those who are blind do not believe in eyes having a function

[Guest guest]

> >As a clinician, I understand that clients in pain do not care much

> >about theory. An explanation that is plausible is all that is

needed.

> >As a scientists, I expect more than that from colleagues.

 

Theory? What theory?

 

How about verifiable results?

 

How about something as simple as, " this has worked for most

people...let's see how it works for you " ...then do the `process with

the proper intention'...

 

....then do the sedating points...or the tapping routine...or the pain

chasing...or the reframe...or the sub-modalities intervention...or

the Milton model...or the Meta-Model...

 

....All incorporated into the general 3 steps that are effectively

used in making enduring change.

 

I'm seeing the past 2 weeks all about part I of the

information/process cycle, the historical portion and there is

NOTHING about the other far more important aspects...

 

What I'm seeing from those that 'can't' (a `refuse/choice' syndrome)

do it and from those that 'choose not' to do it a very blatant form

of self inflected myopia.

 

They refuse to go to the eye expert because they don't believe in eye

experts. In fact they don't even believe in 'eyes'.

 

What's important for us 'if' it does work (and it does work)? Very

easy to calibrate with any type of evidence procedures.

 

How to do it specifically? The processes broken down into chunks so

they are repeatable for others to do. Donna and David and Gary and

Fred and Bandler and Erickson and Callahan have done that.

 

So how about MORE processes of `doing' and of `evidence' procedures?

 

How else to do it (which incorporates the habits formed and allows

space for the intuition to blossom).

 

Just my 2 cents worth.

 

John La Tourrette, PhD