Arrows n=m+1 example

[Tril]

On Tue, 27 Apr 1999, RE01 Rice Brian T. EM2 wrote:

> > > 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.

I don't know where you get the idea that I'm against ontological
relativism.  The entire message you're replying to was a statement FOR
just that relativism.

David Manifold <dem@tunes.org>
This message is placed in the public domain.