Hi John, 1) You wrote : "You know, in the time ..., you could have applied any simple re-anchoring format and changed it." Ok, Re-anchoring could treat the symptom AND another would have been to react to the feeling ,IN TIME, by changing the wording (starting with process) until it fits to me. Maybe this would be closer of “being in the zone” (IN TIME), see also my last comments of this posting. 2) You wrote : “All actual states …of high quality” Your explanation of the adaptation of the high state to context is much interesting. To illustrate it; lets take an example from this forum. “Avid Golfer” wrote that "he wants to drive the ball greater distance" and you have suggested of "doing the alphabet game with the address of the ball serving as the context". 2.1 In 6 step reframing the positive intention is obviously available (and sometimes only) at the unconscious level. Driving longer tee shot is a conscious goal. P236 you wrote : “unconscious processes when properly organized and constrained …” I see no constrain in the alphabet game toward longer driving. This means EITHER that the conscious goal must be available to the unconscious when it makes the best available choice OR that a specific game should be designed to included the constrained (A secret of New Code ?) ?. 2.2 The address of the ball is obviously related to different context by a golfer : driving context, medal play competition. Does the know-nothing state vanish at the first time it encounters a relevant context or does it stay alive ? Which would mean that the unconscious got the right and responsibility to select its best available choice more than ONE time (when it encounters the anchor within a (relevant context)). For example : - Driving contest (context 1) => the best choice related to “long drive” - Medal play competition (context 2) => the best choice related to “preparing for the next shot” Some trigger (the address of the ball) in different contexts. To make an analogy with Ericksonian Hypnosis, the game (of the new code) is for me like “Trance elicitation” and the trigger/context is like “Trance utilization” but still with some confusion. 3) You wrote “Let me know if I hit the target” “The meaning of a communication is the response you get” (an NLP world-spread presupposition ?) leads me that my 2 previous formulations was not clear enough. So I will try (with the aim of practicing ) to give a clearer one. After using triple description, it seems to me that we have not the same perceptual frame. I guess that your perceptual frame is something like “Adaptation of the new code with children “, mime (as I have lately commented in my last posting) is a by-product of reading p245 : “my frame is anchoring in general” and more specifically to RAMDOM anchors (previously labelled Naturally). What I have tried to communicate is that the sequence : 1. Being in a powerful state (high performance or whatever K+ or K-) called hereafter state1, 2. Evocation of a context. Must occur RAMDOMLY (previously naturally) a lot a times. Randomly means that state1 is not elicited by an agent of change but rather happens due to a specific context. Then the consciousness of the person is shifted also randomly to another context. For example : 1. Somebody at his office is very very upset by something (state1), 2. The telephone rings, the agent of the travel agency tells him that his airplane tickets for his next mission are available and they keep discussing for a while. That looks like the description of tha application of new code p245 Does it not ? My original concern was : “Does state1(upset) could influence his next mission ?” and I understand from our previous discussions on that topic that answer could be Yes. That why in my last posting a mention the ritual context shifting of MH Erickson as a way to avoid diffusion of states between contexts. Of course, we can use it as an opportunity (when we feel that we or somebody are in a resourceful state) to future pace some contexts. Last comments : - This might seem a trivial understanding after 10 years from my practioner seminar : I bet that my unconscious thought (until not so far ago) that I was not ready to use anchoring in real life world. - Golf was until now my main (99%) unconscious/conscious experimental field. - I realized that my main strategy for “being in the zone” was (until not so far ago) to partition life experiences (Private life/work/Golf competition/NLP contexts) And that I hope that now I have a better one. Which is why I am sensible to the links I make through anchoring or time (in time/thru time/between time) and the way I shift context but that another story (understanding comes from a recent seminar with Chris Hall on language). NLP enables everyday miracles ! All the best