Sorry to be pedestrian, but how about the OP's desire to convert thread(s) into posts/correspondence?
I take Nick seriously here, it has been his goal from the beginning, right? -- Owen On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 5:56 PM, Steven A Smith <sasm...@swcp.com> wrote: > Glen - > > I am a Mozilla/Tbird Man myself but am used to many people clinging to > very oldschool text-only (or worse?) mail tools. I also don't have any > trouble sorting the complexity of comment/response/inlining/inclusion in > my head for the most part, but that is how my head works... I think that is > excruciating unto impossible for some. > > I do acknowledge/agree-to your description of the experience of "to want" > vs "to be wanting"... I personally mostly *want* what I want but I also > know the feeling of *to be wanting*. It isn't a simple question of > expression... it is a deeper experience of association/dissociation and > intention IMO. > > Your example of the co-worker distancing himself from the > responsibilty/agency of "breaking" something is a red herring in this case > (I think)... it may be related, but not directly? > > I agree that there is a distancing/abstraction from the itch as you put > it, but at least in my own case, expressing it as "I am wanting" rather > than "I want" is intentional and an attempt to be more responsible or > precise about what I mean. > > I suppose, a difference between "I want" and "I am wanting" involves > actionability. If I tell you "I want" something, you should be put on > notice that I am likely to take action to pursue acquiring/achieving the > subject of that wanting. But if I say "I am wanting", you can take some > solace (or not) in knowing that I have not internalized that "wanting" into > any formulated action. In the language of the 10 commandments, it is the > subtle distinction between finding your house or wife > attractive/compelling/desireable and actually finding myself making plans > to move in and shag her first chance I get. Yahweh didn't have PowerPoint > and a numerically controlled stone chisel to put in these subtleties with > sub-bullet points? Or were those tablets clay, suggesting a 3d deposition > printer instead? > > In the case at hand (Nick's want or wanting), I would say he is not asking > anyone specifically to take action, to find or create the toolset he is > seeking, he is just speculating out loud and probably *hoping* such things > already exist or perhaps someone else actually *wants* the toolset enough > to create it. > > Have I split the dead horse hair enough yet? I am wanting to know (but > don't feel compelled to tell me)! > > <gurgle> > > - Steve > > On 10/28/16 4:45 PM, glen ☣ wrote: > >> On 10/28/2016 03:10 PM, Steven A Smith wrote: >> >>> I've always assumed everyone else's does too... So, when one looks at >>>> the content of a mailing list like this, they can _see_ trees of threads, >>>> right? If not, I highly recommend a modern client. 8^) It helps a lot. >>>> >>> I agree... but I think many/most don't see this view and I don't believe >>> many will obtain one soon nor easily. >>> >> >> It's just Mozilla Thunderbird (well, Icedove on one machine, Thunderbird >> on another)... It's free and open source, which means anyone can have it if >> they want it. I also think I remember Eudora having a nice tree-based >> threaded view. Pretty much any usenet reader has it. So, I'm confused why >> others wouldn't use such tools. >> >> Maybe you can tell me how "Nick is wanting" structures your thoughts >>>> different from "Nick wants"? >>>> >>> I think it is my perceived tentativeness of what I think Nick wants... >>> meaning I'm not sure he knows what he wants or understands the implications >>> of what he wants. I'm not sure about the grammatical or semantic roots of >>> this (why I use "is wanting" over "wants") but it is interesting to me that >>> you can call it out so clearly. Unfortunately I am probably conflating or >>> convolving my own unsureness of what I *think* Nicks wants into what I >>> believe to be his own lack of clarity... >>> >>> For contrast, I think I would be MUCH less likely to use the same >>> phrasing to describe my understanding of what I *think* YOU want... or >>> Marcus... or many others here who have a crisper sense of confidence in >>> what you are asking/suggesting. Our patron St. Stephen of Guerin, I am >>> *much* more likely to use "he is wanting".... perhaps Renee's "I am >>> wanting" vs "I want" reflects some of this same ambiguity of detail? If >>> she were more precise in her own mind about what she wants, might she be >>> more likely to use the more assertive? >>> >> >> That's intriguing, as is Marcus'. I have noticed (and have the guts to >> point out for some reason) that lots of people express their thoughts with >> an external locus of control. My favorite example was when I noticed the >> CO^2 regulator on our office keg was broken. I asked my partner: What >> happened to the CO^2? He said "It broke." >8^) I asked for more clarity >> and he responded something like: "I was <doingsomethingorother> and it fell >> over and broke." So, I asserted: "Do you mean that you broke it?" And he >> relented and said "Yes." >> >> Perhaps there is something of that in both your and Marcus' response. >> It's a kind of removal/abstraction/distancing from any intimate knowledge >> or clarity surrounding the itch ... left wanting some scratching. >> >> > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
