Believing in Free Will:  Do We Really Have a Choice?
By Carl Buchheit
NLP Marin

Most of us are mostly inclined to assume that most of our actions and decisions, or at least most of our more private and intimate choices, are the result of some kind of free will process.  Or, if we can no longer convince ourselves of this, we at least want to assume that it is our inner patterning for making meaning and selecting behavioral options that is the source of most of what we decide and do.

One of the main presuppositions of NLP is, “Choice is better than no choice.”  We routinely assert that one of the objectives of good training in NLP is to expand the experience of having more choices on our “maps of reality.”  However, there are many other points of view, some of them quite elegant and compelling, which argue that this “free choice” frame is illusory and counter to the experience of happiness and well-being.

What interests me are some of the alternatives to Bert Hellinger’s immensely convenient concept/creation that we usually call “The Family Soul.”  Within Hellinger’s frame, descendents in families seek to take possession of the pain of ancestors because of motivation that is mainly based in three things: the emotion of love; the desire to assert innocence; and the need to avoid or deny guilt.  At NLP Marin, we have developed some remarkable ways to utilize family constellations, to reveal and revise the beautifully intended but pointless transgenerational suffering that flows naturally from these three primary needs.

Whereas Bert Hellinger’s model of transgenerational suffering involves descendant’s seeking to locate and heal the unresolved pain of ancestors, there is another viewpoint that maintains just the opposite.  This concept is usually summarized as “cellular memory.”  Within this frame of “cellular memory,” the unresolved problems of the ancestors ask the following generations to find solutions.  ‘Souvenir albums’ containing memories of unsurvived trauma and unresolved loss are handed down from one generation to the next for this purpose.  In this way, perhaps, our “creature consciousness” seeks to perfect its relationship with a threatening and dangerous physical universe.  Or, perhaps, the “preconscious collective” of our hominid ancestors demands that it’s future expression – in our time, in our lives – prepare a future paradise or promised land, in which pain, loss and death will threaten no more.

Still another point of view, this one popularized by several noted interpreters of “A Course In Miracles,” maintains that time is a “vast illusion.”  Within this point of view, which is vastly difficult to comprehend adequately, all of our experience – both physical and non-physical, both in time and beyond time – is an entrancing replay of events and choices that were determined at the moment of creation (of the universe).

So, considered in these very broad terms, some of our options seem to be: 1) we voluntarily suffer for our ancestors in an unworkable effort to correct their pain, so that this pain will not be able to reach us in time.  This is the Hellinger description based on the emotion of love.  2) That it is not love, but fear that directs us to recapitulate family suffering–generation upon generation.  Within this frame, DNA has direct control over our choices; it compels present conformity with past family calamity.  3) Everything is predetermined until we wake up from the trance of time and non-time altogether.  (It is important to note that within this frame, the process of dying and the experience of death do not actually help us understand anything more about what’s really going on.  In this frame life is an illusion and death doesn’t help.)

So, do we actually have free will or not?  As practitioners and teachers of NLP, all we can know for sure is that the only really important question is “What would you like?”

The Mission: To Rescue NLP from the NLP People

“Belief Blaster!”  “Limitation Annihilator!”  “Fear Destroyer”… these are the names of some typical, conventional “NLP change techniques.”  The grab bag of these “interventions,” which are mainly patterns that help one part of a person to more successfully defeat (annihilate!…crush! ..exterminate!) some other part of the very same person, is what conventional NLP is best known for.  For the most part, this kind of “frat rat” NLP stuff is perceived to be what NLP is, at least by the small part of the world that has even heard of Neuro-Linguistic Programming.  So, may I say this simply: this kind of stuff, especially when offered without context, and with little or no education about the broader experience of being human, is just plain embarrassing.  It’s not that these “techniques” cannot be useful.  For the most part, they actually do work to produce a narrow range of internal processing revisions for which they are intended.  But again, absent context, this stuff is little more than junk.

When NLP was first being uncovered, disclosed, and developed, one of its main selling points was that it would allow someone with no experience working with others to–”magically”–replicate a substantial part of the skill and effectiveness of the eminent thinkers and practitioners who were the first exemplars for Bandler, Grinder, et al.  What this meant was that someone of adequate intelligence could behave like Virginia Satir, talk like Milton Ericson, and think like Gregory Bateson and Alfred Korsybski, without knowing anything about what these people actually knew about.  It was amazing, truly! The distillation and crystallization of that much wisdom and know-how were awesome.

