You are correct assuming the time period I was referring to.  Tell you what all I see whilst reading over the material that Hall has for Meta-States regarding "...formal principles that generate the hierarchy in which these creatures appear..." all I can seem to find is, "Michael Hall on Meta-States and Meta-Levels As a theoretical definition of logical levels and meta-levels used in defining meta-states, the following comes from the Meta-States Training Manual, Accessing Personal Genius. Hierarchies of experience. Higher levels organize and control information on lower levels. The modulation effect of the system necessarily works downward. The modulation effect of the system does not necessarily work upward. Higher levels operate more encompassing and impactful than the lower levels. There exists a discontinuity between the levels a break. The relationship of logic between levels creates "paradox" if we don't sort phenomena on different levels. Hierarchical logical levels function as a system, the higher levels arise out of the lower and feed back information into the system to influence the lower levels. This creates recursiveness within logical levels. As a cybernetic system, as information moves up logical levels new features emerge that does not exist at the lower levels. This emergence at higher levels involve, in systems language, summitivity. In other words, the emergent property does not exist only as the sum of the parts, but new properties and qualities arise over "time" within the system. Reflexivity describes one of the new features that emerge in logical levels. In living organisms this results in self-reflexiveness or self-consciousness. As a system with feedback properties, logical levels operates by self-reflexiveness, the whole system becomes cybernetic. It becomes a "system that feeds back onto and changes itself" (Dilts, 1990, 33). This makes it self-organizing." Now, this seems to be in my opinion what Hall is offering as formal principles (my words not his and ANY misunderstanding that might be caused from this communication, I accept full responsibility.)  I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that you don't accept these (principals) as valid.  If I had to venture to say why (again my hallucination, feel free to guide it where you deem approiate.) it would be because in my opinion these principles only specify what the "Meta-States" are doing again I suppose we run into another difficulty because to specify what something is doing, that something must be clearly defined, (in our case, sensory based terms) kinda the Id, Ego, and Super Ego, vagueness all over again...hhhmmm... Well what about things like the Meta-Yes Meta-NO Pattern, whats your take on that? Here's the address: http://www.neurosemantics.com/Articles/Meta_Yes-No.htm I've used the pattern, I found it useful.  Why do you think it worked?  (Just a final quick recap.) 1.) Honestly, I can not provide an explicit SENSORY BASED description. (And invite anyone that can to please do so.  So that in the future I might be able to.)  The only thing that I have been able to offer is Hall's theroretical definiton of logical levels and Meta-levels to define a Meta-State. (Though admittedly it is not Sensory Based.) 2.) I suppose without this it would make it hard to define formal principles for the actual CREATION of Meta-States. (Again, anyone that maybe able to add a little clarity to this post and point out anything that I missed or even just plain wanna say that i'm wrong, please feel free to chime in, I look forward to learning something new.) Dr. Grinder, you seem like a cool enough kat, and I appreciate your answering my questions to the best of your ability and appreciate your input on this latest post where you can, thank you.