Goethe wrote: > On Sat, 8 Nov 2008, comex wrote: >> It was ehird who said: ""X was intended therefore X is what is true" >> is so awfully against >> any spirit of Nomic that I can't even begin to comprehend it.", and >> Goethe who let the spirit of a contract influence eir inquiry >> (proto-)judgement. (But pardon me if I myself misunderstand.) > > Actually, I was talking about definitional qualities, ehird put words > in my mouth in claiming I was speaking strongly of "spirit of the > contract" though I may have mentioned the phrase. I think Murphy had > it clearer.
Except for, yes, mis-remembering who was on which side. > Basically, my argument was not limited to contracts and applies equally > to rules. It says that if the role of The X is defined in the Rules as > being a position with certain abilities and properties, and a set of > contract clauses *or* rules say: > > "1. Entity A is The X, but has none of the properties or abilities > that the rules say constitutes having the role of X." > "2. Entity B has the properties and abilities of being The X, but > is not the X." > > Then there are circumstances that we would say "B is actually the X > as it is truer to the spirit and *content* of the definition of X *in > the Rules*. ehird, with the position explained this way, do you still disagree with it as vehemently?
