Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id KAA06002 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Tue, 20 Jun 2000 10:42:53 +0100 Message-Id: <4.1.20000620020444.01ef0f00@mail.rdc1.bc.wave.home.com> X-Sender: dplante@mail.rdc1.bc.wave.home.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1 Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 02:41:31 -0700 To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk From: Dan Plante <dplante@home.com> Subject: RE: Cons and Facades - more on truth In-Reply-To: <LPBBICPHCJJBPJGHGMCIGEMPCGAA.ddiamond@ozemail.com.au> References: <200006192233.SAA10759@mail5.lig.bellsouth.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
Chris: I pretty much agree with all that you said below (which is more or
less what you've been saying for quite a while now, of course), mostly
because it underscores what I've said for years as well, but at a higher
level of abstraction (you must be right because you have the same opinion I
do ;-).
A small portion of it I'm not sure I follow - I'll have to sleep on it then
read it again. Also, the waypoint rationale seems a little contrived to me
...... maybe I'm wrong, but why couldn't the basis for this be even more
primal, and adapted for waypoint mapping purposes later on? Maybe an even
more primitive aquatic organism had a proto-limbic food/not-food or
mate/not-mate response system to visual cues or even chemical markers, that
later synergistically reacted to some other mutation(s) that proved to be
dynamically stable because their phenotypic expression fed back as a
waypointing advantage?
On the other hand, I guess we could keep leap-frogging emergent
dependancies all the way back to the pre-biotic (or even further), so the
point is probably moot, especially since testing the validity of your
analyses does not require it, from what I can tell.
By the way, I've also had an enduring interest in the MBTI system, and
others of its ilk. I also understand that more current, and presumably more
accurate hybrid systems exist. These, along with a vector-math treatment
are, I think, one half of the key to constructing a predictive model of
social-memes. Do you have any current link-lists for these newer systems?
Do you know if the algorithms are available for us common folk or are they
proprietary? Any help would be appreciated.
Dan
At 06:41 PM 20/06/00 +1000 Chris Lofting wrote:
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk [mailto:fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk]On Behalf
>> Of Joe E. Dees
>> Sent: Tuesday, 20 June 2000 8:38
>> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
>> Subject: RE: Cons and Facades - more on truth
>>
>>
>>
>> > There IS a sense of 'truth', a feeling 'rightness',
>> 'correctness' that we
>> > all have and that feeling is very EITHER/OR, absolute, even if it can be
>> > wrong.
>> >
>> Feee-Lings! Ohh, ohh, ohh Feee-Lings! ;~) I thought we were
>> discussing not what one felt to be true, or wished to be true, or
>> believed to be true, but what one could logically, rationally and
>> reasonably maintain to be true, and this requires evidence of some
>> sort or other beyond one's emotional proclivities (unless what one
>> is maintaining is not the truth of X, but that one feels X is true).
>> >
>>
>
>Logic and rationality are not 'feelings free'. Logic and rationality are
>based on syntax processes linked to the basic feeling of correct/incorrect;
>we do not go past these distinctions, we do not amplify them, we do not
>exagerate them and so many seem to think that these feelings are not
>feelings at all but states 'outside' of feelings. They are not. What I call
>secondary thinking acts to take a distinction and exagerate it or suppress
>it, the aim is to bring-out an aspect for closer examination or to
>de-emphasise a boundary to bring out background. This secondary thinking
>will lead to a loss in precision in that you move from a single context
>IS/IS NOT to a multi-context COULD BE where we move into the use of
>probabilities and fuzzy logic. This may qualitatively seem rich ground but
>it is also more subjective and so approximations biased.
>
>You can see this movement from rigid IS/IS NOT to more approximate states in
>the development of logic where the original universe of discourse (single
>context) combined with the use of dichotomisation (A/~A and 1:1 format)
>gives way to more context sensitive logic, thus propositional calculus leads
>to predicate calculus and then into modal logics and fuzzy logic, the latter
>where we use probabilities but this does not remove the assertion of an
>absolute truth, since you have moved past that area, you have moved from
>primary to secondary thinking.
