MD ROG's WEEK AT A GLANCE

[RISKYBIZ9]

ROG RESPONDS TO DAN, BO, RICHARD, JOVO, RIFF MAGNUS, DP, MARCO AND DANILLA ON MEMES, LEVELS, SANITY, THE REALITY OF #'s AND COPIES AND MAPS, and GAME THEORY (whew) Hey gang, I have been having difficult keeping up.  Sorry, but below are some quick responses. ******** TO DAN AND EVERYONE ON MEMES: I am pleased to see you investigating memetic theory.  I will just add that despite my attraction to the theory, I agree with your view that the vast majority of it is dualistic SOM to the core.  This criticism is not as damning as it sounds though.  As we know, most intellectual fields are dominated by SOM (Bo would probably say they ARE SOM).  The key IMO is to take knowledge and convert it into a more coherent world view using the MOQ.   Lila is loaded with such examples where Phaedrus reaches harmony with previous SOM platypi. ********** TO JOVO, MAGNUS and DAN ON MAGNUS' DIMENSIONAL LEVELS: I agree completely that the dimensional model that Magnus offered is a great metaphor.  It reveals that higher levels arise out of and are dependent upon the lower levels (this is basic MOQ theory, well documented in Lila, but frequently forgotten by many).  It also shows that the value attractors (to use complexity/chaos terminology), of the higher levels are not in complete opposition to the prior level, they are more at a general 90 degree angle.   Some values end up supporting those below, others contradict, but the higher level goes off in a new degree or dimension of freedom. BTW, Dan and I worked on a zigzag "fire-escape" model to illustrate the static levels at one time a few years ago.  I think Dan used it in his web site.  Is that model still alive Dan? ************ TO DAVID PRINCE ON WHAT IS A 6: DP: >My dad used to scream at me "Hand me that thing boy!" When I couldn't >produce whatever that thing was supposed to be, he punched me. Even mystics >can't read mind, and even high-powered CEO's can't make decisions without >data. The maps are never the reality. It's tried and true. ROG: Sorry about your dad.  I will just add that though the map is not the territory, the map's value is related to its agreement with the territory.   In other words, the map is not much of reality, but it is a part of reality.   And you are wrong about 6's being nothing.  That without value does not exist, and 6's do exist, as do copies.  They do have value.  BTW, the 3rd 6 was the real one, all the others were copies.  Don't worry I will not punch you. ***********� �� TO DAN, MARCO, DANILLA, BO AND RICHARD ON LEVELS PERCEIVING AND AFFECTING EACH OTHER: I suggest we come to a consensus that anthropomorphizing the levels is a convenient, but often-times sloppy rhetorical practice. In other words, that the levels don't have "motives" or "wants" or "perceptions".  The levels refer to patterns of value.  Each level emerges out of the lower values, but the process is so complex that there is little or no direct interaction between non-adjacent levels.  As for adjoining levels, although they do interact, I agree with Bo that each level "is bound to follow its basic value."  Do any of you substantially disagree? ************* TO DAN ON SANITY: DAN WROTE: You've reinforced my point here, Roger. You are making the same assumption all "sane" people make in that we don't sit around pissing ourselves or letting our cigarettes burn out on our fingers unless we are truly mad, then we deserve to be institutionalized (hung up by our metaphorical thumbs, so to speak). ROG: I would be willing to test this assumption based on the principles of the MOQ.  People that sit frozen in a corner pissing and burning themselves usually require some type of help. I did not assume institutionalizing is the only or best cure, but it may be appropriate in some/many cases.   ************ TO DAN ON WIN/WIN (Non zero-sum game theory): DAN WROTE: The fallacy here is that gaining and winning are not synonymous. To gain something does not necessarily mean someone else has to lose that which is gained. Art, for example. A song writer writes a song and a writer writes a story; something is gained but what is lost? On the other hand winning has no significance unless there is also a loser! For example, the Presidential election here in the States which is still unresolved (no winner or loser) as yet. But they both cannot win! ROG: As usual, you are right that we need to clarify our terms.  First, winning and gaining indeed are not necessarily synonymous. Second, virtually all western games are indeed win/lose.  But that gets back to the point that RIFF? said that this is a cultural blindspot.  It does not have to be that way.  And Game Theory as developed by Von Neumann and others at the Rand Institute also involved potential win/win games.  There is nothing inherent in a game that prohibits this.  For example, in the game of Life (the boardgame where you get married and have kids and buy a house and stuff) there is indeed a winner and losers.  But, the rules could have been drafted so that everybody that makes it to the end of the game wins, and that helping others to get to the end can payoff through them also helping you.   You are right about conventional games being zero-sum, ie win/lose.  But, in the words of Robert Axelrod, one of the pioneers of successful game theory, "One of the earliest and most important insights from game theory was that nonzero-sum games had very different strategic implications than zero-sum games.� In zero-sum games, whatever hurts the other guy is good for you.� In nonzero-sum games you can both do well, or both do poorly.� I think people often take a zero-sum view of the world when they shouldn't." If you would like actual examples of win/win games, I can provide them, but the key thing is not that games can be win/win, but that life and interactions in life can be win/win. And your example of the song is a great example of  a win/win relationship of both the song writer and the listeners benefiting from the interaction. Axelrod's point is that people mistakenly believe that life is ALWAYS zero sum.  They are very wrong, but most have real trouble seeing this. (Probably because much of life IS zero sum)  They generalize and miss a valuable exception to the rule.