Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id IAA04733 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Wed, 22 Mar 2000 08:44:32 GMT From: "Chris Lofting" <ddiamond@ozemail.com.au> To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> Subject: RE: Self-Acquisition Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 19:54:08 +1100 Message-ID: <LPBBICPHCJJBPJGHGMCIGEPKCEAA.ddiamond@ozemail.com.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: <200003220536.AAA01772@mail3.lig.bellsouth.net> Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> -----Original Message-----
> From: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk [mailto:fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk]On Behalf
> Of Joe E. Dees
> Sent: Wednesday, 22 March 2000 4:40
> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> Subject: Self-Acquisition
>
>
> As i mentioned before, the idea of a self is taught to us by our
> primary caregivers, whom we distinguish from the surrounding
> environment on the basis of their meaning-laden, purposeful and
> responsive behavior. We then internalize this distinction and
> ourselves become individual self-conceivers among others.
nope. IF you look at the development of mental states from mammals through
primates to us so the concept of self comes first. In monkey studies there
is a sense of SELF-awareness but NOT of OTHERS-awareness where OTHERS means
OTHER MINDS. There seems to be a mental state where actions performed by
others are seen as being 'somehow' programmed/controlled by 'me'.
As we develop intellectually, and especially in humans, so the awareness of
other MINDS leads to a feedback process that goes to flesh-out our sense of
self.
This process then leads to the awareness that, when we store information in
books etc, so there is a degree of objectivity involved in that disciplines
such as mathematics etc can take on a life of their own. This comes about
due to the realisation that all of the mathematics in the world did not come
from one mind, it came from many minds. This creates disciplines that seem
to take-on a sense of identity, of 'self-ness' such that these disciplines
are interpreted as having roots outside of 'us'. This is to some degree,
illusion.
Note that the sense of self is an object sense, it is a sense based on
precision, on the assertion of the personal pronoun, "I".
We can link this to the concept of oneness, wholeness, and in doing so
introduce the concept of encapsulation.
The pointedness reflected in the concept of "I" is also reflected in those
parts of our neurological and psychological development concerned with
territorial mapping where we can see the emergence of the distinction of
'mine' from 'not mine'. Note the emphasis on MINE rather than OURS.
As we see in hippocampus, there is a link of waypoint mapping to territorial
mapping and this leads to the abstraction of mine/not mine to
correct/incorrect. Further abstraction takes us into the neocortex and the
root of syntactic processing which is sourced in that part of the brain best
associated with object thinking, encapsulated thinking, SELF thinking.
The emotion linked to the syntax concept has been located by Demasio et al.,
in the left hemisphere of the brain. Thus there is a fundamental emotion
linked to the concept of "I".
This concept, being linked to that part of the brain that, in most, is
biased to the assertion of precision, of 'pointedness', is gene based in
that the fundamental distinctions at the neurological level deals with
wholes and parts aka objects. Thus the concept of SELF, the awareness of
SELF, has emerged from more reptilian thinking linked to territorial
mapping. This goes as far as asserting that the concept of a truth is also
stemmed from territorial mapping in that an absolute truth is as precise as
"I".
Thus the raw concept of SELF has gene foundations that are then 'refined'
through firmware (neurochemistry) and software (psychology). The memetics
element is in the neurochemistry/psychology where feedback loops aid in
re-identifying "I" through local and non-local means (personal psychology
and cultural/species influences).
Since there is a gene based element so that element is the 'root' SELF. The
assertion of "I AM" stems from this in that there is no intent behind this,
there is just a fundamental feeling of "MINE", "ME", "ONE". There is nothing
else. This is like a random process where something just 'happens', there is
no intent. This is a PRIMARY process.
The SECONDARY process is in the refinement of the expression of SELF through
the use of exageration and/or suppression of aspects to try and add some
qualitative precision to the basic assertion.
The SECONDARY process (and this is the world of memes) works in a context of
total faith in the primary such that all experiences are deemed to have
meaning. In the secondary process the concept of randomness does not exist
since this process is relationally biased and works on there being at least
TWO objects (basic one is 'me' and 'context'); the secondary process works
in the space in-between objects (without objects there are no
relationships).
The secondary process is the home of OTHERS and in humans this areas is well
developed to a degree where an individual can develop a bias to secondary
thinking and consider OTHERS as primary. An error. An error in LEVELS of
analysis in that if you drop a level or so, so genes working at the GROUP
level aid in the development of the individual but the emergence of
awareness, of SELF, comes from the individual not the group.
There is a development path that is consistant where SELF comes 'first' and
then comes 'OTHERS'. Entangle these fundamentals by applying the 1:many
dichotomy recursively and you get a continuum of different expressions
biased to different degrees of SELF/OTHER expression.
Without OTHERS you endup psychotic, self-contained, encapsulated aka
'naturally wild'. All that keeps you going if in a group are genes since
there is no awareness of other MINDS.
IF you combine SELF-Aware with OTHERS-Aware you start to get 'Mind' and
there is the suggestion that this is a feedback process, it develops from
the SELF/OTHERS interaction where OTHERS is transforming but not
fundamental.
best,
Chris.
===============================================================
This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Mar 22 2000 - 08:44:44 GMT