The Bruce Lee approach

Bruce Lee are for many the guy that kicked every ass on screen in the 70´s.
He also developed an approach to martial arts called JKD.

I simply name it a no non sense approach.
For me the modeling aspect of NLP is the key component in what I do.
However, I dont use what people might think is the NLP modeling, I use the Bruce Lee approach.

For me as I done this modeling project for the last 5 years, what become obvious is the when doing and as I done it, I also gain access to the how to do it in a different way, and using this new found knowledge I update what I do based on previous finds.
Now, what I update from are however, not just based on previous experiences.
I update from the projection and calculation of a future orientation or frame.

Lets say you need to make a decision, due to some things that goes on in the marketplace.
Are you going to do the decision, based on what has happen up to this point, or the current situation as it is, or maybe we can view this from how we want things to be.
Creating the future, even when the situation calls for more limited choices in decsions are the framework of NLP.

The founders of NLP said, we like the client to have more choices due to them having limited choices, since they got the problems and current thinking/behaviours.
So, how do we create more choices, that is NOT built upon the past and current situation?

There are one way we can do that, using a future orientation, but how do we do that when we have our current thinking and behaviour as it is?

How do we free us from our own mind?

Our thinking and behaviour has a platform, a way of organize the framework of our current choices.
I call this structural cognitive orientation.
This orientation are based on our own brain creating structural elements in our own brain to map the relations between different categories of information.

The basis of NLP with our five senses which are our current input we have consistently, we get all kinds of different input from our senses, this was also the basis of NLP and its development with the found of people using predicates of senses to show the cognitive orientation they used.
I see what you mean, and I feel what your saying and I listen carefully to what you say.
As people use such predicates NLP mapped that with language as the meta-model to produce a sequence that people use as in the NLP strategy model.
However, we also use different ways to organize ourselves than what fits into a NLP strategy, by just the idea of 3 steps in any NLP strategy to be effective, we can map several more steps when people use their mind to produce a result.

The question for me are, how do we access and elicit a peak performance state, where we can do amazing things, and how does our brain know when we do that?
What are the cues, and structure behind such amazing peak performances?

Using NLP requries skill, in fact so much skill I rarely meet people proficient in NLP to a degree which I would like to see. I have high quality standards.
I see the NLP tranings produce less qualified NLP practitioners which seldom are trained properly to be able to do NLP.
However, they are great in running a program of applying x technique for a particular problem.
However, the skill to decide what to do, based on the clients map of the world, is seldom practised and those skills are not as good as I would like people to be using NLP.

So, as I did the modeling and used a non sense approach, I had to re-set and re-write what I did since what I had to come up with was a simplistic approach, that when done and used would allow a particular result to happen exactly the same way each and every time, no matter the problem the client or group might have.
This would mean you be using a precise framework to achive the same result each and every time.
That would cut down the skill people need due to using the same approach each and every time, the framework of that would allow a result to be the same each and every time.
Similiar to a driving license, you need some theory, some practice and a test to achive a licence to get the skill to drive a car.
Then you able to drive the car, and you can only get better due to not having to learn everything to create a car, design a car, you just drive the car.

This was my aim here, to have a model to produce the same result, which also would mean, that a lot of the NLP models, needs to be updated and or removed.

The failure and flaw of NLP are that after 30 years, little innovation is done in NLP.
We add more features, and add more to the phenomena and basically our brain is the same as it was 40.000 tousand years ago.

Why do we need more to describe the brain and how we use it?

Wouldnt it be optimum if we found out how our brain works as it create the display we have as in our thinking, feeling and our behaviour?
If we knew that, wouldnt that allow us to produce a exact result each and every time due to we know the framework our brain use to produce the results?

Do our brain use complicated things?
No, it uses domain rules, a cell send x amount of info, we can say, well it uses neurochemicals, and electricity to do so, we use decoding stufff and so on but again, we dont need to know how that works to be able to replicate a result.
Same as the car, you dont need to know everything, you know, gas/fuel, keys, driver license.
The rest, just hopefully works.

As I done this model and built it, testing it trough numerous testing allows me to build a testing platform to map, do the model produce the same result each and every time?
If yes. I am done

And the result is, it does.

/Robert Johansson
Before and after Robert

The stupidity of NLP today

I am worried about the level of competence today that NLP practitioners has, not just a begineer but even the well known trainers are showing an increasing rise of stupidity.

I saw one well known NLP trainer, one who has publish several NLP books and one modeled about self say something along the lines in regard to objections that "when all aspects of a person agree to a change" for me that sounds like multipel personality disorder?

I noticed on the blog that I wrote my last entry nov 1 2006, which by all accounts are way to long between blogs. I do better.

Objections due to anger or being resentful are still treated as back to the 80´s NLP?
I find it silly even strange to read such comments due to the nature of several aspects of yourself object to a change?
I find such ill adviced consulting border to recklessness and I strongly object to that sentement and when it comes from an NLP trainer as Steve Andreases then I guess my concern is justified.

I had a client a few years back, when I was invited by a man to write about his workshop back in 2003 I not only had a great time I also wrote some article about my experience and I also modeled the man Joseph Riggio. For those new to NLP Joseph is most known to run hypnosis seminars with John La Valle a man that runs seminars with Richard Bandler one of the co-foudners of NLP.
I attended the 2003 Designer Swish Workshop which for me allowed a new way of doing NLP.

The content of the seminar was more or less a simple variation of the swish pattern, it had two elements that did differ, one was the starting point and the other was a focus of attention on making a kinestetic one and even if NLPérs would say that a swish can be done kinesteticly this was done with an overlap.

