Ten Years of Meta-Stating

L. Michael Hall, Ph.D.

• With September 2004 marking the ten-year anniversary of the Meta-States model, what has the first ten years of Meta-States accomplished?

• What new insights or emphasis has arisen in recent years around the Meta-States model?

• What have we learned about meta-stating?

• What new models and developments have occurred?

• Where will the model take us in the next decade?

How It Began

It all began in September of 1994 during a presentation on Resilience at the NLP Comprehensive Conference in Denver, Colorado. While working with a participate in the front of the room, interviewing and modeling his strategy for handling “a living hell” that he had been through and had come back from, the idea of meta-states hit me like an Aha! moment. One of us, and to this day, I don’t know if he used the phrase or if I did, but one of us said, “It was like a state meta to that experience, a meta-state...”

That was the Aha! that brought together everything I had been working on around regarding resilience for the past year-and-a-half. The phrase solidified in me the an idea of layered or embedded states. I immediately returned home and constructed the first version of a working model of Meta-States. Within the next few weeks, I wrote a 40 page paper combining all of the connections that I knew from my studies of Bateson and Korzybski. Within a few months, the International Association of NLP Trainers (IANLPT) designated Meta-States as “the most significant contribution to NLP, 1994.”

The richness of the idea of meta-states and the process of meta-stating galvanized my thinking so that within a few months I sketched out the first book. Impatient to get it in print, I published it locally and turned it loose not knowing how it would be received but having a gut feeling that Meta-States would enable us to model the reflexivity and recursiveness of almost every subjective experience.

That discovery governed my next six years as I became involved in constantly teaching, training, researching, and writing about meta-states, reflexivity, “logical levels,” and the psycho-logics of our mind. During that time I discovered and corrected four significant errors which I made in the original model. So by the summer of 2000, I updated and created a revision of the model (Meta-States: Mastering the Higher Levels of your Mind, 2000).

I discovered those first errors from the hundreds of wonderful and challenging questions people posed at trainings and from the scores of articles I wrote in various NLP journals. These questions came mostly from those trained in the model, not from the outside critics. There were a few external critics who offered criticisms, yet they mostly were based on ignorance and so only offered low quality critiques.

It was from those who studied the model, learned it, and began using it who offered the highest quality feedback and challenging questions. And it was these people who helped me to extend and expand the model. Because this is important, I want to comment a bit about it. What I found was that the best feedback seldom concerned the theory as much as what we can and cannot do with the model. Theory, by itself, is just a way of mapping things. In itself, it produces no results. We can theorize and abstract all day and never really know if our mapping is accurate or useful. Results come from a human being using and applying the theory, and if the theory as a model is powerful, then it leads to significant results.1

It is for this reason that I am always using Meta-States as a modeling tool for the things I’m interested in. If there are higher levels in our mind-body-emotion system, then identifying those levels, working with them, and transforming them gives us a process and human technology for effective change and development. Similarly, if we model an expert or some form of excellence, identify the meta-levels and frames, but cannot replicate it in our own lives or those of others, then the modeling won’t amount to much.

That’s why I have been modeling using the Meta-States models which make up the field of Neuro-Semantics (i.e., Frame Games, Mind-Lines, Matrix, Axes of Change) to first experience the expertise or experience that I want to model. I want the results. I want to see if the model can significantly map an experience and if I can use it to navigate that area of human experience myself. This includes selling, personal mastery (accessing personal genius), wealth building, defusing hotheads (anger control; conflict resolution), the games fit and slim people play, love (games great lovers play), training, writing, entrepreneurship, business experts, etc.

Nor am I the only one. Bob Bodenhamer has been modeling the structure of stuttering and fluency and has had tremendous success with people who masterfully learned to stutter and how to transform that experience to give them the choice of accepting non-fluency like the rest of us and becoming increasingly fluent.2 Denis Bridoux has worked with the structure and process of emotional intelligence (E.Q.) with Patrick Merlevede and written a book, Seven Steps to Emotional Intelligence (1999).3 Further, numerous other people including John Burton’s work, States of Equilibrium (2003), have been or are working on extending, expanding, and applying the Meta-States model.4

Nor has the model stopped evolving, growing, and developing in the four years since the second revision of Meta-States (2000). Even to my own surprise, it continues to grow and expand by those who are actually using the model. As I continue to travel and train around the world, excellent feedback questions continue to challenge the model. This is great! While none have identified further errors, they have led to a great many new extensions and expansions. This is so much so that not only am I constantly asked, “What’s new in Meta-States?” “What have you or others discovered lately?”, but I also am asking these questions of Neuro-Semantic trainers and developers.

