Michael Norman Wonderful posting - your questions and comments open up the notion of know nothing states in a way similar to moving the discussion in hypnosis from trance (an apparently unitary phenomenon) to altered states where the phrase itself suggests (correctly, in my opinion) a whole set of possibilities (altered, how specifically). You are correct - the term know nothing state actually refers to a entire set of possible altered states. You offer excellent examples: from something so clean that only FA experience is available through states where some language functions at the unconscious level are available to a state where your personal identity is not available. This all suggests that there is a full syntax of states waiting to be mapped where specific sets of f2 filters are suspended and others are maintained. Further Carmen Bostic and I propose that this set of statees with their associated syntax would be well-mapped themselves as an excellent contribution to the technology of modeling.. The people in Paris who attended the work we did at REPERE several weeks ago now appreciate behaviorally how diverse the members of this set can be. You are also correct that different types of know nothing states are appropriate for different phases of the modeling process as presented in Whispering. Your request for me to explicate which specific know nothing state works best for which phase of the modeling process is superb and presupposes that Bostic and i have developed a vocabulary that allow the mapping you are requesting  - this mapping from our direct experiences to an explcit  model for the deployment of know nothing states is work in progress. One of the difficulties is the lack of a well-developed vocabulary onto which we can do such a mapping. You are correct  in your assertion that while the examples we offer for f2 transforms in Whispeing are primarily linguistic, as we state, there, there are many other sets of f2 transforms to be considered: all mathematical  and formal systems are one such class. When you request confirmation that all rep systems may also participate in f2 transforms, I hesitate. Clearly, when an engineer is thinking about a design issue in purely visual terms, manipulating images directly without the mediation of linguistic terrms, this is an excellent example of f2 transforms that as stated do not involve linguistic transforms. So, with that caveat, yes - there are examples (and quite powerful ones) of f2 transforms that do involve representational systems (one or more) without linguistic mappings - note please that the defining characteristics for a f2  transform is that it is an operation defined on the product of f2 transforms - that is, FA. I have a different analysis of the cricketeer example: what I suspect  - I would suspect  (I would need direct access to verify) that the extraordinary perceptual experience is actually a suspension of a learned program called size constancy . I explain: when  you move a large object (your face,  for example) rapidly toward an infant of several months, typically the child will recoil and express distress. The standard explanation for this is that the child actually experiences the object as growing larger as it approaches. It is only some months later that the child will learn to see the object as unchanging in size as it approaches. The child's initial responses are "more correct" in the sense that an approaching object covers (that is, stimulates) more receptors in the retina as it approaches  the child.  The child later learns that although his or her neurology is reporting more recepters stimulated  (and therefore a larger object), the object is NOT changing in size but retains the same size although more recepters are stimulated. The cricketeer, Bostic and I propose, is defeatubg a  learned program that is at this poiint  (as an adult) is well below the level of FA. This is an even more remarrkable achievement as normally (without a technology of altered states such as the Ericksonian patterning) such transforms are not available for maniupulation. BTW, there is a corresponding examole reported in American baseball. A very famous hitter of a generation or so ago, Stan Musial, reported (on a very good day) seeing the baseball looming larger and larger at it approached home plate (where he was waiting to hit it, to such detail that he claimed to b e able to see the seams on the baseball itself and that its apparent size to him was something approaching a beachball - quite easy to hit at that size. You are not confused - you are tracking very exciting stuff - well done. Frank has in recent years involved himself deeply in developing NLP and his personal consulting work in Russia and the Ukraine where he presently resides. You ask how it is that Frank is not recognized as a co-creator of NLP along with Bandler and me. This is a very complex issue - the simple answer is that while he was instrumental in the formulation of the disciplined practice testing the patterniing (especially for the meta model and anchoring), he did not participate in the coding and testing phases of the original modeling. Your question, no doubt, now moves to the question, how is it that he did not participate in those two last phases of the modeling?  This is what I referred to abo ve as the more complex issue - I will leave the simple answer intact. All the best, John