The major difference in how Joseph works comes from a man called Roye Fraser, recently Roye passed away to the great unknown but when he was alive he created a different way to accomplish "change" in his Generative Imprint model.

So, I read this from Steve Andreases and he is a well known NLP practitioner and my brain just go, what?

What he did write was so old even archelogical where the models used was from the 80´s when the music and style of clothing was way different, when cellphones and computers and Internet wasnt out yet to the public in any bigger numbers.

I had a client a few years ago, this was relativly short after the workshop in denmark, this lady had some problems in her life, and she had gone trough 2 years of theraphy and counting and still was no where she wanted to be at in her life. No money to talk about, I agreed to see her and she was concerned due to the fee I charged. She came up to see me an hour trip for her, I sat there and defined who she was for a few hours. I never got any objections from her, not any aspects of her didnt agree to her change and all that bullshit.
Sure, she cried, she hated herself and felt stupid and I guess she was human after all.
However, by doing this I set the baseline to create the basis of what Roye Fraser was doing, Roye elicited someones blueprint in their physiology in how you would be at your absolute best, and created a great generalization to be like that at your absolute best in your life.

And guess what?

Problems steams from your state and how you focus your attention.

I write and read some of the NLP forums on the net, and the standard of NLP has degraded and so old models are still used and passed on that when pointed out they cant handle the critism at all, they take it personally and cant even do NLP on their own for themselves?

Aspects of yourself disagree?, gee, that sounds for me as multipel personality disorder and if you dont have it, well I guess with that model using such language you will get a chance of trying that out.
For me that is stupid NLP.

The lady came back a couple of months later, she had started to recovery, she wanted me to know she stopped going to theraphy after she had asked if she chould go there, I asked her "why do you ask?"
Well she said, I am feeling worse going there now after seeing you for the first time and I dont know what to do since I been going there for 2 years?
I said, well if your feeling bad going there, maybe that is your answer then?

She came back up a second time, we sat there and suddenly she had a flash of clarity, she just knew who she was and she didnt have any problems anymore.

Now, doing this model which I call the Riggiomodel after my modeling of Joseph Riggios working presentations in his seminars its strongly contrasted to the Steve Andreas saying about objections and aspects of who someone is.
Those statements dont fit my working order as I know it to be, for me I always been proud of NLP and the way I have used it and I dont do NLP and hypnosis much nowadays due to what I am doing now is the "new and improved NLP" that not many out there are doing, mainly a few of my hard core students.

NLP is a in what people call a deep shit state.
No one can offer a definition that is what I would call useful to the public. Many who do NLP are ashamed of using NLP and how to handle peoples reactions due to a lot of NLPérs are doing etichal and moral questionable activites and I dont blame them at all, as Anthony Robbins said in his seminar back in 1994, its all about the most efficent strategy, which can be if not set a balanced etichal and moral sound advice can be used to kill people due to that being the most efficient strategy at the time.

Its not enough to read the books or listen to advice from the co-founders either, they left NLP in a state of deep shit and havent to my knowledge done much about to clean up the field.
And even if they couldnt do that at least they could set what they consider to be a clear definition of NLP.
Richard Bandler one of the co-foudners of NLP states, "Its an attitude and leaves a trail of techniques behind", meaning what?
His he stupid also?
Its a study of the subjective experience the human has and what can be calculated from that?

COME ON!

As an NLP practitioner myself, trained some and mostly doing what I done over the years I find it a responsability to inform anyone who cares to listen that as it is atm the state of NLP is in deep shit.

John Grinder the other co-founder said once, NLP has to evolve, build new models, to replace and or update the old models used within the NLP field.
I liked that.
I took that as a prime directive for myself.
I would update and replace old models as I came across them or found out stuff myself.

So I have.

And I am telling that objections and aspects of a person are silly and old archlogical models in how I teach and do the Riggiomodel which is a new and improved and updated NLP.
Its just not called NLP due to the nature people make associations to the same logical level of error, smacking what I do as the same as others are doing called NLP.

I coach a pro golfer, with the aim to get him into the europeantour golfing circuit. He had the unfortunate luck to have had injuries the last two seasons and the last one being so serious it was a question of if he was going to play at all.
However, he is doing what I been teaching and its affecting not just his golf but his life and the quality of it.

I am deeply concerned due to that people who have done NLP for a long time and those that founded NLP should provide guidelines that at least should be considered to be clear enough for people to understand and get. (John Grinder tried at least with the book whispering in the wind)

One of the issues is that NLP is a process oriented methodology, its not about and to keep it simple, right or wrong but more of how did you arrive at the conclusion that it was either right or wrong?
The how to arriving at the decision to be made "right or wrong" is the domain of NLP.
The how to makes it possible for an NLP practitioner to study how people think and act and what they based their decisions on.

This becomes a moral and etichal ground for many who judge NLP.
If the decision to rape and kill this female 15 year old english girl when they where on a holiday are for NLP the domain, not the end result (rape and murder) since even if tragical and horrible the how to this murderer and rapist made his decision to do what he did is what an NLP practitioner would elicit and bring to light. By doing so, we could understand more how people think and act under such circumstances that a educational program could be set in motion with this knowledge to provide people with choices and train themselves and others to not rape and kill people before they would commit such a horrible act.

I read the newspapers, I see that this girl was in a fight with her parents, she was left behind to cool of while her parents took a trip, and when they came back they found their daughter dead, she was found drowned and it was called an accident. Her parents never gave up, said it was murder and had to document this and finnaly the case was closed 3 weeks later when they find the guy who did it.

