Using Your Brain

Using Your Brain

Richard Bandler - Using your brain - for a change. Real People Press, 1985. 175 lk

Richard Bandler on koos John Grinderiga NLP kaasasutaja ja see on esimene tema teos, mille suvatsesin läbi lugeda. Olen mõnevõrra pettunud, aga üldiselt positiivselt meelestatud. See kahepoolne arvamus põhineb faktil, et see raamat imes, aga samas tutvustas mulle üldkontsepti ja terminoloogiat.
Käesolev teos kõneleb submodaalsuste mõjutamisest - kontseptist, millega olin juba ammu tuttav, aga ei näinud suuremat praktilist väärtust. Nüüd aga tajusin selle kontsepti ulatust. Kuigi mulle sellest praegu veel kasu ei ole - kahtlen, kas hakkan inimestele mingisugust pseudo-teaduslikku psühhoteraapia teenuseid pakkuma - saan seda siiski seostada Juri Lotmani teesidega semiootikast. Hooman nüüd vähemasti seda, miks NLP ei ole akadeemiliselt tunnustatud - see põhineb iganenud mõistetel ja oletustel. Kõige usutavam asi selle teose juures on hoopis fakt, et NLP loojad olid/on väga kriitiliselt meelestatud traditsioonilisse "lahkame sinu probleeme" (ehk "kinnistame neid") psühhoterapeudilisse lähenemisse ja õppimishäirete pärast inimestele psühhotroopsete ravimite välja kirjutamisse. Bandler väidab, et sõltuvuste/harjumuste, foobiate, depressiooni jm taolisega saab täiesti edukalt tegeleda ka inimesega kõneledes ja tema mentaalseid mudeleid mõjutades. Kuna kõigel sellel puudub empiiriline tagapõhi ja kogu NLP asja on teaduslikul järeleproovimisel ka ümber lükatud, võtan seda pigem kui abimeest modelleerivate süsteemide mõistmiseks (nt J. Lotmani sekundaarsed modelleerivad süsteemid ja kunst). Tõsiselt julgen võtta vaid neid aspekte, mis peaksid ühtima tänapäevase neuroteadusega (kui neid aspekte üldse on). Minus on veel lootust, et midagigi NLPst on päriselt rakendatav.

0 comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Real understanding of any scientific subject must include some knowledge of its historical growth; we cannot comprehend and accept modern concepts and theories without knowing something of their origins - of how we have got where we are. Neglect of this maxim can lead to that unfortunate state of mind which regard the science of the day as finality. (Cherry 1977: 32)

We should temper reading by writing, and reciprocally, so that the written composition gives body (corpus) to what has been obtained by reading. Reading collects orationes logoi (discourses, elements of discourse); we must make a corpus of them. (Foucault 2005: 359)

The existence of the inner book, along with unreading or forgetting, is what makes the way we discuss books so discontinuous and heterogeneous. What we take to be the books we have read is in fact an anomalous accumulation of fragments of texts, reworked by our imagination and unrelated to the books of others, even if these books are materially identical to ones we have held in our hands. (Bayard 2007: 85-86)

The post-Cubist function of quotations in collages emerges with particular clarity in the early notes of Eisenstein, who wrote in 1928 that "an entire treatise can be made by composition of quotations." In his later works, in which compositions of quotations are often used, he himself explains them (in the spirit of the "linear style" of quotations) by a desire for "minimal distortion." (Ivanov 1976b: 323)

A person may be interested in scientific statements for their own sake (interested in collecting them as a person may be interested in collecting butterflies); a person may have knowledge and the increase of knowledge as his goal. (Morris 1949: 128)

In non-literate society, of course, there are usually some individuals whose interests lead them to collect, analyse and interpret the cultural tradition in a personal way [but] it is still evident that the literate individual has in practice so large a field of personal selection from the total cultural repertoire that the odds are strongly against his experiencing the cultural tradition as any sort of patterned whole. (Goody & Watt 1963: 335)

A different language is too often taken for stammering, a nonconformist virtuosity is misinterpreted as formlessness, exquisite variability is confused with cruelty, intentional enigmatic indefiniteness is deplored as the disappointing obscurity or fragmentariness of a mere neglected sketch, and in the stupendous interplay of symmetry and disequilibrium onesided critics are prone to overlook the harmony and to observe nothing but chaos. (Jakobson 1981[1967b]: 498)

I am convinced that there must still be a number of other concepts or models of potentially systemic generality scattered in some (un)fairly unknown works of disappeared or living researchers. We should dive for them in the deeps of literature. (François 1999: 217)

The selections included are of such a nature that readers who feel that the study of the history of systematic social theory is a waste of time will have occasion to ponder how thoroughly our predecessors have plagiarized many of our best ideas. (Meyer 1956: 166)

This, we may conceive, would be no small Advantage to the Knowledge of a thinking Man, if all his past Thoughts and Reasonings could be always present to him. (Locke 1741a: 115)

blogger visitor counter