On the one hand, On the other hand:
the What You Know How You Put IT in Play
That Counts agenda. That Counts agenda.
The Rigorists The Innovationists
Walking On Eggs Walking On Water
Can you imagine W.O.E and W.O.W on the same
hall, stair-well, committee, task force, team-teaching?
Perish the thought.
Keep them separate, discrete, I know what I’m
talking about: If you don’t keep them apart &
equal W.O.E will dominate,.damnit. Always does.
You probably hate this divorce, may deny &
collapse it, call it faux dichotomizing, loyal to
some relationship you know is there. Like
Nouns and Verbs, say: who would separate
& discriminate between Noun-ism & Verb-ing?
Racial profiling the what-it-is’s & the so-what’s?
Space & Time continuuuuuum: trying to
break them up for crying out loud:
Or crash our favorite band:
Dan Digitologic &
The Analogicians .
It’s all related, Sam: how come you keep
cutting up? say the Argumentative,
questioning my authority..
The Docile contain themselves. Knowing better.
Professionals. What you Know counts more
than playing with it., any one knows
that . (Snicker).
◘ Why do you think keeping things separate or discrete (distinctions) is significant?
ReplyDeleteIs it because in application, distinction cultivates innovation?
x-x-x
Your writing has touched on abstract language, recently.
I'm just wondering if you think that an effort to make too many distinctions using language could be dangerous. For while exploration may edify in any field, can a network of abstractions negatively distance themselves from their subject matter?
Can a disproportionality of thought dynamics (as a result of designating self-support upon a system of interdependent/interincumbent abstractions) cause ideas to lose life?
Furthermore, do you feel that thoughts may be considered living, or do you see them more with an emphasis organizational use? Both seem to agree about structure being primary.
Also, more generally do you think the versatility/range in the normal practice of language by an individual is becoming more broad, less broad, or staying the same?
x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x
My favorite approach is to accept and invite several diverse views on these topics, accepting them, even if contradictory, as workable material. But I wonder and value much about how you would handle such questions.
Curiously, in essence a major part here is if you simply consider thoughts as living, in their own right. Though of course the rest is in good critical and sincere spirit, too.
I wish you wouldn't sign your name Anonymous--I get junk/spam/ads coming in as Anonymous and usually delete, automatically.
ReplyDeleteDrawing distinctions, for me, is the heart of thinking. Separating OUT stuff that is fused: polarizing it, characterizing it, and putting in in play.
What counts, maybe, is agree-ability in conversation, but that's easier done than said. Or vice versa.
Are you asking if it's possible to over-think a notion? I guess. Like over-exercise. Thoughts (ideas, memes, metaphors) can be considered "living" in a manner of speaking. We talk generally in dead metaphors, cliches. If they were "live" they'd be wiggling around while we were trying to do our business.
Versatile-ity and range in language? If you expand that term to include the E-media we swim in, use & abuse: yes.
Living - wild
Dead - tame.