Dennis K. Chong and Jennifer K. Smith Chong^©

Cause and Effect is a universal system. The whole world uses it to determine how to think, feel and act. Its result would be comparable to the inevitable consequences of any process that operates upon a community that is discreet, isolated and segregated. Thus, if every member of such a community suffered from syphilis, from one generation to the next, then syphilis would be seen as a perfectly normal event.

If anyone in such a community was to become aware that syphilis is an anomaly, no one would listen to him. If he persisted in his conclusion, everyone would ignore him. If he became strident, he would be in for tomatoes, eggs and rocks B if he was lucky. AK¹ in Science and Sanity indexes the brutal and harsh review his work received when he created his own publishing company² and published it.

In a substantial way, it is because of this that his goal to secure the shift from the Aristotelian system to the non-Aristotelian, i.e. A³ # }⁴ for everyone in this world has, to date, failed. However, for the cognoscenti, this endeavour is not lost nor is it over.

It is not lost nor is it over because the essence of this work has a lineage that extends from David Hume to Alfred Korzybski and then to Richard Bandler and John Grinder, Virginia Satir, David Cassidy and then to Yoda.

Oh?!

Yes! Indeed!

Yoda!

In Episode V of the Star Wars series, The Empire Strikes Back, Luke Skywalker is finally in training with Yoda, his Jedi Master. He has so many questions for him and in this process he finally poses one with 'why.' Then Yoda, a.k.a. George Lucas, tells him in no uncertain terms:

"There is no why!"

We cite these 7 eminent and distinguished names David Hume, Alfred Korzybski, Richard Bandler, John Grinder, Virginia Satir, David Cassidy and Yoda a.k.a. George Lucas because they are the only ones that we know who have attacked and denounced Cause and Effect⁵ and why at a formal and public level. We know, from hearsay, that in the world of the therapies, many clinicians have questioned Cause and Effect and why. However, we unfortunately, have not read their printed positions about this nor have we heard either directly or from indisputable sources their position. Therefore, we cannot cite their names. We are left with this magnificent 7.

All these 7 people have argued in substantial ways and as powerfully as they could, their logic and their end conclusion about the semantic untenability and invalidity of Cause and Effect and why.

In one biting and intense moment, Virginia Satir, at a conference, exploded in contemptible disgust with 'why,' the mother word of Cause and Effect. She publicly denounced it thus, "Why is a mind f * * king word!" Only those who know the rigorous persona and gracious character of Virginia Satir, will know what it took out of her to do what she did.

In another penetrating and fierce instance, Richard Bandler and John Grinder used a euphemism to describe Cause and Effect, viz. that it is "semantically ill-formed." What does this cultured and patrician turn of phrase, semantically ill-formed mean?

It means insane!

It is for this that Terrence L. McClendon has verified that when Richard Bandler and John Grinder were training their first batch_1972-1981 of Neuro-Linguistic Programmers, the little word why was verboten! And somewhat unpleasant penalties were exacted upon those who used it.

Alfred Korzybski arrived at this same conclusion in 1933 in Science and Sanity. As noted above it was his ultimate discovery and what a discovery! He identified the Aristotelian system⁶, a.k.a. Cause and Effect as the command line for human insanity. In Science and Sanity he indexed its antithesis, to wit the non-Aristotelian system. (Please refer especially to Part II of this paper for the corroborations of this.)

It was towards the end of Science and Sanity that Korzybski posed the challenge concerning the problem of the insanity of Cause and Effect. For us it is indeed the ultimate question. It is not:

Am I my brother's keeper?

but whether we want to save the sanity of civilization?!

I would suggest that mathematical and scientific readers who are interested in a } revision should, at first, in their special fields, sketch in technical papers, presented before the local International Non-aristotelian Societies, A pitfalls and } problems and outlooks. Only after this is done, shall we be able to begin a co-ordination of their feelings, and thereby initiate a revised and unified } science, and perhaps ultimately, a saner scientific civilization (our italic font).

Alfred Korzybski: Science and Sanity The Non-Aristotelian International Library Publishing Co. 1980 6^th Reprint page 569,

Now, against this magnificent 7 people, is one man, Aristotle and all of humanity.

This Aristotle is the same who did not believe in second order change:

Second order change is change of change -- the very phenomenon whose existence Aristotle denied so categorically.