The difficulty comes later.  Here’s an analogy: have you ever driven somewhere new, someplace unfamiliar to you, using only the GPS?  You fly to a new city, rent a car, fire up the GPS, and the procedure it offers allows you to execute brilliantly, going directly where the procedure will take you, arriving in good shape and on time, without ever knowing where you are, really, or what is around you.  Isn’t that strange? I ask people about this all the time. Many people have no trouble with this experience; they want to get where they need to get, and it matters not at all that they do not know where they are or, really, how they got there.

Of course, like most everyone else, I use this super-efficient, more-or-less reliable, GPS-guru approach to go somewhere new all the time. For example, I recently drove a rented car from Philadelphia to visit the battlefield monument in Gettysburg, PA. The “GPS Lady” took me right there efficiently, even exactly into the perfect parking lot.  But I had not looked at a real map before I left, so, although I was where I wanted to be, and hadn’t even been thrown into confusion by all the detours in downtown Gettysburg, I still could not feel where I was, except I was there, but where was that there at?  This became especially annoying through the afternoon, as I encountered more and more references to geography and communities of the surrounding counties that had some role in the unfolding of the three-day battle. So, I could learn that General Longstreet did such and such here, because the exhibit showed me that, but I could not extend my awareness and curiosity to step into what General Meade did when he moved from over there, to someplace that was off the map at the Visitors’ Center. Later, when I got to a big AAA map of Pennsylvania, rather than just the GPS set of instructions within a procedure, I could feel a whole lot more of what I had just been part of experiencing, and, for me, this was a much better feeling.  I could feel the surrounding territory, and I could have created my own procedure for how to get somewhere, a procedure based on my curiosity, rather than on the procedural expertise of the GPS programmers.

For me, this whole subject is about my preference for understanding context, for having adequate information (even if the “procedure” does not ask for more information), and especially about having good access to creative choice instead of pre-programmed procedure, however “expert” the programmers may be, or claim to be.  Imagine doing NLP changework using the “NLP GPS:”  ($129.99 on E-Z Pay!)  Just select the “technique” you want to do, then follow the instructions:  “Make a right turn at the next floor anchor; prepare to ask the Outcome Frame question printed on that card; stop here; ask the question; when the answer is spoken, press Continue to proceed to the next step……etc.” Horrifyingly, this actually is how NLP actually is in most places.  The NLP practitioner is not a really a practitioner; they have almost no original perception or imagination, or uniquely contributing sense of their participation in the longer, wider scope of human unfolding and fulfillment.. They are merely following the GPS’s instructions, trusting the famous name who made the program up, perhaps years before.  They are not Practitioners; they are technicians, following technical procedures, according to specifications.

To me, this is a nightmare.  We do not need more well-trained technicians in this field.  We need technically competent practitioners who live and work with wisdom and heart–with interest in and respect for the complicated business of human experience.  Wisdom and heart can be modeled and taught, and, to some extent, they can even be learned and developed in the presence of good teachers, over time.  But they cannot be learned simply by following the step-by-step, context-less instructions that come from the GPS.

Carl Buchheit NLP Marin 2010

Definition of Panic Attack from Mayo Clinic website:
“A panic attack is a sudden episode of intense fear that develops for no apparent reason and triggers severe physical reactions. Panic attacks can be very frightening. When panic attacks occur, you might think you’re losing control, having a heart attack or even dying.”

When clients come into the NLP practitioner’s office, they often describe panic attacks in exactly this way: a sudden episode of intense fear that develops for no apparent reason. The attacks are always frightening, and often they overwhelm the client’s capacity to deal with everything that has become connected with the “attack” experience–people, places, activities, etc. By the time they come in, clients are usually well into the process of adapting to and hoping to continue to tolerate severe restrictions on their freedom of action and movement. Even worse, for most people, the apparently mysterious nature of “panic for no reason” has been replaced by less mysterious, more predictable, but nearly arbitrary associations between their experience of panic and being in some specific activity or environment–such as driving on a bridge, or on a roadway with no shoulder area, or on any kind of freeway.  Again, these associations, between panic and situation A, or panic and activity B in condition C, etc., are very nearly arbitrary. What were once merely neural associations (“neurons that fire together, wire together”) evolve and generalize to become cognitive understandings, e.g., “I panic because I drive on the bridge.” These disturbing generalizations can provide a certain kind of comfort, they make “panic” a predictable and, therefore, avoidable experience. (“I’m not crazy, I’m just afraid of bridges; when I stay away from bridges, I’m OK.”)

