> The substance that we
> approximate by calling it a water molecule certainly exists, but the
> map is
> not the territory.
>
Nobody wants to confuse maps with territories, but you
can't have substance without form, any more than you
can have form without substance[1], and on *my* defn
(apparently like that of some others around here) form
is just another word for patterns.
Robin
[1] If there was a substance without form, we wouldn't
know about it, because it's the *form* that *informs* us.
(That's from my epistemological proof of the existence
of information[a], if you're interested.)
[a] Another word for patterns, of which memes are, of
course, a subset.