Paul Watzlawick, John Weakland & Richard Fisch: CHANGE Principles of Problem Formation and Problem Resolution W. W. Norton & Co. 1974 page 11

He is the same Aristotle who declared the number of teeth that human beings had, but who never even bothered to ask a human being to open his mouth to count how many there actually were.

For this same Aristotle, there was a day and age when men were burnt alive for doubting, let alone questioning, his propositions, assertions, logic and conclusions. Most surely for this paper, in that day and age, we would have been taken out to the square and set a la flambe.

In the four parts of this paper we have tried our best to argue and support the acute and critical concerns about the Aristotelian system, a.k.a. the Blame Frame, Causality, Causal Modeling, Implied Causative and its ultimate command-word-conduit 'why' that subverts, suborns and collapses everyone into it. The power of 'why' lies in Korzybski's own insight about language:

We do not realise what tremendous power the structure of an habitual language has. It is not an exaggeration to say that it enslaves us through the mechanism of s.r⁷ and that the structure which a language exhibits, is automatically projected upon the world around us. This semantic power is indeed so unbelievable that I do not know anyone, even among well-trained scientists, who, after having admitted some argument as correct, does not the next minute deny or disregard (usually unconsciously) practically every word he had admitted, being carried away again by the structural implications of the old language and his s.r.

Alfred Korzybski: Science and Sanity The International Non-Aristotelian Library Publishing Company 6th Reprint 1980 pages 90 - 91.

It is by this power of s.r., that everyone is held within the thralldom of 'why.' As we stated, it is the ultimate command-word-conduit by which everyone skids into Cause and Effect. We are anchored to Cause and Effect; our style of thinking is geared to it and our way of being is generated by it. For this, there will be no end of people who will rise to defend this precious little word why and all that it stands for. Yet, if Korzybski and the others that we have cited are accurate, we now know that it is this little word, why, like all other little things, mean such a lot. And the lot it means is the insanity of civilization! This insanity has been ongoing for millennia. Did not someone once write that we live in a mad, mad, mad, mad, mad, world. The evidence is everywhere, yet we do not see because we have neurologically accommodated to it, and some are in denial and others in withdrawal. We cannot see the crap for the dung.

We are like the community that we cited above. Through out its existence, everyone in that community suffers from syphilis. As a result, no one ever thinks of it as anything but normal. Anyone who might become aware that it is a disease will become a pariah. If he constant to his belief he will be at risk.

We have co-argued with AK the alternative to the Aristotelian system. It the twin of the non-Aristotelian system of Alfred Korzybski. It indexes a reality of no why. We have called it the No-Y-ian Frame in contra-distinction to the Blame Frame.

We, therefore, come to the end of what for us has been an extra-ordinarily compelling intellectual journey.

We are not stubborn or cussed people. We are more than willing to walk away from the burden of this challenge to attain:

It is, after all a horrendous burden to undertake this challenge. To do so, inevitably and unavoidably opens us to the slings, arrows, the ridicule and the opprobrium of every Aristotelian Causalist in this world. And there are so many of you -- everywhere. We also have to suffer the suspicions and antipathy of all General Semanticists with the exception of those who grasp what is indexed here in these papers. And the Institute of General Semantics will only view us with misgiving and antipathy.

We have studied and evaluated -- carefully and respectfully the counter-arguments for why by many Causalists, including some who are our friends and whom we hold in high regard and affection . However, to date, but for one exception, we have not met any counter-argument that for us has the high intellectual rigour before which we are to submit.

The exception that we speak of was in the person of David Gordon. He posed a counter-argument to our position that shook us to our roots. We cited this in Part IV of this paper. If David had won the moment, then truly, we would never have written this four part paper; and Aristotle along with this dear little darling why would have had their way with us; and Korzybski would have met the edge of our counter-arguments against him. However, we were able to answer the utter precision and devastating ferocity of David Gordon's counter-proposition. So we are here now with what we have shared with you all.

As a group, this magnificent 7, does not stand alone. Others such as David Gordon⁰, Roland Roye Fraser¹⁰, Daniel Araoz¹¹, Robert Malone¹² and many others stand them.

We want to represent the insanity of the Aristotelian system. The only way we came up with is in the forms of the two diagrams in the next page. They show the change of how it might be when the Blame Frame is in a quiescent or inoperative condition. Then, we have drawn the change to the form when the Blame Frame is active in a person. When you compare the two you have the difference. It is a difference that recalls to mind between that of a Dr. Jeykll and a Mr. Hyde.