Now, people will behave and respond to rape and murder and the result and have beliefs and opinions about the right and wrong about this, but if we talk about the process to arrive at such decisions to be made we cant use the content that the result has or the layering of beliefs in what is right, wrong, morally correct or etical, we can do only do that particular to the situation and rape and murder is in my book wrong in any case I come across. However wrong or right the way someone ends up deciding this to be an act are a domain to be mapped using NLP, the basis of the profiling of FBI in regard to serialkillers. Undertsnading the thinking and behaviour of serialkillers and mapping the interests and background have done wonders in finding them earlier than before.
That is the strength of NLP to bring a guide and a map in how someone does what they do and to use that to be able to replicate a result over time.

That level of definition which John Grinder says are important to understand, is that people in NLP can understand that the substance of a stone as an object and that the form of the stone defines it as we normally would do as a stone. The difference is the form and process. Substance allow us to process the stone to dust, to a diamond from coal but the names we use also defines the stone, the coal or the diamond and that for an NLP practitioner are vital distinctions to know about and understand how they works.
Not clear?

Dont be alarmed due to the nature in how we understand stuff is all about making a distinction in our mind and able to sort them according to category.
Since NLP is a derivate of epistomology the how we know things, we can say that first there is nothing, then an impulse then a response to that impulse and then again several more responses until it reaches consiousness that we become aware.
Then we train ourselves to cope with the surrondings to understand what is going on.

This means when an NLP trainer as Steve Andreas states that, the aspects of the person, which can be understanded as, this "aspects" are alive and work independly of each others by implication are a disorder to multiple personality. This confuses me to hell that someone would even write something like that. That people object to change?
I worked a long time over 12 years with NLP and I have never found that people object to change.
Now if someone are resentful, bitter, angry and really an asshole for the moment, I dont see that as an objection to change since a lot of people do things really bad when they are having feelings that overwhelms them.

The individual in that case are in a state of not having words to describe the experience they are having. That is why people often resort to using words that later regret they used but in the heat of the moment, people are not rational and actually rarely if ever clear to even consider any other option.

What is going on is that if you like to get a change you dont know how the experience is like when your having it.
I guess jumping into a water from a bridge I would check the depth of the water and also how cold/warm it would be before I rush into a dive.
So if provided with the experience and the state, people have never in my experience objected to the change.

When my client the lady had the experience of who she was, all her problems went away.
She then knew how this experience was like and there could be no objection due to sorting this out for her allowed her to be who she was. The good thing was I never had to work and resolve her objections.

This is also the basis of Roye Frasers generative imprint model, to elicit the absolute best of you, the blueprint the physiology when everything is just absolutly at the best and then becoming better and better over time. (Great it is)
Now, this way to do change are not about change, its all about transformation to another level of existence.
Some tried to model Roye and his work, they came up with coretransformation which defeats the purpose of the model that Roye was working with.

In coretransformation you elicit the core state that lies beneath the problem or issue you have.
Now, that is a problemoriented approach to change and a failure in regard to model Roye in my opinion that if you elicit the basis of your absolute best without any elicitation, pacing or whatever that alone will be enough to allow a transformation that shift the level of experience in life to more of the good in every level with more joy, happines etc..
I know so by trying out the modeling I done of Joseph Riggio, to elicit such a state of experience where the problems are not even considered to be a problem has not any objection built within to that at all and no aspects of the person are voicing concerns as they might do if you use old NLP models.

NLP and to define the model and how it to be used and when the co-founders cant agree what NLP was and have become and has taken a life on its own as John Grinder and Carmen says in their book I guess they defeat the very NLP principle they themselves are trying to convey.
Moving away from the process to an artistic view that a model and its process can have life.
That seems for me that they are doing a similiar error as Steve Andreas did.

The artistic view however is the basis for a lot of sports, ice-scating and other sports based on how well the sport are performed and how well the aspects of beaty are considered within that performance are another area of human perception, not contained within the epistomology as we know NLP resides within but a whole different field called "ontology" the nature of the stuff exists out there.

We can then say, that ontology is the form of NLP that shapes how we percive things to be and the how to manipulate the substance of a rock is NLP as a process and create dust or diamonds are just a wider application of NLP.

Ontology is how the being of things exist, trying to answer what something is.
Not the process that leads to that conclusion ie using NLP to map that.

Who are we, what are we when we are at our absolute best?
Its evident that this state elicited and set for the individual changes how they percive the stone.
Its now a beautiful example of the wonder of nature for the individual after the stateshift.

This now allow for a transformation to occour from a positive consideration, mark here, not starting from a problem, nor analyzing the situation and the context, just eliciting who you are at your very absolute best.

This allow a shift in how your organized in your physical body.
This means for the NLP interested that the submodalites an NLP keep track of shifts their positions trough time and space in such a manner they cant be tracked and mapped using conventional means as calibration.
Joseph here adds adumbration, in a sense an advanced way to calibrate the effects of a particular position in space and time in a futurebased position.

This means that we elicit the future you and future absolute best and you can have it today.
Nice heh?

This can be mapped and tracked using the difference in perspective that ontology has within its field due to how we as humans are able to be future based and understand our actions before we do them.
Not that many animals on Earth can do that.

Coretransformation is an NLP filtered modeling, and not one done without prejudice beacuse the modelers did fail to follow the basis of NLP Modeling to create the results without filtering ie beliefs etc..and then to work with problems with that model seems for me to defeat the purpose that Roye Fraser had in his own models.

For me this comes to an important consideration due to define what something is and then to define the process that leads to what something is often are confused and then applied often without greater consideration and understandable I get that people just do what they are taught or have read and then we must for advancement question the basis in what we do to find out if it is like that or if someone had a filter of perception in the way. (beliefs)

I question the stupidity of NLP trainers, they get insulted for some reason, failed to use NLP to not taking it personally?

