Dave, Krim, Can't agree with "brittle" ... they are real in a pragmatic sense. That is useful if defined discretely, and that discrete definition may move with a different basis for defining it. (Hence the current discussion in this thread about what makes the biological level.)
In reality patterns on patterns give us many onion-skins to play with, but the stack and the ordering are real. Different definitions defining the boundaries have different significance ... that's the reason to debate how "good" a definition is. More than just heuristics. I'd agree that they are not "absolute". Ian On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 7:41 PM, David Thomas <[email protected]> wrote: >> [Krimel] >> I think the levels in the MoQ are a mess and Andy nailed them correctly >> earlier today with a comment something like we create levels on the fly. I >> have used that terminology several times in the past. Pirsig's claims that >> "level" are discrete and that they have conflict are just obviously false. >> Like all systems of levels they may have heuristic value, they kind of work >> as rules of thumb but they all break down when you try to put too much >> weight on them. Ten years of haggling ought to convince anyone that Pirsig's >> levels are particularly brittle in this respect. > [Dave] > Again an "independent" Ditto. > > Dave > > > Moq_Discuss mailing list > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > Archives: > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > http://moq.org/md/archives.html > Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org/md/archives.html
