SUMMARY:

'is'-UNIVERSAL-IRREDUCIBLE-PATTERN-EVERYTHING-'is'
'is'-SYMBOLIC-SYSTEM3-SEED-START-EQUILIBRIUM-INDIVIDUAL-DIFFERENCE-OPPOSITE-NOT-'is'
'is'-SOULLESS-UNDERSTAND-EVERYTHING-RICK-'is'

assignment:

A) Put more flesh to my argument
B) To merely satisfy my own drive
C) to make another person understand it as to my level of UNDERSTAND as possible
D) to intend to test the soundness of the theory as against another

F) et cetera [which I will, like with your professor's list, always interpret to mean 'some other option not included here']

"And that would stifle understanding whole statements making up a theory, yes"

you may not want to UNDERSTAND it to the same level as I do, but so what?
_____________________________________________

Introduced by "my quote":

"Words are the tools of the artist; not the paintbrush, guitar or pen. For the receiver of art is interpreting the artist in descriptive form no matter what the medium. If we can reduce the beauty of the words to exceed the beauty of the art, then we have a masterpiece of both disciplines." - Me

(future blogs, not yet written, or not yet linked):
In Response Part 3 - Dave
In Response Part 4 - Gary
String Bead Analogy
Global Bill of Rights
Letter Shapes and 'is' Systems
Examples of Practical Applications of 'is' Theory

[
Related note: after one of the performances on Americal Idol last night [a popular American TV musical talent show], one of the judges gave the following critique to the singer of song: "I was expecting apple pie, and I got apple pie with 100 gallons of cream on top". If you didn't see the show, this is either an over-the-top compliment of the singer, or a soul-destroying criticism. If you did see the show, this is either an over-the-top compliment of the singer, or a soul-destroying criticism. If you didn't see the show, but imagined you did, this is an over-the-top compliment of the singer, or a soul-destroying criticism. If you did see the show, but imagined you didn't, this is an over-the-top compliment of the singer, or a soul-destroying criticism.

Given that there is some number of the American populous which fits into each of those four categories, and assume one member of each group has been randomly asked to form a jury of four. You are one of them, but you don't know which category the other three come from, nor do they know your background history. Using exclusively an 'is' approach to the problem, can you , independently and as the deciding member of the jury which will be settling the matter, make a definitive statement as to the quality of the young singer's performance last night, making certain that you "get it right"? If so, what would your statement be? If not, why not?

Can you imagine reality accurately?
Did you answer consistently to all four questions posed above? (If so, make each case)
Can you imagine reality accurately?
]

Dear Soulless:

That's what I mean by tabla rasa.

Thank you for taking the considerable time to respond in such detail and with such perception. I appreciate your candour, and am truly thrilled that you are showing such an inquisitive approach to my theory. It spurs me on in my thinking! So, thank you.

Perhaps to wrap yesterday's blog into a more comfortable perspective (I had mixed a lot of 'is' writing throughout yesterday's entry), let me put it into a more familiar setting.

Let's pretend that you have entered a new school that has just opened its doors. It doesn't teach courses in the orthodox way that you are used to from past schooling experiences, but you're an adventurous soul, and the material looks interesting, and so you sign up for an evening course...mine.

What this school does is teach one-on-one courses with no set timetable, course sequencing, bells, buzzers and attendance records. In fact, the bureaucracy ratio is quite low compared to the teacher-learner and cleaning staff ratio. You may sign up for any courses you wish, come and go as you please. Tuition is left up to each student to determine. Any student is welcome to attend any class at any time. The initial topic will be posted outside each room or cubicle when occupied by a teacher-learner.

Each instructor will make it clear where s/he is as relates to schedule, room etc., but will only post a secondary topic for any given period of time.

I posted yesterday's blog entry outside my office, and last night, you spent some time on it, you have some questions, you're interested in asking me for help in arriving at your answers, and so you responded with the comment which you added on to my lesson plan from yesterday.

