Aurino,

***If "nothinggetsdone" is what happens, that can only mean they were not doing "whatevergetsthingsdone"! How can you be so oblivious to that?***

Let me ask you a question. How do you know that "whatevergetsthingsdone" will result in "somethingthatisdone"? Like you said about prayer, you have experience in that way, so you continue to do it. But, what if in the situation when you do "whatevergetsthingsdone" and lo and behold you do obtain "somethingthatisdone"? What if you obtain "nothinggetsdone"?

In that case, you would have to look at "whatevergetsthingsdone" and question whether this process is still effective. But, do you have to do that considering how effective you have been in the past in obtaining "somethingthatisdone"?

What if, instead, you review your "thingsthatImustassumetobevalid"? If you change this slightly (e.g., to "thingsthatImustassumetobevalid-2", and you re-apply the same reliable process, you might just end up with "somethingthatisdone". This is what actually happens. You aren't so much changing "whatevergetsthingsdone", you are changing "thingsthatImustassumetobevalid".

In some instances you might revise the process of getting things done (e.g., Francis Bacon was wrong about the scientific process as being entirely inductive), but the process is changed less often than "thingsthatImustassumetobvalid".

Warm regards, Harv

• Correction - harvey1 - September 13, 2002 - 18:47 UTC
  • No argument whatsoever - aurino_s - September 13, 2002 - 19:56 UTC
    • No disagreement - harvey1 - September 13, 2002 - 20:04 UTC