This is in response to Tor Forde's recent posting introducing the words "arena and circuits". First, let me say that this reframe is very good and thoughtful and tends to broaden the scope of the problem by introducing new language to a problem that is in gridlock with common terms. Second to try and use my posting on nominalizations to help bring a little clarity into this discussion, I would like to point out the difference in the two words which Tor has used synonymously. "Arena" is a noun, using the test, it could be put in a wheelbarrow, albeit a very large one while "circuits" is a nominalization of the process word circuiting. For example, the question to be asked would be, "Circuiting in what way?" Tor Forde correctly answers that question in his explanation, "where participation is creating values which fosters growth of humanity and the spirit etc. and a better life for others, but where the participation is not being rewarded by money." However, without this explanation of his use of the word circuit, the common understanding would be that these "circuits" are actual things rather than processes. As things they become amenable to definition and movement while as processes they describe goals to be striven towards. As I write this, I realize my descriptions seem obtuse and perhaps not practical which goes to show me that degree to which I have become habituated to a common use of language that contributes to distortions in logic. In fact as I reread Tor's explanation, I find it filled with nominalizations that I habitually accept as things but which are in actuality "processes". Take the following words, participation, growth, humanity, spirit, values, life, rewarded, and translate them into the process forms and the sentence could be re-written, "where participating is creating (and) valuing which fosters (the) growing of humanizing and spiritualizing towards a better living for others, but where participating is not being rewarded by money." Time to get on with the day, so I'll leave this and hope for some comments. Respectfully, Thomas Lunde
