FOM: comments on Wilson's dual view of foundations

[Thomas Forster]

>Is there a discursive description of the NF view of sets that that is
comparably convincing and/or of comparable clarity?  Are there papers
(by Quine and Rosser perhaps) which provide such a description?

What does tend to happen is that people write articles purporting to 
provide such a story and they get sent to Holmes and me to referee.
So far i have always rejected those i've seen, always on the grounds
that if the story being told were a good one it would come a lot
closer to giving a consistency proof for NF than the document in front
of me did.
   Inasfar as there is a story available at the moment, i think it is
the idea of stratfication, which is a lot more sensible than one
realises.  There is a completeness theorem for stratification, to the
effect that it's an invariance property.   But we've been over this
material before on this list, so presumably this is not what Steve has
in mind.  For all that, i suspect it *is* what he wants.

         Thomas Forster