Without rules/ guidelines (whatever you want to call them), there is no order.
Being left alone to do what you like is not order it is anarchy. It's just anarchy that has less chance of affecting others.
Hairsplitting is when you try and be overly precise and pedantic. It is academic but there again what technical discussion is not?
Once you have eliminated all other possibilities then whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the answer.
I see no reason to split the techniques. It's only a matter of preference, context and expediency.
So there is no order, no line to follow? If one is the mirror of the other then both appear simultaneously.
Order is the effect. It's cause depends upon what is being brought to order and what is ordering it. Mirrors are reaction only, no organisation.
If order is instantaneous then what is chaos? Besides to find the order sometimes you have to split hairs.
There is no disagreement, Xander.
We are in a unison, as always.
Information is at the outset.
First was the word..
If it were not so, you would not be here reading this post.
Information is the guideline. Semantics is the definition of the guideline.
I do not much like the word rule. It reminds me of power hungry politicians, contumelious university chairmasters, pompous civil servants, do-goody social workers..
To say nothing of the Popey himself.
So long, Rome.
I have been reading some academia about ethnogenesis. Faculty stuff of various schools.
Maybe one paper in a hundred generates a meaning. A something that adds to the picture.
The rest is just a whirlwind. A split of a tuss of hair there, another here..
And why this dreadful weight of trivia is fabricated in the first place?
Because of status. Status brings about power.
The answer is what remains. And why not? You can always discern an interest in the answer in the first paragraph. If there is one.
For the best part not.
Why do people think there is time between cause and effect?
Maybe because they do not know what time is.
I don't challenge people on spelling or grammar- I already know that I kinda suck at both of them and will be the first to admit that! I CAN get kind of stubborn about details if I know what I'm talking about and have decided that facts need to be set straight though (yes- talking about the politics post here !). You will never catch me arguing something that I don't understand though (theory, math, science, poetry....)!
I'd say the worst is an unhappy ESFJ from personal experience- we're speaking here of a person who sent back my e-mails with spelling and grammar corrections and would argue with me all day about facts that I could prove (and even would!) that I was right about!
(ok- maybe that's the ESFJ-ISTP combination that does that- I don't know)