Hi Denis,
thanks for your answer.
DENIS:
OK, but my point was that it [Rome as a Giant] 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.
MARCO:
Well, I love hair splitting! The Giant (the social city) is not a level, so
it must be a pattern... or? Is there something else in between? Patterns are
inside a level.... of course; even if it recalls the box analogy I don't
like too much, I accept it for the level/patterns. Then, these patterns
inside a level are not all simple....basilar entities, "bricks" of the
level; they are organized webs of relations. So, for example, we agree that
market is a social pattern *inside* the social level .... well, market is
*made of* the relations of money, exchange, stocks, companies. And these
also are social patterns and are on their hand webs of relating patterns. Is
my firm a component of the market, or is the market a component of my
company? Both.
(Well, I've seen you say something of similar below. Good)
MARCO (previous) :
>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.
DENIS:
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 ?
MARCO:
Well, the past history of Rome, although we can't know it exactly, doesn't
change. It will never change. We can't reverse time and go back to Romulus
and Remus. What Rome is, is its History; and the way Rome behaves depends
highly on its History; the difference between Rome and the other cities is
their History. History is the best candidate I see for the "remaining
essence".
The same goes for me. If I'm not like a marble stone, it's because I have
another history: the way my molecules behave is partly determined by the
fact they have .... decided (?) to organize carbon atoms and such...
billions years ago. If I can't fly it's because my DNA decided to organize a
human being, hundreds thousands years ago. I can't speak French (but few
words) as
our common ancestors decided to organize their respective languages in
diverse ways... and, finally, I like the MOQ as it fits with my other
concepts, so I decided it was good to *create relations* with it. I can't
change all that. I just can try to *correct* something for the future if I
don't like it anymore.
MARCO (previous):
>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.
DENIS:
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 ?).
MARCO:
Well, not merely. I'm meaning that a dog is able to identify a tree, as we
well know. And is able to tell a tree from a cat. And that is a very useful
capability.
DENIS:
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.
MARCO:
Agree. As said, identifying the enemies is of great biological value. And
giving things a name is of great intellectual value. You can call it fiction
(with no pejorative meanings), and I enforce this point.
I guess if you see on a door a signal "DANGER - ANTHRAX - KEEP OUT" you
don't need to philosophize about the *real reality*. Even if you don't know
how anthrax relates to universe as a whole, even if you are not sure of what
is there behind the door, I assume you are not going to enter that room. All
what we do is based upon fictions, definitions, identifications, names,
assumptions. And these definitions are not a fictional *copy* of reality.
They are really real!!! They ARE.
We are continuously searching for better explanations, definitions, and this
way we are not merely "discovering reality". We modify reality.. we create!
In few words, I'm not worried if our identifications don't match reality,
'cause to a certain extent it is good that they don't match it. This
*reality mismatching* is the space where DQ comes in.
Anyway, back to platypus we were talking about, it is the assumption that
"what makes it what it is" resides in its parts. Again, I suggest history as
the "what makes it" of things. Identification is the attempt to recognize in
the present the signs of the
past, in order to preview the possible future.
Ciao,
Marco
p.s.
About the *machine code thread*, waiting for further comments from you, let
me highlight this:
> 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).
A language for every culture.... well it's interesting to point out that
*culture* is, in the MOQ, another name for the Giant. That is, social
level..... but I could be wrong...
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