If you haven’t been to a Meta-States training in the past two or three years, then you are probably not aware of the latest developments or ways that we present and language the meta-stating process. What’s new? What’s different? Here’s a little bit of updating that’s occurred in the past number of years and a little bit about some of the upcoming developments.

From Principle to Neurology

From Meta-States to Neuro-Semantics

Four or five years ago, I began presenting the Wealth Building training (Mastering Your Wealth Matrix). What I discovered in modeling the structure and strategy of self-made millionaires was that I did not need to interview such people (although I did interview six). Why not? Because to do so would be “reinventing the wheel.” There was already thousands of works of such interviews and even twenty-year longitudinal studies about first-generation rich millionaires, and numerous from focus groups on specific subjects, and individual biographical studies of how to succeed in building financial wealth. All of the data, and much more, was already available. What was not present, and what continues to not be present in the literature of that field, is a step-by-step practical action plan and the ability in incorporate the necessary belief and attitude frames, the states and meta-state structures and to translate the strategy into practical action in the real world.

When I went to the literature of the field (a legitimate source of primary data for modeling), the data was there. Yet it was mostly in an unusable form. The data was not sorted out in terms of meta-programs, linguistic distinctions, states, meta-states, or a matrix of frames around wealth, financial intelligence, business sense, entrepreneurship, etc. The data was in the form of principles, “laws,” “rules,” and other abstract forms. There was, and is, little translation into states and meta-states into action steps and processes for how to integrate the knowledge.

That’s when I first came up with the Mind-to-Muscle pattern.5 I felt the need to enable people take the great ideas and principles that they “intellectually know,” but don’t act on or practice at the very moments when they need those principles, and to act on it. That began a study about “installation” processes which led to the book, Make It So! That also led to recognizing that, systemically, we not only feed information back to ourselves at higher levels of the mind, and so layer, level by level belief frames, understanding frames, decision frames, concept frames, principle frames, etc., but that such frames can and do come back down and get into our body.

That’s when I began modeling in more detail the systemic nature of information within our mind-body-emotion system. Obviously, we input information from the outside world and represent the references that we note and pay attention to as we create our internal movie. We hold those representations in mind as our reference frames (frames of reference) and then we reflect upon those internal movie representations to create our meaning frames about them, and we do so layer upon layer to create our matrix of frames. This describes the frame game structure, as well as the matrix model.

In meta-stating ourselves by reflecting on our own thoughts and representations, we feed new information back to ourselves and set layers of frames. Then, we feed those ideas, frames, emotions, etc. forward into our neurology so that they become our states—from which we then emote and behave. This the led to several other people beginning to explore all of the ways that we can create patterns for feeding-forward our great ideas into our bodies so that we create energized neuro-semantic states, states in which our neurology and muscle memory becomes in-formed with those great ideas.

This involved modeling how we all naturally do this. If your “fingers know” a keyboard, or how to tie a shoe lace, if your “arms and hands know” how to drive a car, shift, etc. and can do so automatically, and if your “breathing knows” how to stutter or speak fluently, then you already have sent commands to your nervous system (NLP, “programmed”) so now your body knows how to feel principles and concepts. Feeding concepts forward into our body is the natural process that makes our kind of life neuro-semantic.

In systems terms, we can simplify the process by saying we receive feedback or information from the world of stimuli and we feed back our own constructed information to ourselves as we meta-state ourselves. Then we feed forward inside of ourselves that information so that it becomes energy in our bodies, energy that shows up as emotions and behavior. It comes in as information. We then meta-state to set frames or layers as information. We literally “in-form” our bodies and neurology as we in-corporate or em-body (literally) that information as energy that allows us to feel and act. It is this way that we create our neuro-semantic states. Information goes in and up, energy comes down and out.

