[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: acceptance&commitments over trust
At 01:52 AM 3/31/98 -0300, Ed Gerck wrote, in part:
>On Mon, 30 Mar 1998, Carl Ellison wrote:
>>Ed's stuff is fascinating, but it strikes me as an intellectual exercise
>>inspired by a false premise: that unqualified "trust" is something we can
>I agree entirely with you.
>That's why I say "A trusts B on matters of x" --- which occurs
>at time T, of course.
>So, trust is perfectly qualified:
>the trustor: A
>the trustee: B
>the subject: x
>the time: T
>The rest just follows ....
Ed, in defense of Carl, I think it is not so much a matter of "unqualified"
trust (the trust we use every day lacks rigor in qualification) but rather
"well-qualified grok". That is, imagine rewriting what you wrote as
That's why I say "A groks B on matters of x" --- which occurs
at time T, of course.
So, grok is perfectly qualified:
the grok-or: A
the grok-ee: B
the subject: x
the time: T
The rest just follows ....
Maybe ... but it remains difficult to foresee applying "grok" in a
practical application. I hope you see my point. If you can't motivate
a general theory by demonstrating how it might apply directly, through
realistic (if limited) examples, only those in Ivory Towers will pay
it much heed.
Demonstrate what this algebra can do *functionally* (if not syntactically)
for me, to solve a problem that I could not solve, or would need to dismiss
at my peril, and you would go along way to helping others think in terms
of a protocol for supporting it. It need not be perfect, but it must be
practical and realistic.
Tony Bartoletti LL
SPI-NET GURU LL LL
Computer Security Technology Center LL LL LL
Lawrence Livermore National Lab LL LL LL
PO Box 808, L - 303 LL LL LLLLLLLL
Livermore, CA 94551-9900 LL LLLLLLLL
email: email@example.com phone: 510-422-3881 LLLLLLLL