Thanks for the acknowledgement.
Obviously, you are much better read in these matters than I am.
It's always humbling to learn that what you thought was a source was, in
fact, just a tributary of a prior source. I think that's what you were
saying.
Should you ever be willing to say more about this, I would appreciate
it.
Including a reference to any, not-too-dense book or two. I fall asleep
when I read deep stuff for very long. Imagine my difficulty in getting
through UNDERSTANDING COMPUTERS & CONITION!
Best, Gary
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
What's in a name? Nothing. Nothing at all. Sorry. That's the way it
is.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Parks wrote:
>
> Gary,
>
> That was a very good statement of the constructivist perspective, with
> particular attention to the role of language. It is consistent with several
> constructivist approaches, in several disciplines. For example, much of the
> postmodern literature following Derrida and Foucoult develops the idea that
> we know the world only through "discourses" which occur in particular
> social contexts. We must become reflective about those contexts in order to
> understand what we are doing with/within those discourses. Maturana and
> Varela appear to make a good statement of the constructivist perspective,
> but they didn't invent it, and aren't unique in giving this role to
> language. I'm not so familiar with their works, but Tim's discussion helps
> to place it within the range of possible explanatory approaches. Thanks for
> the elaboration,
> Bob
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%