Reply to comment

Lots of interesting stuff, thanks Anne/all.  I've mentioned most of the things that I want to continue thinking about in my summary notes above.  In a general sense I like very much the notion that one needs reciprocity to test for intentionality/story telling, and the movement to think about this in terms of information, coders, and decoders.  For more on language/ambiguity/reciprocity, see Why Words Arise and for more on information/coders/decoders see Information? An Inquiry.

What the session also did was to give me the feeling that we need to be a little more deliberative in our use of language, lest we get into loops of misunderstanding with each other and with others.  In the session, we had a tendency to use the word "intentional" as a short hand for a distinction between model builders and story tellers that I had suggested in a previous session.  The problem with doing so is that "intentional" has at least two more accepted meanings, a common one and a technical philosophical one, that are different from one another.  Both are related to but not the same as the characteristic I was trying to point to.  So, to try and forestall misunderstandings and perhaps even to help both us and others move in some new directions, the table below ...

Hope this is useful.