--- a/brian_2025-03-03.txt	Mon Mar 10 17:19:57 2025 +0000
+++ b/brian_2025-03-03.txt	Tue Mar 11 16:51:42 2025 +0000
@@ -176,7 +176,69 @@
      necessary, but it's at least lurking...
 
 ----------------
-For discussion with Jill:
- 1) Jim's visit;
- 2) Repayment to Catharine
- 3) BCS to New Brunswick in August
+
+Reverting to new section 1, says Brian later -- won't readers mostly
+say, of the list I offer [altruism...fidelity], "That's nothing to do
+with religion".  Just qualifying the assertion, to, 'some [r-s] people
+have said that's their business'.
+
+How about "these topics are topics that people have felt have a
+religious dimension" or "to which religious sensibilities are
+germane".
+
+HST: What is it that a Scientist would recognise and accept as a)
+non-mechanism and b) relevant to their own Scientific business.
+
+BCS: Non-effective relations, which the CR book is all about...
+
+ HST what underlies the claim of vast significance for intentionality:
+ BCS: All the normative predicates are underlain by non-effective
+      relations, truth for example
+
+
+WARNING: BCS: It's not too late to add a sentence to that effective to
+the CR book.
+
+HST, wrt [19]: not just truly recognise, but go about it in a way that
+embraces [r-s] and extends _the nature of science itself_, rather than
+conquer more territory for good-old-fashioned-mechanistic Science.
+
+BCS: what I mean in [19] is, for example, what's altogether missed by
+experimental results heralding the discovery of "the contemplation
+neuron".
+
+BCS: tring again, scientists domesticating territories not classically
+thought to be of science.  How do we understnda this:  
+
+  1) as a broad-swath claim the Science (mechanistic theories) will do
+     justice to this wider swath (HST: A land-grab).
+  2) [HST: Expanding the understanding of what scientific explanation
+      can look like beyond mere mechanism, to non-effective relations]
+  2) [BCS] CR? _Meaning and Mechanism_, were it to exist: both
+     effective and non-effective relations.  This story needs told,
+     but maybe not here, or not beyond a brief version.  Or is HST
+     confusing M&M and "the Scientific worldview" [today] vs. "the new
+     expanded scientific worldview [which we are looking forward
+     to/see encouraging signs of the emergence of], including, but
+     [BCS] not only that, because also ...
+
+Alternatively
+
+     If we look at [the best/right-thinking] new scientific
+     explorations of things classically thought of as the domain of
+     [r-s], we find a (number of non-mechanistic properties) One is
+     the theoretical centrality of the non-effective, the role of
+     embodiment, one is the importance of indexicality.
+
+or
+
+     1) The essential role of the non-effective, in particular the
+         non-efficacy of reference;
+     2) The essential role of embodiment;
+        2a) The inexorable role of the indexical	.
+     3) The surplusity of the referent (the way in which it always
+        exceeds that which the reference appears to convey) [There's a
+        lot more to be said here]
+     4) [HST wonders about "the true flaw in determinism" == "the
+         universe is [already] running the optimal algorithm"]
+