On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 10:22 AM, Shadowfirebird
<shadowfirebird@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 4:50 AM, Buddha Buck
<blaisepascal@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 11:37 PM, Jody Chandler
<windblownhermit@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
| That's kind of where I have had a problem with the rule, even though I
think the numerous arguments that it was a valid rule have all been excellent and
convincing. I am so tempted now to agree that it is a valid rule...but! <cut> |
I think we are all agreed that, as a rule, it's a poor one. Valid, but poor. Is there a need to argue over why it's a poor rule?
I can come up with plenty of legal poor rules which any interpretation of the rules which would invalidate the rule would also invalidate good rules as well. I don't see it worthwhile to try to interpret the rules to invalidate poor rules.
The initial objection to the "Scrabble" rule was that it depended on an external resource (the Scrabble dictionary). One of the principles of Zendo rules are that two rules which would judge all possible koans in exactly the same way are equivalent. In fact, the exact statement of a rule is never made by the Master, so there's no way to distinguish between the problematic external "Scrabble" rule and the completely internal but extremely complex "enumeration" variant.
What sort of interpretation would eliminate the "enumeration" variant? I could see an interpretation that too many clauses makes the rule invalid. But examine the following rule: "akhtbni it consists a stack of 3 'mids with no pyramid on top of a smaller pyramid." In a game using 4 colors, there are exactly 640 koans which have the bn. An equivalent rule could enumerate all 640 koans. Does that mean that the rule is invalid? Does it even mean the rule is a bad one? (It sounds reasonably reasonable to me).