In a recent post, Robert stated the following: "Languages commonly applied to science, which frequently of course is contemporary English, must objectify for without an objective reality it is by definition not science." On a portion of which John Grinder commented: “The second meaning associated with "objective" as in your phrase, "...must objectify for without an objective reality it is by definition not science." is nonsense. If you appreciate any significant portion of the epistemology presented in Whispering, then objectivity in this sense dies with truth. The relevant question is how can we know the world and the resounding answer argued for at length in Whispering is only through f1 transforms and until they (f1 filters)are explicated, such definitions of science are absurd, mystifying and serve no useful purpose.” Adopting Karl Popper and Ken Wilber’s definition of science can greatly help us in appreciating scientific efforts that are not “objectified,” and thus dismissed by “objectifiers.” Popper offered that scientific work consists of an injunction, that is, an explicit instruction set that anyone who wishes to experience the results of that procedure may carry out. Ken Wilber furthers the insight by suggesting that this definition is applicable to subjective realities as well. In other words, there is a science of the body (matter), the mind, the soul, and the spirit (I apologize for all these unspecified nominalizations). Anyone can take up any of the injunctions that exist for the body (yoga, aerobics, etc.), the mind (NLPers have produced many in this area), the soul (religious traditions have much to offer), or spirit (Zazen meditation) and experience the results for themselves. Objectivists impose that the results of the scientific method must be available to the naked eye or its extensions, thereby reducing and flattening out the scope of possible experiences. Unfortunately, without engaging in six years of sitting meditation, a physicist will never be able to intelligently discuss, even less argue, with a Zen master about satori. (S)he has not carried out the injunction and thus does not have any results to discuss. I find this definition of science very much congruent with the advice that John Grinder and other experienced NLPers such as Robert Johansson give in many posts here: just do it. If you want to know, just do it. Or as Ken eloquently puts it in his interview for enlightenment magazine, “shut up and look. That's the basic, fundamental instruction for the non-dual schools. It's just shut the fuck up and look.” Which connects to Castaneda, which connects to Bandler, which connects to Grinder, which connects back to everyone out there who’s producing or has produced any interesting piece of knowledge. In addition, it sets NLPmodelling (as John Grinder and Carmen Bostic St Clair define it) in a privileged place as a science of the mind, in that it relies almost exclusively on injunctions without any truth claims whatsoever. It’s basically: do it and find out for yourself. Two people who have experienced rapport will be able to share information about their experience using words that will sound like complete drivel to someone who hasn’t experienced it. I’d venture to say that two people who have had a very similar experience can discuss it using any number of metaphors, analogies, stories, etc. and still corroborate one another. An outsider (third position without first position) will be swimming in yogurt while listening to them. Enjoy! Martin