On Sat, 8 Nov 2008, comex wrote:
> It was ehird who said: ""X was intended therefore X is what is true"
> is so awfully against
> any spirit of Nomic that I can't even begin to comprehend it.", and
> Goethe who let the spirit of a contract influence eir inquiry
> (proto-)judgement. (But pardon me if I myself misunderstand.)
Actually, I was talking about definitional qualities, ehird put words
in my mouth in claiming I was speaking strongly of "spirit of the
contract" though I may have mentioned the phrase. I think Murphy had
it clearer.
Basically, my argument was not limited to contracts and applies equally
to rules. It says that if the role of The X is defined in the Rules as
being a position with certain abilities and properties, and a set of
contract clauses *or* rules say:
"1. Entity A is The X, but has none of the properties or abilities
that the rules say constitutes having the role of X."
"2. Entity B has the properties and abilities of being The X, but
is not the X."
Then there are circumstances that we would say "B is actually the X
as it is truer to the spirit and *content* of the definition of X *in
the Rules*.
-Goethe