Today's lesson plan for me is your comment in its entirety. I am, for the time being, abandoning my own lesson plan ( it is secondary to the needs of the student-learner) from yesterday where I was evolving a meaning for the 'is'-WORD 'EVERYTHING' with you. You clearly have some intermediate questions that are still standing in the way of us agreeing on what EVERYTHING will mean in future conversations.

Here is a significant part of 'is'. That situation now makes me the learner for today's next lesson. It is my job as teacher of the 'is' theory to learn what you're NOT-UNDERSTAND. Why should I redundantly waste your time and mine teaching what we MUTUALLY-UNDERSTAND or, more simply and succinctly put, UNDERSTAND?

We both must be aware that other teachers and learners may be dropping in and out of our lesson at any time as it progresses. They may add something, they may pose other questions, they may watch, participate, take over, mock,... who knows? Just be aware, and act accordingly, is all!

So, now I will ask questions of you based on two things:

1) I will address the questions you asked and issues you raised.
2) I will continue to further your knowledge of 'is' through the way I phrase my answers (I'm simultaneously teaching you what I know and what you're asking to know. At the same time I am learning what you are teaching me about what you don't know and, by implication, what you'd like to know)

[Note: you will often find me bolding and italicizing key words found in 'is'. They usually are English words representing conditions that operate at the very core of 'is'. The simultaneous operation of opposites is critical for maintaining some measure of {BALANCE...NOT-BALANCE}, and so you should constantly be mindful of 'all' having a simultaneous 'NOT-all' somewhere, explicit or implied. I used a bit of standard 'is' formatting in this note just to expose you to it...normally I would not point this out explicitly, and simply assume that you will ask about that which you want to know. That's the basis of the Global Bill of Human Rights which underlies all of 'is']


The operating principles of this school are:

1) We will answer any and every question that a student has asked to the student's satisfaction, and to a mastery level as judged by each instructor in consultation with the student.
2) A student's individual question always takes precedence over an instructor's offering. (consistent with the Global Clarity Bill of Human Rights)
3) We will consistently use the principles of 'is' to offer all sessions.
4) A student is not required to use or know 'is' in order to attend.
5) A student should know that, whether or not they are familiar with 'is', nor mattering to what degree their level of familiarity, all instructors will always operate under the following single premise:
a) "Every instructor teaches 'is' from an 'is' perspective, regardless what other discipline they may be teaching."
b) "Every instructor learns 'is' from an 'is' perspective, regardless what other discipline they may be learning."
c) "Students are considered equal with instructional, cleaning, administrative and all other staff in every respect."

___________________________________________________

START-LESSON-2-SOULLESS

I have chosen to reduce the argument instead of expand on it today, in view of your comment:

(I would have liked to quote it here, but this comment is already much too long. Eep. My apologies. ^_^)

This comment, in 'is', communicates to me that you seek a movement towards closing a system: {learning about, finding answers, filling in the blanks...}, from the point of view of a student), instead of opening a system: {researching, exploring, expanding...}', from the point of view of a student).

What attracted you, (I'm assuming, from your use of the word *fascinate* and the phrase *So far, to me, the helpful pieces...*), was the posted "Purpose of Course" which you quoted as shown below:

The theory does fascinate me. So far, to me, the helpful pieces of information on it are the following: "'is' is a theory of universal pattern. Basically stated, it allows that there is a common, underlying, irreducible pattern to everything. Further the same pattern applies to everything, no matter what 'everything' is." (from the blog entry entitled "Re-Grouping, Feedback and Self-Doubt Allayed")... and the 6th paragraph of the blog entry entitled "President's Day- and an Intro to 'is' Theory" (I would have liked to quote it here, but this comment is already much too long. Eep. My apologies. ^_^)

The WORDS from this selection of yours which I will key on, in order to minimize the noise of the communication (in this case, the amount of words I chose to say what I wanted to say) are:

universal
pattern
irreducible
EVERYTHING
is

Furthermore, since I started with it yesterday thus offering some flow to today, I shall continue to focus on the word EVERYTHING from this list, more so than the others.

