> > *HOW small is a good fragment? And how would you know?* >>>> >>>> Mat wrote
> ... an exact answer: > > .... There is not reason to split up, say, the huge Encyclopedia > Britannica tiddler if one never needs any subpart of it (and if the system > can handle such a big tiddler). > > And it is pointless to have a tiddler for each ingredient in your pancake > recipe if those tiddlers are never used in any other context ... > Like with PMario, I can only agree on that practicality. It makes sense. I, of course, want to know HOW you found out that its not sensible to have each ingredient a Tiddler. (Though it might be if you needed to create a shopping list for your next cook-up :-). The point I was trying to get to, somewhat slowly, is the functioning of IMPLICIT knowledge in the conceptual construction of the whole. What is that? Part of the technical philosophical issue is that in trying to explain what we do in TW to create a "whole" often the EXPLANANS gets conflated with the EXPLANANDUM (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explanandum_and_explanans). This is not a criticism. Rather, an observation. Practical difficulties arise when you have "meaningful fragments" but don't yet have a "solid defined context". That happens quite a lot, I think. The issue in your comments is not they lack utility, it is that there is no accounting of "emergent properties". I think that is the Elephant In The Room :-). Thoughts 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 [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tiddlywiki/bb51689d-9f7a-4585-94ac-9cc8008d620c%40googlegroups.com.