The Blame Frame:

	#
A OK when Blame is quiescent. Figure A		The anger and fury when Blame Frame is active. Figure B

No one can escape the insane consequences to his body language because the operations of the Aristotelian System ,a.k.a. the Blame Frame are riveted to his body. It is also not possible to escape from the insane consequences to our spoken language because our cognitive operations are all generated by the Blame Frame. As I look at Figure B, as a physician, I cannot but smile but in dismay that neuro-syphilis can do exactly that.

So, let us now share with you how a person can sever the analogical moorings of the insanity of Cause and Effect and to rid his mind from the mental gearings of the Aristotelian system, a.k.a. Blame Frame, The Aristotelian system, Cause and Effect, Causal Modeling, The Question of WHY and Implied Causative:

Step 1: It is one thing to read the play, Twelfth Night by Shakespeare but never attended a performance of it. It is also one thing to have attended its play but never read the play. It is one thing to read the script of Beethoven's V symphony. It is quite another to hear it played.

The script at issue is the following body of works that include Science and Sanity, Don't Ask WHY?!, Power and Elegance in Communication and the papers, Alfred Korzybski and Cause and Effect, Part I - IV and its CONCLUSION. The latter papers have been published at his site.

It is one thing to read this script. It is quite another thing to see the 'play'¹³ of this script.

The performance is of extraordinary high and fine humour since it deals with the bizarre and unprecedented forms of semantic nonsense and semantic ill-formedness of Cause and Effect. It is by seeing the performance that one comes to realize and know the order magnitude of what is at stake. So this is the first step.

When Step I has been done, the orienting will leave the person with the inevitable and unavoidable conclusion that he is trapped in an anomalous way of thinking. He will see the insanity of the semantic analogical and linguistic anchors of A -- the pre-eminent one being why.

It is only then that one realizes the truth of what Alfred Korzybski had said in Science and Sanity that we re-quote here again:

We do not realise what tremendous power the structure of an habitual language has. It is not an exaggeration to say that it enslaves us through the mechanism of s.r. and that the structure which a language exhibits, is automatically projected upon the world around us. This semantic power is indeed so unbelievable that I do not know anyone, even among well-trained scientists, who, after having admitted some argument as correct, does not the next minute deny or disregard (usually unconsciously) practically every word he had admitted, being carried away again by the structural implications of the old language and his s.r.

Alfred Korzybski: Science and Sanity The International Non-Aristotelian Library Publishing Company 6th Reprint 1980 pages 90 - 91.

Step II: It is only because of NLP that we now know that it is possible to collapse out semantic analogical anchors.

However, thanks from the critical work of Michael Hall we now know that these semantic analogical anchors of Cause and Effect are meta states. Whilst we had appreciated the inherent difficulties to hold these meta states as discreet and segregated entities or bundles, it was for us an enriching thing to learn from him the logic that underpins this.

Therefore, to collapse out these semantic analogical anchors requires an operator of high expertise. This process, in our work, is called de-imprinting¹⁵.

It is, therefore, only by the de-imprinting process that it is possible that a person can be free of all the semantic analogical anchors of all the logical levels of the Blame Frame that are riveted into a Aristotelian Causalist. This was something that AK did not discover.

Step III: In reality, we only know to use the language system of Causality. In this language system, the pre-eminent word is, of course, why. However, there is a whole cascade of other words and phrases. As they are geared to our minds, we use them with unconscious facility and avid expertise.

You may recall McClendon's recollection of the difficulties the first generation of NLPers had not to use why. Even before the real threat of being shouted at by Richard Bandler or being whupped across the head by John Grinder, they could not stop using it:

It was at the Mission Street groups that we first began acquiring our information gathering tools that were later to become the meta model patterns. The foundations of the information gathering tools began with the how, who, and what questions from the Gestalt framework, deleting that unspoken question, why (our bold).

We used to get yelled at and sometime bopped on the head for saying why. In a very therapeutic way of course.

Terrence L. McClendon: The Wild Days NLP 1972 -1981 Meta Publications 1989 page 40

Cause and Effect runs the operations of out mind. It does so entirely and completely. It is "the structure of our habitual language . . . that enslaves us . . ."

It is the mother condition of the most anomalous and insane consequences. You will not be aware of it. You will not because the situation is like a discreet group of people in which everyone suffers from syphilis. No one in the discreet group would ever think that they are afflicted by anything. In fact everything would be considered normal.

