From: "jeffrey E." <[email protected]> To: Noam Chomsky Subject: Re: Re: Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2015 00:24:20 +0000 complicated linguistically. 1 disney's 2. it seems pluto and its moon were once one thing , but after an event its current moon was not thrown far enough away to cause it to circle it, so they are connected by both gravity and history, ( appropriate) 3. according to the frame of reference. 4. from plutos point of view , it would be asking , who are you and what is self, from the moons perspective . the object of a strong attraction On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 7:52 PM, Noam Chomsky < > wrote: Who's Pluto? From: Jeffrey E. [mailto:[email protected] Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2015 6:28 PM To: Noam Chomsky Subject: Re: Re: "easy" , is for others . - glad she hasn't left .I think of you two as pluto and its moon On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 6:11 PM, Noam Chomsky < wrote: Mathematicians are lucky. Even more so than logicians, who worry about foundations. As for the sciences, the luckiest is physics. If a molecule is too big, or some other system too complex, they handed over to the chemists — who do the same with the biologists — who proceed to the psychological sciences — and then on to history and literature. And of course depth of explanation is necessarily sacrificed along the way as complexity mounts. There are a few exceptions. Parts of linguistics, for example. It would be good to widen that bridgehead, but not easy. Valeria hasn't been able to leave yet. Maybe in a couple of days. From: jeffrey E. [mailto:[email protected] Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2015 2:18 PM To: Noam Chomsky Subject: Re: EFTA00851149