As I have written, if I am wrong about what I propose I dont care since at least I proved things to be true, but the fun is, if I am right everyone including the co-founders got to follow what I am proposing.
Its a win win for me no matter what I do ;)

Now its time for me to go out and enjoying the spring warmth and the water on the roads and splashing of water from the cars.

To next time.

/Robert Johansson
Riggiomodel

Ontology versus Epistomology

Did the chicken come before the egg or was it that the egg that came first?
Or maybe even both at the same time?

In the world of linguistics and science people are trying to define "what is what".
NLP for instance is a science to define the way we know the things we know the "how".
Ontology on the other hand is trying to define what is there the "being". Or if you ask me to answer the ever ending question of "why?"

I had several ways to ask Joseph what he did mean by ontology and how he defines that word.
For him, Ontology comes before epistomology since as he states "there has to be something there first" before something can exist and in that epistomology comes after in the next logical step.

I define this a little different,
that Ontology is on a higher logical level and that epistomology is at a lower level but they both exists at the same time or in other words, the fields define each other.

For me that Ontology comes before epistomology bears no substance and are of no relevance to either NLP or for example mythoself as models.

They both define what each other "is" and "means" and how they are as in expereince and as the very definition of our subjective way to define what is reality.

John Grinder and Carmen argues that epistomology ends since we cant know what is truly real outside our what our senses can detect, that there is always a difference between the world and our way of sensing the world.

For me, since I try to define this is that we cant use NLP to define words refered to as nomilazations ie words that are so abstract and have no sensory channels to define them in subjective concrete sensory language which you hear a lot in NLP circles.

What I say is this, that Ontology are at a higher logical level than epistomology and they both define each other, and as they do so they make each other valid and existent and without that nither of them can exist.

Our language can express "I" or, being who you are.
We can define that who you are the "I" but we cant know what it is since we cant define such abstract experience into words that make sense to someone else, we then refer to metaphors to explain that abstract area. To know who you are, you have to use a process to define it, and when you do, the process you use is the way you elicit how you know who you are.
The evidence is twofolded, first you have an evidence of knowing who you are, (being and the evidence knowing this to be true) then you use a process to define who you are making it obvious how you know it and also how this expereince knowing who you are also affects you perception in your mind and this is btw both input and output.

When people are making decisions that alter their beliefs in a such manner that they stick with the decision something happens that are a blend of ontology and then epistomology.
People are when they reach the final criteria in what they want into a one final criteria of this is as it is and cant be anything else, for our minds and body this experience is unique.
When you done that, you shift the evidence in how you know that something been true for you without any fuss at all.

Then often a process take place that sets new pathways in your brain to solidify this new way of living your life, new evidence and how you know it becomes ingrained and becomes the new reality.

For me, when you lead people to the expereince of what they want to be, and then set that expereince and link making decisions "from that state of expereince" you want to have creates the sorting out I refer to "The NOT Factor-tm" where your beliefs, states and stuff will be displayed and sorted out until the Complex Eqvivalence that runs your context is in the open.

For people this will be an expereince where the old problem does not exist at all, the sensations you have here is like, this is how it is, pure and simple just what it is without any attatchements to the old past references, memories and such stuff.
The problem simply cant exist when this state is had.

To reach this are for many a relif, they suddenly can sense the possibilites of how this is for them, they reach a level of enlightment for some or just a clarity of aha...
Then how to keep this going you can do several approaches,
you can anchor the steps getting there and when in distress, re-anchor it back.
or
holding that state of expereince and then when identifying the issues or problem you once had, re-integrate them in a way that makes them obselete and non existent.

Its snowing here where I live and tomorow morning I got to go out and shuffle some snow and clean the space for the cars.
Its not that cold, around -3 or so.
The snow is light and thin.
I had some coffe earlier which makes life more speedy and I also talked with one of my students.
She been trained well, she went trough the NLP Prac program and also the NLP master.
She came up for a module in the master program and was exposed to what I am doing currently, and as she said, it was "new" and a different way to work at stuff than I taught previously.
She by coming back and assisting gets her hands on the new updated material beacuse I am not standing still in how I teach or do things, for me it evolves and what I am doing nowadays are a reflection in how I understand the balance between Ontology and Epistomology.

In other words, to change or shift you got to reach the criterion of making a decision where the expereince is total or whole with mind and body where you just know this is important enough to go trough with.
When you do it that way its an ontological state of being, it is simply the way it is.
Like this. often people display a gesture where the body and mind is balanced with left and right side for example both arms displaying the same gesture, shoulders etc..
The way we know that this is the proper level is to have it fully expressed and then to sort out and identify what can limit, stop or block this experience by making sure we get it to a point where this can only be as it is, there in that moment only exist this experience and then what we do is to use that as the starting point for making decisions from that state of being. When the treshold is reached people can then integrate this with the earlier limitations and reach a fully established state of being and also that creates actions and evidence in behavioural patterns in what you think and do.

The argument I propose is, there can not be the question of either the egg or the chicken since both has to be there to have either the egg or the chicken.
The how to and why has both to be there to satisfy the evident practical way of achiving results.
People want to either change how they think or how they feel.
They want to achieve this by altering the behavioural patterns that gets results for them.
For me, the evidence of "being" is defined by how you know (epistomology) and that in turn only exists by the way we just know it to be true (ontology) or in simplier forms, we can only define an object if we can use our senses to define an object using language (words) and representations (abstract thoughts) and the object can only exist if we define it.

The argument then if the object (ex: stone) exist or not or if it is true or not simply isnt an important consideration for human beings reaching results.

Before we know what something is we use a process to define what it is and before that is done the object in question does not exist for us since we still have not reached the criterion to define it as yet.
Does it then exist even when we cant define it?
The process we use implies that it does even though we dont know what it is.

