OK Gentlemen, So much interesting information that I am not sure where to begin.... John - thanks for mentioning Patterns II - I haven't been there in a while. Good to be back! In response to my quote: "Occasionally, I will push my foot into the floor. I am not directly perceiving my foot am I? Any sensation, any feeling, that I have of my foot, no matter how direct it may seem, is simply news of a difference. The sensation itself is a transform of an event, not the event itself. The feelings I perceive of my foot are First Access, yes?" You wrote: "Please note that this focus (on the foot) has the usual cost - it requires most of your 7 + or - chunks of consciousness to appreciate the transforms of the differences that correspond to the intricacies of how your body is responding to the difference between your foot and the floor. One cost, for example, is your failure (consciously) to note the transforms of the differences that correspond to the contraction of the abdominals as you rock or those of the neck muscles stabilizing your head during the rocking motion or those of the automatic tracking of your eyes maintaing an apparent fix on the horizon as you rock..." As in the learning of any complex skill, the chunks change through time. Initially, consciously tracking the foot might be a challenge, however with training, tracking foot, leg, spine, and shoulder both individually  (sequential and/or individual chunks) or all at once (creating a new chunk) is possible. I will assume that you (more or less) would agree. Robin you wrote: "As soon as you say, "I feel my foot" you have created a boundary between yourself and your foot which does not exist." If you are making the point that language can get in the way of direct perception I agree with you. And yes, "my foot" is pretty much a fiction. Those are words being used to partition experience. I think they can be useful partitions at times.  However, please note that I do not in any way shape or form need words to perceive my foot. I am using the words "my foot" in the context of describing (after the fact) an experience. I can experience much of myself without language. Lay down and try it. It's a great deal of fun. Of course, you have done it before as a child. Young children don't have language but they have all kinds of direct experience of themselves and the world. Robin, in response to some of my quotes and musings you gave a vignette; "We create a map but fail to include the mapmaker So we step back (to 3rd position!) and from that point of view, we make a map of the map and the map maker. Then we realise we have created another map maker so we take a step back ... and so on ad infinitum." John pointed us to a passage in Turtles all the Way Down (p105) that make a similar point. BUT - Now I am starting to have doubts. I agree that the class of experiences noted above do in fact "exist" or at least are more or less useful descriptions of a process. However, the process seems to assume dissociation, does it not? What if your goal was not to create a map of the world but to create a map of the mapmaker? I am speaking of embodied feeling and sensation. Over the last ten years, I have spent literally hundreds of hours lying down on the floor doing developmental movement (Feldenkrais) and taking "scans" of myself - noting my muscle tensions/relaxations, posture, breathing, sensing individual bones, vertebrae, muscles (etc). In a certain sense, I am creating a map but it is an embodied real-time map of as much as I can sense of myself at a particular point in time. Complete? No, but it is as 1st person as I can be and relatively associated. As near as I can tell the recursive paradox disappears in the situation. I'm not clear what I am asking here or if I am asking anything at all. Perhaps I'm just pointing to different aspects of experience. Comments? Ryan