Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id FAA19405 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Mon, 19 Jun 2000 05:49:00 +0100 From: "Chris Lofting" <ddiamond@ozemail.com.au> To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> Subject: RE: meaning and divining systems Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 15:03:09 +1000 Message-ID: <LPBBICPHCJJBPJGHGMCIEEMJCGAA.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: <Pine.OSF.4.21.0006181512260.23772-100000@marple.umd.edu> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Importance: Normal 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 Lawrence H. de Bivort
> Sent: Monday, 19 June 2000 5:14
> To: Memetics
> Subject: Re: meaning and divining systems
>
>
>
> Interesting! Do you think it is possible for the brain or how we make
> meaning to handle more than two poles? To handle, say three or four
> taxonomic options in the same way you describe here?
>
> - Lawrence
>
The creation of hexagrams etc shows we use recursion where a dichotomy is
applied to itself and so on. At the general level we identify a particular
and then analyse it by:
(a) making the distinction of a whole (object encapsulation).
(b) differentiating the parts (which are wholes in a relationship to a
greater whole).
(c) differentiating static relationships, often in the form of summing parts
into an invariant relationship to the whole as well as the whole's invariant
relationship to other wholes.
(d) differentiating dynamic relationships of parts to whole as well as whole
to local and non-local context.
Once we have made these basic distinctions we then combine them into more
complex forms. In the I Ching this is done where eight basic trigrams (that
manifest the above distinctions as well as including a dichotomy that
reflects context sensitivity) are combined to make hexagrams and in turn
these hexagrams are combined in text/context relationships to flesh-out
detailed meanings.
Thus the initial distinction in the form of a dichotomy is basic and as you
go through each level of recursion so you increase the number of possible
perspectives to work with. By the time you get to trigrams you have eight
perspectives that can act as base contexts in which to work. Go further and
you move to 64 hexagrams or 4096 text/context pairings and then apply these
to each other and you hit 16 million possible perspectives on ANY given
whole. you might not go that far since the object itself may lack the
information to go to that level.
For any object, once you have made the distinctions to a particular level,
the next experience of that object will start-off at that level, you dont
start from the base level all over again unless there some 'new' structure
that forces you to make an A/~A distinction and apply that recursively.
What seems to happen is once you have got to eight perspectives there are no
others that are novel, the rest is more fleshing-out details although
perspectives do emerge at each level that can appear to be novel -- the
whole process reflects complexity/chaos at work.
The particularisation process, the encapsulation of an object, acts to set a
boundary within which we operate by analysing harmonics of that object to
give us more refined data. This process will lead you to a continuum where
the information content is exhausted or else your sensory systems can no
longer differentiate X from Y.
All of these basic distinctions are linked to patterns of emotion that give
us 'meaning' and at the general level these patterns are invariant across
the species such that we communicate through a process of resonance.
Our brain is limited to the general distinctions of objects/relationships.
Our mind allows us to particularise these into disciplines etc and so be
more precise in distinguishing 'this' from 'that'. This is the process of
metaphorcation and that is what the I Ching etc is, a metaphor used to
describe object/relationship patterns.
We find in mathematics that the types of numbers we use at the basic level
reflect the above processes thus:
whole -- whole numbers
parts -- rational numbers
static relationships -- irrational numbers
dynamic relationships -- imaginary numbers
Within each of these we find the same object/relationship patterns. For
example, in whole numbers we find primes (pure objects) and composites (sums
of primes and so linked to relational processes)
The rational numbers manifest all of the possible ways I can 'cut' a
whole.(harmonic series, list of parts)
The irrational numbers manifest summing groups of parts to demonstrate
invariant relationships (e.g. use of PI, e, etc etc)
The imaginary numbers act to symbolise transformations/transitions; dynamic
processes.
We then take these basic types and combine them to describe more complex
processes (e.g. complex numbers, Hamiltonians etc)
Thus in two seemingly 'different' disciplines we find the same background
and methods, particular descriptions of object/relationship interactions and
this reflects the brain at work in the process of establishing meaning. This
meaning has structure in that it is rooted in particularisation of general
object/relationship-distinguishing patterns of emotion. This
particularisation will add local nuances to meaning but in general the
patterns are invariant and linked to the method of applying the
object/relationship dichotomy recursively.
This is 'why' we find meaning in the I Ching or in any other esoteric system
based on recursive dichotomisation (i.e. any system that uses the earth/air
and water/fire dichotomies as fundamentals) The discipline is all 'words',
meaningless sounds that are given meaning by linking them to particular
patterns of emotion. Each discipline has its own lexicon but underneath all
of the words are the same patterns of emotion based on describing objects
and relationships.
The randomiser in the I Ching program demonstrates all of this in that
without thinking of a particular question all you see are 'random' hexagrams
that lack a particular meaning. Think of a question and all of a sudden we
can find meaning derived from these 'random' processes. What is happening is
our relational methods, secondary methods that when activated assume meaning
is present, are put to work and the symbols in the I Ching capture the set
of general meanings we have 'in here' that we apply to 'out there'.
best,
Chris.
> On Mon, 19 Jun 2000, Chris Lofting wrote:
>
> >Hi all,
> >
> >FYI I have added a program to my eisa website dealing with the
> establishment
> >of 'meaning' from an esoteric system, in particular the I Ching.
> >
> >My arguement in this is that ANY method of categorisation based
> on the use
> >of dichotomies will create a sense of 'meaning' since these methods are
> >based on the method our brain uses and as such these methods serve as
> >metaphors for describing object/relationships interactions at a
> particular
> >level.
> >
> >The I Ching is a good example of this where random generation of
> symbols is
> >'meaningless' until you ask a particular question. The I Ching symbols
> >reflect harmonics and the particular question grounds these
> harmonics, the
> >question acts like a key in music and your brain-mind will start to make
> >associations etc. These aids in analysis have become
> externalised, taking on
> >a life of their own and as such are taken literally rather than
> as metaphors
> >used to particularise meaning.
> >
> >see http://www.eisa.net.au/~lofting/indexJ.html for the intro and some
> >background comments. There are also some essays on the site re randomness
> >and meaning that I think may help flesh-out the idea I am presenting.
> >
> >best,
> >
> >Chris.
> >
> >------------------
> >Chris Lofting
> >websites:
> >http://www.eisa.net.au/~lofting
> >http://www.ozemail.com.au/~ddiamond
> >
>
>
> |---------------------------------------------|
> | ESI |
> | Evolutionary Services Institute |
> | "Crafting opportunities for a better world" |
> | 5504 Scioto Road, Bethesda, MD 20816, USA |
> | (301) 320-3941 |
> |---------------------------------------------|
>
>
> ===============================================================
> 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 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 : Mon Jun 19 2000 - 05:49:45 BST