[MD] Core problemS

[Magnus Berg]

Hi Ron

I'm with Craig on this one, except it's not *PATTERNS* that can be part of 
different levels, it's *OBJECTS* that can.

The conflict you think you see comes from the dependency from higher levels to 
lower. Every biological pattern depend on a supporting inorganic pattern. Or to 
take an example, an animal depends on its inorganic constituents. But at the 
same time, the biological value of the animal is completely distinct from its 
inorganic value. For example, if I eat a steak, I eat it because of its 
biological value. If the exact same inorganic patterns are reorganized, for 
example burnt to coal on my grill, it loses its biological value even though the 
inorganic patterns are the same as before.

Does that make any sense to you?

	Magnus




Ron Kulp wrote:
> [Ron, quoting Pirsig] 
>> "They are discreet. They have very 
>> little to do with one another. Although each higher level is built on
> a 
>> lower one it is not an extension of that lower level." 
> 
>> conflicts with: 
> 
>> "Just as 
>> every biological pattern is also inorganic, but not all inorganic 
>> patterns are biological; and just as every social level is also 
>> biological, although not all biological patterns are social; so every 
>> intellectual pattern is social although not all social patterns are 
>> intellectual." 
> 
> 
> Craig:
> The first quote is about LEVELS & the second about PATTERNS. 
> The LEVELS are discrete, but PATTERNS can be part of different 
> LEVELS. QED 
> Craig 
> 
> Ron:
> I don't know Craig, First, I'd like to address your immediate comment
> then
> introduce another consideration in the question.
> 
> Discrete (comparative more discrete, superlative most discrete)
> 
> Separate; distinct; individual. 
> Something that can be perceived individually and not as connected to, or
> part of something else. 
> (electrical engineering) Having separate electronic components, such as
> individual resistors and inductors - the opposite of integrated
> circuitry. 
> (audio engineering) Having separate and independent channels of audio,
> as opposed to multiplexed stereo or quadraphonic, or other multi-channel
> sound. 
> (topology) Having each singleton subset open: said of a topological
> space or a topology.
> 
> Ron:
> This is why I asked Krimel as to how he used and understood the term, he
> 
> interpreted as Separate; distinct; individual. Not integrated in any
> way.
> 
> Paul turners letter specifically cites integration.
> 
> integration is integration, whether levels or patterns
> discrete is discrete whether levels of patterns of those levels.
> 
> other wise discrete and integrate become what is known as "weasel"
> words (they mean anything you like given the situation)
> 
> to introduce another factor
> 
> discrete and discreet differ in meaning, Pirsigs original statement used
> 
> the word "discreet" while he defined the term "discrete" in relation to
> the levels.
> 
> "Discreet" means inconspicuous. Not prominent or easily noticeable.
> 
> I am looking for some clarification in meaning, we hold Ham to this
> standard don't we?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/