Inner Calm, You write: "After all; The world isn't FLAT, is it?" And I have to reply once more it depends how and where you look. From sea level, the world seems flat. Using the instruments of geometry, (as did the ancient Greeks apparently), one can measure its circumference and thus 'prove' that it's round. Using the 'instrument of a space shuttle' one can perceive it to be round. One might speculate that using the instrument of the 'United Confederation of Planets Star Ship Enterprise' one might travel far enough from the world for it to appear as a speck of darkness within a swirling galaxy of light. For example, a very respected scientist wrote recently: "If you look at a hair under a magnifying glass you can see it has thickness, but to the naked eye it appears just like a line with length but no other dimension. Space-time may be similar on human, atomic, or even nuclear physics length scales; it may appear four dimensional and nearly flat. On the other hand if we probe to very short distances using extremely high energy particles we should see that space-time was ten or even eleven-dimensional." (Hawking, 2001). So, using the instrument of a high energy particle accelerator space-time may be seen to be ten or even eleven dimensional, and therefore neither round, nor flat. Carmen and John refer to this phenomena in WITW: "Disciplines such as physics, chemistry, physiology  . . . represent a systematic exploration of the set of mappings between the world and a special set of mental maps known as theories. . . . Typically such activity begins with observations among the elements in the set defined by the product of the neurological transforms - FA. As the instrumental and measurement operations offer such scientists a second DESCRIPTION of the world." (WITW p 39). (Caps mine in lieu of italics due to the formatting limitations of this bulletin board, not to be taken as Internet impoliteness). Or, perhaps you will indulge me as I can come at the ‘round earth assertion’ another way? “A baby, reaching out to grab a rattle or a mobile hanging above the crib, is being creative.   The infant learns from such experiences that there are internal and external worlds that s/he can influence. But what is it that moves?   Who reaches out?   What is the inspiration that leads to such creative impulses?   Quite simply life has a desire to witness itself in many forms, and, as agents of life, each of us will thrive if we help with this task.  (Bray, 2001) The case of Captain Grinder: “I leveraged a transfer to the 10th Special Forces Group in Bad Toeiz Germany – and lived in the beautiful Alpine village of Lenggries, pursuing activities that can best be described as the all-American boy’s adventure fantasies.” (WITW p. 123) “. . . in the early phases of these experiences I was struggling to master some of the fundamental patterns of these languages. On occasions I even worked hard to present myself as something I demonstrably was not, namely competent in the local language and on occasion as a European” (WITW p. 144) The question arises: When Captain Grinder was ordered to present ‘himself’ as ‘a European’, what was ‘it’ that was presenting, and what happened to Captain Grinder during the period of the presentation? The Case of Inner Calm As you sit at the terminal reading this nonsense a great many things may be occurring in the background reminding you of another identity. Walls, spaces, sounds and perhaps even conversations either by telephone or face-to-face. In such experiences no doubt you hold a different identity to that of ‘Inner Calm’. When someone knocks at the door and addresses you by name, I doubt that it is for ‘Inner Calm’ that they address themselves? Yet most on this board only know you as Inner Calm. So are you two people like the above-mentioned Captain Grinder, or are you a continuity of consciousness that may portray at least two identities. Your day-to-day one, and Inner Calm the Internet Zen Master whose concise questions are like koans drawing such detail from my essential self? The Case of the Felled Tree In the 19th Century Bishop Berkeley suggested that when a tree falls and no one is around to witness the event, it is perceived in the ‘Mind of God’. This has been summed up poetically in the following limerick: There was a young man who said, "God, Must think it exceedingly odd If he finds that this tree Continues to be When there's no one about in the Quad." REPLY: "Dear Sir: Your astonishment's odd: I am always about in the Quad. And that's why the tree Continues to be, Since observed by, Yours faithfully, God." (Inernet Source: http://www.mindspring.com/~boba4/TreeFall.htm) But, as I recall from his 1988 presentation of ‘Prerequisites of Personal Genius’, when John Grinder uses the example of a tree falling he sometimes uses this example: The man cut down the tree Which then using the logic of transformational grammar may be deconstructed to: The man – using the instrument of an axe – cut down the tree. However, if we start from Berkeley’s position might we not simply write: The tree fell Which perhaps may be, (note the hesitant sleight of mouth), deconstructed to: The mind of God – using the instrument of man, who in turn used the instrument of an axe – cut down the tree The Case of Bateson’s Buzzer In a recent training for aspiring family therapists I set as one option in a series of homework assignments the task of constructing an electric buzzer, and discussing various questions. One question was: “If you believe that the buzzer has a controlling element, what is it, and give reasons for your answer?” To which a number of people responded: ‘The finger is the controlling element in the buzzer, the buzzer is a mechanical system that is a holon within the human activity system, human/buzzer, which in turn is a subsystem of a larger (supra-system). Or words to that effect :-))) So to sum up the question of whether or not the world is flat seems to be one of instrumentation, and space/time co-ordination, but not fact. However since: “Human beings live in the REAL WORLD. WE do not, however operate directly or immediately on that world, but rather we operate with a map or series of maps that we use to guide our behaviour.” (Bandler and Grinder p 179). (Caps mine in lieu of italics due to the formatting limitations of this bulletin board, not to be taken as Internet impoliteness). Whilst we must accept that the real world may not be as concrete as we might wish, in the same way that our identities sometimes change, to all intents and purposes it can be relied upon to operate in uniform ways, when standardised formulae are applied to isolated components. At higher levels of complexity, of course the variables become more difficult to isolate and hence accurate prediction becomes less accessible. But, for practical purposes we may conclude that although the world may be quite a different shape from how we represent it in three dimensions. As I stand upon it today, it is undoubtedly flat ;-))) Thank’s again for such a wonderful challenge. Please keep them coming. Stephen  Bandler, R. and Grinder, J. (1975) The Structure of Magic. Palo Alto: Science and Behavior Books Bostic, C. St Claire; and Grinder J. (2001) Whispering in The Wind. Scotts Valley: J. & C. Enterprises. Bray, S. (2001) A Brief Guide To Creativity. In Executive Excellence, (Turkish version), also Nurturing Potential (2002) http://www.conts.com/Creativityguide.htm Hawking, S. (2001) The Universe in a Nutshell. London Bantam Press