From: JXSternChangeX2R@gte.net   
      
   On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 06:05:22 GMT, jonesrob@emporia.edu wrote:   
      
   >Hofstadter has said (Godel, Escher, Bach... Basic Books,   
   >1979) that "below every tangled hierarchy lies an   
   >inviolate level." But is this true?   
      
   *Must* may be too strong.   
      
   Or maybe it's "inviolate" that is too strong.   
      
   Whatever the inviolate-candidate level (and I presume these are   
   supposed to be lower- or meta- levels), one can always add trivially   
   too it without changing anything.   
      
   The point being that the universe has fragile base classes, I suppose,   
   it's all too easy to knock over the tower by fiddling with the   
   foundation.   
      
   On the other hand, you can lift up a building and move it to a new   
   foundation, if you like.   
      
   I think, methodologically, it's good to stipulate your base, if you   
   can do so where no generality will be lost.   
      
   Once upon a time there was a book, something like "The Art of the   
   Metaobject Protocol", where the authors bragged about their object   
   system being built on itself.  No doubt, to some degree or other, this   
   is possible, but I am less convinced it is ever necessary or   
   desireable.   
      
   Josh   
      
   [ comp.ai is moderated ... your article may take a while to appear. ]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)