PMario wrote: > Coming back to the topic. > > TT: There is a deep philosophical PROBLEM with fragments---as with any >> strong approach. >> >> *HOW small is a good fragment? And how would you know?* >> >> > IMO good fragments go down to *a single paragraph, without tearing it > apart from it's "initial" context*. ... So it's the "tiddler section", > without the drawbacks. >
I agree that sentences & paragraphs in written language often form semantic units. Though, that is not a TW issue, its a linguistic & cognitive one. But I think your "no-nonsense" approach works practically. The issue for me, though, looking conceptually, is a problem with infinite regress. The relation between a "semantic fragment" and its "semantic context" is not as easy as it sounds. The issue is that by saying "its meaningful in its context dependency" lacks any explanation of how you derive context. IF you mainly have "fragments", *what process gives you the whole?* An easier way of saying this is: *You only get to understand what the wider contextual meaning WAS only AFTER you have created it.* But what goes on in that? I mentioned before that actual making of TW by active uses, as we often have here, is, in many ways formally similar to what in France is called *"Bricolage"*. Thoughts Josiah -- 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 [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tiddlywiki/5f2b0499-c822-49bf-b98a-d8d463a180c2%40googlegroups.com.
