RE: SUO: The Plumbing Theorem(s)
Dear Edward and all SUOers,
On Thu, 22 Mar 2001, Edward Dawidowicz wrote:
> Pat and John
>
> The plumbing analog was an excellent set of examples to bring to light
> dyads and triads. Tetrads however we may need if we desire to shorten
> the path of flow between different layers and some more elaboration is
> in order but I will quit while I'm ahead.
>
> On the lighter side:
> Since I plan to remodel my house this summer I am looking for some
> good plumbers and electrician. I would love to hire you guys. However
> I'm not sure about 'triple cable' and '2-conductor Romex'.
>
> Keep up the great work.
On the heavier side:
Edward, are you not wanting that remodelling of your house ever to come to
an end?
(... though I must admit, I too am finding it very difficult to tear myself
away from these archives. Apart from their many weighty insights and
confusions, they are rather fun. As my philosophical mentor, Donald
MacKinnon, used to say, the mistakes of great minds are unendingly
interesting and instructive (That had been a propos Kant). Thanks to Edward,
however, for the here-and-now reminder to quit while ahead.)
Anyway, I am sure you will all carry on enjoying yourselves!
On the other hand, if you are wanting to be part of a really fun
building/programming of a whole new house from scratch, surprisingly with a
clear and simple plan and using mainstream techniques (I assert...), do try
again to wade through this old post from me:
http://suo.ieee.org/email/msg00634.html
On yet another hand (reality so pushing us to n-arity ...), I would
myself prefer to shift the metaphor to "the plumbing of society", even
though it does betray a sometimes offputting seriousmindedness.
Best wishes to all ... and especially to all our prospective users, even
though they may not yet realize how much they - and society - need the
congenially-manipulable simplicity that we are all aiming to produce as soon
as we can (It will - I believe I can see - be simply binary-relationed and
binary-logicked in its mechanics, and yet - it is certain - richly
many-dimensional and comfortably-fuzzy as a result. That will be thanks
also to the ever-present dimensions of the observer (or "relativistic
context", in my ponderous terms) that may conceivably contribute to Peirce's
and/or others' liking of irreducible triadicity as more plainly set out by
Pat).
Hopefully yours (though confidently so in the end...),
Christopher