The main difference seems to stem from two opposing core epistemological assumptions:

A – To know a thing, you must step outside of it and observe it

G – To know a thing, you must embody it

I's just r'spondin' t' this, as 'n alpha, 'n all that.

Since this thread is about alpha-gamma interactions, I will also be blunt and admit that I have no idea what the previous three posts meant or what the argument is about 😀

(I'm not saying that to start a fight, just thought this was funny and maybe someone else might see the humor in it)

Nature is not inclined to plan for every eventuality, she fills the world with effective adapters.

Is figuring out how to use something you've broken anyway not a pretty great example of effectively adapting?

I never said anything about putting humpty dumpty together, and i do not understand why the lack of being a "clinically detached…Read more

to know a thing, you have to figure out how to break it

 

and then how to make it work while it’s broken

I don't want to be too dismissive, I will think this over some more. But here's my first impression, and I don't mean to be blunt, but I very much disagree here. Yes that approach is often conducive to further understanding, but when the s…Read more

What's wrong with a little sneaky sneak🙃

People reading this be like: "O hell noo... now I totally freakin veto... turn it off🤨!"

I'm like: "Noo... keep it on... yesssss!"😀

Update: I voted and created a tie braker. LOL

to know a thing, you have to figure out how to break it

and then how to make it work while it's broken

@rondo

Love it.  I agree, it's more than fine. These differences in expression are absolutely beautiful  <3 <3  and it is clear that there's a reason I've been so attracted to Alpha NTs as friends.. over and over and over.

To be clear, I'm not the kind of person that refers to that many people as 'friends' in the long term. It's a fairly sh…Read more