Much appreciated Peter.

peter, what are your thoughts on Barsalou's theory of situated conceptualisation. For me this is the closest i have found to my way of imagining the space in which the propositional, perspectival and participatory ways of knowing all come together.

So would you agree that knowing cannot only be captured by the having of propositions but knowing also needs to come from different ways of taking perspectives and different ways of participating?

so true as in the truest description of a thing rather than propositionally true / factually true. does that capture the distinction?

so we can keep changing our frame of reference looking fo rthe deepest possible principle that coherently unpins all the other frames and this would be called the 'true concept' ?

(yes i believe all concepts are by necessity generalisations). (I might go as far as to say it allows ways, not just new ways because of the combinatorial explosion of decision making if we had to include every detail without reducing to relevant conceptualisations)

would you be happy with 'changing your frame of reference' instead of distancing?

when you say via concepts, are you saying the mechanism by which we take a distanced perspective is best described as conceptual in nature?

Beautifully explained Peter. I really appreciate reading your thinking on this. It strongly resonates with a lot of what i believe to be of fundamental importance.

Ok this is getting weird. Bloom et al have clearly stated there is a progression from simple to complex. Carl acknowledges this. And yet you are flatly denying the clearly hierarchy nature of the cognitive behaviours. I was interested in why but you just seem to be doubling down so I’m no longer.

Here is the quote from Carl “So although the committee did arrange its six categories from simple to complex”

And how schools use the visual is not inherent to the visual. And we should not deny the nature of a thing just because people might misunderstand a thing. That is a false equivocation that leads to false reasoning.

I’m truly surprised you see absolutely no pattern between the ‘cognitive behaviours’ and just as surprised that you believe bloom did not either. Like I said I believe they explicitly said that these cognitive behaviours are roughly sequential in reference to their complexity.

Let me ask you a couple of questions. What sequence would you put them in? Why would you put them in that sequence? Why did Bloom et al decide to put them in this particular sequence?

You don’t think they are at all hierarchical in nature? I believe even in carls writing he quotes them as saying they are hierarchical in complexity.

Absolutely true. Somehow you need to find a way to carve out your own priorities and triage the priorities of others in a way that fundamentally aligns.

Yes but importantly, But which work do you love doing? Which work has the greatest impact on increasing the love of the work that you do? If you can prioritise this.

Honestly, why does anyone care about the pyramid? I can see that for some, the underlying reason is because for them it fuels the knowledge before critical thinking ideology. Otherwise, I can’t see an issue with Blooms ideas being presented as a pyramid. Why the hoo-ha?

How would you describe the concept of orientation Peter?