Alas, one of the main tendencies of our “neural legacy” safety patterning is to generalize the experience of fear. Again, our creature neurology does not think or speak, but if it did, it would say something like: “If x amount of fear and panic makes my organism safe, then surely 3x amount of fear and panic will make it at least three times safer! OK, let’s generalize this thing!!!  What else is [even a little bit] similar to what we are already panicking about? Let’s panic about that TOO.  Excellent!!!  SAFER, SAFER, SAFER!!!” Of course, the human, who is mostly on the receiving end of this good intention, becomes more and more terrified about more and more different things and situations. The human is in a difficult spot when the brain learns to associate quantity and intensity of fear with degree of safety.

Eventually, the person begins to panic about the possibility of panicking–they are afraid that they will be afraid. “What if I panic while I’m driving!?” “What if I panic while I’m in the meeting!?” “What if I panic while I’m on the bridge (…in the plane, at the party, in the city, too far from my house, too far from my town, etc.)?  After a time of trying to think and reason themselves out of what their brain is providing for them (i.e., safety through fear), the client is so demoralized and bewildered that fear of fear and panic about panicking are the experiences that make the most sense, that seem to be most understandable and rational, and are, therefore, very highly valued. This development makes things worse for the client, in terms of their being able to find their way to more secure experience in their world.

For the Transformational NLP Practitioner, it is vital to stay connected with the awareness that “no apparent reason” is not the same as no reason at all. In fact, once the representational structure and belief-level underpinnings of panic attacks are adequately and accurately unpacked, it is not uncommon for a person with this presenting issue to begin a conversation with, “I just want everything to be the way that it was.” As a Transformational NLP Practitioner, one of the first maneuvers one has to make is to build rapport with the parts or aspects of the client’s consciousness that are creating the panic, respecting the intended positive outcome of the panic attack experiences, while simultaneously maintaining rapport with the client’s conscious self that is, of course, massively out of rapport with the panic attacks–that is terrified of them.

To resolve this, a practitioner’s first internal questions are always, “How is this experience organized? How is this person’s brain doing this? How is it generating a panic response, a full blown, adrenaline based freeze/flight/fight reaction–something normally reserved for seriously dangerous situations (lions, and tigers, and bears!)  to something that “ought to be” innocuous or easily manageable (bridges, and tunnels, and walking the dog!).

In NLP terms, the programming language of the brain, the source code for human reality, is mainly a series of pictures (Visuals or V’s), sounds (Auditory representations or A’s) and feeling responses (Kinesthetic representations or K’s). In order to help someone begin to mitigate or remove the patterning for a panic reaction, we need to know what, literally, the person’s brain is looking at and/or listening to in their mind’s other-than-conscious eyes and ears.  These are what cause the panic reaction, nothing else, and these are almost always representational imprints from long ago and far away. The triggers are proximate in the client’s current world (the bridge, tunnel, etc.), but the dark magic of the panic itself is usually caused by learning from far, far away. The underlying practitioner question is, as always, “What are the V’s and A’s that are making these very negative K’s?”

When tracking down the original imprinting by stabilizing and unpacking eye accesses, we, as practitioners, are looking for imprints that have an isomorphic structure (same shape and feel) as the unwanted present state. So, here our work also involves making the elements of the original imprint–that were worth being terrified about–conscious for the client, thus normalizing the panicky feelings as we disconnect all of the past learning from the current trigger(s).

Once the literal content of the earlier imprinted learning becomes available, the essential re-frame is simply: “If I were looking at that on the inside every time I was (on a bridge, in a tunnel, out for a walk, driving), I would be panicking also.” This normalizing of the panic experience introduces the idea that the fear is actually a sensible reaction to specific internal events–the other-than-conscious internal representations–which have continued to operate within the client’s unconscious system.