[Remember I said yesterday that if you're ever presented with a list of four, select out the one which leaves a balanced list of three. Well, a list of 5 is just one iteration away from the same problem. "In a list of five, remove one to leave a balanced list of four, such that you can remove one to leave a balanced list of three, achieving the UNIVERSAL-IRREDUCIBLE-PATTERN of three's." ]

If you agree that these five words, when taken together, completely encapsulate every essence and nuance of meaning that you want to carry forward from that paragraph, then let's replace it and this one I'm writing now by way of explanation with the character string in 'is', forming an 'is' PHRASE meaning exactly the same thing (i.e. we're including much more than the value of the defintions of the five words: we're encapsulating the context that you and I share over this piece of textual writing, and we're agreeing on a code to represent it. It's like developing a professional shorthand amongst people who know the code).

'is'-UNIVERSAL-IRREDUCIBLE-PATTERN-EVERYTHING-'is'


END-LESSON-2-SOULLESS

([Note: ignore English grammar rules] more follows on the other parts of your comment, but we can focus on this phrase as a way for us UNDERSTAND the word EVERYTHING to be the same within 'is' context. Your choice. I always assume 'YES', and so I provide response to your whole note, in case you want it)

_____________________________________________

...and here is the sixth paragraph which you didn't quote, but referenced:

'is' is not an English word in 'is'-ism. It's a three-part symbol, pronounced "dot-straightline-squiggle", or "dot-straightline-some/other/kind/of/line", or "dot-straightline-NOTstraightline" (I'll be using the third format most often, for reasons that we'll explore later also). In other words {smile!} the letter 'i' (when it doesn't use this fancy font) is really made up of a dot positioned above a straight line, which in turn is positioned beside a curvy line (the letter 's'). That dot? That's really, really the critical part. It's the seed of everything. It's the "I am a dot" dot that was in my very first blog entry. Check it out again by clicking on that link, and see if it makes any more sense now. It's also the dot at the centre of infinity. It's where everything starts, where everything 'is', and everything finds equilibrium, and a whole lot more. If you think about it, a line (straight or NOTstraight) is just a bunch of dots standing in a really tight row, but you can always branch away from a line at any point (dot) based on a choice (should I go this way or that way?). Well, so is a NOTstraight line. The straight line and the 'gay' line represent you and me. We're different. But we're really the same. We're made up of the dots of our own lives. Sometimes our lines will cross over, sometimes they'll parallel each other, sometimes they'll never touch at all.

If you are willing to agree, I'll replace this paragraph with the 'is'-PHRASE

'is'-SYMBOLIC-SYSTEM3-SEED-START-EQUILIBRIUM-INDIVIDUAL-DIFFERENCE-OPPOSITE-NOT-'is'

[Note: The longer an 'is'-PHRASE is measured in WORDS, the lower the bonding value of the words within the phrase to each other. Each word carries less of the message of the phrase, The phrase as a whole is 'weaker', but its ENTROPY is greater, inasmuch as there is 'more room' to add differences. You'd expect as the list gets longer, the opportunities for us to have differing opinions on the words and their combination would be greater. The basic tenets state that these differences rise exponentially (every time you add another WORD to a PHRASE, it, on average, doubles the possible interpretations of the phrase. More later if you'd like to pursue this further.]

That, in itself, is argument enough for reducing UNDERSTAND down to an UNAMBIGUOUS reference, as follows:

'is', among other things, is a methodology for accomplishing rigorous UNDERSTAND between two ENTITIES.

[The use of square brackets is a technique to insert an "off-topic" but related 'is' concept, or to provide a parallel, simultaneous thread of thought. It's "off-topic" in that it's wandered from the specific question you asked. It's "on-topic" in that the question you asked presents an opportunity to make a new point. Even though the 'goal' of today's lesson is 'to shorten', there is still always simultaneous expansion going on. There's new stuff to learn, even as you are learning this!].