However, we now know that to the reality of Cause and Effect is an insanity of untold ferocity and unspeakable viciousness. You only need to recall the verbal shenanigans of John Gotti's or O. J. Simpson's legal counsel(s) and you will know what we are referring to. And this is the same language system that we use in life with each other! This language system has to be supplanted with another. We have a choice. Each is a metalanguage¹⁶. We, of course would prefer ours. It is the WWF-metalanguage (WWF-ML). The other is the Meta Model.

We have certain structural concerns about the Meta Model. We cite them now, whilst retaining our continuing respect for Richard Bandler and John Grinder. What is said here, are considerations in and of themselves. Thus, I happen to have a cousin who is an eminent and distinguished architect in Canada. Let us suppose he had been responsible for a building that I now know has a critical crack in it. In advising the owners about it, I do so as an act, in and of itself. I do not intend any disparagement of my cousin.

We have found these critical structural problems with the Meta Model:

1. The first is that it was configured in the Aristotelian system, a.k.a. Causal Modeling, Causality, Cause and Effect, Blame Frame, The Question of WHY. There are, therefore, certain anomalous consequences that will inevitably flow from its use. Think on this. The concept of rapport and the structure was the brainchild of the creators of NLP and their original group of co-developers. Can you now, based on these four papers that we have submitted before you, see the connection of how it compelled a loss of rapport between them?!
   
2. The second problem with the Meta Model, as noted, is that it subscribed to a neurological fallacy. It was that you can delete or filter out a piece of information. Try and do it right now to see if you can. As you look at this sentence, delete it or filter it out, from your minds eye. You can't. You can only not see it, if you look at something else. But then if you are looking at something else, you cannot delete or filter it out either, unless you look at something else and so forth.

As Qui Gon Jin told Anakin Skywalker, "Your focus is your reality." This reality can never be a function of what you have deleted or filtered out. This embedded inaccuracy in the Meta Model, led to the formulation of certain linguistic formats with its concordant structural tilts that are necessarily and logically flawed.

3. The Meta Model was an incredible and a wondrous creation of its day₁₉₇₅. However, it was limited in the scan of its considerations. In the form that it had, it was far short of the augmentations and expansions that were finally added to it and found their final form in the WWF-metalanguage₁₉₉₃ a.k.a. Gathering Information Module (GIM).
   
4. Finally, the Meta Model did not include the critical domain of Informal Logic. Informal Logic is the exploration of the logical patterns of ordinary people. From these logical patterns flows a form of representation and argumentation. Included in them are such items that are well known to all of us. They include ad hominem, slippery slope and red herring.

When you learn the WWF-metalanguage you will acquire the language system that will override that of the } system. In so doing, the mind can finally detache from the gears of the Aristotelian system.

Step IV. The mentor of Carlos Castaneda was the Yaqui shaman, don Juan Matus. It was don Juan Matus who advised Carlos "to use the ways of the world." It is unfortunate that the ways of the world are those of the Aristotelian system a.k.a. Cause and Effect and the little question why.

However, we know that all Aristotelian Causalists are hopeless in using the Blame Frame. Every one is in terror of it; and we all go about in trepidation and timidity, covering our ass. We are also hopeless at defense nor do we know, how like a Jedi, to deflect it when we are caught in the maelstrom of the Blame Frame; this is especially so, if and when we are its targets. All we know to do is quiver in fear and helplessness in the face of it.

The alternative is rant, shout, scream and rave to overwhelm the other person. This is an insane method and it never works.

We do not know how to use it cold and with utter devastation on the other.

We have to learn and know the logical weaknesses inherent to Cause and Effect since it is nothing but the way to insanity. If we know what it is, then, we can exploit it. Then we will know how to use it ethically to hold a person in the peril of it. In our work we call this process the No-Y-ian Seminar.

To pass through each stage as we have cited here is finally to end being an Aristotelian Causalist. It is only in this way that one can be truly a Korzybskian non-Aristotelian person a.k.a. No-Y-ian person . It is to end being a creature of Aristotle and Cause and Effect and why. It is only this way can one assume the mantle of a No-Y-ian Neuro-Semanticist.

It is clear from what we have shared here with you, that from our point of view, the Korzybskian banner is a fallen one. The General Semanticists of today₁₉₉₉ do not possess the breadth and depth of what we have indexed here. For this, if you read their journals, it is very clear that their focus is not where it is to be. They are more involved in issues that are clearly in the circumference.