>
>What you have in rationalism is a perceived state of emotional neutrality
>where positive and negative 'cancel' each other out (using the wave metaphor
>to describe feelings). This neutral state 'maps' to specific persona types
>who favour this mode of thinking as well as the mode being available to
>other types with biases to different modes. (In the MBTI, a personality
>typology system, rationalists are called NT temperaments, combining
>intuition and thinking, the thimnking is the A/~A and the intuition is the
>drive to discover what is behind expression)
>
>The rationalist type of thinking stems from the combination of sensation
>seeking (the expression, something local, and often fails to distinguish
>text/context or else asserts a single context) and identity seeking (looking
>behind the expression -- context sensitive, non-local). The psychological
>tie is to sensation seeking that has had a bad experience or simply lacks
>trust in themselves. This forces (a) the creation of a boundary and (b) the
>objectification of processes (nominalisation where a verb becomes a noun)
>such that we can map things and in doing so create a tool with which we can
>solve problems (the NT type is into problem solving, solution seeking); our
>explorations into sensation seeking is now done with by cautiously
>pushing-out the boundary with the aid of a map which we update as we go.
>(thus the map is truth captured on paper etc that we then make available to
>others in our group/species).
>
>There is NO SEPARATION of feelings from logic etc. other than the one you
>seem to make (as do a lot of others where local object distinctions are
>seperated from the source of 'different' interpretations). It is revealing
>that you split feelings from the 'logical, rational, reasonable' suggesting
>that feelings are in the realm of the illogical, irrational, and
>unreasonable and yet the neurology/psychology demonstrate that feelings are
>foundations of the experience of 'logical, rational, reasonable'.
>
>IMHO you have cut yourself off from what makes you human. I think it could
>be useful to trace the roots of such concepts as 'logic' or 'rational' or
>'reasonable' since the process leads you to discover that these are words
>linked to a particular perspective, one of many, and that perspective is
>single context, object-oriented thinking that aims to clearly identify
>something, to distinguish an IS from an IS NOT. It is in the realm of what I
>call primary processing and it has a syntax bias and a strong emphasis on
>precision and at times a degree to the exclusion of
>relational issues (manifest in your rejection of feelings :-))
>
>The development of feedback processes (memory etc) allows us to 'go beyond'
>the syntax into semantics where we move into multi-context, more qualitative
>processing that works to exagerate (+ or -) the object and so move us into
>personal and cultural subjectivities that include context sensitivity (which
>is what abduction deals with in that it is NOT particular-to-particular but
>more particular-to-general in that the context we link to the text is a
>general regardless of it being a particular context. I think your confusing
>levels in your comments about this, the RELATIONSHIP of text to context is
>particular-to-general. The IDENTIFICATION of which context the text fits-in
>with identifies a particular but that particular is characteristically a
>general. All three methods, induction, abduction, deduction, map to a 1:many
>relationship where the 1 is held constant and we vary the many. This process
>is fundamental to our neurology where we play with the what(one)/where(many)
>dichotomy).
>
>The area of semantics is the area of SECONDARY thinking (and includes the
>play of the deduction/abduction loop). Secondary thinking assumes meaning is
>present at all times since it assumes that the primary thinking process has
>applied the 'correct/incorrect' dichotomy, the syntax process precedes the
>semantic process. This means that random processes which have nothing
>'behind' them, if allowed to 'slip-through' the screening process will be
>given meaning since the assumption of the secondary process is that anything
>that does get through must in some way be meaningful. The emphasise on
>probability processes ensures that some 'rubbish' WILL get through since the
>process itself is secondary and works with dichotomisations such as
>meaningless/meaningful which is replaced with a qualitative assessment of
>worthless/priceless -- strongly subjective terms.
>
>Genetic diversity alone will allow for a developing bias where semantic
>processing is seem as primary and that will lead you into such concepts as
>there is meaning 'out there' independent of 'us' and everything is connected
>to everything else and there are no absolute truths since all is in flux etc
>etc
>
>BTW I liked the absolute way you stated that there is no absolute truth etc
>very Popper, but then Popper's thinking starts in secondary space since
>extreme primary space is 'unscientific' due to it being too positive where
>the concept of negation is not even considered. Science DEMANDS
>dichotomisations to work with since it is rooted in a lack of faith and as
>such needs to make comparisions, to get behind things and discover the
>algorithms and formulas that lead to expressions that can be tested -- the
>testing emphasis showing the underlying root of science, lack of trust in
>ones experiences that was then abstracted into the discipline of Science.
>
>The moment you move into secondary thinking you move into probabilities and
>that move will include your approach to such concepts as truth; truth
>becomes 'fuzzy' but when viewed from a hierarchic position then there are
>absolute truths within the given contexts of personal, cultural, universal.
>The fuzzyness emerges when you try to cross the boundaries and so confuse
>contexts which can lead to 'errors', this universal truths should span all
>levels but personal truths remain personal.
>
>In this sense there ARE absolute truths (experienced as a feeling that is
>100% 'true') you just have to make sure that the text-to-context link is the
>'correct' one.
>
>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 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 : Tue Jun 20 2000 - 10:43:52 BST