....in conclusion:

'is'-UNIVERSAL-IRREDUCIBLE-PATTERN-EVERYTHING-'is'
'is'-SYMBOLIC-SYSTEM3-SEED-START-EQUILIBRIUM-INDIVIDUAL-DIFFERENCE-OPPOSITE-NOT-'is'
'is', among other things, is a methodology for accomplishing rigorous UNDERSTAND between two ENTITIES

__________________________________________________

Now to completely shorten the rest of your response, and in so doing, present you with your next assignment.

At 4:16 PM, Soulless said...
Hullo again, Rick. ^_^ I've read the three blog entries you've recommended, before reading the present one. From "President's Day- and an Intro to 'is' Theory," I infer that your theory has, principally, to do with language. (As an aside, it has also reminded me of the philosophical concept of "language games.") And from the post entitled "The Common Universal Pattern-The basic tenets," I see Ethics (I mean the word as the field of philosophy) in play as a topic for discussion (based on the comments and replies).

Your inference on language is correct. I would debate your inference that it is the principal focus of the theory. You, yourself immediately point out that you see it also deals with philosophy, game theory, and ethics for instance.

____________________________________________

Now, as regards the questions I posed, in my comment to "Re-Grouping, Feedback and Self-Doubt Allayed," they popped in my mind, for, when met with any theory, I follow a helpful guide, or technique, I learned a long time ago from a philosophy professor, i.e. with respect to presenting, or confronting, a proposition or claim or theory (herein I quote his words):

The 4 Basic Inquiries

1. What do you mean?
-- refers to definitions or meanings of terms used; try to get rid of vagueness or ambiguity.

2. What are the assumptions?
-- bear in mind that propositions or claims are usually package deals.

3. How do you know? [or Why?]
-- refers to the reasons, bases, or premises.

4. What follows?
-- refers to deductions, inferences, or conclusions.

You say "I follow a helpful guideline". Are you receptive to following something modified or contrary, since you refer to it as a guideline, or would you prefer that I maintain my discussion within this framework also?
[By answering questions such as this specifically, it helps set "scope of discussion"; something that 'is' refers to as threshold. My assumption, if you don't respond to this query is always the system default answer 'YES'; that you are open to another option, for the time being I'll word as:

5. Could there be something else to consider?

______________________________________________________

Ok, back to the present blog entry. My initial reaction to it is... well, I admit to being befuddled. ^_^ So I read it twice, maybe a few more times as I type this comment. Anyway, going back to the first of the 4 Basic Inquiries, I am still quite at a loss as to what the terms used in the "is" theory mean. Hence, I have some difficulties in seeing the "illustration."

Which 'is' terms put you at this loss of which you speak? I will elaborate them for you.

____________________________________________________

Let me elaborate. You have said:

I'll answer them all with a single illustration.
This blog 'is' it.
The title of this blog 'is'.

The answer to every/any question is contained within the question (i.e. 'is' the question, with the missing part you're asking about filled in).

So, the only question you're really asking 'is' "Tell me more about 'is'...it *fascinates* me, is there somewhere I can read more about this when I have insomnia?. Tell me 'EVERYTHING'

... what I mean by the word EVERYTHING, and it 'is' simply EVERYTHING you learn about 'is' from reading this individualized lesson plan on teaching the word EVERYTHING to you...


First of all, the statement "the answer to every/any question is contained within the question" is a proposition in itself which, again, makes me ponder, especially as regards how it has come about to lead to the conclusion "so...": "So, the only question you're really asking 'is' "Tell me more about 'is'... Tell me 'EVERYTHING'" Hmm. There I pause. And I ask myself: is the statement "the answer to every/any question is contained within the question" in fact an assumption? Or a premise (in the basic form of if-then logical argument)? I guess what I'm trying to say, is that there are many things here I have yet to understand before my mind's reach can even go for an application of the "is" theory. Illustrations are helpful, yes, but the specific questions I have laid out as regards definitions, assumptions, and premises/bases refer to those made in the course of the formulation of the theory. Ergo, they refer to those definitions of the terms as you have used them, your assumptions, your premises/bases... since this is YOUR theory... and I am just a curious stranger trying to find my way towards YOUR understanding of "everything" about your theory that you know and/or are aware of.

