(Does does help cut through the confusion ?))) Page 25 simply states that (capital) markets are themselves cells. And the organic hierarchy of the markets provides scoping. Here in capital markets, the scoping is to prevent system crash due to poor choices made in a lower level market. In the analogous informational markets, the scoping provides cultural isolation (e.g. discussions of labia minora may be appropriate in some spaces but not in another e.g.the my-chinese-mother-in-law-is-here scope. etc.) My thoughts on these matters have evolved substantially since then. Mainly, I no longer have any faith in such an architecture transforming the hairy biped to an upright being, which is the (pure) idea behind Masonic thought. (After all, some have been trying for God knows how many millennia to no avail ..) But perhaps it is a good pedagogical model. Of course, it is also coercive in parts (and again, I now question that). But that is pretty much the general philosophical view taken: nothing is per se wrong -- one must simply apply the appropriate action at the appropriate time. So, the general idea of a cyclical {[:]formation -> competition => consultation => cooperation [->:]} remains viable imo as a methodology, and should be applied recursively.