t, R U kIDinng again? Within WITW the following undefined terms are used: Unconscious; my unconscious; unconscious editing; unconscious internal process; unconscious level; unconscious filtering; unconsciously and probably a few more. On p 211 the authors come close to a definition: "The unconscious is capable of enormously complex and creative acts, when the proper framing and context have been established" And on p 218 they add: "Consciousness with its limitation of 2 + or - chunks of information is ill equipped to make such evaluations". The best I could do within the WITW model was to splice them: 'Unconscious: A process of relevance extending beyond 7 + or - chunks of information capable of enormously complex creative acts, when the proper framing and context have been established' :-))) But this really misses the point! The authors also give two great quotations in WITW. On p 61: "There is no such thing as the Scientific Revolution and this is a book about it" Steven Shaping, The Scientific Revolution. And on p 129: "Journalist: Isodora Duncan, there are a number of interpretations of your recent work. Could you please settle the differences between these competing interpretations? What does it mean? Isodora Duncan . . . listening to the question attentively and pausing for a moment or so in obvious thought . . . If I could say it, I wouldn't have to dance it." ;-)) I guess if we replace the nouns in these two quotations to match the context of your enquiry, and of course leave the relationships between them intact, I guess we might have a more soundly epistemological definition, than my crude attempt above. smokin' Stephen