[MD] Core problemS

[Krimel]

> [Krimel]
> My problems with the levels not being discrete are on different grounds 
> but
> I think Craig raised a good point.
>
> The quote from the letter just adds another "level" of confusion. If all
> biological patterns are in inorganic, all social patterns, biological and
> all intellectual patterns social doesn't that make all patterns inorganic?
>
> Isn't this all just crass evil reductionism?
>
>
DM: Well even your great thoughts here have a rather inorganic basis
in which they are expressed. I think nesting is good. As for the number
of levels, 4 is a good start but each level must have its own sub-levels.
Sorry if that slips out of the MOQ cult-orthodoxy, down boys! 

[Krimel]
I think we construct levels on the fly. Given any situation or placed in any
context we look for patterns and meanings. Patterns are the static
probabilistic aspects of the situation and meaning is how we establish our
relationship within the context. The salient details change depending solely
on our orientation toward the given context. What patterns do we see? How do
they mesh with remembered contexts? All of this aims at reducing uncertainty
about the given context and giving us clues as to what we ought to do. 

What patterns we see and what levels of detail we determine are most
appropriate vary based on past experience and the current context. But I
tend to over simplify things and would prefer to just say, "Zoom in, zoom
out, refocus."