Ryan I originally said, "What would be a brilliant contribution would be the development of a syntax of each of these systems: one for the visual non-verbal f2 mappings and one for the kinesthetic, non-verbal f2 mappings." Here's further elaboration - any system that contains a syntactic component will demonstrate certain characteristics. I take language as the system with a syntactic component par excellence. The contribution of the syntactic component is to contribute structure. That structure itself has consequences - the classic pair: 1. The parents watched the adolescent. 2. The adolescent watched the parents. Two sentence composed of precisely the same words, meaning entirely different things. Since they mean entirely different things, how is a linguist to capture and characterize the difference? Or more dramatically, I challenge you to point to the difference (this is actually a nonsensical request - but it makes the point clear) - the difference, of course, is in the sequence - the contribution of the syntax for this system. There are further characteristics to be noted - not all sequences of words in natural language represent a well-formed sentence - this sequence in reverse order, for example. Thus, one of the principle and fundamental tasks of a syntacian is to pattern the system and capture the patterning in a formal rule system that generates all and only the well-formed sentences. Note that there are more sequences that are ill-formed than well-formed. Careful here as both sets - the set of well-formed and the set of ill-formed sequences in any natural language are infinite sets - thus, technically of the same cardinality). This is possible as in infinite sets a infinite set can have the same cardinality as one of its proper subsets). This can be appreciated by taking any particular set of words (thus arbitrarily constituting a finite set) and noting how many sequences arbitrarily strung together constitute well-formed sentences and how many, ill-formed. Application to visual and kinesthetic f2 mapping: here we get speculative. It is my strong impression when playing/working with architects, mathematicians... in the visual realm and with athletes, actors, mimes... in the kinesthetic realm that out of the set of all possible the sequences of images (with the visual group) and out of the set of all possible sequences of movements with the second group, only a very small portion of that range is exercised or I suggest, are well-formed. You have the eyes and hands to appreciate this from your Feldenkrais - one of the things that most attracted me to Moishe's work is the unswavering commitment to optimizing physical movement and functioning relative to the client's own body and its possibilities - not some norm or ideal. Thus, given a relatively mature human body, there are movements that are well-formed and movements that are ill-formed. Watch Woods hit a driver or Jordan fire off a jump shot or your favorite dancer... You don't even have to have much direct experience to appreciate that their movements are more optimized (relative to their body) than the "same" movements carried out by other players. Similarly in the visual realm, there are architects and mathematicians who sequences of images consistently result in consequences (designs and proofs) that are superior to the consequences achieved by other practitioners of the "same" professions. If this is adequnate, cool! If not, present some focused questions - remember, like you, I am making this up as we go along - I have decades of experience participating and to date, little explicit knowledge of my own experience. My practical suggestions would be to isolate certain phenomena/distinctions in language (the best investigated of our representational systems) such as: well-formedness versus ill-formedness ambiguity (not vagueness which is an entirely different matter) scope embedding of clauses ... and seek their counterparts in the two non-verbal systems under discussion here (visual and kinethetics). An alternative strategy is to work with (in your case, you are the source - your Feldenkrais experiences) the best and either model (ala Whispering) or describe (NOT interpret) sequences offered by best and sequences offered by the "average", searching for differences. This would (I am predicting) lead to a basic taxomony -always a prerequisite for further exploration (as a set of filters - with their attendant benefits and limitations). I hear the grumblings and mutterings of our auditory companions - the musicians, the composers... who are correctly critiquing us for failing to point out that the same methodology can be applied to f2 auditory non-verbal productions. Indeed, one clever strategy could be to start with music and composition and accept the common position that certain sound sequences evoke certain kinesthetics (often call emotions) and attempt to actually experiment to correlate these two. Parallel to what I called the classic pair of sentences at the top of this posting, two sequences of chords or even notes presented in a different order will evoke different experiences, again parallel to the classic pair of sentences. I hope that you appreciate the enormity of the enterprise - as well as the astonishing contribution it would represent. Once a taxomoy (a vocabulary) emerged from such studies (here I am referring to all three sets of f2 non-verbal systems - auditory, kinesthetic and visual) it would be possible to capture precisely the differences that make the difference between the top and "average" performers in the fields mentioned. But the real contribution would be that once the syntax is revealed,it would possible to generate sequences possibly never experienced by our species that would yield consequences we can only at the point historically guess badly at. All the best, John