[Lance K.]

Is it possible to create an image of this?

Or is typology circular?

I tend to see circular. When something finishes its cycle and comes to completion it is, in essence, just beggining its cycle.

Oakshot is not defined in his era, but ours.

[Nathan Robinson]

[Lance K.]

I was just thinking one night and this came to mind. I guess I'm not sure what it means my self, or if anything at all, though I thought it was interesting so I decided to post it.

Seems to me Oakeshotts system is given a whole new definition in our time in that its very much the people of this community that come together in agreeing on what is what. So in a way I see it like a circular system, because though the typology was created and completed years ago its not really static, its being expanded upon as new designs and interpretations are made. Seems to me the typologoy may be fixed but the definition is not, and if something can be defined and then redefined, I see that as circular movement. Perhaps I'm not making any sense though. haha

[Mikko Kuusirati]

I think a better term for what you seem to be describing is "dynamic". And yes, Oakeshott certainly intended his typology that way, open to extensive revision and refinement, and quite tolerant of exceptions, at that. He changed his mind about the particulars many times himself, and never meant his word to be final, being well aware of the limits of his own knowledge and understanding (truly impressive as they were), as well as those of his relatively new and unexplored field of study.

Which is just one of the many things I really, really admired about him.