I suppose you can have a single celled Choices organism, but to get the benefit of evolutionary mechanics to traverse the fitness space, a higher number would be optimal. Also, the disentangling of humans ("Beings") from the machine ("FAEM") is a key factor, and having more than one cell allows for people being able to jump from one mech to another (as required/desired).
I'm absorbing this. There seems to be two parts here. I think even if you abandon implementation as a goal, the underlying rationale and conclusions could be addressed in their own right.
(Does does help cut through the confusion ?))) Page 25 simply states that (capital) markets are themselves cells. And the organic hierarchy of the markets provides scoping. Here in capital markets, the scoping is to prevent system crash due to poor choices made in a lower level market. In the analogous informational markets, the scoping provides cultural isolation (e.g. discussions of labia minora may be appropriate in some spaces but not in another e.g.the my-chinese-mother-in-law-is-here scope. etc.) My thoughts on these matters have evolved substantially since then. Mainly, I no longer have any faith in such an architecture transforming the hairy biped to an upright being, which is the (pure) idea behind Masonic thought. (After all, some have been trying for God knows how many millennia to no avail ..) But perhaps it is a good pedagogical model. Of course, it is also coercive in parts (and again, I now question that). But that is pretty much the general philosophical view taken: nothing is per se wrong -- one must simply apply the appropriate action at the appropriate time. So, the general idea of a cyclical {[:]formation -> competition => consultation => cooperation [->:]} remains viable imo as a methodology, and should be applied recursively.
>My thoughts on these matters have evolved substantially since then. Mainly, I no longer have any faith in such an architecture transforming the hairy biped to an upright being, which is the (pure) idea behind Masonic thought. My feeling is that the best, most stable, architecture is emergent. There is some of this there, it seems. But, I think that the best system might necessarily surprise everyone. In my day job, I'm always reading: X gene does Y function. :/ -I'm afraid that isolating key components leads to artificial effects that in part reflect the reasons why those components were isolated. It's my guess we agree on this. At the same time, we have people that speak of free markets, defending something that isn't a free market in any sense but the sense that they call it that. When we enact, what are we enacting? I think for these reasons, I find the introduction to CHOICES to be the most compelling part. It enlightens, which is perhaps the most realizable consequence of any thing. Originality is an initial condition of a new development. I gained new perspective from it, and new ways to speak of some things. I'm not sure what I am saying exactly, :) but maybe it's something like: Maybe the most important thing the Masons have done is to be Masons, -and they might not approve of the result if they were honest with themselves. At any rate, I am going to read this again. :)
That is a rather surprising statement from a biologist, mk. The biological cellular architecture -- which has hugely influenced my thinking about systems -- has been effectively static relative to the huge variations of organisms that it has spawned. What I was after in Choices was emergent organisms and ecologies. >At any rate, I am going to read this again. :) Thanks. I haven't read it in years. Perhaps I should read it again, too ;)
In some sense, yes. But (and not to be difficult), I think that variation is much a matter of perspective. There's a lot of riffs on similar themes. But, I do admit, it is a building block without equal. Sometimes I look in a culture flask, and have to come to terms once again with the abilities and activities of those cells (creatures!) I am looking at. Cell is such an understatement. -I have joked with my colleagues that we should call them 'pals' instead.
For example, this is a great work of architecture: http://static.panoramio.com/photos/original/377345.jpg This is a bit closer to giving us hints as to the architectural system that informs this specimen: http://homer.ceat.okstate.edu/2003/updates%20S04/part4/image... (There is a pyramid in there ... ;) And this is closer still (literally the DNA of Robie House): http://pica.taliesinpreservation.org/catalog/product/cache/2... Frank Lloyd Wright produced -- he boasted he could "shake [his] sleeve and the design would come out (that crafty Frank ;) -- many such specimen of his architecture. They are all distinct, but share the same Architecture. Same with organic architecture -- CH molecules; that ever important 'ring'; proteins; RNA; cell. That is the Architecture. It has not changed in God Knows how many years.
