Platt, Bo, Denis and all,
I think I agree with Platt (such a rare event, so I had to point it out:-))
I don't find problems with the Giant as a social structure, a superorganism
more evolved than the *biological* man. A big city is a system, in which we
spend time and work in order to maintain it. We repair its broken parts, we
build new parts, we die and get replaced with others. In few decades, no
single person and no single building and whatever else will be anymore part
of the system, nevertheless the system will last, as it has (as system) the
ability of self-reproduction. And actually, I agree as said with Platt that
there's not necessarily the need of a "lider maximo" to lead a Giant.
Modern nations have many centers of decision, and probably no part of the
system is irreplaceable.
In this I see a great similarity with other kind of systems: especially,
with biological systems like us (we change almost all our cells in few days,
but still we keep our identity). In both cases, the identity of the system
is not their... substance, but their pattern. At the biological/social
borderline, biological beings work to maintain the social pattern. In this,
Pirsig is right when he says that to a certain extent the Giant "eats" human
beings. Then, intellectually I can *understand* this mechanism and override
it claiming that it's time for the social level to work for me!
By the way, Denis. I've seen that in your eternal investigations of the
"machine codes" you have come to this formulation:
> "DNA for I/B, nervous system for B/S, Language for S/Int
> (last two are proposed by me). In every case,
> the machine code is capable of creating, preserving
> and passing on data, every time at a higher level
> (cellular organisation, behaviours, concepts).
I'm glad you have gained the Norwegian Nobel award for that :-) (Hi Bo!),
but I don't see the evidence for nervous system as being the machine code
for the social level. Firstly, 'cause the nervous system is not a code,
really (while DNA is). Then, there are several species of animals with a
well working and developed nervous system and almost a zero social
behavior. Few months ago I've suggested that in order to have a social
pattern, there's the need of communication. In few words, we can build
social behaviors, rituals, rules only if we use some kind of communication
to unify individual patterns into shared (social) patterns. I think that in
all the examples of social pattern we will find a basilar communication
*made of* some biological signal (from pheromones to voice....).
bye,
Marco
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:01:38 BST