> Hi Magnus,
>
YOU WROTE:
> There's one thing about the original question I'm a little concerned about
> though:
>
RICK:
> "the MoQ doesn't even claim to give a method of "deducing" what patterns
fit
> where."
>
MAGNUS:
> Nah, perhaps not, but I think there's a good reason for it. Such rules of
> deducing what patterns fit where must either use a language known to the
> reader, i.e. SOM lingo or some other language, i.e. MoQese. If the rules
> use SOM lingo, the rules would be as flawed as the SOM and nothing would
> be gained. We're suspended in language, remember?
RICK:
I see what you're saying. As I recently wrote to
3WDave: IF all we have to guide us in determining the proper level for a
particular pattern is the "stable or accepted values, patterns, laws,
customs, and theories that societies have formalized and that change little
over time" and the MoQ is only as precise as our ability to make these
determinations, THEN the MoQ is only as precise as the stable or accepted
values, patterns, laws, customs, and theories that societies have formalized
and that change little over time. Which obviously isn't any kind of
improvement.
MAGNUS:
And if the rules use
> MoQese, the rules would be a prerequisite to be able to understand the
> rules. I think we might have a problem here.
RICK:
I think these hypothetical rules to make level determinations would have to
be in MoQese (for lack of a better term). However, I'm not exactly sure
what "problem" you're getting at here.... Do you mean that the hypothetical
"rules to make level determinations" would be prerequisites to understanding
the MoQ's rules governing levels and their interactions.... or the other way
around??? Or do you mean that the hypothetical "rules to make level
determinations" would be prerequisites to understanding themselves...???
It's all Good,
Rick
------- End of forwarded message -------
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:25 BST