(in response of terminology presented in Whispering in the wind Chapter 2, p50-52) On p.50-51 Carmen & John distinguish between 2 levels modeling and application.  They draw the parallel with physics and engineering.  However, there is a third level to consider: the epistemological level.  Therefor I propose a model with 3 levels: Level I is the application of a scientific theory, e.g. as “doing theraphy” is the application of “psychology” / level II is doing further research within the existing theoretical framework / level III is the domain of the philosophy of science (setting the rules for doing research in a certain field, e.g.. the rules for developing a psychological test)  When I apply that observation to p50-51 in “Whispering in the Wind”, and set out to restructure the terminology in 3 levels, first I notice that “modeling” is a verb, while applications is a noun.  To solve confusion, let’s make sure we are talking about processes in both cases. In process terms I can distinguish 3 levels of NLP, which I can label as follows, using verbs: meta-modeling VS modeling VS applying. Now let’s describe the 3 levels, starting at the lowest level: I. NLP-applying Applying the specific patterns of excellence, results of NLPmodeling – applying the Milton model during an hypnosis session is on this level –result: in this example, hopefully a “successful change” for the client II. NLP-modeling: the process of patterning the excellence (the behavior of a top performer) in a domain – this can be done analytically, using the set of NLP distinctions (created by NLP meta-modeling) III. NLP meta-modeling: process of discovery & selection of distinctions to be used while modeling.  Result: a) resulting distinctions currently include meta-model, representation systems (4turple) & submodalities, meta-programs, perceptual positions.  For some, these also include Dilts’ “psychological levels” or Gordon’s “Existential array”. b) theory underlying selected distinctions c) formal notation conventions for the distinctions Question to John & Carmen: do you agree that the “Presentation of patterning” described on p.53 is a format to describe a result of NLP modeling (level II), while it is not suited for describing a result of meta-modeling (level III). Patrick Consequence of this mail: I hope to get an answer about the history of metaprograms (see the other tread started 30dec02) without having to write down the full description of metaprograms, which has been done in other places, well known to most NLP practitioners that would be interested in the history anyway.