For most humans the obvious question is more, how do I use this to achive goals/outcomes that I am interesting to get?

What I am proposing, when the future outcome or goal is elicited in your experience, made important enough and sorted out to be only one single experience with body and mind and is displayed as either/or and then tested in your daily life and proven and established by evidence from you when interacting with the world then it will work to create action and be displayed into new behaviours.

if a limitation exists, a belief, an emotion, trauma, block etc...
we then identify it by sorting out the contexts involved and the evidence to support the structure that builds this up and when identifying the smallest component that holds this together integrate this with the wanted state of expereince and making decision from one final position. When this is done properly, the old habit, problem or thinking/feeling simply appears to exist.
What is left are the new wanted state of the future outcome and goal which then will be displayed into action where your doing things to get there naturally.

If someone has an habit of doing something that they dont want example is smoking, they want to stop smoking, but they cant since they tried to do so many times.
This process can lead to beliefs as, I cant stop smoking since the habit to smoke is to strong, i will fail, can be reinforced to such a level of I am a failure.
And also, if the person states, I am a smoker which will also induce two levels of beleifs, one is being a smoker and the other a failure of quitting to smoke.

If asked what they want is to stop smoking then you just ask them, so you stopped smoking, what expereince do you end up when you done that "stopped smoking?"
The expereince will be the one they seek to have when not smoking.

Then what is to be done is to establish it, making sure it is what they want to have and experience.
Then, if they can have that state of experience fully with just one option that it is like that, then what is done are to sort out the limitations until they are exposed.
Often the feeling of desire to smoke is one big one.

/Robert Johansson

NLP Training for the future

What is the length of days to use for the optimal NLP training?

In the old days 25 days or so was used to teach the skills and techniques of NLP, it was also stated and said that NLP was to be updated by newer techniques as they where developed.
A new training could be taught with 25% new material so that would be for many years.

Then in later years Mckenna/Breen and Bandler set a new revisition to NLP bringing the 7 day accelerated practitioner of NLP to the table.
of course there become an uproar of the NLP community saying that NLP could not be taught in 7 days.

Paul Mckenna wrote some bit of article where he proved to some agree that the skills taught from Mckenna/Breen was more effective that the individual was able to do things with the skills taught that a 20 day NLp practitioner from someone else could not do.
Knowing the what to do, does not equal being able to do the techniques taught with any degree of skill.

I am also saying here that 7 day is to short time to teach NLP with any kind of precision and knowledge of the techniques applied, it is possible to teach NLP in those days if the following conditions are meet, 10 people or so in class.
Its simply not possible to teach the skills with 400ppl in the class with any acurate skills being in consious awareness.
Its simply a to big of a task for anyone no matter how skilled teaching using unconsious installation patterns.

For me skills with proper applying with a lot of practice delivers what I call the baseline for an NLPér.

The example by for example Joseph Riggio in his mythoself program do teach in 19 days the basic mythoself facilitator program. It require 19 days.
Now, he wants people to be skilled and have enough experience doing the program with exquisite precision.

I am in favor of longer programs, provided the skills taught with experience are provided with practice of the same in the class.

The experience in itsel is not enough to have a skilled practitioner.
I seen people attaneding classes with bandler, being able to do things proving that sure enough unconsious installation do work, however the indvidual who did the work, suddenly stopped doing it since he became afraid of doing what he did beacuse he didnt know how he learned it.

Peoples beliefs and assumptions in how to learn and being able to do is more powerful than being able to do.

let say someone become skilled, for a few weeks he practice and are able to do things, then he stopps and when asked are saying, well I need to know more.
He dont need more skills or knowledge but his beliefs are telling him that to be able to become let say rich, you need to be able to do xxxx.

7 day NLP practitioner with 400ppl are a bad idea, its to short and quality is not there.
if it was with 10 or maybe 20 ppl I would say so much but going to an event having an expereince with unconsious installation might work for you well enough but the risk is, what about the belief you have that might be in the way?

How do people change thier beliefs about stuff just like that when they dont know its a belief there in the first place?
They dont.

To change a belief, you got to learn to see them plainly in what results they produce for you.
Its in actually kind of easy, as soon your trying to do something new, to achive a result and then stop doing that, whatever pops up in your consious mind is a reference to a belief.
if your saying, "I cant do that", that is a belief statement about something, what its about, and who cares?

To sort out stuff in your mind and body the beleifs you have, you got to define a result in the future that you want to achive.

Lets say, you want to have 20 million dollars.
is that impossible?
No, just ask Bill Gates or people who have that kind of money, its kind of easy to have it, the boys creating youtube.com did that, they created a website, found a value for alot of people and sold it for a lot of money.

However, do you want that badly enough?
Do you have the motivation and desire to fullfill that kind of bankaccount?
No, you dont.

Isnt it then a good idea to spend some time to elicit what you truly really want?
Notice here how your point of view shifts, now its not impossible or hard to get 20 million, now its all about defining the feelings of desire, motivation and fullfillment which are prerequisites to get there.

Every success are just that, a state of expereince of doing things to get where they want to be by being there already, sitting in that ferrari every day driving when its just an old crashed car but for you its red blood lusted ferrari.
Its called using your perception to see what you want instead of what you dont want.

Now, a lot of people come to an NLP training by 7 days, they cant do much but have a great experience, its not something you get automatically, you got to use skills, set yourself up to the practice of applying your skills.

Anchoring for example, just go into your supermarket, smile at the person behind the counter, say in a husky voice, hello there, I just love people who work here.
Now, when you do it right, they shift there state to a more let say, positive one, now you elicited a new state, and you at the same time anchored it to your husky voice.
easy isnt it?

