Patrick As Lewis and other have noted, you are making claims that certain things (for example, pure FA states, know-nothing states...) are impossible. You do so without offering anything of substance - you simply refer to "authority", typically Cognitive Scientists. I offer the following observations and comments: 1. statements containing modal operators such as "impossible" as comment about the person making the statement, note the world of possibility. Such a generalization is doubly troubling - the indicate that, indeed, you have as yet to have the class of experiences in question - fine, but more troublingly, you somehow leap from that to the generalization that (since you haven't had that class of experiences, no one has. 2. by making such a statement, you are essentially stating that the descriptions of the events that created NLP (the original modeling) didn't happen. You are telling me that my experience is not my experience - what's the intention behind that? 3. Your consistent focus on appearing legitimate to the "Cognitive Scientists" - for example, arguing that we have to cast our findings (presumably, here you are referring to patterning and the models that contain them) in probabilistic (especially averages and aggregates) terms - presumably, what you take to be the language of these cognitive scientists - is required if NLP is to achieve a legitimacy in the perceptions of the scientific community. Carmen and I took great care to argue for specific reforms that we identify as required to achieve such legitimacy but to corrupt the very discovery processes that created the field - application of averages and aggregates to the study of excellence is precisely what would reduce NLP to simply another quirky analytic method, losing precisely the distinctions that have made it move so rapidly and effectively into the world. 4. Others posting here in this thread have rather patiently and gently invited you to consider, for example, instances of neurological mechanismsm cross cultural instantiations... as possibilities, independent of the material directly presenting in Whispering by Carmen and me. So, may I recommend that for the quality of the exchanges here on this website, that you forego further statements of impossibility, recognize the perfectly acceptable fact that you haven't had these experiences and go out and create them for yourself. You argue from authority and the lack of FA (experience) and such presentation adds nothing of quality to what we are attempting to develop here - they only reveal the limits of your own experience. One additional observation: in another thread you note that Carmen and I call for fully participative dialogue to further the development and refinement of the field - a goal promoted in Whispering. You then accuse me of failing to respond to each and every one of the questions and comments you have posted. You are correct that I will not respond to each and every such posting - I maintain (and I recommend each of the participants do so as well) the choice of responding to whatever intrigues me and if the quality of the postings and the thinking revealed by the postings are below a certain (no doubt, dynamic threshold), I will simply not respond - for example, your refusal to identify what a meta program is and your simultaneous insistence that I offer you the historical roots of these critters is one such example. This is a personal choice that I will always maintain. Now let's see if you can learn anything from this exchange. John PS Since you decided to mention (in another thread) that you wrote me privately, expressing your surprise that I in fact do respond to you publically in this website, perhaps you would care to reveal how it was that you were surprised that I did respond to you.