Nicholas Thompson wrote:
Another example: I had to work out (and I am not entirely sure, even now)
what Marcus had in mind by "subject" in "subject neutral": subject = the
person who is speaking, as in "a subjective utterance"; or subject = the
thing the person is talking about, as in "the subject of the conversation".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subject_(philosophy)
A scientific report should allow any appropriate reader (a subject) to
decide if they want to revise their information set to another state
that includes some or all of the information the writer sought to
communicate but without any reference to the specific writer (another
subject). Different subjects should be able to agree on what was
referred to and related (objects), even though they may well have
different interpretations of what it means. There should not need to be
any act of faith or generous `listening' in the transaction. I would
say depth comes more from the analysis of objects and nailing things
down whereas breadth requires ongoing examination of the subjective.
Marcus
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
