springer wrote: > > The analogy with physical parts (atoms, quarks, etc.) may be misleading. > While objects might in principle be always further divisible, information, > in any practical context, is not so. >
I agree. Human meaning making is *context dependent *with vast implicit processes occurring. Necessarily so. I think what is interesting in TW is its "fragment model" is quite unusual. Because it goes far yet remains *agnostic* on what is scoped. If there's no assertable, there's nothing worth tiddling with. And as soon > as something's assertible, it's not a conceptual simple anymore, because > information involves synthesis. So it seems to me. I welcome a > counterexample if you can think of one... > Right. ASSERTIVE is an interesting word there that I think captures the sense a person is doing it FOR something that COHERES for them. (Where this comes from, in my own thinking, emerges out of C S Peirce's > logic and semiotics... with Peirce, along with his penpal Lady Welby, > playing a significant role in the (pre-)history of computing...) > (Peirce's Pragmatism was foundational in US philosophy for actually getting stuff done.) TT -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TiddlyWiki" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to tiddlywiki+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tiddlywiki/f4589657-60dd-4a0d-ae1d-9172f9002b3bo%40googlegroups.com.
