Because, because, because LO26019

From: John Zavacki (
Date: 01/30/01

Replying to LO26009 --

Dear Learners and members of many organizations at many levels of many

In his response to Andrew, At concludes with:

> In Christainity, for example, this THROUGH is depicted as Jesus Christ.
> Many Christians may judge that when I articulate this "==>" with /_\(irr)S
> that I am trying to topple Jesus Christ from his throne. I am not trying
> to do it. The most encredible thing for me about the ministry of Jesus, is
> the profound irreversibility with which he did it. He made ministry an art
> which is unprecedented in the entire history of humankind.
> It is not a "because, because, because". It is a struggle to articulate
> what I know tacitly.

I have not run the statistics on the use of this dramatic element of
writing which At uses often, I don't even remember what to call it, but I
ask to to give it a read and a reread to think how At would conclude that
"many Christians may judge that..." Now go back to the original message
and see where this comes from.

I have a lot of training and education in Jungian and cognitive thinking
which I use to think about the relationships between, among, and across
elements of a system. What is the connection between At's above quoted
paragraph and the upstream and downstream objects in the conversational
thread?? If this thread were a transactional process with the acceptance
of the new philosphy at stake, what would it's effect be on the skepic?

John Zavacki


"John Zavacki" <>

Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <>

"Learning-org" and the format of our message identifiers (LO1234, etc.) are trademarks of Richard Karash.