Your explanation trivializes and glosses over a lot of important aspects. That's why I cannot accept it as is. All I see here is a potentially powerful way of looking at intent. It's useful, but I already explained at length why I am not pleased with this manner of thinking replacing every other type of thinking. I understand exactly what you're talking about. I have no idea why you launched into this big explanation, because I don't think I've gained anything new from it. It's basically a rehash of what you explained before. Well, I got your explanation the first time around. If you don't believe me, go ahead and quiz me on it.

I think you're missing a lot of important detail this way. It's like painting with just red. Well, if red is your favorite color, should you paint everything red? I don't think so, personally.

I think actually most times people want to leave the base alone and perform a local change. It's like dancing on the stage. You don't want to alter the stage with every step. You want to dance on it. And of course, there is a way of doing that. First you have to conceive of the stage as remaining constant. That helps.

So, what you're talking about helps to make big jumps, but it's useless for any kind of detail work. On top of that, it's completely bogus anyway. Nothing is static for a moment. There is no infinite grid as such. You're just imagining it. Now, if you want to use your imagination that way, that's one thing. But when you start saying this is how it is, that's different. Then I say, no it is not. You're talking about one option, and not how it is. Personally I even like the option, but I am not in love with it.