Hi Marco and MOQites !
>*** Identity ***
>DENIS:
[snip]
>"Rome" is a
>concept of the intellectual level (of the simplest kind, since its only a
>"name"), a social system of great complexity, a number of organisms that
>animate it, and a physical location with complex inorganic constructs.
>"Rome" looks to me like a kind of geological "carrot" of a region composed
>of four strata, the levels.
>
>MARCO:
>
>Complete agreement, even if that singular "pattern" was not a mistake. Let
>me explain. Of course Rome is a four-level entity, and it's a complex mix
of
>patterns of all levels. In my post I was focused on the concept of the
Giant
>(the "social" Rome), so I was just talking about one only level. More
>precisely, I was talking of social behaviors and rituals that are using
>Roman human beings and Roman buildings and so on as support. This is the
>Giant.
OK, but my point was that it wasn't a "static pattern of value" in the sense
that Pirsig meant in 'Lila'. If you speak MOQite, a pattern is localized
inside a level, which is not the case here. But that's hair-splitting, I
agree.
>And another point: not only single biological individuals and single
>buildings can be replaced without damaging the Giant. Also single social
>patterns can become obsolete and then replaced by new patterns. This is
>evolution. The ancient religion of the Romans is not the actual religion of
>the Pope: diverse rituals, laws, hierarchies.... but Rome is still Rome!
>Just, a bit evolved.
That's were I identify the platypus : nothing remains the same, but somehow,
we're supposed to believe that the "essence" (a Platonic form ?) has
remained. Any comment ?
>DENIS:
>I think "identity" is another one of these SOM platypi, a consequence of
>SOM's need for atomic "things", truths that cannot be reduced to smaller
>bits, eventually leading to simple prejudices and subjectivity ("the
horror,
>the horror..." ;). Patterns of value need no such artifice, because at the
>core of each value is Quality, and since Quality cannot be defined... Value
>is what your immediately comprehend, your "pre-intellectual" feelings, that
>eventually agregate into patterns. Analyse (in the sense that Russel
>defined) is OK, but not because it leads us to truths, but because it leads
>us to other patterns and values, to new depths, and that, my dear friends,
>is Good.
>
>MARCO:
>I'm not sure that identity is just a SOM platypus. I see animals with a
>great survival instinct. They *biologically know* what's better for them.
>They can also identify their similar fellows and fear their enemies, so
they
>... feel(?) something like identity. That's enough for me to state that
>identity exists already at the biological level.
I didn't make myself clear, I believe. I do not deny that people and animals
might have a sense of "self" (because that's what you're talking about,
isn't it ?).
But I was talking about "identity" : the notion that something is a "whole".
In SOM, nothing is a "whole", because it's all composed of smaller things
until you fall into quanta theories. In the MOQ, identity is the
intellectual pattern that builds around a complex "pattern of patterns", as
you call it. As such, it is identified as a fiction (but with no pejorative
meanings), and the fact that it can be subdivided does not create a
metaphysical conflict. The subdivision is in fact a new fiction growing
around a small part of a former fiction.
A pattern of value isn't "contained" inside another, but is "relating" to
other patterns. If you look at a pattern, you will notice that it is defined
by its relations to other patterns. And if you look at a *relation*, you
will see the same thing ! And this is very confusing because we cannot look
at the root of the thing and seize its "identity" (what makes it what it
is).
But, since we see a pattern in the values (a city, seven hills, a thread of
evolving language, a continuous chain of events called history), we create a
fiction around this and call this pattern "Rome". And that's good. But it is
not its "identity". It's just a name on a complex thing.
>*** Wealth and Democracy ***
>
>DENIS:
>And if anyone can point any example of the opposite, I'd be interested to
hear >them.
>In retrospect, I would not. Enough time is already lost trying to justify
>our imperial leanings on this forum.
I said I didn't want to argue about that, so I'll just add that nothing
you've said beats my case : wealth is a necessary start for democracy. Not
the only one, agreed*, but the most important, since it has never been
absent in *any* democracy. The left foot IS more important, because it is
*not* the left foot but the very ground upon which democracies thread.
Nuff' said.
>*** Machine Codes ***
>
>
>DENIS:
>You're right, communication makes a far better candidate [for B/S machine
code]. >You have to differentiate it from language, though. A sign-post is
as much
>communication as a sentence. Let's draw the line between semiology and
>linguistics !
>
>MARCO:
>Well, we can draw the line. And, I guess, we are not the first, so the job
>should not be that hard. But I must confess I have also doubts about
>language, and, more generally, on the concept of "machine code". Maybe, the
>machine code thing is valid only for the inorganic/biological step. Maybe,
>the other steps could need more than one single "code".
Well, I'm keeping Language as sole MC for the S/I interface. The rest is
support cast, nothing else. One has to remember that MCs are a plurality
anyway : there are numerous "type" of DNA (one for every species, or even
individual organism), and many languages (one for every culture, and perhaps
also individual human).
I'll read your post and offer my comments in a few days.
Take care
Denis
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