Neuro-semantics. What is “neuro-semantics?” It is the embodiment of our meanings. It is how we feel ideas, concepts, principles, and beliefs. It is the semantic responses and reactions that occur in our bodies as we experience various stimuli. It is the mind-body-emotion states that incorporate or embody our belief systems and matrix of frames. It is the Matrix that we have inherited and constructed that we now “know” at the neurological level and so is our “way of being in the world.” It is the holoarchy (another systems term) that is at the same time part-and-whole.6

Updating the Height and Depth Metaphors

In describing this information-to-energy sequence in the information processing that we do as we “abstract” from the world at all levels and so create meta-states all the way up or frames all the way up and back down, we utilize both the up-and-down, height-and-depth metaphors simultaneously. This doesn’t contradict anything that I wrote in the revised edition of Meta-States (2000), but it does extend and expand it. We move up creating and constructing (by generalizing and drawing conclusions) to invent our internal reality, the psycho-logics of our mind, or our Matrix. We move up in order to move that in-formation back down. And that information in-forms us creating new formations within our nervous system so that we embody that information.

This makes meta-stating dynamic and holistic. It is dynamic because it is not just thinking, abstracting, “being in one’s head,” or intellectualizing. Anyone who meta-states in that way does not understand the model. The common comment of NLP people and NLP Trainers at Meta-State trainings is, “This puts the kinesthetics into NLP!” as Peter Engle, one of our Meta-Coaches, once said to me. It is dynamic because in meta-stating, it is the feeling that counts.

Steve Andreas doesn’t understand this at all as he reveals in his 2004 article in Anchor Point. He there accuses myself and Bob Bodenhamer of being un-ecological as we use what he calls the “incongruent yes and no.” But what he doesn’t know is that we are congruently inviting a person to feel “with every fiber of their body” a state (in this case, affirmation as expressed in yes and disconfirmation as expressed in no) and we are applying it (i.e., bringing it to bear upon) another state. This creates a new meta-frame, meta-layer, a new classification and so confirms or disconfirms at a meta-level, not an incongruent state.

Yet in all of this, it is the feeling that counts. That’s why we can use very simple feeling states to meta-state. That’s why so many, many people leave a Meta-States training saying, “It is so obvious and so simple, and yet profound in its effect.” The feeling that we bring to another mind-body-emotion state is the kind of information that has a frame-setting effect in our neurology. That’s why at the heart of the art of meta-stating is elicitation skill. Just “thinking about” something will generally not do.

Meta-stating as a process is not only dynamic, but holistic. That’s why we can meta-state with any holon of a state—a thought, an awareness, a feeling, even a physiology. These parts/whole work as a system. That’s why I use the phrase, “mind-body-emotion” state or system. It is one system of many interactive parts. That’s why the cinema that we play in our mind is not just visual and made up of pictures. The movies in our mind are multi-faceted and dimensional. We have a visual track full of sights, audio-track, kinesthetic track as we step in and out of them, olfactory track, gustatory track, it even has a vestibular track of balance, and more. It’s holistic because we are holistic beings.

In Meta-State trainings I tell the stories of working with the Department of Corrections in the State of Colorado doing anger control with the men in Federal Penitentiary at Canyon City. I found that most of them could not easily meta-state themselves by consciously bringing a higher level state to their anger state. So I snuck it in. I asked them to experience calmness and relaxation in their body, in their throat muscles, in their tone, in their eyes and face and countenance and then I transferred that calm relaxation to their anger state by challenging them to describe how they were as “mad as hell” about something using that physiology. “Are you man enough to do that!?” I would say. By setting the challenge frame, they more easily bought into the specific details and began to learn how to experience the meta-state of “calm anger.”

The Holistic Nature of Meta-Stating our Matrix

The language we use in meta-stating is that of “transcending and including.” We transcend (go meta to) a primary state as we take on some new thinking-and-feeling resourceful state so that we then include the first state inside of the higher state. This is not “collapsing anchors.” It’s an entirely different process. It is the coalescing of states, the texturing of a state with new and richer qualities. In transcending we make a meta-move (transcending) while we hold the first state in reference (include). We think-and-feel about the first. Meta-stating involves creating a meta-relationship so that we classify and reclassify experiences. This creates what we call “logical levels.”7

When we transcend our anger with respect for people, gentleness in our expression, and calmness in our body, we can then include anger and texture it so that it becomes calmly respectful and gentle anger. That’s qualitatively a very different kind of anger than feared anger, repressed anger, or smoldering anger. It is also in the process of transcending and including in meta-stating that we are able to embrace all of our primary state emotions, thoughts, and experiences. We can embrace our anger and we embed that anger inside of other states that give it a new quality and character.

