Ryan, Excellent. Have you read Douglas Harding 'On Having No Head'? You write as if you have. William James, is generally acknowledged as America’s first modern psychologist writes in a dated style but his concepts could be interpreted as those of today’s quantum psychology: “Let him begin with a perceptual experience, the 'presentation,' so called, of a physical object, his actual field of vision, the room he sits in, with the book he is reading as its centre; and let him for the present treat this complex object in the commonsense way as being 'really' what it seems to be, namely, a collection of physical things cut out from an environing world of other physical things with which these physical things have actual or potential relations. Now at the same time it is just those self-same things which his mind, as we say, perceives; and the whole philosophy of perception from Democritus's time downwards has been just one long wrangle over the paradox that what is evidently one reality should be in two places at once, both in outer space and in a person's mind. 'Representative' theories of perception avoid the logical paradox, but on the other hand they violate the reader's sense of life, which knows no intervening mental image but seems to see the room and the book immediately just as they physically exist. The puzzle of how the one identical room can be in two places is at bottom just the puzzle of how one identical point can be on two lines. It can, if it be situated at their intersection; and similarly, if the 'pure experience' of the room were a place of intersection of two processes, which connected it with different groups of associates respectively, it could be counted twice over, as belonging to either group, and spoken of loosely as existing in two places, although it would remain all the time a numerically single thing.” So James realizes that subject and object are representative of a greater Self, or System. I agree that in WITW the authors may be interpreted as writing as if there is something ‘out there’ i.e. beyond the skin, waiting to be discovered by scientists, perhaps using instrumentation, but clearly even using instrumentation the instrument only serves as a modifier/amplifier/adjunct of F1 transforms, (according to the New Code Model). In other threads John Grinder wrote that Carmen and he have never claimed that there is ‘nothing’ out there in an ‘independent’ world. He also has agreed with the view that all nouns are nominalizations, i.e. Objectified Processes. Punctuating then from process, rather than ‘objective reality’ it seems more sensible to accept ourselves as recipients of information from greater systems, (supra-systems) at F2, and train ourselves to respond to this information with elegance, poise and precision. In this context the self/object distinction is irrelevant, if time-consuming and vexatious. Stephen Reference: William James. (1912)"Does Consciousness Exist?", Chapter 1 in Essays in Radical Empiricism. New York: Longman, Green and Co 1-38