I just told some folks about the concept of "getting it on its feet" and they said "that should be your next blog post." Who am I to argue?
I can't remember where I first heard the "on its feet" concept articulated. It may have been Mike Alfreds' book Different Every Night and either way that book is exceptionally good, so it deserves a shout-out!
In any case, here's the concept. Let's say you're a group of actors working on a scene, and trying to decide how to play a particular moment. Someone makes a suggestion. Another person isn't too sure about it.
At this point, the group can discuss the suggestion, and in fact, could spend the next twelve hours discussing it, and never get closer to a resolution.
Or, they could stand up, try out the suggestion, and within a couple minutes they'll know whether it works or not.
This is "getting it on its feet," and it's magical. It's also scary, which is why people often find it preferable to discuss something ad nauseam rather than committing to testing something real.
I know it's scary because I feel that fear, but I'm not totally sure why it's scary. In part there's the sheer inertia of talking—transitions are generally tougher than "continuing in the same direction." Also, as long as something is abstract it's both perfect and infinite—no pathways have been closed! Once you get it "on its feet" it becomes finite and flawed.
But not necessarily, because if you get an idea on its feet and it falls flat on its face, you're back to the magic infinitude of abstraction!