Michael and Ulic, Thank you for your reply. *Michael In your post, you state... "With whom are you second positioning, in your example above? The example to which you are referring is one derived from an earlier exchange between you and Ulic focusing on "happy about your confusion" as an example of a Meta-State (MS) by Ulic. My explanation of a MS was that it was only a state you experience while in 2PP to your own 1PP. (I would now include 3PP as well if it included states within 1PP and 2PP). To illustrate, if you (Mike) are confused then become self-aware of that internal state of confusion, and in response become happy about your confusion, Ulic would say that you are experiencing a MS of happiness about confusion. However, to extend the example and consequentially enrich the map of our discussion, you (Mike) could take a 3PP (such as curiousity) to your 1PP confusion, 2PP happiness. The emotion you experience in 3PP, by Ulic's definition I believe, would be a MS to both the 1PP and 2PP states. Thus, a MS would exist in both positions. My aim in this discussion is to clarify where those many MS might fit into the codification state of the modelling process. My proposal is that if we are going to call all states existing outside of 1PP in any particular moment as a MS, then we would do well to indicate within which perceptual position the MS is occurring in order to track the modelling process. Otherwise, we move away from the recursiveness of explicit coding of the behavior and find ourselves exploring possible gestalts ad nauseum with no end in sight. Further, if beliefs, etc. occur within a context of a state, then we are going to be very busy modelling the most simple behavior if part of our coding is to make explicit higher logical levels within the interaction. -Logical Levels- I am in disagreement that the MS *alone* is at a higher logical level to a primary state with one exception. If that MS was one which was occurring within the 3PP (containing both 1PP and 2PP), then the 3rd Perceptual Position Meta State would operate at a higher logical level than the first and second perceptual position states. However, that higher logical level would not be the result of the operating MS itself, but the result of it occuring within the 3rd perceptual position which we all agree is at a higher logical level. Further, as I have shared with M.H. in earlier emails and while editing his "Games Slim People Play", I have contended that a MS is a mere disassociated perception (V or A or K) of an emotional state a person may be experiencing. It does not, in my opinion, make it a higher logical level per se just because of that disassociation. *Ulic In your post, you state... "Your use of the term 2nd position is not the same as my usage nor the one I believe is generally accepted in the NLP community." Generally accepted by whom in the NLP community? How do you specifically use 2nd perceptual position? And, in relation to what? You state... "...Have you ever considered the consequences of trying to convince *someone* that *something* they have learned, consisistenly apply[,] and find tremendously valuable does not exist?" (emphasis added) Who specifically? And, what specifically? If you are the someone and a MS is the something that is your answer, then the consequences I have considered and planned for are for an exchange such as this one. One which stays on topic, explores assumptions, vague language, uncovers presuppositions and challenges your map. If you find labelling a part of your experience as a MS useful, then my applause. However, to share and connect with others to communicate, it might be useful to find a common understanding or labelling whether your initial one is right or wrong. Further, just because you find another label for your experience then does that *mean* or do you *believe* that your utilization of such a new label makes the entire operation use-less. Might you be jumping to a generalization and deleting much too much? That is for you decide... Good luck to all. I am completely enjoying this exchange. Sincerely, Gene