[FRIAM] Waterboarding a dead Horse in a Desert with no name.
Steven A Smith
sasmyth at swcp.com
Thu Jun 15 20:13:08 EDT 2017
That settles it then!
I *haven't* been in a state of marriage (in the eyes of the law (who
would know how, anyway?) ) 3 times... nor were any shotguns involved!
Better Half/Other Half/Significant Other the ambiguity is Yuuuuge! So
much room for pre-registration! Or is it mere mis-apprehension? Or a
difference in values and preferred use of various terminology?
On 6/15/17 3:51 PM, Frank Wimberly wrote:
> 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
> <mailto: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
> <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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170615/9d187c8a/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Friam
mailing list