<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 6.5.7654.12">
<TITLE>RE: [Gllug] bash-tips, learning styles and lofty pursuits</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<!-- Converted from text/plain format -->
<P><FONT SIZE=2>> That depends on which definition of pedant you choose. I think both NIX<BR>
> and DD were using the term in the "rules lawyer" sense, in which case<BR>
> you are wrong; that kind of pedant can only insist on things that are<BR>
> defined in an existing ruleset. Humans being what they are, there's<BR>
> certainly a very large pool of available rulesets, but it's not<BR>
> infinite.<BR>
><BR>
> Pedantic enough for you?<BR>
<BR>
One of the more interesting academic areas I've dabbled with readings<BR>
in has been linguistics. It's a fundamental notion in language theory<BR>
that no two people, upon hearing or reading the 'same word',<BR>
actually conjure up precisely the same meaning in their mind.<BR>
<BR>
Therefore, communicating a ruleset fundamentally distills it in to<BR>
at *least* three versions:<BR>
- the 'original' version in the speaker/writer's mind<BR>
- the written or spoken representation thereof<BR>
- the resulting version within the listener/reader's mind.<BR>
<BR>
Of course, then there are questions of ... echoes ... interactions with<BR>
other sounds (in the case of spoken versions) / physical markings<BR>
(in the case of written versions) that may distort or render incomplete<BR>
the original representation over time. Since the speaker/writer did,<BR>
arguably (for determinists), create the original through the act of<BR>
attempted communication, then all subsequent versions are still to some<BR>
extent their creations. And the interpretation of those will change<BR>
with every additional person who listens or reads. And if nobody<BR>
else listens or reads, then perhaps that willed act of communication<BR>
still somehow affects the rest of us, like the butterfly effect, as it<BR>
did enter our physical realm. (Some would say, thinking is within the<BR>
same physical realm, and there is only one realm, and therefore it is<BR>
deterministic). So in short, it could be argued that there are<BR>
infinite versions. The next step of course is physics, metaphysics,<BR>
and the beautiful interactions of ten thousand parallel worlds in our<BR>
amazing soup of existence(s)...<BR>
<BR>
Maybe this is where computers draw their power, and what ultimately draws<BR>
some of us toward them as children (I know it's what did it for me).<BR>
They are man-made machines that functioning within our physical realm of<BR>
physical reality that still manage to implement amazingly complex systems<BR>
of pure logic. Perpendicular worlds. Alternate realities with totally<BR>
different limitations, where we are the ultimate rulers, and the mind<BR>
can play indifferent.<BR>
<BR>
So... UNIX.<BR>
<BR>
But hey, knock it back to lawyers if you want! Personally I like to use<BR>
my powers of imagination ;)<BR>
<BR>
- Walter</FONT>
</P>
</BODY>
</HTML>