From: David Hill (dhill@spee-dee.com)
Date: Tue Jan 22 2002 - 15:59:56 MST
May I differ with you as to "rule"? I would not be true to my underlying
nature if I actually did allow you to define my terms. If I accepted your
definition of "rule" I might be inclined to accept your conclusion that my
rule was not a rule.
Per Webster(New Lexicon 1989) the first definition for "rule"(noun) is
"control by authority". However I rather liked one further in the list
"Something which prevails generally or normally; after a victory, drinks are
the rule."
I'm OK with the application of the "non sequitur" #define. The
juxtaposition of the phrases was intended to mislead that they were
logically connected, when in actuality, agreement with the first eliminates
the rest.
As to there being corollaries to Hill's first rule, this would contravene
the intent of the rule, that there be no others; including elaborations or
restatements of the first.
This of course makes argument of proof (proceeding from agreed upon premises
and by agreed upon methods (operations on those premises) less than great
fun. Denial of the existance of absolute truth makes derivations therefrom
pretty dull. So far, nobody has ever been able to prove to me that this
morning happened and is not just an implanted memory. Could you please do
so?
I find the explanation that all these concepts of good and evil, proof and
absolute Truth are persistant memes which propigate through a sea of
perceived order the reason for which I do not claim to know. I just see it.
Good and bad are very context dependent.
Bacon; good for breakfast, bad for the pig. Therefore it is meet that the
pig should pray.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-virus@lucifer.com [mailto:owner-virus@lucifer.com]On Behalf
Of Blunderov
Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2002 2:13 PM
To: virus@lucifer.com
Subject: RE: virus: RE: He who makes the rules wins
Dear Dave
<SNIP>
I'll start by clarifying to you what I understand by the particular terms
we're using; (please let me know if you do not agree with these usages which
are from Brittanica 2002)
"rule" a prescribed guide for conduct or action.
<SNIP>
"non sequitur"; an inference that does not follow from the premises, a
statement (as a response)which does not follow logically from anything
previously said.
Hill's first (in fact only?) rule:
The statement "There is only one rule" could have corollaries. One might
infer, for instance, as a corollary, that "life is really rather a simple
business after all", or that "there can never be any doubt about what is
right and what is wrong".
The statement might also quite easily attract non-sequiturs, false
inferences, an example would be "therefore it is meet that we should pray".
But an inference derived from a statement cannot both logically follow and
logically not follow, it has to be one or the other.
Surely?
Regards
Blunderov
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:28:41 MDT