Hello, Dr. Grinder. 1.  You wrote, "Get me the syntax ... The operational would depend on the syntax and the possibilities it permits." I'm not planning on revealing such a syntax.  If you asked me questions about it, I'd have no knowledge to impart to you, because I have no such knowledge, period. I'd like to suggest you research an interesting topic.  The topic I suggest you research is called "Neuro-Ethics", and it relates to the ethics of research work and applications of research work in the study of the brain and human function.  The syntax research you proposed has a direct connection, in its potential applications, to problems of Neuro-Ethics.    You want the syntax because it will enable you and many others to produce generative behavior.  I don't have a problem with your goal, except I don't think it's important to resolve current problems of humanity.  No amount of research and knowledge will cure illnesses that have ready cures.  The sick just have to take the medicine.  The current state of NLP-applications, when properly practiced, provides many tools to help people help themselves.  Those ready tools, when applied with thoroughness, can achieve many wonders for society and humanity as a whole.  What's missing, I think, is marketing for quality NLP.  "How to get quality NLP to the masses?", that's the question. 2.  On page 6 of "Whispering In The Wind", Ms. Bostic St. Clair & you wrote, "...unless the distinctions that we propose (or some equivalent set) are appreciated, accepted and operationalized, the wildfire adventure called NLP (in its core activity, modeling) may smolder and burn out for lack of oxygen.  NLP would then have a quite limited life span on the planet, while the patterns of application as its ashes may be spread on the wind, as minute indistinguishable particles." Your goal of developing a syntax, may come about by other means, if not by NLPer research.  Applications of versions of such a syntax will appear in media, software, big business, medicine, law enforcement, marketing, and education.  New developments in research methods and information technology will help you produce knowledge that will belong to no one in particular.  No researcher who publishes his knowledge has any say in how the ashes of his work scatter.  Applications, implications, intentions, those are what will get burned away, while the data remains to be used and misused.  What makes you think humans will do net good with the data your proposal would produce?  Data is firmly separated from the applications, implications, and intentions of recipients of the data.  It's the recipients of the data who decide how to apply the data.  When the data is knowledge of human function, then the more fundamental the knowledge of human function becomes, the less it will be linked to any particular process or use of that knowledge.  Too many recipients of the knowledge you're interested in will do poor things with it, so there's no value to its products worth their cost in human suffering. Data can reach the farthest corners of the Earth while the intention behind it never makes it there.  Information on the internet is especially vulnerable, and within a decade, the internet should be one boiling cauldron of data soup, possibly including every chunk of your research. Divorcing your communication efforts from your face-to-face interaction with people will dull your ability to apply your triple description model, if you do apply it when you write.  Try typing your name on a piece of paper.  How did it feel, from second position?  The data's not really there, so how can you know.  Now imagine extending that into newsgroups, e-mail, conference calls, virtual reality simulations, chat avatars, software agents, and of course talking machines that really do sound human.  Your perceptual position model will not apply to human decision-making and communicating involving those participants, yet humans will be making decisions while involving computerized participants in the decision-making process.  That is how technologized communication and research will involve you.  Computers WILL aid your modeling efforts, and those of your students.  But those computers will have played no part in your process of unconscious uptake, and you couldn't convince them to.   Your students will have no loyalty to in-person learning, nor to in-person teaching.  You wait and see.  An insistence on it for quality of learning's sake won't bend any ears - you'll just lose students.  And you'll not have emphasized that it mattered for the sake of itself, anyway, right now I think you assume it does when it does, and the web's for convenience, and value-added email machine.  Communicating with virtually there people is truly lonely, and rots my communication efforts.  Perhaps you'll notice the same at some point.  You think that this syntax is producable, so I'm ranting at you.  I know you've encountered a little trouble with NLP, it's turbulent adolescence must have included some misapplications of NLP knowledge. What will the data of this syntax do that you'd rather it did than the products of you touring? My next questions would be: - "How will you have the time to be both a teacher and a researcher?" - "Quantum-Leap's work has been private for ... ever?  So now that you're public, is teaching your goal, or do you want to encourage research?" My guess is that the products of this syntax research will be used to enhance software programs, before anything else.  Whatever applications you imagine for it may never come about.  They'll certainly turn to ashes within a few years of their introduction to society in the form of a book, training video, or any other form of media.  Check your competition!  If it's TV's, virtual reality, gigabit-pipe home internet, behavior modification chips, or some predictable applications of your syntax, you'll lose to the competition.  Misapplications of knowledge of human function will hold attention, convince, motivate, teach, everything you might want to do (and Ms. Bostic St. Clair, too) as a teacher and leader of the NLP community. 3.  You wrote, "...generate sequences possibly never experienced by our species that would yield consequences we can only at the point historically guess badly at." Guess historically badly?  I think not.  4.  In post 13/06/2003 18:24:12, you wrote, "Now, unfortunately as you well know, there are vast numbers of the living dead wandering the countryside. These are people who disassociated from 1st years ago and failed to disassociate to a new full kinesthetically grounded state - they're floating - mildly teathered to and feeding on memories of kinesthetic experiences that they call emotions. We could capture this phenomena by using the null value in the phrasing, 'They disassociated from a natural 1st position (to nothing/nowhere).'" New knowledge of human function will generate more of the same, maybe someday fitting you right in with the walking dead.  Thinking about it, I'm more afraid of contributing to that world's development than pleasing you, so no, you won't have me get you your syntax. -nj