To become or not to become LO23932

From: John Zavacki (
Date: 02/10/00

Replying to LO23921 --

AT once again gives us a string of mathematical/logical expressions to
deal with. As one who has derived mathematics logically from language (I
was taught in my early years that I was never going to be good at science
because I wasn't good at math and consequently, I designed my own
self-fulfilling prophecy until I learned that math is a subset of
language) I find some utility in AT's funny little equations. They
remind me that I studied logic and computer science as an undergraduate to
avoid a "pure" math requirement.

They made me a better teacher, these "impure" maths of logic and computer
language and they taught me decomposition. Because of this, I rarely read
anything that is full of ><+~ and other little symbols that hold fuzzy yet
absolute meaning on their way to creating ambiguous expressions. My own
learning (and teaching) includes more "like", "as", "similar to"
constructions. I spent a lot of time studying associative thinking and
trying to build algorithms which could understand and build knowledge
based on metaphoric construction. What I've found is the leap of faith
from language production in the "other" to comprehension in the "self".
It is sometimes the rara avis between the two that shuffles the meaning
just enough for a major breakthrough in thought and, consequently learning
and teaching.

That my Zen Master's stick were heavier.....

John F. Zavacki <>


"John Zavacki" <>

Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <>

"Learning-org" and the format of our message identifiers (LO1234, etc.) are trademarks of Richard Karash.