Hello, Mr. Merlevede. In the post that this post replies to, you wrote: "No I haven't, but someone else has (Rodger Bailey & Ross Steward to be specific).  I already contributed one of these questions and it's interpretation to this website in Whispering's pattern format.  If you want more or "an hierarchy of elicitation questions" as you call it, as I pointed out already: buy Shelle Rose Charvet's book "Words that Change Minds" (1995) - I'm not not going to summarize that 200 page book on this website." which I interpret to mean: "Rodger Bailey and Ross Steward created a list of elicitation questions for meta programs.  I will not post any list like that on the "Whispering In The Wind" internet forum." In the post titled "Topic: About What Dr. Grinder termed the 'Game'. To: Mr. Merlevede. Topic: Epistemology", dated 13/01/2003 09:57:39, posted to the thread "Reconstruction of History (continued)", I wrote: "I have read and reread the section titled "Form and Substance: Process and Content", from the book 'Whispering In The Wind'.  Have you read that section from the book 'Whispering In The Wind', Mr. Merlevede?  If so, have you created a hierarchy of elicitation questions that contains all your meta-program elicitation questions?  Will you present such a hierarchy of elicitation questions in a post to this forum?  In that post, you could describe all the conditions in which you can usefully or ethically apply all versus some of the levels of elicitation questions that your hierarchy contains. " If you decide to write down a hierarchy of elicitations, or even one sequence (or ranking) of elicitations, would you post that hierarchy or sequence to the forum?  Consider the lists termed "Set A" and "Set B", listed on page 340 of the book "Whispering In The Wind" .  A third set, termed "Set AA" (or whatever) could be added, that contains one or more elements, including the element "Remember what you experienced then".  Using the ordering relationship found in the graph given on page 341 of the book "Whispering In The Wind", construct a sequence showing a path through the graph of the set containing sets AA, A, and B.  If the elements of each set were considered part of a directed set, then one path from a bottom leaf to the root of the graph would be: "See who it was who abused you..." - > "Make an image of what occurred back then..." - > "Remember what you experienced then..." On page 343 of the book "Whispering In The Wind", the authors Dr. Grinder & Ms. Bostic St. Clair wrote: "Using the previous work as an example: Constants             Variables (intensional definitions) ----------            -------------------------------------------- ...see who abused you...     ...an image of what occurred back then ...how violated you felt...   ...the feelings that you experienced then ...listen to the terrible...      ...what is being said in the situation The notions of constants and variables (intensional definitions) serve nicely here." To discuss what I quoted above, I use the terms "definiens" and "definiendum".  The term "definiens" means a (textual) definition of a term.  The term "definiendum" means a term defined by a "definiens". The phrases in the column "constants" could be: 1. containing the values of the variable on the right of each constant 2. containing constants that each refer to an unknown value 3. requests for someone to access an extensional, internal, multisensory definiens of a term - whether or not an internal experience can be a definiens. 4. requests for someone to access an intensional (intensional) definiens of a term - whether or not an internal experience can be a definiens. 5. requests for someone to access a memory of an object extensionally defined in the request 6. requests containing a presumption about reality during an experience by a person 7. requests containing presumptions about reality during an experience by a person, the presumptions having already been explicated by the request-recipient. 8. requests containing presumptions about reality during an experience by a person, the presumptions having already been explicated by the request-giver. The phrase "intensional definition" has a usage linked to the concept termed "definiendum", but the values in the righthand column could be termed "intensional descriptions."  I stipulate that a description termed "intensional" supposes criteria you can use to decide if something matches that description.  For example, while your soccer ball may be intensionally described by the phrase "that ball-shaped thing", the definiendum "soccer ball" may have the definiens "a ball-shaped thing people kick around".  The table in the quote above does seem to show that some intensional descriptions suppose different criteria than other intensional descriptions.  It may also show that descriptions can be ranked by increasing intension, like the logical inclusion distinction introduced by Dr. Grinder & Ms. Bostic St. Clair starting on page 291 of "Whispering In The Wind". On page 342 of the book "Whispering In The Wind", the authors Dr. Grinder & Ms. Bostic St. Clair wrote: "...the agent of change is restricted to using and challenging only verbal productions that originate with the client and is specifically barred from introducing material - content." You may know about meta-program elicitations used during a communication with another person.  If so, then you may be able to state intensional descriptions of a person's internal processes or external behavior in accord with your determination of that person's meta-programs.  So could you give an example showing a sequencing of your intensional descriptions of someone's meta-programmed behavior according to a logical level ordering relationship?  Below is a possible example, showing a sequencing, an ordered set of statements about someone who has a strong internal reference.  For the meta program termed "Internal/External Reference" : "You ignore other's needs with respect to..." - >  "You check your own reasons whether to..."  - > "You make a decision whether to..." or, to elicit a memory from this person with the strong internal reference, "Remember ignoring other's needs during your decision..." -> "Remember checking your own reasons during your decision..." -> "Remember making a decision whether to..." I ask you to supply this example so you can inform me about meta-programs.  I don't actually make statements like I listed above with any knowledge of my communication partner's meta-programs.  So if seeing the above orderings of elicitations makes you think of your own example sequencing of elicitations, please provide me that example sequence of elicitations.   If possible, describe the communication conditions that would lead you to select one elicitation in your example sequence over any other elicitation in that sequence.  I'd happily tell someone to remember making a decision.  I might ask someone to remember ignoring other's needs during his past decision, assuming he had stated that he had ignored other peoples needs, and assuming that I wanted to find out more about whose needs he ignored and how he ignored them. -nj