Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id BAA22582 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Thu, 22 Jun 2000 01:22:11 +0100 Message-Id: <200006220020.UAA23235@mail4.lig.bellsouth.net> From: "Joe E. Dees" <joedees@bellsouth.net> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 19:24:34 -0500 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: RE: Cons and Facades - more on truth In-reply-to: <LPBBICPHCJJBPJGHGMCIMENKCGAA.ddiamond@ozemail.com.au> References: <200006210448.AAA20123@mail5.lig.bellsouth.net> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12b) Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
From: "Chris Lofting" <ddiamond@ozemail.com.au>
To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
Subject: RE: Cons and Facades - more on truth
Date sent: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 20:01:22 +1000
Send 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, 21 June 2000 2:53
> > To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> > Subject: RE: Cons and Facades - more on truth
> >
> >
> > From: "Chris Lofting" <ddiamond@ozemail.com.au>
> > To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
> > Subject: RE: Cons and Facades - more on truth
> > Date sent: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 11:21:25 +1000
> > Send reply to: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> >
> <snip>
> > > I am reviewing the use of this in the semiotics of music
> > (Tarasti gets into
> > > this in (1994)"A Theory of Musical Semiotics" IUP) Using the template
> > > material we can expand this into a compass format (eight points
> > compared to
> > > four) as well as TWO approaches, oppositional (as in the
> > original semiotic
> > > square) and cooperational. I run a 'small' list dealing with semiosis
> > > (emergence of meaning) where some of this is/will be expanded
> > upon. Will let
> > > you know how things go!
> > >
> > Yeah, two can be doubled into four can be doubled into eight can
> > be doubled into...
>
> you again miss the point re 1:many processing such that the above mapping
> has under it a 1:many bias that leads you into log scaling etc
>
Looks like linguistic (and rhythmic?) log rolling to me.
> > >
> > > <snip>
> > > > >
> > > > I refer you to Introducing Semiotics: It's History and Doctrine by
> > > > John Deely for the standard philosophical and semiotic definition of
> > > > abduction, as well as the distinctions between semantics (the
> > > > relations of signs to their signified referents), syntactics (the
> > > > relations between signs in a sign system) and pragmatics (the
> > > > relations of signs to their signifier) within semiotics.
> > > > >
> > >
> > > Been there, done that. I relate induction/deduction/abduction
> > directly to
> > > what has been found in the neurosciences/psychology and so what REALLY
> > > happens. At my eisa website I touch on Peirce's method of
> > analysis and how
> > > it resonates with 'in here' methodology other than the error of not
> > > differentiating relational processes into static and dynamic
> > (most 'three'
> > > oriented methods or so due to the fact that they have not recognised the
> > > complexity/chaos processes going on and so the presence of
> > bifurcations.)
> > >
> > Of course Peirce is static and synchronic - all structural schemas
> > are; this is why memetics, as a dynamic and diachronic functional
> > schema, provides the perfect complement to semiotics.
>
> If you review my websites you will find that there is a pattern that is
> based on dynamics but it recognises that you need the structure first.
> Peirce recognised that to get into the quadrivium of arithmetic, geometry,
> astronomy, and music you had to first work your way through three 'lesser'
> disciplines, grammar, logic, and rhetoric.
>
> These lesser disciplines are for Peirce the three threads of the Science of
> Semiotic where grammar = firstness, logic = secondness and rhetoric =
> thirdness.
>
Firstness is object, secondness is subject, thirdness is sign.
>
> The last distinction does take us into preliminary dynamics that get
> expanded as you work further up the hierarchy (at least the three tiers ).
>
> >From the template area the structural emphasis is very archetypal in form,
> in the I Ching it is called the Fu Hsi sequence with a rigid structure using
> binary trees. Upon these foundations are layered the 'King Wen' sequence
> were the emphasis is on dynamics and a definite start-end distinction.
>
> I have linked Greimas's semiotic square to the Fu Hsi sequence emphasising
> the structural basis and am now expanding this into dynamics and the King
> Wen sequence (there are 8 trigrams that form a compass pattern and we get
> two compasses, the relational overlayed on the structural.)
