WHY DID YOU STRUCTURED THE META-STATES MODEL AS YOU DID?

Early in 2022 I presented the Unexpected Extensiveness of the Meta-States Model to the NLP Leadership Summit. After watching the video, Lucas Dirks insightfully wrote about an aspect of Meta- States that struck him as significant: “From a stance of “paradigm” it is also so clear that you chose this perspective of “States” as the core of your paradigm, and you could move on with that to include most of NLP and other psychological areas/fields. This as such interest me. How one perspective, fully elaborated, can build a structure that enables all kinds of practical distinctions.”

The feedback from these comments then led me to wonder about the implied question in Lucas’ comments. “Why frame the Meta-States Model using ‘state?” Why did you not frame it with meta- frames, meta-levels, meta-premises, meta-contexts, meta-meanings, meta-emotions, meta-references, and so on? I certainly could have frames the Meta-States Model in a wide range of ways.