We have elected to pick up the Korzybskian banner. We have done so because we now know that the ultimate question is not:

Am I my brother's keeper?

The ultimate question is as Korzybski intimated:

Are you willing to save the sanity of Civilization?

Our answer is "Yes."

For this then, we elect to carry the task forward, but in this new way. This new way has only been possible because we are now in neuro-linguistics₁₉₉₉, neuro-semantics₁₉₉₉. and Science₁₉₉₉. It continues to amaze us that one man, alone, Korzybski, derived his unbelievably powerful insights out of neuro-linguistics₁₉₃₃ and neuro-semantics₁₉₃₃.

We now take this opportunity to thank our dear friends Dr. Bob Bodenhamer and Dr. Michael Hall for the gift of their web site at http://www.neurosemantics.com.

We thank them -- most sincerely and genuinely, because¹⁸, in spite of our critical and sometimes desperate intellectual differences, they stood by us and allowed us to submit these papers into their site. For us, this speaks to their fine and wonderful innate disposition, that no matter what, philosophy metaphysics,, concepts, ideas and considerations of scholarship -- structures, shall in the end have their place in the sun.

We thank you both indeed and with our respect and love.

And of you dear reader, we have a request.

If you are in any way convinced by our arguments that the ultimate structure for the insanity of our race is Cause and Effect, then we beg you to forward these papers on to those that you know who will intuitively and spontaneously share the same measure of concern about this dreadful and tragic state of affairs. And in turn please ask them to forward it on to other friends.

Endnotes:

¹AK is the fond abbreviation by which Alfred Korzybski is known.

². . . own publishing company is called The International Non-Aristotelian Library Publishing Company. It speaks to Science and Sanity and to its publishing house that in 1980 the book was in its 6^th reprint. It is a matter of significance and note that he named his publishing company Non-Aristotelian.

³A is AK's abbreviation for the Aristotelian system aka Cause and Effect.

⁴} is AK's abbreviation for the non-Aristotelian system. This system is antithetical to A.

⁵Cause and Effect
One em input into the discussion group neuro-semantics@e-groups.com was by one Steve Fox from England who asked for a definition of Cause and by implication, Effect. This need emerged from our papers AK & C=>E, Part I-IV. When we read the request, we felt such an odd tingling since it was a long standing assumption by us that everyone knew what the term meant. Cause and Effect, after all, has been the pre-eminent way of thinking of every member of our kind for literally thousands of years. It is unfortunately still is. Cause and Effect is about a relationship. It is clear that the definition of either term has to be in the context of the implied relationship. This is the definition that we propose:

A Cause and Effect relationship exists if the velocity of the Cause is such that it impacts on the second variable so that no other variable can possibly interject between the two with the result that the Effect can never be produced by any other variable.

At another logical level, any entity can be said to be a Cause if it can determine a change in another. However, philosophically, it does not follow that such a one time change necessarily enjoys a Cause and Effect relationship between the two, as per the definition.

Finally in a } reality, you have to answer what the change is really a function of. When you do, then what you conclude to be the cause, is not. Thus, at first you may conclude, he caused me my financial ruin. However, in the } way you are to ask, "What really was your financial ruin a function of?"  Then you may conclude that it was because it was your not looking deeper into the deal, your greed, stupidity and impatience.
As they say, "It is never as it seems to be."

⁶Aristotelian system as AK mapped it our was incomplete. With our advantages₁₉₉₉, we were able to do so in a full and comprehensive way.

⁷s.r. stands for semantic reaction. It was Korzybski's way of saying that every sound of speech determines a meaning in us and this was designated by him as s.r. In NLP this s.r. is therefore an anchor. Therefore, in the quote, what we now realize is that what Alfred Korzybski was referring to was the power of semantic anchors.

⁸A # } .
To achieve this is about 2^nd order change. In this 2^nd order change will be a change in the all unconscious neuro-semantic operations of a person to }. This applies to his epistemological operations. The ontology that it generates is to be }. His form and style of thinking is to be }. Finally, all ongoing meta state operations have to be }.

In our view, it is without question the ultimate gestalt switch. It is comparable to and of the same order of magnitude as the Carmelite nun that we read in the National Enquirer who left the order and became a L.A. hooker!

