John or Carmen, I am continuing to enjoy Whispering... Thanks again for this well-structured piece and for being available to answer our questions. I am on my third read and continue to appreciate the tight internal consistency with which it is written. Really cool! (Technical term) Now for my question: Do the partitions of presenting issues for clients that you identify as appropriate for 1st and 2nd order changes correspond to the concept of simultaneous and sequential incongruities respectively? I note that there is no intensive definition of 1st order issues in whispering so they can't be identified directly. However, in looking at the examples you provide for 2nd order change contexts, this would appear to be the case (the simultaneous/sequential distinction I suggest here.) If this is not the case, could you provide a bit of background as to how you developed these distinctions (1st and 2nd order change) and why these names? Do they relate to Bateson? (I am thinking about context markers being related to sequential incongruities) I would appreciate any comments you think might be relevant here. Thanks again, Todd Sloane