Ken Wilbur (2001) describes transcending and including in his integral psychology of four-quadrant thinking in this way:

“A cell transcends but includes molecules, which transcend but include atoms. To say that a molecule goes beyond an atom is not to say that molecules hate atoms, but that they love them: they embrace them in their own makeup; they include them, they don’t marginalize them.” (p. 11)

I like that. In a similar way, when I transcend my anger with respect, gentleness, and calm, I don’t hate my anger or marginalize it (that would create a dragon state), I embrace my anger, I love my anger, and I love and value myself as a person capable of getting angry. This creates a rich and gestalt state of self-acceptance and state management.

As we create meta-levels of frames within frames, and embedded frames within multiple matrices of frames, the higher states contain all of the lower states. We have not destroyed them, negated them, denied them, or repressed them. We have outframed them so that they are embedded within larger structures. This makes the higher levels as gestalts or holons increasingly more significant and encompassing.

The process of meta-stating is not only dynamic and holistic, it is often counter-intuitive. That’s the way it is with calm anger, embracing anger, giving anger permission to be, etc. That’s what Bob and I found with all of the people we have worked with who want to stop stuttering and become more fluent. I always begin with a little tease and playfulness (meta-stating them with those qualities), “Show me what you can do. Stutter for me. Come on, show me your stuff!” I then give an assignment, “I want you to practice your stuttering every day for five minutes.”

This is so counter-intuitive, paradoxical, strange, and even weird. For a person who has spent all of his or her life avoiding stuttering (and so “blocking”), now they are told to do it, to do it on purpose, to do it with intention. Yet it is the fight itself of refusing to embrace non-fluency that creates the blocking and stuttering. So the very “solution” that they have tried for all their life has actually created “the problem” and prevented the solution. The true solution is a meta-level solution: transcend the stuttering with acceptance, appreciation, humor, glorious fallibility, playfulness, observation, witnessing, etc. and include the non-fluency in these frames.

Meta-Stating the Matrix

Early in the history of Meta-States, several NLP trainers said that Meta-States would be the model that would consume NLP. NLP Trainer Graham Dawes who launched the first NLP Center in London made that comment in 1996 in his book reviews of Dragon Slaying. He recognized, as did others, that the “infinite progress” of meta-stating as a process could work as an outframing process that would subsume other models and patterns.

About 1997, Bob and I began playing with the idea of the three meta-domains of NLP: Meta-Model, Meta-Programs, and Meta-States. That then lead us to completely reformat the so-called “sub-modalities” as Meta-Modalities or the Cinematic Features of our movies and so to identify the four meta-domains of NLP. And yet it is the Meta-States model that provides the meta-process for understanding all of the meta-domains.

In 2000, I sought to simplify Meta-States using less jargonistic terminology, and so introduced Frame Games. And while that did simplify things in terms of language, it also opened up new dimensions and applications as it led to the Game Series of books and trainings. From Frame Games also came the Matrix model in 2002. This has proven to be a very useable format as a unified structure for all of the facets of both NLP and Neuro-Semantics.

In fact, in the Matrix model it is the meta-stating of meaning (hence the Meaning and Intention Matrices) that create all of the content matrices. This reintroduced “content” as playing a significant role in the structure of experience. So whereas NLP had, for the most part, banished “content” as a needless or even a negative thing, in Neuro-Semantics we have re-contextualized where and how content can and does play a critical role in modeling experiences.

Some New Meta-Stating Terminology

Recently reading Ken Wilbur, I discovered some new language for meta-stating. In describing developmental psychology and the stages, Wilber (2001) writes:

“Development tends to proceed by differentiation and integration (e.g., a single-cell gygote differentiates into two cells, then four cells, then sixteen, then thirty-two ..., while at the same time these differentiated cells are integrated into coherent tissues, organs, and systems.).” (p. 28)

The transcending part of meta-stating, moving to a higher level, a meta-level to think and feel about the previous level is differentiating. We differentiate to create a difference that makes the difference. I differentiate my anger by just noticing it, noticing how I run the pattern of anger, and then notice that I can differentiate the person who behaves in a hurtful way, distinguish person from behavior, and them integrate my anger by accepting the message of not-accepting the behavior, even hating the behavior, while respecting and honoring the person. In this, meta-stating differentiates from the first state, making distinctions about it, and rising up to set new frames which allow us to integrate the first things in a new way.