I'd like to ask you to re-read this, while you are imagining that the following condition WILL apply {make it an assumed truth to make it work; move it to a different, unbiased, non-judgemental, clean table; tabla rasa; move it to an alternate parallel, simultaneous universe; move it to whatever works for you...}.

Instead of: "propositions leading to conclusions",
go with: "conclusions lead to the propositions from which they grew".

Instead of studying the branches of the oak tree which eventually grew from the premise that an acorn stuck in wet dirt produces trees, study the roots that lie underground. The roots which, until I just told you now about them, you never thought to look for, because they weren't 'visible' to the eye, to predisposed perception. Sort of like a new theory which may be just staring you in the face! Kinda like that. Just give it a shot and see if it changes anything.

(Make this step #5 of your other professor's guidelines. All of his are still in place, with one additional, simultaneous one "Consider it could be something else ('tabla rasa' your current thinking just for an illustration...you can have it back when your imagination is done with it)".

In other words, state a conclusion (NOT a proposition), then figure out what question would have to be asked as a true proposition that would inevitably and invariably lead to the stated conclusion. Reverse engineer a conclusion, assuming you have reached a conclusion.

Finally, I'd ask that you change your point of view from that of:

"just a curious stranger trying to find my way towards YOUR understanding of "everything" about your theory that you know and/or are aware of"
to
"just a curious stranger trying to find our way to MUTUAL-UNDERSTAND of EVERYTHING that we know and/or are aware of, expressed within the context of 'is'."
or, simplified,

" 'is'-SOULLESS-UNDERSTAND-EVERYTHING-RICK-'is'

So, I'm defining for you, the poet, what I mean by the word EVERYTHING, and it 'is' simply EVERYTHING you learn about 'is' from reading this individualized lesson plan on teaching the word EVERYTHING to you, the student

Ahh, now this is a perfect example of the first of the 4 Basic Inquiries. If you have not defined the word "everything" -- as used therein -- then I would certainly not have understood it as referring to what I learn from this blog entry, but rather, I would have continued on understanding the term as referring to what YOU know about the theory, or to what YOU know about the theory and have communicated or can communicate. Without laid out definitions, I (as a reader or observer) would be more prone to making assumptions as regards meanings. And that would stifle understanding of whole statements making up a theory, yes?

No! Well, no and yes, and not completely. Definitions are incomplete, no matter how detailed they are. You are implying definitions are a satisfactory level of achievment for understanding a word. I'm making the point that a definition is only at a satisfactory level of achievement for understanding a definition of a word. After all, a definition is a definition. A word is a word. A word isn't a definition is it? So why are you prepared to conclude that a definition 'is' a word? It is 'like' a word. Or a metaphor of a word. Or an ode to a word. Or a poem capturing the essence of the word, or a blog entry completely capturing the essence of an 'is'-WORD, or a novel revolving around a single code,

-or-

a dispassionate and detailed assembling of all known and generally-accepted phrases which could satisfactory be substituted for by the word. Even though there are fine differences beween the various meanings (phrases), this fine-tuning distinction shall be carried (determined) within the entropy of and by the CONTEXT of the words which surround it when used in conjunction with other words. Either that, or the differences are so minute for the purpose of our discussion, they can be ignored. Round the word up to the nearest sentence.

