by Iskilti » Wed Aug 09, 2017 10:46 pm
Eixan, the first time I read your post, I thought it was just confusing. The second time I read it I thought, ok, some of this makes sense. The more I thought about it, the more I end up with a workable metaphor for me. It works for A missing link B in more than one way. Including but not limited to when a and b are before and after. At one level it works on the xy model. And it also works for: over time I was presented with a series of metaphors. Remove the source and then looking back I can see they were metaphors, although I did not think of them that way at the time. And I can see how they were skewed in a particular direction. Easy enough to say that is messed up as a metaphor, and rework how I see it. The last metaphor, though, was not only skewed like the previous ones presented in that way, but it combined another concept that had been presented using a different series. Now they were combined, and I missed the new level that had been added in, actually it was added in by leaving something out. Because your metaphor is more complete, now I see what was missing in that flawed metaphor. I can even say using my interpretation of your metaphor to view the processes I am using, is helping me understand how "it" works. And there is more than one possible "it". I hope this makes sense, but if not, just take it as your post makes a lot of sense to me and works for me, THANKS.