Re: a union is always a join!

From: Walter Mitty <>
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2009 03:47:18 GMT
Message-ID: <apltl.2309$>

"Brian Selzer" <> wrote in message news:eY2tl.9205$
> "paul c" <> wrote in message
> news:beZsl.15959$Db2.2243_at_edtnps83...
>> Walter Mitty wrote:
>>> ... I'm also going to suggest that what
>>> Brain S. calls "oversimplification" is almost exactly what others call
>>> "abstraction". I'm also going to suggest that without abstraction you
>>> don't
>>> get any independence, and without independence, you don't get much of
>>> any
>>> bang for the buck. That may be of zero theoretical importance, but it's
>>> of
>>> interest to me.
>>> ...
>> Walter, I'm with the many people who think phyaical and logical
>> independence are of high importance, both theoretically and practically.
>> But I'd say many of the nuances and implications of those haven't been
>> explored much in print. Brain S as you call him regularly enters the
>> realm of mysticism. I point this out not to correct him, but to warn
>> newcomers here that he is not exactly swimming in the main stream of
>> relational theory (to be fair, not many are, because the theory is often
>> confused with past practice). I have a number of mystic acquaintances
>> and I like them all, partly because they don't involve themselves in db
>> theory and there is much in life for which mysticism offers the only
>> comfortable clues.
> Mysticism. If accepting that the universe of discourse contains things
> and that at different times a thing can differ in appearance yet still be
> the same thing means that I'm a mystic, then I'm guilty as charged.

What difference does it make whether it's the same thing or a different thing? Received on Tue Mar 10 2009 - 04:47:18 CET

Original text of this message