That is why I stated I was defining to you, the poet . You and I had had an earlier discussion as to the weighted values of words within poetry, and so I was making the SOULLESS-(I-THINK-SHE'S-A-GIFTED-POET-AND-HAS-AN-AMAZING-CAPACITY-FOR-CAREFUL-WORD-SELECTION-TO-MAXIMIZE-MESSAGE-WHILE-MINIMIZING-LENGTH)-POETRY, and included that essence in my use of the English word 'poet' as applied to you.

________________________________________________

Your critically insightful statement to me is when you state:

"And that would stifle understanding whole statements making up a theory, yes?"

YES! And one way to "un-stifle the understanding of whole statements making up a theory, yes?" is to write a theory where every single possible combination, permutation, nuance, forseen and unforseen of definitions which could possibly be assigned to each of the words in the theory [close attention here...REGARDLESS OF THE CONTENT OF THE THEORY...hence, UNIVERSAL] taken separately, collectively, in chunks dependent and independent be covered by...definitions.

Here's the nub, Soulless. You said it yourself. You're not looking for definitions. you are looking for UNDERSTAND, so that it's NOT-STIFLE, or to use a more exact 'is'-PHRASE, I could say that it's NOT-UNDERSTAND.

There are no degrees to UNDERSTAND when considered as an 'is'-WORD, only levels. [This is a characteristic which is true for ALL 'is'-WORDS, otherwise, by definition, an 'is'-WORD would be an 'is'-PHRASE. That means there is still some option, or fine-tuning to do to any single 'is'-WORD in the 'is'-PHRASE]. You either UNDERSTAND something {to your satisfaction, to a level that you need to keep your job, to a mastery level for purpose x, to a level that you no longer seek further UNDERSTAND,...}, or you don't. Now, granted, you may not want to UNDERSTAND it to the same level as I do, but so what? You clearly wanted to UNDERSTAND it more than you did or you wouldn't have taken the time and effort to create your reply, and furthermore, you want to UNDERSTAND it from MY point of view more than you currently do. That's why we're chatting.

__________________________________________________

But let me here rest with the above flow of thought, and move to another. Rick, you have a way, a manner, of presenting your thoughts, your arguments, in a way, a manner, I am not familiar with. For example, this:

START-POINT = YOUR-ASSUMPTIONS (+) TABLA-RASA (-) EVERYTHING-ELSE.

And this:

{EVERYTHING ELSE....EVERYTHING},
{NOT-EVERYTHING, EVERYTHING},
{EVERYTHING....NOT-EVERYTHING}.
implied fourth choice {EVERYTHING, TABLA RASA}.

The examples you cite are very much written in 'is' format, and you have not been exposed to it previously. There is intended to be an self-explaining intuitiveness to it.

It would be helpful for me if you could tell me: Was your comment "I am not familiar with" meant:

A)to simply be a statement of fact for me to know (one which I had assumed, by the way), or
B)to tell me you were meaning to convey the message "Because I'm not aware of this way you have of expressing yourself, I am either
i)missing your message, or
ii)at least think that I am missing your message
iii) am not interested in getting your message if you don't write it in normal English."
C) this is how I think and I don't want to change that problem-solving paradigm for the purpose of this discussion
D) You just realized from reading this question that it never occured to you that there was a higher level of intuitive understanding "built-in" to the difference in format. Math expressions are different from English Statements. Why shouldn't 'is' Language representation be different from English or Math. Or similar to them? Maybe your professor's list is incomplete.

[If you don't respond, I will always assume 'YES', which saves you having to respond redundantly...only override assumptions (defaults) when they are incorrect]

________________________________________________

But let me make it clear that I respect that. I reckon that's my bottomline. This is YOUR theory, and what you intend to do with it (i.e. whether you intend to put more flesh, so to speak, to the thought/idea, but for purposes merely of satisfying your own drive; or intend to make another person understand it, as near to your understanding of it as is possible; or intend to test the soundness of the theory as against another; et cetera) is not my place to question or rebut. ^_^

As a proponent of 'is', when I see a word like "bottomline", I instantly have a fairly clear picture of a limit (or threshold) that you have drawn for this discussion.