Amplifying that state and leading to another you can use a slight handgesture and create a small packet practicing anchoring and at the same time making someone else feel good for no reason at all other than you practicing skills.
Then again, we are always doing that but most people do it backwards, they have a bad mood, and then elicit a bad state from someone else and then they wonder why thier life sucks?

To keep a state you got to be able to have the state going and improving over time, you then use and establish a contextual shift or in NLP terms a Ceq where how you feel(being at your best) is always improving.
How you do that is to use a swishpattern that was designed by Joseph Riggio.
It establish a belief that is "meta" to the feeling, and provide a subtle but important link between the action done (how you feel) and what your doing.
That is in essence a updating software outside contextual markers ie anchors.

Lets say, you establish an outcome, you want that car, or money or whatever, to get there,
what do you need to do?
Elicit the future state when you have got the outcome, and then ask yourself what are you doing next after getting that outcome?

if you do it that way, elicit the state and feeling getting the outcome and then what is going on after you shift contexts, you have got the outcome, and then you do something else, right?
This allow us to shift our attention to what we doing later and this is a shift in our context in our heads.

people who are successful are doing that, moving into the future, where they want to be, have that future state today, how it is having that future, now this creates a feeling for the person and also is the requirement for manifestations wehre this future is already made real.
They simply instead of doing as they do it in NLP are actually moving the about the outcome into a past reference memory.
and at the same time keeeping the future state in a present time frame.

How you know is that there is only one option, no hesitation or anything else, you know it in your bones its true and already happening for you since you have the expereince...with that.
Uisng the "NOT factor" you can elicit the future state and outcome and eliminating beliefs along the way that might stop you until you arrive at the one option, its just like this now.

/Robert Johansson

Life and animals

The passing of Steve Irwin known as the corcodile hunter left me in a sad mode.
I seen him on TV and he have been great, passionate, adranline rushed and expressing deep respect of animals with a great showmanship which turned out great fot TV.
He also did a lot to animal wildlife in the world and promoting australia in the process.

I never meet him personally, however as seeing him on tv is todays way to know people, the funny part is that they rarely know you.

For me I never saw any danger with his approach to animals, he always knew how they behaved, he stayed into the moment with them and did some spectactular things with them.
He however must have missjudged how dangerous the sting rocka was and being into the water did not allow him to jump aside and move, I bet he saw it coming and responded but as water being as fluid, he was out of his turf and couldnt make it in time.

I be missing him and my heart goes to his family and friends.

/Robert Johansson.
www.riggiomodel.biz

5 generation NLP whats next?

Its cold outside, finally the winter has arrived with some snow and its late due a month or so.
Winter has been as far warm and fuzzy, growing with heat and sweat more than cloths can bring.

I am well aware that snow and cold belongs together, as I am reminded of how NLP has brought for me.
Its not just NLP but the collected wisdom over the years. I noted that when NLP started the detail and analytical testing that was done to sort out placebo with its beliefs was conducted by John Grinder and Richard Bandler. The illusion you might say in workings.
I also noted that Robert Dilts did think he found out about the eyemovements when in fact he was tested to note if he could find them with the exerzise he got.

Then the second generation came, Dilts, De Lozier Gordon and others.
Then the third generation came with the offsprings of the tales of the 1980´s.
The forth generation brought forward the teachings and tales from earlier generations.

I noted that many mostly told what someone else told them about what they been taught.
I also remember when reading NLP books that I one day stoppped and noted, its more of the same.
The pattern in the NLP books become obvious to see.
There was nothing new there.

It wasnt until the teachings of Joseph Riggio I got the tool set I needed to get down into what I always seemed to know but couldnt explain properly.

One is about difference, when we think we create difference, this has to do with our reality and how language are formed for us in the society, for some people the words "is" what is real, they dont have the ability to make a difference about "jump from a bridge" and really jumping from a bridge.
One is way different than the other in experience.

Difference is a neo cortex ability, where we can expand on our consiousness into grasping more than just eat, shit and food and sex.
I guess that the neo cro magnon human had a different view of that concept though.

The very thinking is creating for us a seperation, this is where the reality of society has been pushing us trough the decades. We get to think, I am different from that other person, the realtionships and cultural habits are changing, small sub cultures always comes up as an answer to the lifestyle currently being viewed as the normal one.

If we are however into this enlighted momement, where a moment just simply stops, we become aware that this moment is special, its a difference from the one normally experienced, its in many words hightens our perceptions for some as much they become high without drugs,
its a moment where the "new" is blended with whats different from what has been.

I am bringing forward an addition to NLP.

Its all about trancsending expereince, a roadmap in how to in any moment of time trancsend your expereince into anyone you would want to experience.
Its a model from how Joseph Riggio does things, in how he views and do things where the moment is always unfolding and to adapt and expereince and do things based on that.

Its also a faith oriented model, its a model where faith actually has a structure, its not just taking the leap as Harrison Ford did in the Indiana Jones movie, the third one, where he at the end, looked across the gap to the other side, he did read the notes for those that searched for the holy grail.
He then closed his eyes, and take the leap of faith.
Naturally in the movies he used a stuntman, if the gap would been real the cost of insurance would been to high not to mention there wouldnt been a movie with him.

The fifth generation NLPèrs which I can say I belong to are reviding what has been told in NLP and to make a more useful NLP that works better.
The reason NLP sucks are due to reason that NLP was brought forward using epistomology which is about how language and representations works togheter to create a mental map of reality.
As Einstien said, "the same thinking that created the problem cant be used to solve the problem". It means the same levels of logic that NLP contains cant be used to make NLP the model in how to use it on yourself.
Its possible to use NLP for your own good but mostly that is about how to use it with others.
Not to shift your own thinking and how you feel.