Why fear processes continue far beyond their usefulness is a subject for another article–for many articles, actually. For example, whose points of perception–whose eyes, for instance–are being used to generate the client’s out-of-date, apparently spurious, but still panic-worthy representations? Clients will frequently age-regress into their parents’, or even their grandparents’ experience.  These issues of identity, loyalty, and trans-generational belonging go far beyond the relatively simply VAKOG sequencing of strategy-level work with fear and panic issues.

Carl Buchheit NLP Marin 2011

How is reaching for that pint of Ben & Jerry’s similar to reaching for life?

Q:       In your 30 years’ experience working with people, have you seen any common themes that cause people to struggle with eating properly?

Carl:   Of all the things that human beings can reach for when they’re looking for something to change their state or feel better, or adjust their experience in life, food is by far the best thing to reach for.  Food reliably produces chemical changes, it is legal and the effects are reversible.  What I’ve noticed more and more among people who reach for food when they don’t want to, is that it’s the only good way they have of reaching for life.

Q:       So how exactly is reaching for that pint of Ben & Jerry’s similar to reaching for life?

C:        When we get cut off from something in ourselves that we instinctively know to be valuable or important for us, then we reach for life in some other way.  People will reach for life in the form of money, or the experience of another person in a relationship of some kind.  They’ll reach for food, they’ll reach for drugs, they’ll reach for alcohol.  They’ll reach for all kinds of things when they can’t, or for some reason won’t, reach for life itself.

Food is an excellent way to reach for life when we’re not reaching some other way.  So it’s part of a high level belief structure about food that arches over the day to day context of our lives.  Down at the nitty gritty level where you’re eyeball-to-eyeball with a container of Ben & Jerry‘s at 1:30 in the morning, there’s something else in play… our creature’s nervous system trying to find the best offer it can for itself in that moment.

Q:       So there I am, eyeball-to-eyeball with the pint of Ben & Jerry’s.  Is there anything useful that I could be thinking or doing to avoid gorging on the ice cream that sits before me?

C:        Thinking about it almost never helps.  In fact, once we’re thinking about it then we might as well just go get the container of ice cream, pull the lid off and throw that lid away – you will not need that lid again.  So we don’t want to be thinking about it.  We want to have something that automatically happens for us which means a revision of patterning for behavior, for safety, for comfort, for security.

This is an example of when we are in conflict with ourselves –one part of us wants to eat that ice cream (the part that walked you over to the fridge) and another part really wants to not eat the ice cream. So, if one part of us wins in the conflict, then who is it exactly that wins?

Whenever we eat something that we don’t want, it’s never a complete loss because obviously some part of us wants to eat it, otherwise we wouldn’t be doing that.  So it makes working with it a little bit complicated and, at the same time, it can be made more straightforward.  If we have a better relationship with the “I” who would like to eat properly, then it’s easier to do what we want.

Q:       What’s the ideal relationship one should have with food?

People frequently come into my office and say, “I want to change my relationship with food.”  This is really common parlance.  It’s not that it’s inaccurate or not useful, but I almost always seek to refine the wording so that it’s not about relationship.  What they need to be able to do is eat properly and not have a relationship with their food.  They should just have food choices so that they can eat and enjoy eating rather than having to revise a relationship with food.  If they want a relationship with their food, then they should probably do relationship counseling and not counseling about eating.

Q:       Some people eats very sensibly and always knows when to stop.  They never say, “I ate too much.”  What’s going on for them?

C:                The odds are extremely high that they’re basing their food choices and their portion choices on how their body feels rather than on the emotional content of their previous or upcoming life experience.  The people who eat naturally and stay slender usually have a way of selecting food by checking whether eating this much of this kind of food is going to feel as good in their body two hours from now it  feels right now, not having eaten the food yet.

Q:       So they are able to make smart eating choices based on how their body feels?

They look at the food and say, “Huh, if I eat this food, how will I be in two hours?  Will I feel worse or better than I feel now?”  If the answer is, “I’ll feel as good or better than I feel now,” then they go ahead and eat the food.  And if they’re not going to feel better in 2 hours, then they don’t eat the food.  Connirae Andreas calls this the Naturally Slender Eating Strategy.

Now how do they do that?  It’s simple.  It’s like asking someone, “Would you rather have someone snap you in the arm with a rubber band, or would you rather have them not do that?”  It’s not a dilemma.  It’s an easy choice.  Would I rather feel really bad in a little while or would I rather feel good in a little while?  That choice only happens when we don’t have to process the emotional content of our lives in order to get a forkful of something for nutritional and enjoyment purposes.

