Sarah, This is a great thread you started. Thanks. I would like to agknowledge what you are tracking here... I believe it will have great value for you, whatever it is. :-) I have a comment about the paradox you identify (systems theory denies and incorporates C->E) and then a question... Classical (pre-quantum/pre-relativity) physics would define cause-effect in a strictly linear way. i.e. as a "chain" of events in time. It would also be limited on the physical properties that it would measure to those of it's time period in history. This paradigm is the foundation (in phyical science) upon which Freudian and behaviorist psychological models are based. It is precisely the limitations of this view that give rise to systemic models! These models are in fact developed in response to "news of difference" from the world. In other words, the measurable phenomena that mismatch a strictly classical cause-effect theory. However, the paradox of C->E is eliminated within the systems model if you redefine cause effect as something that is not time dependent. Essentially, this would mean that causes and effects can be simultaneous and also the effects can preceed causes. In a sense (and this is my map) this is what the term inter-connectedness means in systems theory. Interconnectedness agknowledges a relationship but does not limit itself to a classical cause-effect one. This concept has it's roots in field theory which, one could say, is the foundation (in the physical sciences) for systems theory in the social sciences. Combine this redefine in the physical realm, with the addition of an attempt to apply it to cybernetic systems and the "billiard ball" thinking of classical physics becomes almost laughable (except when it is useful) I am not sure if this is helpful to you, but I am sure it relates to your latest post. Let me know. I am also with another group member (sorry, name escapes me) in asking you to clarify what you mean by non-locality? I am thinking that you are probably refering to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle or Einstein's "Spooky Effects at a Distance", but I don't know, perhaps something else. I am asking simply for clarification as the two possibilities I mention are both related to redefining classical definitions of cause-effect. Now that I bring them up however, if you aren't familiar with them and would like some links, let me know. Spooky effects at a distance in particular would probably provide some clues in your tracking of the Dilts' phenomenon you alluded to. bye for now, Todd Sloane