⁹David Gordon is one of the original core co-developers of the field study of Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP) and one of its most esteemed teachers . We know him for his intellectual rigour and precision. He is the author of several critical works in NLP. Of them, it our view that his work Therapeutic Metaphors is a critical standard in the literature. It is a must read work for any NLPer, hypnotherapist and psychotherapist.
It was from him that we received the final and the most severe challenge to our thesis that there was no such thing as Cause and Effect and therefore by extension that there is no why. It was only because we survived it that he in turn accepted our invitation to write the FORWARD to our work Don't Ask WHY?! If we had failed, we know that he would have refused us. And such is the integrity of the man.

¹⁰Rowland Roye Fraser is one of the fine thinkers in the field of NLP. He has contributed much to the field of NLP, especially in Design Human Engineering and in other critical ways. However, he has been committed a serious omission in not putting to print his discoveries.

¹¹Daniel Araoz is one of the foremost authorities in the field of Clinical Hypnosis. His books include The New Hypnosis and Hypnosis and Sex Therapy. He is the professor of Community Mental Health Counseling in Long Island University, New York. He wrote the PREFACE to Don't Ask WHY?!

¹²Robert Malone is a Professor of Philosophy in Brock University, Ontario. He enjoys the distinction in the world of academia as one of the worlds leading authorities in the Philosophy of Causality. In another transmogrification, he worked on the mathematical equations for the Apollo rocket trajectory. It was from him that I learnt that they sent the Astronauts to the moon on a computer with 18,000 kilobytes of memory!

¹³. . . . the 'play' . . .
This play is now known as the General Orientation when we apply it in therapy. It is derived from the process known as orienting. This term emerged from a true life event. There was a moment when the surface trains in New York city were tracked into their underground routes. When this happened, the police precincts were inundated by telephone calls that night. However, to enquiry, it was clear the calls did not appertain to any crime. An investigation was set in place. It concluded that the substantial fall in rail noise pollution left people in confusion as they now had to orient to the new condition of relative silence.
This 'play' entails the same consequence. A person will find himself orienting from why to no-why, from A # } .
This 'play' is offered as The Question of WHY Seminar.

¹⁴META-STATES is a work by Michael Hall. The work is published by Empowerment Technologies of 1924 N. 7^th Street, Grand Junction, Colorado 81501-7418.

We are very thankful that at last, out of the cascade of recent books on NLP, a work has emerged that without question has the high distinction of being original in its content. It concerns a critical domain of human ontology that everyone had missed. The work META-STATES is for us another of these must read books.

For us, our view is that it is a standard for every philosopher, psyschiatrist. psychologist, NLPer, hypnotherapist, psychotherapist and general semanticist et alia.

¹⁵de-imprinting as any NLPer will know is about collapsing anchors. In applying the manoeuver and given that one is dealing with meta states, the process is piloted through a work that we have named the De-Imprinting Seminar.

¹⁶Metalanguage (ML) is a concept first proposed by Paul Watzlawick, John Weakland and Richard Fisch in their seminal work, CHANGE. We heard recently that there was some shift in the NLP community to disparage the position and place of a metalanguage. This is, in our view, not on.

There is no way that anyone can escape the logic of the observation by the authors of CHANGE that one can only understand a language if you have a language about language. Such a thing is a metalanguage. A competent technician will have a meta engine in his head, i.e. the plan of it, by which to repair it. You will, therefore, know the value of the Meta Model or the even greater value of the WWF-metalanguage if you have it.

One of the critical variables that launched and propelled NLP into the world was the Meta Model because without question it was the most powerful gathering information tool of its time.

¹⁷learn:

In Michael Hall's latest article that was published in Anchor Point, June 1999, he cited the work Power and elegance in Communication in the Bibliography. The information about the WWF-metalanguage is in this work You can learn it by studying from the book. However, even we do not know what it is that somehow something is not quite complete if were to learn Anatomy or Physiology or NLP just from the books.

We teach our students the WWF-metalanguage. Then a very interesting event took place. When we had our final post-seminar meeting that took place after 6 months, the first class of students that we ever taught it to, asked us to rename this teaching process to Power in Communication Seminar. It was such an unexpected request. We resisted it at first. However, on review with them, at the end, we agreed to accept their recommendation.

¹⁸Because is not a causal term. It indexes what is known in Formal Logic as the semantics of a modus ponens. In NLP, it is known as a Complex Generalization Equivalence. As every competent NLPer knows a Complex Generalization Equivalence indexes a relation that is not Cause and Effect.

©1999 Dennis K. Chong & Jennifer K. Smith Chong. All rights reserved.