83,567
edits
Dilbert’s programme: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
Dilbert’s programme eschewed the undefined use of ''any'' lexical expression, however banal or self-evident, in ''any'' [[legal instrument]], on the grounds that such uncertainty opens the way to an unstable state what we now know as [[Cardozo indeterminacy]]. | Dilbert’s programme eschewed the undefined use of ''any'' lexical expression, however banal or self-evident, in ''any'' [[legal instrument]], on the grounds that such uncertainty opens the way to an unstable state what we now know as [[Cardozo indeterminacy]]. | ||
Wherever Dilbert found nouns, noun phrases or even suggestive adjectives, he defined them. In 1903 he launched a public appeal, to the [[Eagles of the law|eaglery]] of the land, asking them to submit canonical legal [[ | Wherever Dilbert found nouns, noun phrases or even suggestive adjectives, he defined them. In 1903 he launched a public appeal, to the [[Eagles of the law|eaglery]] of the land, asking them to submit canonical legal [[definition]]s for inclusion in his programme. The response was immediate and overwhelming. | ||
Dilbert assembled a small research team and constructed a corrugated iron shed in the grounds of Broadmoor Prison, which he called the “Glossarorium”, to house the submissions, bearing quotations illustrating expressions to be defined, that began flooding in, and bade his team write them out on little brown cards he called “[[rider]]s”. | Dilbert assembled a small research team and constructed a corrugated iron shed in the grounds of Broadmoor Prison, which he called the “Glossarorium”, to house the submissions, bearing quotations illustrating expressions to be defined, that began flooding in, and bade his team write them out on little brown cards he called “[[rider]]s”. | ||
===The [[Dilbert | ===The [[Dilbert Hefinition]]=== | ||
After ten full years of the programme’s operation Dilbert found, to his chagrin, that he had yet been unable to [[Reductionism|reduce]] a small, stubborn class of expressions. For these, logically, no better defined term (what Dilbert called the “''definand''”) was available than the very expression being defined itself (the “''definier''”). These unusual cases he directed his research team to define ''exactly as they were'', to [[For the avoidance of doubt|avoid]], he claimed all [[doubt]] of [[Type, kind or variety|any type, kind or variety]], though others suggested that it was more to do with Dilbert’s “strict Lutheran upbringing”.<ref>The consistently waggish librettist [[Otto Büchstein]] wondered aloud, in a self-published pamphlet, whether “Mr Dilbert had been, perhaps, too strongly chastised for accidents sustained during toilet-training (the behavioural consequence of such accidents collectively hereafter “anal retentivity”)”</ref> | After ten full years of the programme’s operation Dilbert found, to his chagrin, that he had yet been unable to [[Reductionism|reduce]] a small, stubborn class of expressions. For these, logically, no better defined term (what Dilbert called the “''definand''”) was available than the very expression being defined itself (the “''definier''”). These unusual cases he directed his research team to define ''exactly as they were'', to [[For the avoidance of doubt|avoid]], he claimed all [[doubt]] of [[Type, kind or variety|any type, kind or variety]], though others suggested that it was more to do with Dilbert’s “strict Lutheran upbringing”.<ref>The consistently waggish librettist [[Otto Büchstein]] wondered aloud, in a self-published pamphlet, whether “Mr Dilbert had been, perhaps, too strongly chastised for accidents sustained during toilet-training (the behavioural consequence of such accidents collectively hereafter “anal retentivity”)”</ref> | ||
Thus Dilbert is credited with inventing what is now knows as the “[[Dilbert | Thus Dilbert is credited with inventing what is now knows as the “[[Dilbert Hefinition]]”, being one where the thing being defined (the “''definand''”, notated ''Đ'') and the label defining it (the “''definier''”, notated ''đ'') are identical, per the following expression: | ||
:''Đ<sub>n</sub>'' ⇔ ''đ<sub>n</sub>'' | :''Đ<sub>n</sub>'' ⇔ ''đ<sub>n</sub>'' | ||
Several | Several Dilbert Hefinitions appear in the following example, first identified in Australia:<ref>https://www.andrewpeglermedia.com.au/</ref> | ||
{{quote|An insured person (the “'''insured person'''”) may cancel (“'''cancel'''”) a policy (the “'''policy'''”) by providing us as insurer (“'''us'''” or the “'''insurer'''”) a written notice (the “'''written notice'''”) of the cancellation (the “'''cancellation'''”).}} | {{quote|An insured person (the “'''insured person'''”) may cancel (“'''cancel'''”) a policy (the “'''policy'''”) by providing us as insurer (“'''us'''” or the “'''insurer'''”) a written notice (the “'''written notice'''”) of the cancellation (the “'''cancellation'''”).}} | ||
Academic debate rages to this day as to the significance of the | Academic debate rages to this day as to the significance of the Dilbert Hefinition. Does it convey ''some'' sort of [[asymptotic safety]], silently constraining unarticulated [[Metaphor|metaphorical]] dimensions, vouchsafing a kind of literal purity to otherwise unfettered characters of the language? There are those who say it does; nay, it ''must'': that this effect, however subliminal is there: this is, in effect, a surprising instance of a [[Biggs Hoson]]; and those that say that ''an expression defined as itself cannot exclude anything'': delimiting a textual artefact to ''exactly itself'' cannot convey even that minimal particle of legal meaning that the great [[J. M. F. Biggs]] once so famously discovered. | ||
===The incompleteness [[paradox]]=== | ===The incompleteness [[paradox]]=== | ||
All this has been rendered long-since academically moot, however, as Dilbert’s entire programme succumbed to unexpected undecidability not long after the Dilbert | All this has been rendered long-since academically moot, however, as Dilbert’s entire programme succumbed to unexpected undecidability not long after the Dilbert Hefinition was derived. On a grey September day in 1907, a postcard containing two new definitions dropped on the doormat of the little iron shed. Hilbert snatched it up. The first seemed simple enough | ||
{{quote|“'''Inclusive definier'''” shall mean all definiers whose definand includes that definier. [[For the avoidance of doubt]], the inclusive definier itself shall be, and shall be deemed to be, an inclusive definier.}} | {{quote|“'''Inclusive definier'''” shall mean all definiers whose definand includes that definier. [[For the avoidance of doubt]], the inclusive definier itself shall be, and shall be deemed to be, an inclusive definier.}} | ||