Re: rules that reinterpret past rules

From: Aron Wall (aron_at_wall.org)
Date: Tue Mar 26 2002 - 09:52:34 PST


1: No rule shall have more than ten words.

2: No rules may contain the letter "e".

3: I don't have to obey rules 1 or 2 because I say they really consist of
meaningless giberish.

Does anyone really think that rule 3 would be VALID under the current
R.O.'s?  That seems utterly absurd to me.  I think that rules can make
themselves or future rules mutable, but to say that they can do this is
completely contrary to the R.O.'s.  Future rules are dependant on past
rules, but past rules are independent from future rules.  There is no time
symmetry of the R.O.'s involved that allows one to say that if rule 179:2
can reinterpet future rules, that 179:2' can reinterpret a past rule.

Aron Wall

--
Rule Date: 2002-03-26 17:52:09 GMT


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 24 2011 - 10:48 PST