A lot of methods have that and its the basis of hypnosis as well, even though most never get

that hypnosis is all about fixation of attention to the spot they started to notice when its to late and they already was on the way there, deep down ya know. To get the state its just about eliciting it, its just that, a state and when people say you cant think being in one they are all correct unless you do, its just different that what they are used to. Grinder and Bandler used it to learn to do hypnosis from Miltons initial modeling and set up a Ceq where the result would indicate when they where done with the first phase of the modeling. However, they was able to think and do things even when they set that up, they just didnt talked about what they where doing as they did things. (if you ask me) Setting stuff like that up is about being able to use the model as a feedback loop, not adding to what is done until the uptake phase is done. The model or the criteria used to find if its done, are the signal to analyze what is being done in the uptake phase when the result is done and the modelers are able to replicate the result. Then to derivate from that the relevant data to build a model that works the same ie:producing the result the model gets without any extranous personal placebo beliefs about what they think they are doing. The not know state is a Ceq of being able to do without adding or analyzing what is going on until your able to produce the result. Its a learning tool. Come on, is it really useful to set a state of a void? What is that useful for really? As far, setting a state where things works first with behaviour are useful where no extra added beliefs about what works or what is done are influencing the action taken to get the outcome/goal/ result. (if you ask me) Its done and elicited within the mythoself sphere already within what is refered as a whole form approach. One of the NLP dogmas was the, if it does not work do something else. Now, I dont know if its just me, why do things that does not work? Or even track patterns as so that does not work? Or study failure? NLP was about study success and to replicate that within different contexts. Then adding, map what works and do it more seems like a good way to keep going. That approach will produce a not knowing state where the attention is on what works and the flexibility to do what works and sort out according to the outcome. People are already doing that stuff in many ways, for some when they are working at what they do. Its not needed to ask John grinder about that since you can get that

information of six pack Joe around the corner. What has happen is that the filtering and sorting systems taught within NLP are based on what does not work and attention on problems which is in direct conflict with the attitude and study of success that was the initial approached before NLP was formed. If I was paranoid it might be possible to find someone who set that up with NLP from the start.