Could someone give hints/pointers that help me understand the following? "parsing non-command messages in each process ... not a strong attempt to intertwine a real language around the message structures (this very same thing happened with http"
Does that mean the messages should have been part of a coherent protocol or spec? That there should have been some thought behind how messages compose into new messages?
As I said in an edit to my other post: the intuition is capacity to oppress — the state or capitalists controlling means of production, in Soviet communism and capitalism, respectively. This is the motivating factor behind any such definition, given the context.
Now, if you're taking the stance of a determined skeptic, then that's like you pointing out there's no such definition of "chair". Which after all is true. (There's no predicate which separates all objects into chair and not-chair, and a simple argument demonstrates why.) Humans get by pretty well without extreme definitions.
Presumably without the antagonisms inherent in systems like capitalism, there'd be fewer armies of lawyers squabbling over the meanings of simple words like "property", inventing weird new forms like intellectual property, fighting over whether that land or sourcecode is my property, if you can shoot someone on your property, etc. We're constantly squabbling over it right now, because that's how power works under capitalism.
When (say) people explaining Parecon are in a fairly precise mood, they say things like "scarce means of production", and make examples that explain that you're not talking about laptops or pencils, if they're sufficiently commonplace. (So under Parecon, no one "owns" the scarce means of production — or you could say it's commonly owned — but you can own your laptop/pencil.)
[Edit: the intuition is capacity to oppress — the state or capitalists controlling means of production, in Soviet communism and capitalism, respectively. This is the motivating factor behind any such definition, given the context.]
Classes are already discrete, and can thus be taught by different teachers.
As I understand, classifying classes into "disciplines" is for the convenience of administrative systems, like university deans. This classification is not a law of the universe, nor of the human mind. One can imagine the negatives of fitting learning into hierarchical administrative models.
Does that mean the messages should have been part of a coherent protocol or spec? That there should have been some thought behind how messages compose into new messages?