On re-examining that post of mine, it strikes me that some specific linkages in my model(s) related to the issue aren't adequately addressed in my response. In particular the following remarkable passage posted by Robert Hansen: QUOTE > (Robert Hansen): >It isn?t imprecision in language, it is just that the >thoughts are too much for you to get right away. I get >that. You don?t have a lot of experience thinking about >these things at this level. > UNQUOTE I really do wonder what might be "these things at this level" that Robert Hansen may be thinking about. I wonder if anyone - Professor Talman; Robert Hansen; Haim (if by chance he is monitoring the progress of his 'protege' at this forum); anyone at all - could possibly clarify matters for me.
Robert Hansen (RH) claims that Professor Talman doesn't have a "lot of experience thinking of things at this level", IMPLYING thereby, I believe, that RH himself does have vast experience "thinking of things at this level".
I personally have found that Robert Hansen's contributions at this forum are, by and large, quite superficial - but that may be because I lack "a lot of experience thinking about things at Robert Hansen's level". At least, I believe RH would so claim.
I wonder if there are any 'objective criteria' that could enable us to measure levels of 'profundity', 'superficiality', etc, etc. I attach herewith a document "Deep Logic" that may be relevant in this context. I shall be happy to explain the model if any such explanation is required.