From: Steele, Kirk A (SteeleKA@nafm.misawa.af.mil)
Date: Fri Jan 11 2002 - 18:49:28 MST
"for instance, analysing a game of chess in terms of the rules that are
applicable to chess
rather than the dynamics of the play?"
Without having to figure out what the rules of the game are, you can observe
and cognit that the participants are engaged in some sort of cognitive
transaction not centered on direct material transaction or well being.
-----Original Message-----
From: Blunderov [mailto:squooker@mweb.co.za]
Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 10:58 PM
To: virus@lucifer.com
Subject: RE: virus: Dawkins in the Observer Ping Blunderov/Joe/Kirk
Thanks for your response which certainly widened my eyes.
I am not sure that I properly understand what you said though. You wrote
"Although symbology is a priori to cognitive transactions, it is not
predicate to the meta analysis." - would this be similar to, for instance,
analysing a game of chess in terms of the rules that are applicable to chess
rather than the dynamics of the play?
I think I understand enough of your critique to realise that pop goes
another weasel.
Oh well.
Blunderov
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:28:39 MDT