John Couple of comments on your posting. 1. you wrote, "Some argue that using it introduces unresolvable fractionation in the subject, especially when it it practiced in conjunction with the parts metaphor" I would like to hear the specific arguments, especially the one that proposes that it leads to "unresolvable fractionation" (whatever that might be). What seems clear to me is that the fragmentation is already inherent in the incongruencies that are the object of the work being conducted - the facilitator (including self application) is simply drawing out the distinctions between the "parts"  preliminary to either integration or coordination (depending on whether the "parts" to be integrated are of the same or different logical types and at the same or different logical levels). Parts are clumsy metaphor for the fragmentation (multiple personalities) that is a natural response to the fragmented sets of contexts through which we move. Indeed, the explicit involvement of the unconscious is one of the most powerful way to overcome such fragmentation, 2. you wrote, " Another thing, in trying to adapt some of the structure of 6 step reframing to 1st order changes, say with a swish pattern to keep it simple, would it be desireable, instead of setting up a yes/no signal with the unconscious, simply asking the unconscious to supply the desireable state image?" As discussed in some detail in Whispering, there is an asymmetry between first and second order changes - any second order format can be used successfully for making either a first or second order change; but the inverse is not true - that is, using a first order change format to make a second order change. Typically, such an application leads to either immediate signals (so-called resistance) from the unconscious indicating, "Not this way!" or to a temporary success (change in behavior and experience) that reverses itself (return to original behavior) in a short period of time. 3. You mentioned, "...instead of setting up a yes/no signal with the unconscious, simply asking the unconscious to supply the desireable state image?" There are two difficulties with your suggestion: most tellingly, how would you know whether the image that arrives is actually from the unconscious (as opposed to some "helpful" conscious part that wants badly to make this change without an involuntary signal to verify its source? Further, there is always the issue of how you might interpret the image - a conscious activity that is rife with pitfalls. Thus Carmen and I argue for involuntary signals (not necessarily within the 6 step format) and the know-nothing state to allow the unconscious full choice in context.  I urge you to re-read the method for converting classic code formats into new code formats to correct precisely the issues you are bringing to attention. All the best, John