So, by shifting your experience daily and to trancend your expereince, what does that mean really and what happens if you do that?

You start to take action to expereince your relationships more passionate, you craft your daily work into a effortless core, you bring happiness to your friends, you transform yourself from the inside working out.

It becomes a way of life.

Not a tool set to use even if that is required to have, without that tool set then it just becomes a great idea.

So, how are your realtionships today? How are your friends?
How are your work going?
Life?

Tranceding means that you take an ordinary task, might be needed to do but you regard it as boring, here you just shift yourself into having the expereince of this task is already done and the question what are you doing just after that task is done when it did go let say...effortless?
Maybe getting coffe?
Then what is possible to do is to add another layer of consiousness and add another expereince in the moment your having just now as you do the task, you then design in advance how this is to turn out, how you feel, and expereince what is happening as you do the task.

This then becomes the reason that there is no excuses or defenses but just the way you want to live your life.

NLP came about as the orginators wanted to know how things worked, they could replicate and do without any consious understanding or analytic reasoning until they achived the criteria that they indeed has accomplish that result they sought out to get.
Now, this made NLP a study of how we think and know what we know when we think.
Its also looped into the thinking we have, as we think difference is created,
now if we design how things to be we link the brain and body into sameness.

The task has now become the same as the expereince your having....
in essence, there is no perceptual difference between doing the task and the expereince your having.

Take a moment, now, do you take drugs?
Like coffe?
Now, isnt it so when your not drinking coffe your looking to get it and there is a difference between the cravings the habit and when your actually drinking the coffe?
What if you could have the coffe expereince now, without drinking it?
Now most would say it isnt possible but that it is.

The difference we learn to have to objects in the world as chairs and such have for us in our mental map of reality asume that when we think, that is what is real.
Not so, when we have another experience where this expereince is the same as how we think we have an alignment between the I and the object in the world collapsing into a expereince a state where the mind and body works togheter.

Now some might say, there is a huge difference between me and a chair, and correctly so, but the expereince is how we sense the world in our senses, its how we feel alive or not, it has nothing to do with chairs or the person the "I" of the indvidual, its just is the expereince and our senses are activated where the expereince is as it is and no difference occour.

Then the next moment another expereince might happen which then are dealt and experienced as it is.
One of the promises of this approach is the how to use NLP as a tool set becomes easy and directly since we bypass the reality the indvidual have brought up, no need to change again ever. We simply shifts this expereince by setting a trancending one about the future brought here and melded as one.

Another promise is that you never can feel bored, hesitate, or bad in any way ever...
Now if that is not a compellling reason then what is?
It isnt about feeling good either.

Now, confusion enter, since if it isnt about bad or good then what?

Its about how reality is formed as we think and expereince it, if there is sameness and possibility, then what happens is this is a "new" way to expereince the world, a new map to organize and orient yourself since it will become a way of being in the world.

In many ways its becomes a trademark, a stamp and there are people who leaves such expressions after them where they gone a length to just be.

Now, for me the fifth generation will not do just NLP or learn how to communicate well or read books but to go out there and expereince what it is that is beyound what is known.
The unknown, is all about what is "new" to us, what we havent yet learn to handle and grasp in our mind, we havent yet classifed the object that if we use this approach isnt a object but an expereince to have as life unfolds with you being you and the world being you and its the same as the expereince is happening.

Now, of course, is this about not to think?
No.

Its about how to think differently and still the same.

If you take NLP, they say, its the process thats important to change since the content is not important but how we view the world from the process we learned to have.
This means, alter the internal startegies and represenations people have when vieweing this is as it is.

I am saying, that NLP has a new way to accomplish change that are so easy so effortless that even the orginators now as John Grinder at least have found out where he does his circle of excellence.

He simply anchor the problem into one circle, make a neutral anchor in another circle then set a peak performance state no content one and then transfer that into the problematic circle.
The idea is to produce a new way to respond to the external anchors occouring.
You shift now into the new high peak performance state when exposed to the old contextual anchors.

But, if we simply acclaim, what if there is no problems at the first place?
The whole field of NLP with its change department would simply be missing.
No problems, then what to do?

If we elicit the being you, in that moment, no bad or good can be, if we then add a decision making from that, then you can choose freely how to be and feel and have as an expereince for the rest of your life, sameness, difference limitations or possibilities.
Its all...there to choose from.

So then becomes, the shifts of reality, the contexts in your mind to start with a consious act not the old patterns learned since you now have a consious ability to design what do expereince at your will and choosing.

Choose and decide wisely.

The riggio model is a modeling project of Joseph Riggio the arcitect of the Mythoself program.

/Robert Johansson
www.riggiomodel.biz

The future of the riggio model.

As I am sitting here in north of sweden, not cold yet, still warm and no snow in 10 of november!
Simply amazing!

I like to explore, invent and find out how things work. I was one of those that picked things apart and then noticed a few screws was left over.
Nowadays I am a lot better to screw things back as it was though ;)

I had some recent posts on some NLP lists, I am at times amaze how people fear the idea of free will, at least the notion of being able to choose and decide without resorting to religious fanatical ideas in how the world is according to some book.

For example that Joseph Riggio run a cult?
Someone accused me to drag someone into that one, called mythoself btw.
I dont know, but at times promoting the idea that there is something else out there is as fruitful as Gallelio had a few hundred years back, or as Newton had or that guy Tesla or even the Mazlow teorems about magnetism.

I guess, when you set out an idea and it fits within what is already known, it becomes either accepted or questioned a little until data can prove it seems it fits the current world view.
But when you come out from a fully different worldview, something that has no relationships with concrete measurable sensory data at least if its in the future.

