Originally Posted by drewitgolf
|
|
Before I bite any further, would you be so kind as to define "right reasons" and "Component Alignment and Relationship Feels" in your last post?
|
That's the quote from the book - not my words - however I'll throw out a couple of quick thoughts:
You should not only be doing it "correctly" but also for the right reasons or its inconsistency will plague you endlessly. Garbage in - garbage out. Replace any inclination toward "Component Position and Location Feel" with "Component Alignment and Relationship Feel."
1) That paragraph really goes with and supports the 2nd paragraph in the preface of the 7th edition (page XI) or likewise the 1st paragraph in the 6th edition (page VII)
2) "Right Reasons" - I included the quote above - it's important to understand the context in which it is written. He's saying you have to be a thinker, understand the context, the relationships, the alignment of something - you can't just not think, get into a position and "see if it works" - without considering the other factors involved. It's a thinking man's game. In contrast if you don't understand the nature, relationships, causes of the position and merely "copy" it without thinking, understanding it - you will be plagued with inconsistency.
3) "Component Alignment and Relationship Feel" - Again, he's comparing it to "Component Position and Location Feel" - In the one you are thinking of the context, the relationships, understanding the individual item but also understanding it's relationship to the whole, to it's neighbors, to the "web", the motion. As opposed to the non-thinker, isolating a position and that feel - without understanding it's nature, the relationship to itself and others. The Thinker wants to know - what are it's causes, what influences it, what is it's nature, how is it influenced. The non- thinker doesn't want to expend the effort.
Finally, I'm not saying you can't define a broader perspective of "component alignments" - you probably could - however I'm not sure it would the best-clearest answer to the question that started this post and it wouldn't invalidate my definitions - rather mine would be underneath the umbrella of a wider application/definition. Love to learn - if you have any different perspectives.