I have decided to start new thread for this topic, as I agree with Steven Murrish that the original question to John G  re  New Code and collaboration was a  loaded question. Charlie wrote: “Given the information you presented, it is impossible answer that question without hallucinating my own assumptions into it. The reason is that your "pattern" does not consist of a well formed logical level hierarchy. A logical level hierarchy cannot contain "iconic" sorting. It must be based on "inheritability" Yes Charlie, I appreciate the hierarchy I described in the previous thread did not the formal criteria for a hierarchy of logical levels as described in by Whispering by Carmen and John.( I stated at the end of the post). The term higher logical level is used frequently in NLP and features a lot I this forum. This presents an interesting question - which is how the term higher logical level fit (or not fit) in other types of hierarchies. John and Carmen describe two types of hierarchies in Whispering 1. Logical Levels; artificial partitions as result of linguistic transforms, and the resultant artificial sets which are hierarchal orderings determined by scope, constriction and inheritability. The example used in Whispering is an adult  sorting a child’s toys will use artificial partitions as result of linguistic transforms  to sort the toys i.e. price, manufacturer, toys that the child no longer plays with. These sets have little or nothing to do with the child’s perceptual experience. Another example used in Whispering is maritime vessels, boats, yachts presented in a hierarchy fitting the criteria for logical levels i.e scope, constriction and inheritability.  The counter example is when you move to nuts and bolts of the yacht it fails on scope, inheritability and constriction, meaning there are more bolts than yachts, and what’s more a bolt does not float in water. 2. Iconic Hierarchies: The description in the book is one of child sorting out toys using natural classifications which are confined to distinctions in FA i.e. size colour, shape thus operating on whole to parts basi. The example of a yacht and the bolts in the yacht as lower set is an another example of iconic, if your looking at boat you have the in the parts whole information at FA, you see the bolt as part of the yacht. Now while the hierarchy I described in the last post included whole to parts portions, I propose all the  partitions in the hierarchy I presented  are artificial ones, i.e. the product of linguistic transforms and not iconic in the sense of natural classifications of FA as described in the paragraph above. Re; the question about something being of a higher logical level in non logical levels hierarchies.  As an example, if we take the CEO of a company she would be deemed to operate at a higher logical level than the sales people, but this statement fails the logical criteria documented in Whispering and outlined in this post. The company hierarchy does not meet logical levels criteria as there are more sales people than CEO.  The CEO and her departments with their hierarchies also cannot be described as whole to parts as sales people are not part of the CEO, but perhaps part of her brief. Her as CEO brief includes the sales peoples performance, so maybe we just say  say as anyone else would in the corporate world she (the CEO) is operating at a higher level. (We are still dealing with artificial partitions) The hierarchy I presented in my post, which mixed logical levels sorting and whole to parts sorting was to demonstrate a point about competition and collaboration.  Below is the part the  hierarchy that does fit logical levels criteria, as requested by Charlie Set of sales teams in UK for company _________ Set of sales teams in the North Team X The pattern that emerged for me (based on my own assumptions)is present in the hierarchy below and the hierarchy in the original post I made.    BTW, on a collaborative note, Charlie your post made me think a lot about logical levels, logical types and hierarchal sorting Regards Michael