[Sigia-l] card sorting

[Boniface Lau]

> From: eric.scheid at ironclad.net.au
> [mailto:eric.scheid at ironclad.net.au]
>  
> On 4/6/03 11:50 AM, "Boniface Lau" <boniface_lau at compuserve.com>
> wrote:
> >> The position of the piles on the tableaux is ad hoc and
> >> irrelevant.
> > 
> > The position IS relevant in the sense that it is where you would
> > return to add cards belonging to that group.
> > 
> >> A casual observer would not discern any special sequence or
> >> order,
> > 
> > That is irrelevant. What counts is that you yourself return to
> > that position to add to that group.
> 
> It is only relevant if the definition of {order != chaos} is the
> point of disagreement. You've already stated that you are not
> referring to the {order = not chaos} definition, but instead the
> sequencing definition of order.

I am not sure what you are trying to say. Could you refer us to a
dictionary containing the "{order = not chaos}" definition of "order"?


> The relevant snippet:
> 
> >> Do you mean 'order' as in 'chaos', or as in 'sequence'?
> > 
> > I mean sequence.

Couple things about my above reply:

First, when I saw "'order' as in 'chaos'", I said to myself that is a
contradiction in meaning very good for a paradoxical discussion about
discovering order within chaos. But this is not a paradoxical
discussion.

Second, by order I was referring to the arrangement of things. After
all, that is what sorting means. Furthermore, when drilling down to
what is involved in arranging things, there is some kind of a
sequence, i.e. moving from one thing to the next. I thought that was
what you were after. So, I replied, "I mean sequence".

Earlier I had already gave an illustration on what I meant by
observing order:

http://www.info-arch.org/hypermail/sigia-l/0306/0006print.html

So, if you truly want to understand my meaning, refer to that
illustration, instead of focusing on the multiple choices of your own
meaning.


Boniface