David, I hope the suggested constraint on length of posts does not seem too confining. Perhaps it will drive traffic to your blog. I do think that with a fairly large group like this we should keep the posts fairly short.
In your post, the parts that speak most directly to the practice are the words you italicize: ‘swoop and scope’, ‘distance between’, ‘pleasure’, ‘worry’. I’m not sure about ‘not-known’ and ‘wondering’. The question is: do these have their own felt sense? I suspect that they do, but can’t tell for sure.
Robert, it’s great that you’re adding more ‘layers’. I don’t think we need to get hung up on developing a huge (and fixed) number of categories: the value of assigning names seems to be primarily that it gives us places to look. The danger, of course, is that when we have places to look, we look right past other places. The key point is that the descriptions should stay with the experience. They can go off into theory too; it’s when the two are confused that problems get created.
A third post later, because my internet server is about to go down.
Jack
Jack,
I have no problem with shorter posts and understand why we need them, and I was not chafing under any restrictions, I just didn’t want to be at cross purposes with the class work here.
Thank you for your clarification.
David
David,
I didn’t mean to suggest that you should make your comments shorter than your last one’ I just had the sense you were chafing under the restriction, and wanted to address that. No criticism intended.
Ouch! Sorry, Jack, in the future I will be brief and no longer link to the Blog.
David