After I studied the art, a punch is no longer a punch, a kick no longer a kick.
Now that I understand the art, a punch is just like a punch, a kick just like a kick. -- BruceLee
OK. The logical, rationalistic, evil understand-things-by-taking-them-apart dead European male Western side of me would say: why bother taking three steps to return to where you were. Easier to stay put and watch GilligansIsland? reruns.
No, it's not returning to where you were. the punch(or mountain) in the third stage is different from the punch(mountain) in the first stage. In the first stage, we see a punch from the superficial outside observation and common sense. It's just a punch. If you study the punch, you build up a sort of system which the punch works in, and impose your system or mental frame unto the punch -- and you think you understood the punch. Now the punch looks different from the first superficially observed punch in the first stage. You tell people, "Punch is not just a punch." In the third stage, however, we are close to the inner essence of the punch, and the way punch works looks so natural to you, and you don't impose a system unto it. You feel the true nature of punch. You say, "Punch is just a punch." --JuneKim
It sounds like the initial reaction to patterns. First, CodeIsJustCode, then code is patterns, then code is just code again. --BrianRobinson
When you first look at things, they are simple, cos you don't really see them. When you look closer you see all the details, and they are complex. When you understand them, you see the patterns to them, and they are simple again. The simplicity of understanding is different from the simplicity of ignorance. -- RobRix, sounding more like a mystic than he likes
This reminded me of the ExtremeProgrammingMaturityModel and the view that XP is just a starting point, in other words the 'nucleus'. -- JasonYip
This is probably derived from the DiamondSutra?:
I saw this learning Latin (as a native English speaker), which should be enough to prove that this principle applies even to purely logical-rationalistic-evil-understanding-things-by-tearing-them-apart-dead-white-patriarchal-European-male domains. :)
Word order in Latin affects emphasis in the sentence, but doesn't change the meaning -- "agricola malum rogavit" and "malum rogavit agricola" both mean "the farmer stole an apple". Most natively English-speaking students, just learning Latin, would say that in the second sentence the apple stole the farmer -- so they have to be taught that word order doesn't matter, before they can be safely told the ways in which it does.
So:
See also: ShuHaRi, MartialArtsAsSoftwareDevelopmentMetaphor