We differentiate to integrate. Is there something that you don’t like about yourself? Some dragon you are fighting? Some shadow-side that you condemn and judge? The problem is that as we fight and condemn a facet of reality, we fail to integrate that very thing. Differentiating person from expression enables us to integrate and transform the dragon. In Meta-States training, I describe the heart of “dragon slaying” as “kissing the dragon.” We differentiate, transcend, and then kiss. In fact, you have to become a good kisser to be skilled at meta-stating! So, are you ready to pucker up?

We differentiate in order to re-integrate, that is, to embrace it in a new way. We differentiate our non-fluency as “just talk,” “natural,” “normal,” “inevitable,” so that as we transcend with frames of acceptance, appreciation, and playfulness, we integrate the stuttering—loving and embracing it. When we do that, a new gestalt arises. We create a gestalt state. An emergent property arises from these interactive parts of our mind-body-emotion system that’s so much more than the sum of the parts. Something new has emerged.

In this, meta-stating is a quantum leap to a higher level of thinking-and-emoting. This is precisely what we do in Living Personal Genius (LPG). We texture multiple resources and meta-state multiple times to create new and wonderful, and sometimes strange mixtures. This gives rise to new emergent properties, gestalt states that we can make enduring structures of our consciousness—attitudes that we can carry with us for the rest of our lives. Such higher gestalt states enable us to live and sustain the focus engagement state of “flow” that we call personal “genius.”

Rising Up to Settle back Down

If you’ve seen me or Denis Bridoux or numerous other Neuro-Semantic trainers, you will notice that we often do a little Sloppy Shuffle when we talk about meta-stating. We ask

“When you bring X resource to yourself and set it as a frame, and then mind-to-muscle that down inside yourself, how well does that settle?”

At that point we shake our body as if letting something “up there” in our head settle down into our body. We do that also when we invite someone to let some great idea they have, some tremendously inspiring principle, coach their neurology about how to feel it. These phrases are part of the going up with information and coming back down with energy of the feedback and feed forward loops that makes meta-states neuro-semantic in nature.

Jimmy Kyriacou, an NLP and Neuro-Semantic trainer in South Africa, gave me a great definition of Meta-States several years ago. I had asked the group of trainers, “What is Meta-States?” and Jimmy replied, “It is NLP in an elevator.” Someone called out, “Going up or down?” And Jimmy quickly responded, “Yes.” In this we can say, Meta-States is our human mind-body-emotion system in an elevator going up and down simultaneously.

This also explains the “Drop Down through to Rise Up Again” pattern that Bob and I redesigned and now use with an idea or frame that’s become physiological. It allows stutterers and others to release “dragon states” that have been mind-to-muscled into their physiology. The pattern is a meta-stating pattern in that it uses the depth metaphor and the falling feeling. In this, it reverses the mind-to-muscle pattern. It starts with some painful, stupid, toxic, destructive, or unuseful idea, feeling, concept, belief, etc. that has been incorporated and embodied in the body and it teases out the structure in reverse. Always dropping, always falling, falling, falling, falling until there’s nothing.

Then dropping through the void further a person moves down into higher states, into more and more resourceful states. We then take those resourceful feeling states (remembering that it’s “the feeling that counts”) and rising up with them as a robust feeling, differentiating, transcending we then “clean the pipes” with that resource as we come back down embracing and integrating the original state. This has the effect in our neurology of releasing the old frames so that our muscles can learn a new pattern.

Up and Down; Deep and High

When we meta-state ourselves with a resource and do so repeatedly and with neurological energy (feeling), eventually the idea, belief, concept, or principle gets so deep inside of us that it feels like it is at our core. This is the final integration of the up-and-down metaphors. We rise up, meta-state ourselves like crazy (just an expression!) so that our neurology feels the matrix of belief frames and so that it is in our muscle memory. Then what was a high and transcendent idea becomes deep inside us.

“Is it deeply inside you yet?” is a great meta-stating question that we now use to test the integration. But there are more, many, many more:

“With all of that in mind (fire anchors of these meta-resources), I wonder just how much do you feel that now in the core of your being?”

“You’ve really accessed some great ideas, beliefs that you want to commission to command your nervous system, haven’t you? And you like them? They’d radically improve your life? And your body now knows them? Give me the countenance of all of those beliefs when they come together in the most compelling way. Ah! There you go! And that’s good? Really?”

