I. AGENT/GOAL OF AGENT--perspectives, intents, goals,

approaches--all are generated by the agent, but the results

are often ironic (in the historians sense of the unintended

results) when the agent navigates the path.

II. FORCE --verb, power, socio-cultural forces, "real"

universals? Arguments of relativity/universal are always

concerned with locus, not substance, of power. Perhaps This

is the special nature of Human language--the ability to

represent force rather than only act wioth it--the

difference between language and non-human representation and

communication seems to lie here--refer to Seyfarth and

Cheyney, go to Bickerton's idea of primary (immediate) and

secondary (removed) representation of power--objectification

of the ineffable?? Is this the human breakthrough?

III. OBJECT/THEME--This is what the un-self-reflexive scholr

thinks is the subject of her/hisd study

IV. PATH--sentence--history, specific manifestation,

contingency, constraints, universal parameters?--Or

relative?

V. DISCOURSE--the whol--the gestalt--available only partially,

through multiple perspectives--did you ever continually

reorder a set of thoughts, mull it around, process it to

reach a cognitive understanding, a kenning? Is your

resultant gestralt understanding more real? Or is it simply

"yours," something you believe in because you have inversted

in it, or reached the limits of your knowledge to? Multiple

perspectives realizes the value of "mulling" for the

holistic understanding, but recognizes that it may still

only be partial, that it is open-ended even if the agent has

closed inquiry.