Congratulations Peter Esser. Very interesting post. It's a really fascinating topic for me. Probably analy so. >From the outset I'd like to say that most of the essay went over my head, so >if I've drawn an incorrect perspective on some theories, please forgive me. >But does it help me understand what tango is? Is there a difference between >categorising and defining? For example if I crossed a tractor with a tricycle, >would the outcome fall within both categories tractor and tricycle? Or simply >under a broader cluster category such as machine. What effect on >categorisation would additional data such as tractor category in existence for >100 years, tricycle category in existence 10 years? Would it simply remain in >the general definition of the cluster? Whilst I've chosen an obviously idiotic >example for purposes of illustration, surely everyone would agree that the >resultant progeny would most likely not be pleasing to the young child or the >farmer. But no doubt would produce devotees of the new form. So in my opinion >categorisation doesn't answer the increasingly difficult questions of ! what is tango. I believe it is in urgent need of some form of definition.
Anton _______________________________________________ Tango-L mailing list Tango-L@mit.edu http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/tango-l