>
Any one of these a priori and mythically influenced classificatory
systems, be it astrology, Native American earth astrology, tarot,
runes, qabbalistic tree of life, the enneagram, or the i ching, I take
with a sack of salt.
> > >
> > > Most of the texts I have read on semiotics (old as in Peirce
> > and new as in
> > > Eco etc) dont touch on the neurology/psychology too well since
> > it is only in
> > > the last 10 years of so that we have been able to get a good
> > idea as to what
> > > is happening and so using this data we can refine our models and that
> > > includes semiotics.
> > >
> > Read Gerald M. Edelman for a good idea of what is
> > neurobiologically going on; he won a Nobel for his work (NEURAL
> > DARWINISM (1988), THE REMEMBERED PRESENT (1990), and
> > TOPOBIOLOGY (1993), summed up in his book BRIGHT AIR,
> > BRILLIANT FIRE (1993)), and has a great new book out (A
> > UNIVERSE OF CONSCIOUSNESS (2000)). Antonio Damasio is
> > good, too, as are Daniel C. Dennett, Jerry Fodor, Stephen Pinker,
> > and many others, none of which give any credence to your
> > seeming theory of hardwired meaning.
> > >
> They are probably not even aware of my theory. :-)
>
> I have read a lot of these. They deal with expression not what is behind it.
> Pinker's recent book on words and rules was, by the title, getting to the
> point but it didnt in content (words = objects/text,
> rules=relationships/context) His selective references to neurological
> functions was laughable but then he is more of a specialist than a
> generalist so this is understandable.
>
> Take the time to go through the literature on hemisphere functions etc (see
> some of the refs at http://www.ozemail.com.au/~ddiamond/brefs.html ) and a
> pattern starts to emerge emphasising the object(what)/relationships(where)
> dichotomy and its recursion as fundamental in processing data.
>
> Since that reflects a METHOD, apply the dichotomy recursively and you get
> the patterns I talk about and you can relate these patterns to seemingly
> different disciplines such as the I Ching and Mathematics.
>
> None of the above authors have touched on these areas in depth probably
> since being specialists and academics they stay inside their box. I have no
> fear since I have nothing to lose, I am at the bottom of the heap (or more
> so outside the heap :-)) and it is that position that allows me to get into
> issues that many would rather leave alone such as the foundations of
> esoteric disciplines etc why it is that people find value in these despite
> what Science has to say about them.
>
> My work shows you categorisation and the emergence of meaning at work within
> the constraints set-up by neuroscience and that is 'new' and I have enough
> research data to put together the model I have.
>
> I have not seen that in memetics as yet but perhaps as I go through the
> relational patterns things will start to emerge :-)
>
Neurological connections in the physical substrate brain are in the
realm of being, not the realm of meaning. This basic distinction
cannot be erased or ignored.
> <snip>
> > > > Gravitationally this may be trivially true, but causality is not
> > > > universal (random appearances of electron-positron pairs, Brownian
> > > > motion, radioactive decay), nor is spatiotemporal contiguity.
> > > > >
> > >
> > > THis is an interesting point when you get to quantum mechanics where the
> > > entanglement concept would allow for 'random' processes to in
> > fact be the
> > > manifestation of the non-local part of a pair being influenced
> > by something.
> > > Since we cannot see this (the other part being perhaps on the
> > other side of
> > > the universe) all we see is an apparent 'random' event - no detectable
> > > cause.
> > >
> > So you embrace nonlocality. Do you embrace superdeterminism,
> > the many-worlds theory, or superluminal connections (the only
> > alternatives Bell's Theorem leaves open once nonlocality is
> > embraced)?
> > >
>
> I dont 'embrace' anything; I just deal with ideas and their structure, HOW
> we can come up with such concepts and we can due to the structure of the
> neurology.
