Arrows n=m+1 example

[RE01 Rice Brian T. EM2]

> > So it seems more intuitive to define an arrow as having two slots that
> > can reference either an arrow or an 'atom (or object)'. I guess this
> must be
> > wrong for you, since it would means to lose the homo-iconic property.
> > But I don't see by myself yet why it would be so bad.
> In a reflective system, what are "atoms" varies depending on the context.
> We can't have one set of atoms for the entire system, because we want to
> talk about what those atoms are defined by, which would necessitate
> something at the "sub-atomic" level.  Of course, once you have a system
> bootstrapped, you can use the atoms themselves in their own definitions,
> but you don't always want to do that.
> 
once again, READ THE DRAFT!  ontological relativism is the concept of going
against the "levels of abstraction" metaphor and the HIERARCHY that it
implies!  i thought that tunes was against hierarchies because of the ideas
of cybernetics and their universality.  obviously, i was terribly wrong.

> A more mundane answer is that you can use arrows that point back to
> themselves (or any other designated shape of arrow you wish) as atoms.
> 
i'm not going to re-iterate.