The question of what constraints actually mean in each Element is still unresolved. Currently, the problem appears to exhibit the following solution.
Limiting Constraint "values" are assigned to any Element in accordance to Enabling Constraint "parameters" given in Media Profiles. Each Limiting Constraint appears to be uniquely identified by some concatenation of the Element which contains the Limiting Constraint, the Media Profile which contains the Enabling Constraint, and the parameter within the Enabling Constraint which the given Limiting Constraint describes. It appears that Limiting Constraints only describe a discrete parameter in an Enabling Constraint; hence, one or more Limiting Constraints will be needed to fully describe any given Enabling Constraint.
While any Element can contain Limiting Constraints, the following would appear to be a reasonable convenience for their expression.
Although Media and Account Profiles, the Axle (its still fairly appealing), the Connection and the Affiliation carry Limiting Constraints, these Limiting Constraints do not have to be consistent beyond a necessity that no more than one Limiting Constraint must refer to any Enabling Constraint parameter within any one given Element from this category of Elements.
The Identity however, identifies a coherent set of characteristics of an individual. Therefore, an Identity is a composition of Limiting Constraints set in the category of Elements defined above which is capable of generating Participants which do not internally contradict. Such a self-contradictory Participant would be a paradox not only in the given Participant, but from the Identity from which it was generated. Hence, from a moral perspective in normal discourse away from Clique Space(TM), any individual projecting an identity to others which has a self-contradictory nature would create deep concerns for the other individuals; which characteristics would be the correct reflection of the identity?
However, where necessary, and perhaps if possible (what exactly that means isn't clear enough to describe at this moment), some interactions will take place where one or more Participants may need to drop or acquire certain characteristics which contradict the expression of one's Identity. This may be so because two Identities may not be capable of generating Participants in a Clique unless some of the Participants (those who express contrary characteristics in their Identity) agree to expressing a combination of characteristics contrary to their own; a set of characteristics which would allow these one or more Identities to generate Participants in a Clique that has a contradictory mode. In order for these Participants to be generated, the one or more opposing parties will have to (as necessary) change or withhold expression of characteristics from their Identities that would cause a constraint contradiction.
In a particular example, a third party (Participant), being the Clique's Owner, sets the Clique's mode, and can accommodate adjustment in the expression of Identity characteristics of one or both of the other Participants provided the other parties have given their consent. This situation might occur where a third party is a legal officer appointed to sort out a dispute between the other two parties who otherwise can't tolerate knowledge of the other's existence.
So, in order for Clique Space to function as envisaged, I currently believe that the Identity must select for expression, those Limiting Constraints from component Elements, which collectively, do not express a contradiction. However, where such a contradiction is evident in the Identities of two or more parties, consent can be obtained from these other parties to allow contrary Limiting Constraints when requested by the Clique's Owner as a condition to the generation of a Participant for the given Clique, and therefore, membership of the collaboration being modelled by this Clique. I know of nothing else that systematically models "consensual compromise" like this.
No Participant is generated from any Identity that does not accept a compromise which will allow their participation in a Clique. This, I contend, is as it is in life: one makes compromises when one participates in any collaborative effort; one nearly always has to make some personal sacrifice for some collective coherence.
Clique Space has many points; but it could be said that one of them is to model to other individuals, the compromises one individual has made, and appears willing to make in order to participate in a collective activity.
No comments:
Post a Comment