My purpose yesterday was to get you and I to completely agree (i.e. UNDERSTAND each other) on the essence of the 'is'-ENTITY 'EVERYTHING'. Obviously you can't teach (or learn everything in a day, but I think we've made great headway and certainly invite you to keep up the dialogue! [smile!]

We failed my purpose. So I haven't learned to a mastery level yet. I am trying to learn how to teach 'is' to a random student to a mastery level such that it will solve the application they apply it to.

In this last paragraph, you are telling me the level to which you are wanting to learn how 'is' applies to you.

The choices you have given me, as I read them, are:

A) Put more flesh to my argument
B)To merely satisfy my own drive
C) to make another person understand it as to my level of UNDERSTAND as possible
D) to intend to test the soundness of the theory as against another
E) you don't want me in a position of questioning or rebutting
F) et cetera [which I will, like with your professor's list, always interpret to mean 'some other option not included here']

My answer to all parts, at an 'is' default level is 'YES' (the basic tenets predict that, and make it so). If these six statements represent the threshold standing between what you and I see as, for lack of a better word at the moment, success of 'is' as a theory, then I would select choice (E) as the one of predominance, and I will take the negative position.

In other words, I'd like to meet the other 5 statements to YOUR satisfaction, starting by using the methodology of removing (E) from a list of six options, reducing it to 5. I know from an earlier discussion, that I can achieve the 'is'-UNIVERSAL-PATTERN-IRREDUCIBLE-EVERYTHING-'is' goal from a list of 5, using an iterative process, removing one at a time, always leaving a balanced list behind, until a balanced list of three, the universal pattern, is achieved.

[HINT: those '3' remaining entities are the key to the 'practical applications' side of the theory. Therein lie the proofs!! We just must reach UNDERSTAND-EVERYTHING-3 first, hence my choice yesterday to start with a blog, titled EVERYTHING, with every word and its associated essence and entropy contained therein encapsulated by the 'is'-WORD EVERYTHING.]

Certainly, the "is" theory continues to hold my interest. And so, I shall keep on reading your blog to follow-up on what, in any manner, you graciously choose to share with other people in the blogosphere.

Cheers. ^_^

I'm pleased that you have shown an interest, It's become somewhat of a passion with me lately, but has been formulating for most of my life. I have two hopes. I hope to turn the theory into practical, helpful, useful techniques for doing what are less practical, helpful and useful techniques today. Secondly, I hope to find the best format, through these various blog dialogues and the questions I get, to formulate something in a [probably unorthodox] book-form publication to spread it as widely as I can.

Cart beofre the horse, first though! (...and that was an intentional distortion of the spelling and metaphor!!)

p.s.
It's now 6AM, my usual time to nap. *grin* I do have a chronic case of insomnia. Sigh. (Thank you, by the way, for your kind words as regards my poetry blog. Much appreciated.) I'm off to dreamland. Till the next visit, then. Be well. ^_^

Just a curiousity question: Do you enjoy the nights, or would you rather get rid of your insomnia?

______________________________________________________

SUMMARY:

'is'-UNIVERSAL-IRREDUCIBLE-PATTERN-EVERYTHING-'is'
'is'-SYMBOLIC-SYSTEM3-SEED-START-EQUILIBRIUM-INDIVIDUAL-DIFFERENCE-OPPOSITE-NOT-'is'
'is'-SOULLESS-UNDERSTAND-EVERYTHING-RICK-'is'

assignment:

A) Put more flesh to my argument
B) To merely satisfy my own drive
C) to make another person understand it as to my level of UNDERSTAND as possible
D) to intend to test the soundness of the theory as against another

F) et cetera [which I will, like with your professor's list, always interpret to mean 'some other option not included here']

"And that would stifle understanding whole statements making up a theory, yes"

you may not want to UNDERSTAND it to the same level as I do, but so what?

PEACE.

Posted by Evydense on Thursday, May 11, 2006 at 10:09 a.m. | Permalink