Q:       Do people learn the Naturally Slender Eating Strategy or are they just wired that way?

C:        Some people are just wired that way.  They just do that naturally and spontaneously.  It wouldn’t occur to them to do anything else.  If you said to one of these people, “Okay, before you order your food, would you please take a moment and review the worst moments of 7^th Grade, relive them as realistically as possible, call forth all of that old pain and self doubt and once it’s maximally there, would you please place an order for something that seems to have an equal amount of significance, and eat it all as fast as you can.”  (Which is how most of us choose food most of the time.)  If we tried to teach them to use that 7^th Grade technique, they would think it was funny and stupid.  Why would anyone want to do that?

Q:       Is the Naturally Slender Eating Strategy something that can be taught to others?

C:        Yes, there are ways of training our nervous system, our reptile/mammal neurology – especially the part that overlaps with our human 7^th Grade neurology – to simply move toward better body feelings and make that the main criterion.  It’s easy to learn, and it’s not learned by reading about it.  It’s actually learned by evoking and using the internal sense of body sensation, body well being, pictures and sounds.  There are ways of learning that and having one “install” it in oneself so that we actually acquire it.  Then it just runs automatically.

Carl Buchheit  NLP Marin 2010

All over the universe, or so it seems, human beings are famous for routinely experiencing what they most don’t want to have, and for not being able to experience that which they most really do want.  As human beings, all of our most stuck patterns of experience, from the slightly embarrassing ones (I always end up watching more TV than I want), to the ones that are actively life-destroying (I just can’t help disrespecting all the people I’ve tried to be partners with) have their source in our brains’ ongoing efforts to keep us well and safe.  For us at NLP Marin, this is the most remarkable and amazing thing about humans:  that everything we do that doesn’t work is actually the consequence of our brains’ patterning to make sure that we are all OK—both ourselves and the people we care about.  But then, how can it be that something so positively and beautifully intended—our natural patterning to be well and happy—can go so terribly, terribly wrong so much of the time?

One of the really important reasons this is still happening for us humans is that, courtesy of creative evolution, we all have more than one brain, and each of them has a different set of instructions and descriptions about what well-being really is.  A simplistic but still decent analogy is the issue of “legacy” hardware and software that plagues the computer world.  Computer designers and engineers are forever faced with the job of providing their end-users with better tools (more elegance, reliability and functionality, for example) while still making sure that all of the old software can still work with and through the newer hardware designs.

Mother Nature has had a similar task with us humans:  how to add functionality, adaptability, and ease-of-use without disinheriting everything that came before, in terms of our neurobiology.  The result is that nature always builds new brain components and functions on top of (literally, on top of) whatever the processes of interactive evolution have already perfected across eons of time.  As a result of this rather conservative approach to designing our hardware and inner software, all of us have a least four brains, and each of the four seems to have its own orientation, goals, and success indicators.

Courtesy of the neurophysiologists and their new and amazing brain investigation technologies (scanners of various kinds), we can observe our four different brains at work.

The First Brain

First and oldest is the brain with the most seniority—our Reptile Brain.  It is not much changed in function from that of the average garden lizard.  It is responsible for the basics of physical survival—heart beat, blood pressure, respiration, etc.  (An old neuroscientist joke says that the Reptile Brain is responsible for the “4 F’s”—Feeding, Fighting, Fleeing…..and reproduction.)

The Second Brain

The Old Mammal Brain.  A later development that is on top of around the Reptile, our Old Mammal Brain adds in a wonderful capacity to generate strong emotions, and to use these emotions to promote creature-level safety and well being.  The additions of greater emotional range give the creature that has them even stronger drivers to move toward or away from conditions and experiences that will affect overall survival.

Note:  At NLP Marin, we refer to the First and Second Brains, collectively, as our Critter Brain.  It is not human, and it does not operate with truly human criteria.  It has no attention to things like happiness, fulfillment, justice, truth or beauty.  It works to fulfill the Four F’s, and that’s about it.

The Third Brain

Our third brain is our Primate neurology.  It occupies a large part of the top and back of the inside of our heads.  The Primate brain is very sophisticated, with a wonderful capacity to understand the realities and rules of community—the so-called primate dominance dynamics.  Compared with us humans, however, the Primate brain lacks much inertest in or capacity to make meaning about abstractions, values, and long periods of time.  It is the brain of a remarkable ape, but an ape that is not concerned with 20 year plans about anything.

