SUO: Re: SUOP Topic :> Illicitation Of Definition
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
SUOPT :> Definition. Note 9
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
YAH. SUOPT Outline. http://suo.ieee.org/email/thrd1.html#11635
IRT. SUOPT :> Definition 07. http://suo.ieee.org/email/msg11772.html
JA = Jon Awbrey
JS = John Sowa
JA: Vision Test. Can you find the Definition in this jumble of words?
| Clause 2. No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have
| attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a
| Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected,
| be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.
|
| http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html
JS: I would not call that a definition: [above]
John,
Yes, you already said that you did not see it as such,
and now you say that you do not call it as such. Thus,
I can see that your lack of calling it is consistent with
your lack of seeing it. But as I scanned it go by, I did
think I spied something that I'd call a "definition" there.
As I observed, there is lack of agreement about what counts
as a definition, and now the disordered pair of us provide
ample evidence of my claim. Since I do not see an Umpire,
literally, "a non-peer", anywhere in sight, except for the
Invisible Thumb Of Reality, perhaps, I cannot call you out,
nor you I, not by the rules of Justified Basis Ball, to wit,
out of the language game in progress, so unless it rains or
we call for beer, we remain high and dry in a sober form
of apparently irrevocable dissent.
What might account for this "form of dissent" (FOD)
about what people call, and about what people see?
Could it be a "lack of definition" (LOD)? That's
what I'd call it, if I call it as I see it.
And you know I do.
JS: Those are the qualifications required of a representative.
The system defined by the Constitution is an interlocking set
of constraints on the various words, such as "representative".
You can't point to any single block of text in the Constitution
that defines a particular word. It's just one continuous text
with lots of interrelated terms.
JS: But there is an enormous amount of background knowledge that is
never stated, and that knowledge is always changing and evolving.
It is the role of the courts and the legislature to fill in the
gaps. The legislature adds more constraints as needed, and
the courts fill in whatever background knowledge they feel
is appropriate to any case that might arise.
JS: When the inevitable contradictions arise, the courts are
usually the first to detect them, and the legislature has
to reshuffle the constraints.
Good. I always knew that we, the people, would get
an interpretive branch, if we but waited long enuff.
JS: Recommendation: The SUO procedures document
will be a list of constraints on how we operate.
It will inevitably be incomplete, but it should
not be inconsistent. We will have to add more
constraints as time goes on, but it is easier to
add constraints than to determine which ones to
delete or relax when a contradiction occurs.
But, as you may see, there is
already a motion on the table.
Vide. SUOPT :> Definition 06. http://suo.ieee.org/email/msg11752.html
JA: | I move that the IEEE SUO Group adopt the Pragmatic Maxim
| to clarify all residual issues/questions about meanings.
Fine. If you like the word "constraint"
better than the word "definition", that
is easy enough to fix. Are you of the
opinion that changing that word will
make any practical difference?
Do you think that it will make we, the people,
more likely to read each other's Commandments?
Even Alice, who enjoyed a proper English education,
could have out-matched Pollyanna on that Eye Chart.
<Insert "Standard Umpire Obliviscence" Joke Here>.
Jon Awbrey
Incidental Musement:
http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Ebbinghaus/
http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Ebbinghaus/memory7.htm
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o