>
> At my website I demonstrate how wave/particle duality concepts can emerge
> from the use of recursive dichotomisation which is the method used in ALL of
> the experiments to demonstrate this concept, IOW the METHOD of analysis
> creates the patterns and so 'waves' and 'particles' are expressions of the
> method, recursive dichotomisations, and as such we will be able to see/use
> these concepts at ALL SCALES not just QM and their source is 'in here'.
>
Sonds solipsistic to me.
>
> The concepts of free will/determinism can be traced to left brained naming
> processes tied with right brained pattern mappings (link of a 'random noise'
> to a determining pattern) and superdeterminism follows when you change
> scales (it is tied to the secondary processing concepts in that there is the
> assumption that all is meaningful and so there is no free will at all)
>
This is patently false; if everything was determined, there would be
no room for free will to influence choices, thus neither it nor an
impotent self-consciousness to direct such a free will could have
evolved. Without self-consciousness to impose meaning upon
being, there could be no meaning.
>
> The local/non-local dichotomy, from a neurological perspective maps to the
> particular/general structure of the neocortex. thus non-local will take-on
> characteristics linked to relational processing in the brain and this
> includes the everything-is-connected-to-everything-else and so the
> entanglement issues etc etc and the interpretive differences since we have
> moved from single context local thinking to multi-context non-local
> thinking.
>
This is a failed and futile attempt to psychologize physics. Bell
won a Nobel for his work precisely because it stands up to rigorous
analysis, and has little or nothing to do with the mindset of the
person considering it. These alternatives are the logically possible
ones, regardless of, for instance, a creationist's opinion/belief that
none of them make sense when compared with their "Living God"
first cause.
>
> Local thinking is precision oriented and so emphasis is on 'the one'.
> Non-local thinking is more approximations oriented and so emphasis is on
> 'the many' but the non-local is tied to contextual issues and when you get
> into this sort of thinking your emphasise shifts from the object, the one,
> to the relationships in the context that affect the object and so determine
> effects.
>
Firat of all, many things can be contiguous with something else; a
ccube may share all six sides with six surfaces belonging to other
objects, and an icosahedron may share twenty. The tension
between the one and the many (unity vs. multiplicity) is elaborated
upon at length by F. S. C. Northrop in THE MEETING OF EAST
AND WEST, and is a generalization of the reductionistic hegelian
archetypical dialectic of the tension between thesis and antithesis
(the one and the two).
>
> >From mathematics we can see this process going on where the almost
> context-insensitive whole numbers are developed to the level of Hamiltonians
> where the emphasis is on the influences of surrounding context on the
> object.
>
Context-dependence is the primordial gestalt principle, and is
employed in phenomenologist Aron Gurwitsch's monumental study
THE FIELD OF CONSCIOUSNESS.
>
> The Many-Worlds concept comes right out of non-local thinking where the
> relationships bias favours non-closure which is the intent behind the theory
> as a way of getting around the wave collapse issue.
>
Wave-particle duality has nothing to do with the Many-Worlds
theory, which is an attempt to do an end-around the EPR
experiment (which demonstrated that spin opposition is preserved
beyond c speeds) without considering the fact that the particles
were once contiguous and diverged at less than c. See
SYNCHRONICITY: AN ACAUSAL CONNECTING PRINCIPLE by
Carl Jung, where it is pointed out that not when two contiguous
particles diverge, that they follow proportionally relational paths
(IOW, not only can A cause B, but if X simultaneously causes A
and B, they remain relatable through the common cause).
>
> >From a Peircean point of view non-locality gets into thirdness and so
> probabilites, generals etc
>
Thirdness, once again, has to do with the realm of meaning (the
sign for the referent) and not the world of being. Signs are freely
and arbutrarily chosen by intersubjective convention, within the
constraints imposed by previously established sign-sign relations.
See Charles Morris, FOUNDATIONS OF THE THEORY OF
SIGNS, for an elaboration on this point.
>
> best,
>
likewise,
>
> Chris.
>
Joe
>
>
> ===============================================================
> 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 : Thu Jun 22 2000 - 01:22:57 BST