I want to thank you again for the explict nature of your response, Dr Grinder.  As far as I can tell, the alternative to cause-effect thinking is some form of thinking which recognizes the whole as an active organizing agent, that the 'whole' (yes, nominalization- I'll get to that)is more than the sum of its parts, that the whole, in fact, is antecedent to the parts to a significant degree.  Dr. Grinder, I have always been struck by something in the systems thinking liturature that I take to be somewhat of a contradiction.  So many people claim to be thinking 'systemically', and while on the level of content they indeed are avoiding simple cause-effect logic, the entire meta-frame is soaked in the assumption that 'this' is causing 'that' which causes 'this' which causes 'that'.  And yes, they point out helpful notions like feedback and homeostasis, but the actual way in which they are thinking still relies upon the mechanics of seeing with cause-effect filters.  I applaud and deeply value the help which 'systems' thinking has contributed to so many different realms, personal and social, but I wonder if you could comment on this observation that there is a bit of a discrpency between the claim of avoiding cause-effect thinking and actual mode of thought which they are utilizing as they claim this. I gather that phenomena in physics such as non-locality helps to demonstrate the degree to which 'systems thinking' is qualitativly not all that useful on understanding phenomena that violates some of the most core assumptions about the nature of 'things'.  Non-locality begs for a new understanding of 'wholeness'; one that sees through the assumptions we make about what constitutes 'thingness'.  I know that Robert Dilts has mentioned psychological phenomena which seem to parallel what physicts witness in non-locality.  He has experienced many occasions in which after working with somebody (using 2nd position systemic frames) on an issue that has been deeply neglected for years and years, an issue that played a major role in separating friends or family members, he will find out that the client goes home and recieves contact from another member of the 'infected' system, healing contact- that the person who was not in the therapy room, but who was deeply indentified with and 'resourced', will express that they have gone through some type of prfound reevaluation or whatever.  Not that this happens all the time, but I know that I have experienced this to a degree which suggests I look outside the realm of pure coincidence.  And, this phenomena isn't any more bizzare than what is going on with the research in Non-Locality. Next, it seems to me that our organisims capacity to nominalize is what allows us to live in a world with things; I'm talking FA not F2- nominalization at F2 is what is mostly being discussed as I reckon.  However, the 'cup' I am looking at on my 'desk' is only there as something because I've organized it as such- regardless of what beliefs I form about 'it', 'it' exists in my world because my organism has thingafied a process which I have no access to.  I'm not yet able to articulate my skepticism, but I hope that soon I will be able to express what I don't quite buy about this notion that the 'cup' is separate from the 'actual' process of which it is a nominalization.  I guess I should first asertain if you agree with me that nominalization is happening at the level of FA? I was spouting all of this out so that I could say something about 'choice'.  At this point, I'm not ready to, but I will be soon.  I thank you for your participation in this conversation. Stay Tuned! Sarah