--- a/brian_2025-03-03.txt	Mon Mar 10 16:52:06 2025 +0000
+++ b/brian_2025-03-03.txt	Mon Mar 10 17:19:57 2025 +0000
@@ -101,22 +101,7 @@
 great job on Question 1, and it gets better all the time, but that has
 nothing to do with Question 2: for that I have the Church"]
 
-The ideological claim wrt the s-r is that it's complete and sufficient.
-
-This (that these forms of thinking are distinct) is no longer a
-tenable division.  [I.e. the compatibilist is mistaken]
-
-These two sets of world-views are no longer tenably opposed.  Because
-people are trying to corral a whole bunch of topics into the scientific
-ones.
-
-There are many topics which classically had been thought to fall into
-the [r-s] category which are being explored in something like the
-scientific one.  So, bottom-line, the whole distinction needs to be
-rethought.
-
------End of section-----
-
+>>>>>>>>>>side tracks???>>>>>>>>>
 Is there anything like a consensus/received wisdom as to what those
 two forms of understanding are?  On the science side, people might
 assume that it's causal explanations (mechanism).  The (r-s?) critique
@@ -138,7 +123,57 @@
 [HST: what's the other one?]
 
 [HST: write a two-page version? A skeleton]
+<<<<<<<<<<end of side tracks>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
 
+The ideological claim wrt the s-r is that it's complete and sufficient.
+
+This (that these forms of thinking are distinct) is no longer a
+tenable division.  [I.e. the compatibilist is mistaken]
+
+These two sets of world-views are no longer tenably opposed.  Because
+people are trying to corral a whole bunch of topics into the scientific
+ones.
+
+There are many topics which classically had been thought to fall into
+the [r-s] category which are being explored in something like the
+scientific one.  So, bottom-line, the whole distinction needs to be
+rethought.
+
+-----End of new section one-----
+
+Next would be an informal account of the structure of intentionality?
+
+If we look at that the structure of intentionality in light of
+physical science it will turn out that the intentional stuff has
+properties that are associated with [r-s].  So the essentially
+infinite structure and complexity of the world, the fact that
+descriptions are partial and inadequate.
+
+Or, [BCS] has spent the last 50 years trying to formulate a theory of
+intentionality compatible with the physical sciences, but it turns out
+that the character of intentionality that you get if you do that has
+many properties that have classically been assumed to lie within
+[r-s].
+
+Or, the story [BCS] is trying to tell here is _BCS's_ world-view.
+It's not necessarily anyone else's.  What is it?
+
+  a) A story about intentionality that's compatible with physics;
+
+  b) A recognition that if this is the character of intentionality,
+     and if we are currently using it, in other words, go
+     ...
+     What does the world look like from within that view of
+     intentionality?
+
+OR
+
+  1) This is a place where BCS can state / give voice to his view of
+     intentionality;
+
+  2) There's a kind of first-person perspective which he's shifting
+     to, as opposed to a third-person perspective.  Perhaps not
+     necessary, but it's at least lurking...
 
 ----------------
 For discussion with Jill: