On Jul 25, 2010, at 10:42 AM, Krimel wrote: >> [Marsha] >>> How do patterns and objects differ? >> >> Craig >> Consider the "duck-rabbit figure". >> If it were the figure of an object, it could be only >> a duck or only a rabbit. But if it is the figure of a pattern, it is both > a duck pattern and also a rabbit pattern. > > [Marsha] > I know this type of example, but I am not sure of your point. Can you give > an > example that is not visual? > > [Krimel] > The blind monks and the elephant.
Marsha: Got one for the tongue? I was looking for dmb's explanation. Since he can say for certain that I am wrong, he should be able to explain what HE thinks is the correct explanation. It does sound to me like he has in mind some kind of idealized meaning built on a finite definition??? I'm interested in his view because it seems so different than mine. I won't shit on him, though, if his doesn't agree with my definition. Marsha ___ 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
