Robert Hansen (RH) posted Mar 7, 2014 1:12 AM (http://mathforum.org/kb/message.jspa?messageID=9406563): > > On Mar 6, 2014, at 1:38 PM, Joe Niederberger > <email@example.com> wrote: > > > It finally hit me just how sensitive you are about > "book learnin'". > > Then you have missed the point, which to me signifies > something more than just missing the point, since I > have made the point at least a dozen times. It isn?t > book learning that I am sensitive to Joe. It is > s ?just? book learning that I am sensitive to. And I > am well aware that you are asking yourself ?What does > he mean by ?just? book learning?? But your radio is > broken, which makes it very difficult to communicate > that other ?thing", and I don?t think I can fix it. > > These discussions involve book learning plus art. And > quite frankly, if I had to choose one or the other, I > would choose art. And someone with art wouldn?t even > ask why. Fortunately, I don?t have to make a choice. > I am good enough at both. > > Bob Hansen > (IMHO), 'Book learning' and what RH calls 'art' form a 'silver dyad' ['Book learning'+'art'] - and to try to separate the two would be foolish.
Of course, PROPERLY to demonstrate that dyad (and its many implications) would require some facilities that Math-teach does not presently provide us. Also requires at least working knowledge of what I call 'prose + structural graphics' (p+sg).