Re: CICS and COBOL reentrancy was Re: Further discussion on "Something has to be maintained" and lack of OO acceptance.

In article <1164137174.076167.163430@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Alistair <alistair@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

docdwarf@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
In article <1164111992.247611.291000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Alistair <alistair@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

docdwarf@xxxxxxxxx wrote:

Same or not the same... Zen just is.

Really? It might be said that Zen is constituted by what it is not, as
well...

Just as Bertrand Russell's Universal Set is defined as including the
set of all points not included in the Universal Set?

Of that I am not certain, Mr Maclean; at first blush it seems a
Goedel-tightening stretch, since Zen is not bound by the Aristotelean
Principle of Non-Contradiction while Russell would seem to be thusly
constrained.

I haven't got a clue what you mean, so I'll concede that round.

My apologies for being obscure... 'Goedel-tightening stretch' is a
reference to Goedel's Incompleteness Theorem (and a pun on the homonymity
of Goedel and girdle).

Zen is a product of a philosophical system which did not include the
Aristotelean Principle of Non-Contradiction (loosely put, 'A thing cannot
both be and not-be the same thing in regards to the same aspect at the
same time')... and in that logic is a game played by a series of rules
(Wittgenstein) then to judge the logical game (Zen) by a rule outside of
its system (Non-Contradiction) might be similar, say, to judging a game of
Patience (classic Solitaire) by the rules of Whist.

Russell, on the other hand, *is* a product of a system based upon the
Principle of Non-Contradiction... so to say that a set can be defined to
include sets which, by definition, are excluded might seem to be a
violation of that rule... but I'm sure that Greater Minds Than Mine have
addressed this matter.

DD

.

Relevant Pages
Loading