PhyloCode: The real problem...again

Ron at Ron at
Tue Jul 8 18:42:42 CDT 2003


----- Original Message -----
From: "Dipteryx" <dipteryx at FREELER.NL>
To: <TAXACOM at USOBI.ORG>
Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2003 11:21 AM
Subject: Re: PhyloCode: The real problem...again


> From: Ron Gatrelle <gatrelle at TILS-TTR.ORG>
> Now they're ready to ratify and implement. Only strong opposition will
[stop
> them].
>
> + + +
> Could somebody please explain why implementation itself would be such a
bad
> idea?
>

There are two ways to look at the situation.  One is technically - how does
it measure up as a useful system.   The other is politically, that is, the
philosophy generating it.   It is this latter that I have focused on in my
posts.  It is not only important how others view PhyloCode but how they
view themselves.  Each formal step provides "them" with more of a self
perspective that they are the real deal and have succeeded.  This is a
powerful factor.  This aura of "we have won" is contagious.  Those persons
and organizations which don't have a clue when it comes to the technical
aspects of the competing systems, will be influenced disproportionately by
the "confidence of the salesman".

Those who insist on sticking with just a nuts and bolts approach do not
understand the power of the illusion of success.  All official
international PhyloCode conferences and documents provide this illusion of
success (victory).    Press release: " Attention world. PhyloCode has now
been ratified by the scientific community and will begin its implementation
immediately."   What did that just say?   But what did it also convey?   We
see what it said.  But what that type of thing conveys is:  "Attention,
PhyloCode has won and the Linnaean system has now officially voted out."
This whole matter is interwoven with - MARKETING.    FACTS usually have
little or no relevance to marketing.

So why would implementation be such a bad idea.   The reason is that all
indications are that PhyloCode (which is actually people and what they
think & attitude, not just a technical option) is not interested in
peaceful co existence - it is only interested in conquest.  That is, the
elimination of traditional taxonomy and nomenclature.  Therefore, the bad
part is not just that "step" but that it is one step closer to their
ultimate goal - conquest.

Nowthis is all just my view.   But I do have a personal stake in all this
as it is not just the "them" and "us", it is also ME.   I, and what I
believe and do relative to systematics and taxonomy is - under attack.  I
thus take this personally - I feel I am about to be intellectually violated
(censored).

Ron Gatrelle




More information about the Taxacom mailing list