Aha! Yes, I had not noticed that new point. My reduction ended up on a fairly
commonplace sentiment that we're reflexive animals ... that our perspectives
and [non]literals feed back upon each other. Although I disagree with you about
whether a restatement of something common place is worth [re
Nick, Glen, hi; thank you both,
Sorry for dropout — life — I want to acknowledge Glen’s earlier list-form
digest of the various assertions, which is in parts rendered in terms I don’t
know, so I am impaired in following. Maybe more when the smoke clears, on that
branch, unless I draw all blank
I *think* that works. Ordinarily, I react badly to hyper-formality. But one reason to
formalize is so that we can be agnostic about the origins of some thing, abstracting it
from the world. Whether an ultra-abstracter like Peirce would support the
historical/scholarly logging of whatever messy
I do not know and have not read Feferman, so this may be totally off base, but
...
glen stated:
*Worded one way: Schema are the stable patterns that emerge from the
particulars. And the variation of the particulars is circumscribed (bounded,
defined) by the schema.
*
This is a description of "c
Well, not "languageless", but "language-independent". Now that you've forced me to think harder, that phrase
"language-independent" isn't quite right. It's more like "meta-language" ... a family of languages such that
the family might be "language-like" ... a language of languages ... a higher o
Perhaps of interest
===
Tom Johnson
Inst. for Analytic Journalism
Santa Fe, New Mexico
505-577-6482
===
-- Forwarded message -
From: SDS Pre-college Education SIG
Date: Mon, Jan 16, 2023, 1:22 AM
Subject: Teaching Social Studies with System
