be surprised if it were found to be embarrassing.
Back to Bandler. So he created Neuro Linguistic Programming with an academic linguist (Grinder). As you can imagine, a focus on words and use of words, appears to me like piecing out the profound work of Erickson into dry little principles and techniques. I guess it is a really smart thing to do, to try to understand something somewhat fascinating and mysterious, and to try to explain what is happening.
Still, I feel a little yucky about it. Imagine if someone looks at, say, love between and parent and child, and then starts to explain it all by how it looks in the brain, how use of language can compose an experience of filial love, how the creation of a live experience can facilitate X, Y, Z. I can't say that that is what Bandler is doing with NLP, as I am pretty new to learning about this, but this is the concern that I feel about it at this moment. Maybe I'll understand it differently as I go along. Maybe I'm just protective of the warm and natural ways of being as they are before deconstruction and analysis and turning them into tools. Again, this might be my comment on my own experience more than on Bandler, as I have a very superficial exposure to NLP and such at this point. Just because you try to explain and understand something doesn't mean that it necessarily removes the heart from it. There are people in NLP, like Connirae Andreas, who appear to me to be more heart focused and humanly warm (and who also edited the Trance Formations book). I do think that NLP techniques as formulated by Bandler are being used in very positive ways, so I personally imagine creating a distinction between Bandler and what is good use of these hypnotic elements.
So, about Bandler himself. I am noticing from the reactions of a few hypnotists I have been exposed to that he is highly respected, but that they joke about not crossing him. I think this is sufficiently based in his relational manner, but there is also a huge red flag incident in his past. He was tried for murder and acquitted in northern California. It seems that he and a friend were with a woman who was shot by one of them. They each say the other one did it. The Court cannot say for sure who killed her, so, they both are free men. Mixed up with that is drugs, addiction, violence, and prostitution. You can look it up.
The more I read exposés like yours, Cathy, the more I think that anyone in the limelight is "in the club," be they Freemasons, Luciferians, or Satanists.
Yes, it's everywhere.
Keep on writing, keep on exposing.
Very curious, all the similarities between the books. Can this really be just coincidence? Excellent research, connecting the dots. It's endless, and I am sure exhausting, but much appreciated by this community. The witches third hand reminded me of the Hidden Hand of freemasonry. Look over there, not over here.
I am guessing you have not had a chance to see inside the book nor research the authors a great deal. I actually just bought this book, used, quite recently. It so far appears to be a guide for learning hypnosis that is largely transcribed from a class and edited from that source.
NLP from what I've heard is the result of Richard Bandler studying and sistematizing the techniques of Milton Erickson, likely the most famous and respected hypnotist, arguably. Erickson was a very unique individual who developed keen observational skills while paralyzed from polio, and over the years. Erickson was able to recover himself from polio, which is a fascinating story of you get to read it. While Erickson very generously taught, especially therapists and doctors, his manner of teaching from what I can gather may have been more of modeling? The most prominent books attributed to Erickson now were put together by therapists who spent time with him, fascinated by how he worked with people: Zeig, Rossi, Haley... It seems that the systematic explanations for what Erickson did tended to be enunciated and analyzed by voices other than his own. I am still learning, so maybe I just haven't seen everything yet.
Anyways, Bandler has a very systematic mind. He attempted to frame Erickson's methods into elements that would be cut and dried and look more like concrete tools than like an expression of intuition and artistry (as it was with Erickson). Bandler appears to me to be the guy who sees a work of art and reduces it to a studied use of brush strokes and academic rules of art.
I don't see the book as very woo woo. I wonder how that cover art was chosen, as the book does not seem to match it, from what I see initially. I guess I'll look with curiosity. The artist seems to do a lot of watercolors, with marbling effects, much of which seems innocuous, but I guess I wouldn't know. The art on her website doesn't look like the book cover at all, and if anything, the book cover looks very crude artistically, in my opinion. I wouldn't be surprised if it were found to be embarrassing.
Back to Bandler. So he created Neuro Linguistic Programming with an academic linguist (Grinder). As you can imagine, a focus on words and use of words, appears to me like piecing out the profound work of Erickson into dry little principles and techniques. I guess it is a really smart thing to do, to try to understand something somewhat fascinating and mysterious, and to try to explain what is happening.
Still, I feel a little yucky about it. Imagine if someone looks at, say, love between and parent and child, and then starts to explain it all by how it looks in the brain, how use of language can compose an experience of filial love, how the creation of a live experience can facilitate X, Y, Z. I can't say that that is what Bandler is doing with NLP, as I am pretty new to learning about this, but this is the concern that I feel about it at this moment. Maybe I'll understand it differently as I go along. Maybe I'm just protective of the warm and natural ways of being as they are before deconstruction and analysis and turning them into tools. Again, this might be my comment on my own experience more than on Bandler, as I have a very superficial exposure to NLP and such at this point. Just because you try to explain and understand something doesn't mean that it necessarily removes the heart from it. There are people in NLP, like Connirae Andreas, who appear to me to be more heart focused and humanly warm (and who also edited the Trance Formations book). I do think that NLP techniques as formulated by Bandler are being used in very positive ways, so I personally imagine creating a distinction between Bandler and what is good use of these hypnotic elements.
So, about Bandler himself. I am noticing from the reactions of a few hypnotists I have been exposed to that he is highly respected, but that they joke about not crossing him. I think this is sufficiently based in his relational manner, but there is also a huge red flag incident in his past. He was tried for murder and acquitted in northern California. It seems that he and a friend were with a woman who was shot by one of them. They each say the other one did it. The Court cannot say for sure who killed her, so, they both are free men. Mixed up with that is drugs, addiction, violence, and prostitution. You can look it up.