Hi John and Carmen,        Thankyou again for your reply.   At this stage of my personal development, (I have yet to do a masters practitioner),contrary to your P.S. I can assure you I am insistent on very little. This is especially so given I am only up to p159 in your book!! As I understand it I framed my question in the frame of me percieving a problem, (conscious linguistic f2), where I suspected there was not one, (unconscious f2...who knows maybe even FA!!!) The purpose of my posting was to take this fantastic opportunity, to be open to instruction concerning my understanding of your book, and to further gain understanding about an epistemological and neurological problem that has gone unsolved by me for a long time.   Apologies for not making my intention clearer to you both.   On page 28 you say linguistic transforms (f2) map what we call our experience of the world (FA) onto a language structure. I think this is where I got confused. You say in your reply to me "An architect has well developed visually based programs that allow him or her to manipulate visually various views and perspectives without the need to resort to language" Based upon my developing understanding I would take this to mean what such people can do is after experiencing at FA, develop visually based programs independent of any such mapping onto language structures. My assumption would be this is also what you would call an "active operation". If this is correct would it be the case they could operationalize such programs appropriately independent of language and would they be in control of such operations at a conscious level? Concerning split brain procedure. I gleaned the Sperry and Gazzaniga (1967) one from an undergrad psychology text book; "Psychology (The science of mind and behaviour) R.D.Gross(1987)Arnold. To Quote from p392: In a typical experiment(e.g. Sperry and Gazzaniga,1967), the subject sits in front of a screen with their hands free to handle the objects behind the screen but which are obscured from sight by the screen. While fixating on a spot in the middle of the screen, a word (eg key)is flashed onto the left side of the screen for one tenth of a second to ensure the word is only 'seen' by the right hemisphere. If asked to pick out the key from a pile of objects with the left hand (still controlled by the right hemisphere), this can be done quite easily; however the subject is unable to say what word appeared on the screen (since the left hemisphere did not recieve the information from the right as it would in a normal subject). The subject literally does not know why they chose that object. Concerning the implications I drew from my previous understanding: My assumption was if as I had supposed all our experiences at every level of f2 were mediated through language, and even at the most unconscious level we could only engage in active operations by the use of as you call them "blended strategies", then suspension of f2 filters would leave us inert and indeed in a "maelstrom of sensation at FA" I am curious how Erickson managed to influence some events prior to FA, I can only assume through patterns which had nothing to do with language??....But I havn't finished the book yet so maybe the question is premature. I would love to take you up on your suggestion to systematically observe either architects or mathematicians, however postmen do not ofen come accross such opportunities. An interesting problem for NLP? Given it focuses (as opposed to psychology, you say)on excellence, without models of excellence one cannot model excellent patterns.      Thanks again to you both for an excellent,exciting, and inspiring journey,                        Bruce.