I've had some of the same problems trying to figure out Dilt's neurological-hierarchy. I tend to think of these less as 'logical levels' and closer akin to 'logical types'. But since i'm not fully sure that my notion of 'logical types' is identical to JG's, i'll say that my notion of logical types closely aligns with what i think about 'categories'. Let me analogize this 'heterarchy' idea with a basketball team. Each node/level/player on a basketball team has a specific role in the behavior of the overall team. The point-guard dribbles, the center competes for the tip-off and stays near the basket, some teams have 3-point specialists etc. In the proposed heterarchy of Dilt's levels, all factors (identity, environment, etc) do play a role in the game, but at different times and for different reasons. In the metaphor of the game, a person's role is dictated by their role, the plans of the coach, time on the clock, the play of the other team and other factors. In the overall behavior of a person, each level/node/category takes precedence and operates according to the context. For example, if in the middle of a sinking boat a person cries out "but i'm georgeous, i don't want to die" (identity) most people would probably think that was situationally inappropriate. However, if the person looks for the presence and location of life-saving devices such as rafts, flares, radios and rations then we'd think that was situationally appropriate. Within this context (environment of a sinking ship) the next lower level in the hierarchy dictated by relevance may be the person's ability to secure (flares, rations, radio), unharness(life raft and/or boat) and use various items. In this context we could say that 'spirituality' or 'identity' would be situationally irrelevant and 'environment' and 'ability' would be situationally relevant. In contrast, a person recieving recognition for years of hard work (a pulitzer for example) would probably have thoughts revolving around all of these levels to some degree. 'Identity' may be relevant in terms of the right person receiving the award ("show your I.D. to the judges please" and/or avoiding plaigurism (sp?)). Ability would be relevant in terms of the criteria of judging a person's work but that ability wouldn't be tested on the spot ("please write an on-the-spot 300-word article to secure your pulitzer" -contrary to the story in Finding Forrester). Environment, another 'multi-ordinal' word (word with multiple meanings/associations) would take into account the manners appropriate for a black-tie affair and prior to that the research on the situation that informs the content of the article that won the Pulitzer. Returning to the basketball metaphor, depending on the situation in the game, the skills and specialties of each role will be called upon a different times.  . .everyone doens't need to be in the fastbreak, etc. The formation of the players we could deem analogous to the 'levels' of Dilt's hierarchy; the possesser/controller of the ball could be talked of as the highest level of the sitationally-dictated hierarchy where each corresponding lower level would present the players closest to the ball etc. I'm not suggesting that we go play basketball instead of doing therapy. Rather i'm suggesting that basketball can be one example/metaphor that helps us understand the situationally-relevant and situationally-defining shifting hierarchies present within a heterarchy (if i understand heterarchy correctly, or i'll have to come up with another name, perhaps Bob or Jerry or something:). As for the 'levels' themselves, i said that i think of them as categories. When is a table not a table? When you sit on it (then it's a chair). Though the players on a basketball team are all human (excepting air bud and the super-human MJ) they operate differently in the game, i.e. their behavior is dictated by a confluence of their size, speed, shooting ability and position/role/category. These positions/roles/categories (center, shooting guard, etc) are used to define what behaviors and actions a player focuses on and specializes in during the course of the game (shooting, dribbling, sets, picks, etc.). In many instances a person in any position may perform any of these actions outside of the scope/sphere of their role. In these cases we'd say that there is a flexibility in behavior from each role/position/category as there are no specific rules against any player performing such actions. Mapping over to the 'logical types'/'categories' of Dilt's 'levels', we could say that these different 'levels' behave more like categories. Each category can be defined as a cluster of thoughts that can be rated as relevant/under the scope of each category (ex: identity, ability, etc.) with any kind of thought or action able to reside non-exclusively in multiple categories. I also am asserting that no specific 'level'/'category' maintains supremacy in the hierarchy. Rather the situationally-defined hierarchy is constructed according to the relevance each 'level'/'category' has to the situation. Further, this hierarchical ordering need not be defined as influencing the lower levels, but more simply as more relevant to the situation. The hierarchy(ies) can be formed and re-formed according to the development of the same situation or when a new situation arises. Hopefully these last two paragraphs reads true to my basketball metaphor. And of course this is only a beginning. I do think i'm starting to scratch where it itches. Amilcar