The more we go in and up and meta-state ourselves, the more we find that the meta-state enters into our core, our muscles, our body and neurology. The more we transcend to the highest levels, the more grounded we feel in our body. We go up to go deep inside. We rise up with non-judgmental awareness to embrace and integrate the shadow parts so that we love our fallibility and embrace our mistakes so we move forward into a brighter future. That’s meta-stating.

Is Neuro-Semantics a top-down approach? Yes. Is Neuro-Semantics a bottom-up approach? Yes. Since we are dealing with a mind-body-emotion system, both approaches are legitimate and operational at the same time. As we move up the levels of transcendence, we experience greater degrees of depth.

Now, may you rise up deeply so that your best resources will in-form your core as you float down highly but only at a rate and speed that confusion takes you round and round that resource and allows a bright future to begin to beckon you into tomorrow.

Where to From Here?

What does the next ten years old for the Meta-States model that has given rise to the field of Neuro-Semantics and all of the applications of Meta-States? Ah, that’s the adventure and the excitement. With the launching this year of the Neuro-Semantic Developers colloquium and the new things arising in the area of Meta-Coaching, there are many, many more people now applying and using Meta-States and that can only give birth to many new applications and extensions of the model.

Summary

• Where does all of this mean? What’s the conclusion? It delightfully identifies that the Meta-States model, after nearly ten years of use and practice, is continuing to grow, expand, and offer rich and wonderful patterns.

• At the same time, Meta-States is “depth psychology” (Freud) and “height psychology” (Frankl, Maslow, Assagioli). We move up to transcend our immediate and limited states to include and integrate them in a new and dynamic way, making richer and more fully textured our consciousness, emotions, and performances.

• We are not stuck. By meta-stating, we can always take another step we can always progress to yet a higher level and expand our resourcefulness. We are only as stuck as our frames and as limited as our lack of skill in mindfully meta-stating ourselves.

End Notes:

1. See the article, Ten Years and Still no Beef on the website. I wrote that article about DHE (Design Human Engineering) to challenge the value of the model. I essentially said, “So what!? What can we do with it? What can someone trained in DHE that an NLP practitioner or master practitioner cannot do? Isn’t the model just playing with “sub-modalities” and trance and trying to invent cyborg programs?”

2. See the numerous articles on Stuttering on the website. Bob has written a book on this subject, Mastering Stuttering to be published in 2004 by Crown House Publications.

3. Seven Steps to Emotional Intelligence (1999) is published by Crown House Publishers and is now (2004) translated into French as well. See review article on website.

4. See, States of Equilibrium (Burton, 2003), Source Book of Magic, Volume II (to be available in 2004) which has 143 meta-state patterns, many by NS Trainers and Developers.

5. See articles on Mind-to-Muscle, also the training manual, Mastering Your Wealth Matrix.

6. A holon is a whole that is part of other wholes. A whole atom is part of a whole molecule, a whole molecule is part of a whole cell a whole cell is part of a whole organism, and so on. Letters are parts of words which are parts of sentences which are parts of entire languages. Since each holon is embraced in a larger holon, holons themselves exist in nested hierarchies or more accurately, holoarchies. Each representational system of the NLP VAKOG is part of a represented movie, which is part of a linguistically languaged class, which is part of a larger linguistic class, and so on which is a part of a belief system which is part of the Matrix. Reality is composed of neither wholes nor parts, but of whole/parts which we call holons.

7. Actually, there is no such thing as a “logical levels.” This phrase refers to the process of layering thoughts and feelings upon thoughts and feelings. Doing so creates the psycho-logics of how we make sense, interpret things, and experience meaning in our mind-body-emotion system. See the articles on the website, “Logical Levels and Types.”

References
Hall, L. Michael. (2000). Meta-States: Mastering the Higher Levels of your Mind. Clifton, CO: Neuro-Semantic Publications.

Hall, L. Michael. (2001). Frame Games: Persuasion Elegance. Clifton, CO: Neuro-Semantic Publications.

Hall, L. Michael. (1999). Secrets of Personal Mastery. Wales, UK: Crown House Publications.

Hall. L. Michael. (2002). Meta-States Magic. Clifton, CO: Neuro-Semantic Publications.

Hall. L. Michael. (2003). The Matrix Model. Clifton, CO: Neuro-Semantic Publications.

Wilbur, Ken. (2000). Integral Psychology: Consciousness, spirit, psychology, therapy. Boston, MA: Shambhala Publications.

Wilbur, Ken. (2001). A Theory of Everything. Boston, MA: Shambhala Publications.