I was ignorant of Vico before you mentioned him. So I'm going to ass/u/me what you have in mind is his emphasis on *making* and my argument that you can only tell if someone understands you by what they *do*, not any inferred meaning of the words they say/write. And in the context of Carter's idea, I agree he spends way too little time on the details of how one/some judges something *apt*. But, if you'll remember, Carter sometimes hangs out with our frequent bogey Chalmers in Extended Mind/Epistemology cliques. And that concept of extension *might* allow for a little Vico buried somewhere in there.
As for bristling for being called Vico-ist, obviously I don't care about that any more than I care about being called Hegelian. In fact, this is one of the reasons I could never be a scholar or academic. All my ideas are the creations of others, I just take them in, chew them up, and spit them out all mangled like a good "everything is text" GPT-3 or your common chat bot. For all you know, I am merely a Chinese Room. But talking *is* doing, talking is making. Science is just as much the strings of noises accompanying virus-laden spittle out of our mouths as it is the space station or the quantum computer. The rest of my response to your welcome criticism requires more work on my part. On 8/12/20 12:55 PM, Prof David West wrote: > Given Glen's commitment to Vico-ism, I am surprised he finds the article > compelling in some way. -- ↙↙↙ uǝlƃ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
