Hello greedy Thomas.  I thoroughly enjoyed reading your post, and while it was clearly, in fact, it was impossibly NOT directed to me, I would like to say something in response.  As John and Carmen undoubtably understand (I'm very close to opening the book) NLP has many growing points.  These areas of potential growth are, many of them, also serious challenges.  They challenge the individual who wishes to rethink habitual assumption that are quietly slipped into unconsidered perceptual filters.  When NLP introduced its listeners to Korzybski's "the map is not the territory", it ushered in a thought-model which was beautifully congruent with many of its actions, but which also contained some pretty deep filtering systems. No doubt that many of these filters were ones that Bandler and Grinder consciously accepted, knowing the limitations inherent in such models- they were always irritatingly/humorously clear that their interest was usefulness, not truth.  But when you get to a certain level of patterning 'usefulness' and 'truth' begin to occupy surprisingly similar domains- they eventually (if the participant has the perceptual capacity) merge and allow the 'viewer' to see that the distance that is usually between them is a function not of any primary reality, but of a simply and highly inveterate internal state which is so ubiquitous that it is hardly recognized in our sciences.  Excuse my sloppy digression.  I wish simply to just way this: I am excited about John and Carmen's new book because I think it may announce a new willingness in the field to take up question about NLP's growth, remembering that growth isn't always pretty, easy or reasonable.  I believe that if NLP is going to take up its potential directions it will only do so to the degree that those people who participate in its articulations (me and you and the others)are willing to enter into very specific personal knowledge-dramas surrounding some of these key distinctions; it's not enough to come up with keen intellectual patternings that differentiate the new from the old (this, I'm certain, John and Carmen not only agree with but apply).  These transformations always begin in the individual knowledge-dramas that contain the seeds. So far NLP has tied itself to a fairly simple linguistic usage of the concept "unconscious".  It has been useful to an extent, but I feel very strongly that the level of modeling that NLP needs to begin exploring will have to begin rexamining the limitations of this filter/term.  When a word starts to mean everything it begins meaning nothing.  I ramble, I'm tired.  If you have any interest in discussing these issues, I would enjoy to do so- either in this format or through our personal emails.  Thanks for stimulating my unclarity and I apologies for dumping it on you in its original state.  Hopefully, I will have an opportunity to shed some light on what I've just said.  Goodnight! KR