On Sat, Nov 8, 2008 at 10:08 PM, Pavitra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It may be that this is in fact your reasoning, but it's not clear to > me what Rule would be overriding the Monster in this case.
E is not: rather, e claims that the intrinsic authority of a Rule only extends to its text. In their capacity as pseudo-persons performing actions, Rules are no more special than any other entity, and the seeming paradox that a Rule can "act" via its text in ways that it cannot "act" when a person acts on behalf of it is due only to the duality of the Monster's overloading as a Rule and a (pseudo-)person. Is this correct? Either is a reasonable interpretation, although my subconscious rails against Goethe's interpretation simply because it reminds me of the sandboxing mechanism used by applications on the iPhone.
