Hello again, Here are some more thoughts on this stuff. I am enjoying the discussion... regarding: "On 56 New Code is said to be based in design, though it is still unclear to me how the alphabet game was developed specifically from the parameters discovered in Classic NLP." I think you've got your answer on the alphabet game and I too would encourage you to do a search on the web. The Tabb games were used in many contexts of language and other sensory type "problems" as well. It's rich with possibilities for NLP. I think of new code as pure design in the sense that it answers the question, "What minimal set of variables are necessary to code the differences between excellence and non-excellence." It's like the "pattern that connects (patterns)" to use a metaphor. That's my personal take anyway. You'll have to check with the originators for source material. regarding: "My questions about eye-accessing cues is actually sharpened in light of 55. All of the examples there involve modeling of geniuses, and the classification system seems to leave no room for another type of model. But eye-accessing seems to have come from simply intense observation of common behavior. So my question is whether this constitutes a third type of model." My point would be, how do you define genius? This (eye-patterns and predicates) was based on modeling Self, Other (Grinder and Bandler) and then creating a context for discovering the difference between what works and what doesn't with regard to these distinction. The final set of geniuses being the group that G&B; tasked with using the patterns for "effective vs. ineffective communication" per the story in Whispering. There's your set of geniuses for a common function principle. (Hey, not everyone is Albert Einstein, right.) I guess it depends on how you define genius, but I tend towards the more inclusive view as it gives me more opportunity to learn. regarding: "Your idea of the 6-step reframe as self-modeling is intriguing, but the pattern seems to have simply been handed to Grinder by his unconscious explicitly (on the blackboard) rather than as the result of some sort of modeling process" Two thoughts here. Firstly, why is this not "some sort of modeling process" as you put it, with the genius being self. Wow, imagine if our unconsious "simply handed over" new unique patterns based on the deep assimilation and integration of prior learnings on a regular basis. Whoa, wouldn't that be a bummer! ;-) Second, and to me the really intriguing question is this. What modeling is NOT self-modeling? On a surface level, sure the source is "out there" in the world, but on a deep level... What modeling is not self-modeling? Again, really enjoying the dialogue here. Bye for now, Todd