I know this is irrelevant but there is no common law marriage in NM.
My daughter was married by an imam without a marriage license.
Consulting a family law attorney taught us that a religious ceremony
yields a legal marriage but that for practical reasons you should get
a marriage license, which my daughter and her husband have since
done. The sentence "there is no common law marriage in NM" was spoken
in that consultation by the attorney.
My uncertainty is what led me to say Mrs. Glen instead of Mrs.
Ropella. It seemed less official.
Frank
Frank Wimberly
Phone (505) 670-9918
On Jun 15, 2017 3:36 PM, "Steven A Smith" <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
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
<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
<http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com>
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
<http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/> by Dr. Strangelove
============================================================
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
