2008/8/11 Mike Tintner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Will: thought you meant rational as applied to the system builder :P > Consistency of systems is overrated, as far as I am concerned. > Consistency is only important if it ever the lack becomes exploited. A > system that alter itself to be consistent after the fact is > sufficient. > > Do you remember when I wrote this? > > http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg07233.html > > What parts of it suggest a fixed and totalitarian system to you? > > > WIll, > > I didn't & still don't quite understand your ideas there. You need to give > some examples of how they might apply to particular problems.The fact that a > program/set of programs can change v. radically - and even engage opposite > POV's - doesn't necessarily mean it isn't still a totalitarian system.
My ideas, at present, don't as such apply to particular problems. They apply to the shaping of the system. It would make as much sense as asking how setting up the method of voting in a country applied to solving the national debt. Or the monetary system applied to how to transport a person from A to B. Now at some point I or someone else will have to try to solve the practical problems, But if the system allows the analogues of vote rigging or free money in some fashion then even if I set up the system with the right non-totalitarian methods it could still all go horribly wrong. So the shaping system is more fundamental and needs to be solved first. Will Pearson ------------------------------------------- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=108809214-a0d121 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
