I have noticed, in recent time, the lack of thoughtful introspection and fact finding among peers. Not that following the direction of relevant thought is without pitfalls. It's just that many seem to take the hardest way out of most endeavors without favor or forethought. Looking beyond alternative methods may be the path to simplicity and digression, but does that make it justifiably so? I have seen many work towards a means without justification. It's as if they relate more to "the truth" than they do natural progression. By limiting the amount of time devoted to perceiving, they increase the amount of perceptions that are only half realized. This simple limitation grows exponentially when you realize the facts of the matter at hand. Understanding is just the tip of the iceberg. Without the necessity of knowledge, one cannot disprove by means of neglect. Clearly each of us must make our responses to such criticisms as valid as possible. I suggest these three rules in doing so:

1. Don't make figurative responses that cannot be re-defined. Doing so is without justification and rationally lacking.

2. Overcome ambivalence without demonizing hope. It's more than just a mental condition, so shouldn't you treat it as such?

3. Perhaps most important: Lessen the value of preconceived viability. If suggestions are assumed, action will be based on limiting factors, reducing any hope for change.

Perhaps the above is over simplified, but I am convinced it holds true. I am not one for rules, but if anyone can show where my thinking is flawed, I'd love to hear about it.

-Josh

Get a life!... says the guy with 1500+ posts!

So you don't agree?

Man Josh, could you please be a hair less prolix in your original post?