Faith is the word.

You got to have faith, for me I know what faith means, at least I think I do.
I did travel last year to Canada and USA to present the riggio model to date, it wasnt a full model at the time and still testing but what happen before the workshops was for me an evidence in how the model worked.
What can go wrong under the trip to Canada did go wrong, first the flight in Paris France was closed on me, the gate had closed even though my connection was booked and on order but my flight was like 10 minute late. So, I rebooked, but then my flight was due 4 hours later, on the other airport, and I knew it seemed likely I would miss the next flight to canada.
Now, in New York, I did take the bus, did miss that I needed to change bus at Grand central station, notify the driver later, he told me what to do, I was getting my bag, but then my bag was GONE!
Now, to the story it also is about that I couldnt get hold of the guy hiring me in Canada, so here I was, in USA, on the wrong place and lost my bag, not knowing what was going to happen, I was tired, dead tired, hungry and now I lost my bag, on the wrong flight, so I sat down in the bus, and still when everything went wrong I decided that I would continue to go with this, I had faith...
Now, we went back to grand central station, love and behold, my bag was there, I was pointed to the next bussstop and did arrive at the right aiport, the lady at the airport rebooked me to the next morning flight.
When I tried to get in contact with the guy I couldnt, so here I was one day before the workshop, not having any contact, and in a strange land, so I went to Canada.
Now in the coustoms I got trouble, I had a 20 minute or so examination why I should get into their country!
I did the mistake of writing "business" instead of pleasure trip for the reason to get there.
Bad idea.
Now, I had very little that proved I was there to actually do a training there, the phonenumber and the guy who hired me but everything he asked me I had an answer to since I already had done the workshops and was back home, 20 minutes later the guy in the coustoms finnaly sent me to the gate.
Phewww..
But then, I went into the cab, showed the cabdriver the adress, now he says "This is not an adress".
Now, as far everything had gone wrong, so of course this happens, in a strange country, one day late, none to meet me since he didnt know where I was, so of course the adress was not an adress.
So, the driver finnaly did make a call since I had a phonenumber there. He got the adress and left me at the proper location.
So, I go inside, and asks, "is there a training here?"
The answer was no....
So here I am, 09.57 and had no idea what to do, I showed them the note I had, and they lighted up, oh Point Neuf, downstairs, so they pointed me to the stairs, then they asked me for my name, I said Robert and they suddenly went wild, so I got some service, we got the elevator down.
Now, I went into the room, started to shake hands, and I asked who Alex was since he hired me and I had no idea how he looked.
So, I asked, when do we start?

Now, since it is 10 am!

So, there I was on time, where everything went wrong from the start and the whole journey was disaster.

Except for one thing.

My state of expereince never shifted, it was a tiny moment when I was in New York, but I decided to go ahead and continue do what I done.

What I had done was to set it up to come home and do things I do, so I was already home, sitting here writing things as I did even if I was going to present two workshops on the other side of the sea.

So, since I already had made the trip, and was back home in my experience I was never stopped from doing things that I had done.
For me the whole trip was a great expereince, with the trip and the workshops and the expereince in how this model worked.

Faith is one of those things we just do when things are outside our control, it is when everything just looks like a disaster, and nothing could save it. I dont like to take things without question them, so of course I also tested and questioned everything I was taught from Joseph, I also did test things I modeled down, test and test and did things and never questioned what I did.

So, one day I had the distinctions down, mailed Joseph and he said I got the most of the what so then I had it down, the riggio model.

What I as far have is the criterion and the how to achive a transcending experience.
Its quite easy, first you have one expereince, then you transcend it to become a richer and fuller experience.

One of the mayor patterns I got down was the basis what Joseph taught in Denmark, the Designer swish pattern.
It isnt the same as in NLP, its based on what works and then what would work even better.
Now, what happens if we take a whole expereince, where your body and mind is both having the same expereince, then elicit how it is in this context when the one you just had is in another one?
The transcending effect are coming from the event of seperating time and location.

Since this also ties with reality a few may encounter issues learning to do this since it will affect how you think about time and space at the same time.

If you have set up an intended expereince a future one, then the one your having as of now, is that one, the future one that have not happen yet, that allow us to shift the expereince we are having now based on that future expereince and we can now directly acess the state in how that is even when we havent been there yet, ie into the future...
The body will respond to that future event.

This also means that how you set this up is with your body, acessing a future intended space and time, with intention and where the mind is the body follows,
so here we have an ontological somatic state let say, being at your best, and into the future your sitting and reading a blogg somewhere, in this extatic state of pure facination and since your reading that future blogg, in that state then that would alter your perceptions wouldnt it?
Now, since you started out with this state of being at your best, then added this future event reading a blogg with a different state of pure faciantion, how is that going to work in this present time?

What will happen is that your going to have two set of expereinces when they actually are one, this however will allow you to expereince this present moment as a transcending one.

People think that the context is what produces internal responses, and rightly so, it does, but we can actually learn to respond differently, we can choose and decide what an event means to us even as it is happening, and even if it reminds us of an old one, we can choose to stay current to a future orientation where things are fully different as they are now.

This system, this model allow you to set goals and outcomes and set out to actually start doing things that are new for you and you will find any information as you go along waiting there to be set into the puzzle picture you started out from.
In many ways it is that simple, have a whole picture where to go, since your already there.

This also require us to work with faith, that it actually works like this but when you have tested it, and found out how it works, there is no going back.

I stopped doing NLP, hypnosis and other things since I know have a system that works before any NLP is applied, then I can do NLP and hypnosis and other things so much differently.
It becomes easier, smother, effortless and fun!

Your best

/Robert Johansson
www.riggiomodel.biz