I've tended think that "explicit" vs. "implicit" would be better word choices than "external" and "internal." But no single word is a magic bullet here. Augusta's premise is that there's something that N+F / S+T have in common such that N is to S as F is to T. But similarly, with the "abstract" vs. "involved" dichotomy, there's something that N+T / S+F have in common such that N is to S as T is to F. The danger is that when people take external/internal as the foundation, with various interpretations on what those terms mean, they often tend to build a very different model from what the IM elements meant originally.



Reply With Quote