To John Grinder: Thanks John, your answer on the origin got me back on track.  I appreciate that you find the time to answer.  The closer to the creators of a field one gets, the better the understanding of what was originally meant becomes (an oral culure may have the advantage to adapt itslef, but has the disadvantage that the original meaning may get lost). Related to your mail, let me start with the section most relevant to what I'm working on right now. You wrote: “I am still in the dark about what brand of meta programs you are requesting that I offer you historical information about.” As stated before, the first source I found is Bailey’s LAB Profile, which you indicated you knew (it existed in 1982 under the name IPU profile, but except the name, things haven’t changed much since then).  Bailey’s LAB Profile looks very much like the “brand” in Tony Robbins Book (?Unlimited Power,? 1986) and in Tad James & Wyatt Woodsmall’s “Time Line Theraphy and the basis of Personality”.  James & Woodsmall seem to introduce the link to Jung & MBTI (or again, that’s the first written source I have of someone making that connection within NLP).  Given I don’t have anything from before 1982 that looks like metaprograms, and know from your previous mail that their “creation” dates from 1975, I’m still trying to figure out what happened between 1975 and 1982.  So given my “black hole” is apparently 7 years long, I appreciate you still in the dark – so am I… Based on your description, I have a first question, which is essentially the same question as KC already asked in another reply to your mail. Can you be more specific about the game (e.g. give some examples of “the a series of prompts and received from Frank his descriptions of the internal processes.”. Secondly, for trying to reconstruct the history, when you write: “assigning the task to some of our students”, can you cite some names? Another question related to asking for the names – does the Dilts statement I made earlier on “A number of the patterns were initially proposed by Richard Bandler as ways in which people kept 'coherency' in their mental programming.  Further research into these and other patterns was spearheaded by Leslie Cameron-Bandler (together with David Gordon, Robert Dilts and Maribeth Meyers-Anderson).” match your map of what happened?  If so (question probably related to the game you mentioned), what were the first patterns being proposed? Then I want to address 3 other elements of your mail: You wrote: "1. you are arguing that NLP modeling and the philosophy of science are if not identical at least at the same logical level and of the same logical type.  Interesting proposal and one which Carmen and I discuss in RedTail Math but such a leap requires an explicit argument - please present it." Sorry to disappoint you, I'm getting there from another side than you are.  I’m not arguing that for modeling – I’m only arguing that for meta-modeling, even if the distinction between the 2 may be a “content-distinction” to you – for me they are two different levels. 2 You asked: “what’s your explicit representation for a distinction” good question –let me ask your help for answering it by asking you for 3 examples (hoping a pattern may appear which can be modeled): (a) would the paragraph on p.249 in "Whispering" be a good "explicit representation" of "2nd position"?  If not, what's missing? Is the distinction 1st /2nd /3rd not a content distinction?  Why not?  (b) how would you for instance represent  “nominalization” / b) “visual constructed”? (pardon me if "Whispering" would contain distinctions of hese 2 words, due to the lack of an index, I find it hard to find things back in "Whispering") 3 you state "our students were not capable of consistently distinguishing between form (or process) and content. The same appears to be an accurate observation for the present situation as well. " I have no problem admitting I don't seem to get it... when one switches logical level say to level X, the material at the level X-1 becomes the content of the processes at level X.  So ultimately, if you keep chunking, everything is content...  Please try to explain the difference between form and content again... Patrick