The Fourth Brain—the Human Brain

This is the newest and most human part of us, neurologically speaking—our frontal and pre-frontal lobes.  These are the reasons we have foreheads that are vertical instead of slanted.  This Fourth Brain, especially their pre-frontal aspects (located immediately on the other side of our foreheads) are where the “I-ness” of us resides.  If life damages part of our motor cortex or a speech center, farther back in our heads, then we may have impaired movement or speech, but we are still “us.”  Damage to the pre-frontals, however, changes who we are and how we create meaning in the world.  Moreover, there are some who say that our pre-frontal lobes are one of our main connections into whatever it is that we are part of in terms of non-physical reality.

All of four brains are operating constantly.  They rely on each other and usually coordinate themselves magnificently.  There are a few bugs in the interfaces, however, and these bits of bad programming can cause us huge difficulties as humans.

Some of the biggest bugs in our multiple brains

Bug #1

The main driver for the Critter Brain is fear, with the goal of survival, and with no attention to changing anything that has already become associated with this experience of survival.  In complete contrast, the main driver for the Human Brain is love, with goals of learning and, basically, nothing but change.  Consequence:  our Human is always imagining things being different and better, while our Critter simultaneously values it all staying the same, especially if we are not dead yet (see Bug #3, below).

Bug #2

The Critter Brain does not deal in time, at least not in Human time.  The Critter does a truly good job of being here now.  For the Critter, there is meal time and nap time, but not a life-time.  Consequence:  the Critter will happily run hugely unproductive or damaging patterning forever.  For the Critter, forever is just for-now.

Bug #3

The Critter has only one success indicator it uses to know if it is doing a good job for us.  The Critter cannot actually speak, but this one success indicator comes down to a simple question, “Are we dead yet?”  If the answer is no, then the Critter gives itself full marks, gold stars, and many thumbs up for doing a great job.  The Human who is sort of riding along on top might be in life agony—doing their third failed business or fourth alcoholic marriage, for example, and the Critter will regard this as continuing a high-quality outcome.  After all, these difficult or tragic experiences are no trouble for the Critter.  It values a heart that beats; it has no attention to whether or not that heart is open or closed in more non-physical terms.

Whether our heart is open or closed, for example, is well above the Critter Brain’s pay grade.  It does not know how to make meaning at this level.  It can only create associations, and if a “broken heart” becomes associated with not-having-died, then the Critter will value “broken-heartedness” highly, and it will promote and foment the experience throughout the Human’s life.  The more the Human tries to change things, the more the Critter operates to set them back to original conditions, to the ones with the most “survival value”—the experiences that we learned to survive and that, unfortunately for us humans, our Critter Brains then associated with continued survival.  And because the Critter Brain is the one that generates most emotions, it knows how to create the feelings within us that will allow it get its way.  Bug #3 is a serious bug indeed.

About thirty years ago, the founders of NLP (Neuro-Linguistic Programming) invented a description for their then newly synthesizing discipline, a new way of understanding and changing human experience.  They described NLP as “the study of the structure of human experience and human excellence.”  The important word here is “structure.”  NLP is a terrifically good toolbox for helping us to understand how we create and maintain our experience as humans.  The question that usually gets a session of  NLP-based change work rolling is, “What would you like?”  NLP change work is designed to locate and revise just exactly those kinds of Critter/Human communication problems that generate almost all of our unwanted experiences, the ones that go in the unwanted-yet-impossible-to-stop-or change category.

And working with the NLP toolbox promotes Critter/Human coordination and harmony.  Our goal is to have what we want, based on our most truly human desires and standards, and to do so in actual present time.  Neuro-Linguistic Programming can do this superbly well because it speaks English (or another language) to the Human Brain, but it speaks to the Critter Brain in the programming language of creature neurology, which is a language not of words, but of pictures, sounds, feelings, smells, and tastes.  It’s like plugging a keyboard into the Critter wiring.  When we reprogram or re-pattern the Critter in its own programming language, it accepts updates easily and, if desired, permanently.

In fact, at NLP Marin, we describe NLP as “a toolbox to help our creature neurology to better support our most human and spiritual goals.”

© 2006 Carl Buchheit and NLP Marin