[FRIAM] Waterboarding a dead Horse in a Desert with no name.

[Frank Wimberly]

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" <sasmyth at swcp.com> 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
>
>> [†] 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
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170615/3c16179e/attachment.html>