-=More Fully Exploring the Utilization of Perceptual Positions in Modelling Human Excellence=- Successful modelling of excellence of our human species relies on the core ability to explicitly chunk as many forms of perception as possible in the modeller of the modelled. In order to establish a well-formed outcome, we must start with what chunk or piece of behavior we are stalking in another's functioning. Then reverse engineer the pieces that we suspect might combine to achieve that outcome. When we don't reach the outcome we want with those utilized suspicions, we have the acuity to change the suspicion until we do achieve the result. Now, the operating presupposition is that we have the labels or identifiers to chunk that excellence we have found in another, thereby being able to transmit the 'code' which achieves the well-formed outcome. Previous to NLP, those codings were spread throughout other schools of psychology but never cross-pollinated into a successful central codings process. It would seem that since the development of NLP, many NLP 'theologies' took root as each developers/authors/thinker's map influenced the f1/f2 transform of the developing NLP pedagogy. Even so, we are still left with the common thread of NLP - modelling excellence - and therein, labeling chunks of perception. What I am most interested in - which seems to be a hot topic - is the role of perceptual positions in the modelling process. For example, isn't 2PP actually responsible explicitly for reflexivity in consciousness. Or, which representational system(s) is responsible for 2PP or 3PP? Can we really have 3PP without a visual disassociation involved? What are your thought John or Carmen? Deepest gratitude (2PP or 3PP), Gene