--- a/CR_preface.txt	Fri Nov 01 12:10:31 2024 -0400
+++ b/CR_preface.txt	Fri Nov 01 13:32:43 2024 -0400
@@ -115,6 +115,43 @@
 
 Still wanted to know what computing was., remains true up to what's in
 this book, CR.
+
+Something else that makes me feel uncomfortable about CS from the
+outset: Conversation with MM: for you MM science is a form of worship,
+whereas science is a form of theology for me (BCS), so I look to CS
+not just to manifest the glory of God, but also to explain it.
+
+Science should do justice to that.
+
+Being shy around Peter and Butler, something else made me skittish,
+something I needed in order to be at peace: a warmth / humility.  Why
+I was at peace with [John] Haugeland.  [HST: JH wasn't a
+programmer. BCS: Yes, but he programmed [in] Postscript.  BCS: We
+disagreed about typography].
+
+Had a sense with JH that even though he knew a lot more philosophy
+than I did, that we were looking together at relative
+clauses/propositional claims, not that he was scrutinising
+me. [ref. Andee Rubin]
+
+In the book I claim that deferential semantics is the heart of
+intentionality.  "There is more in heaven and on earth than is drempt
+of in your philosophy".  CS is fundamentally an intentional subject
+matter, and that its intentional character has been hidden, and that
+its use of semantics has usurped it for mechanistic purposes.
+
+All semantical vocabulary has been redefined in mechanistic terms:
+"the semantics of X" == "what will happen if X is processed"
+
+Thereby all humility and deference is lost.
+
+[What about Phi vs. Psi, 'full [?] procedural consequence']
+
+If you are interested in _real_ semantics, ... what's a poor boy to
+do?
+
+ 
+
 ------------
 Foundations of/Philosophy of Computation