Re: relational reasoning -- why two tables and not one?

From: Bob Badour <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca>
Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2009 00:43:18 -0300
Message-ID: <4ada8ed7$0$23779$9a566e8b_at_news.aliant.net>


Gene Wirchenko wrote:

> On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 22:39:56 -0300, Bob Badour
> <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> 

>>Gene Wirchenko wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 22:43:15 -0300, Bob Badour
>>><bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>>[snip]
>>>
>>>>That's certainly one type of mysticism. In this case, I think we have
>>>>someone acting more like Alice with Humpty Dumpty. The name "donation"
>>>>means exactly what the person who applied it to a table meant at the time.
>>>
>>> More like Humpty Dumpty:
>>>"'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone,
>>>'it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.'" --
>>>"Through the Lookingglass"
>>
>>I disagree. The person who created the donations table acted exactly
>  ^^^^^^^^^^^                                            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>>like Humpty. The name means exactly what he meant when he applied it to
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^

>>the table. That person isn't here that we know of.
>
> ??? You disagree, but then you state my case.

I disagree because the Humpty person is neither here nor practising any sort of mysticism I can discern. That person has a single relation with a single name. The name does not magically cause a need for a second relation. The Alice character on the other hand... Received on Sun Oct 18 2009 - 05:43:18 CEST

Original text of this message