Patrick I find your proposal incoherent in its present form. Consider the following: 1. You propose: "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)  You are proposing a hierarchy - your levels.  In order for this proposal to be coherent, you will have to: a. explicitate what the ordering principle (see especially the section beginning on page 285) that generates this hierarchy of levels is - the entire section on ordering relationships argues that any presentation of hierarchy to be coherent must identify the generating principle. I suggest you review this section and then attempt to respond. b. propose some utility for it once the generating principle has been explicate (1 above). What is the point of your proposal - what consequences would the acceptance and application of such a hierarchy entail? Whispering clearly recognizes the importance of explicating the epistemological underpining of NLP (in all aspects) - so what is entirely unclear is what sort of a hierarchy you are proposing and what are its consequences? 2. You state: "...“modeling” is a verb, while applications is a noun.  To solve confusion, let’s make sure we are talking about processes in both cases." The noun "applications" is not a noun - it is a nominalization - a psuedo-noun that is obviously derived from a verb - "apply". Where is the confusion you refer to? 3. You write: "III. NLP meta-modeling: process of discovery & selection of distinctions to be used while modeling. What is this NLP meta modeling? As Carmen and I detail in Whispering, the term "meta" is a variable. For a statement containing "meta" to be coherent, it must specify the level to which it is meta - this further implies a hierarchy; again with its requirement to specify the generating principle (see the discussions beginning on pages 256 and 288). I suspect that what you are referring to as NLP meta-modeling is what Carmen and I present as the set of design variable - see the discussion beginning on page 198 in Whispering. Patrick - I recognize your question: "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). Since the terms in your question are not yet well defined, I will await their explication prior to attempting to respond to your specific question. Finally, you appended an interesting revelation: " 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" You have (in the other thread) requested historical information about meta programs - I am prepared to respond to but I need something concrete to respond to. If there are well-defined presentation of meta programs as you propose, then pick one and present it. All the best, John