On 6/15/17 2:46 PM, glen ☣ wrote:
On 06/15/2017 12:52 PM, Steven A Smith wrote:
From my point of view, Glen Zigged, while I remained on course. Of course,
from Glen's frame of reference, *he* was on a straight course and * Zagged.
That is why iterative discussion is required for conversation?
If you agree that iteration is necessary, then that implies that registration
is always a process, never an instantaneous, atomic event. Therefore we have
to ask whether this process is always monotonic. I.e. if Bob and Sally discuss
topic X, will the differences in their understanding at time t ≥ that at time
t+1? If not, then we have to allow a difference between premature and
mis-registration, which allows you to be right. [†] If, however, it is
monotonic, then we have to ask whether the process is, in principle, infinite.
I.e. when registration concludes, is it because the Bob and Sally difference in
understanding is = 0.0 or merely arbitrarily close to 0.0. But in either case,
you can't be right. If the difference = 0.0, then there's no possibility of
mis-registration. If it's infinite, then we must have a shunt a cut-off
threshold beyond which Bob or Sally calls it good enough and quits the
iteration. If the process is cut off before Bob and Sally agree well enough
(within some error ball), enough for that to qualify as mis-registration, then
that _is_ premature registration
So, it seems to me you've cornered yourself, here. If you know the process is
iterative, yet you still mis-registered, why is it not premature registration?
What is it about that concept you don't like?
sure... we can call it premature registration by that measure but that
undermines the utility of even having the concept of a *mis*registration
as a possibility. By your logic, any mis-registration I might make
along the way is a pre-registration. As a fan of "late binding" in many
contexts, I would agree that *all* registration risks being *pre*
registration.
What I don't like about pre-registration is that i think I KNOW what it
would have been if I had "jumped to a conclusion" rather than to have
simply misunderstood your intention/context. When YOU misunderstand
me, I don't always suspect you of "jumping the gun", I sometimes
recognize that we were not talking about the same thing, and it is
likely that unless there was an obvious *mis*registration, the
*mis*registration would have stood. And of course, if we yapp on about
it long enough and we come to understand what that misunderstanding was,
we could (in hindsight now) *call* it premature registration... but I
think that is an artifact?
Somehow this discussion reminds me of the line (repeated often) in the
movie Twins with "Arnold and Danny":
"You move too soon!"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGstM8QMCjQ
[†] But if you take that route, you'll be forced to allow that even with an
infinite amount of yapping at each other, Bob and Sally's understanding _might_
grow further and further apart. And, I believe, that results in a
contradiction with the premise that iterative discussion is required. So, even
if we allow it, we've proved your argument invalid.
I didn't say that Iterative Discussion always lead to convergence. I
only meant to imply that without iteration, any mis-registration of
concept has to hold.
If we doubt the validity of our registration, it would seem to make
sense to discuss said registration further until we either converge
enough to agree, diverge to the point of giving up, or coin a
meta-discussion like this and risk repeating mis/pre-registrations! This
sometimes degenerates into another great pair of lines from the clip above:
"you have no respect for logic!"
"but he's got an axe!"
When Frank asked the question "is Renee Mrs. Glen", I would say (from
what I know of you two) the assumption of his question was about 80%
correct... you are a committed couple who lives together in the manner
once reserved for married couples. Marcus suggests that Frank ducked
premature registration by asking... had he taken the assumption that you
and Renee are married and never commented on it, I would call that 'at
worst" mis-registration... a simple mistake, but one of legal/religious
technicalities rather than one of the general nature of your
relationship? Had he stated it as a direct assumption and you had
corrected him, then we'd be back to "was that *mis* or was that
*pre*?" and perhaps to split the last? hair, if Frank continued to
consider Renee as "Mrs. Glen" even after you pointed out that there was
no legal nor religious marriage between you, then you would grant it as
*mis*registration? Or just a difference of opinion of what it means to
be referred to as "Mrs. Glen"?
And if Renee were a man, then you might have chosen to correct him that
the closest preferred salutation might be "Mr. Glen", and while I have
met you both, I have enough transgendered friends to recognize that
either or both of you could be living your lives according to your
gender identification rather than that implied by the presence or
absence of a Y chromosome without me necessarily recognizing such...
long before we get into XYY and XXY Jacobs/Klinefelters syndrome, or
better yet Chimeric Hermaphrodites?
Without investigating all of these alternatives, I'd say that we have
*all* preregistered the implications of "just who is this Renee Glen
speaks of?" But I don't think there has been a particular *mis*
registration (if such a concept is even admissible in this discussion)?
I'm sure Renee's ears are burning by now!
<aside> I have been legally (and religiously) married once... that union
was dissolved after 12 years and 2 children by Catholic Annullment and
Legal Divorce... so I have not since bothered with the benefit of the
blessings of the Church nor the State since... I can't say it makes a
lot of difference one way or the other except the amount of paperwork
and the likelihood of sharing the booty with lawyers, which seems reason
enough. But for all practical purposes (and perhaps according to Common
Law in NM) I have been "in a state of marriage" a total of 3 times,
despite not having *married* the last two. As an aside, neither of the
last two would have answered to the salutation "Mrs. Steve" and
generally preferred not to be referred to as "the wife", or horrors
"wifey"! When UC offered benefits to "same sex" unmarried partners,
but refused it to "opposite sex" partners, I asked the (semi) serious
question of HR if one of us had a sex change, if THAT would qualify my
life partner? They pretended to take my question seriously but was not
surprised when they never got back to me. </aside>
"you can waterboard a dead horse, but that won't make him into a
talking horse" - Mr. Ed
Carry On,
- Steve
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
