Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id PAA09046 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Sun, 2 Jul 2000 15:09:03 +0100 From: "Chris Lofting" <ddiamond@ozemail.com.au> To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> Subject: RE: FW: Cons and Facades - Welcome to My Nightmare Part 1.A Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2000 00:23:27 +1000 Message-ID: <LPBBICPHCJJBPJGHGMCIGEBLCHAA.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) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <B0004669950@htcompmail.htcomp.net> 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 Mark M. Mills
> Sent: Sunday, 2 July 2000 7:34
> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> Subject: Re: FW: Cons and Facades - Welcome to My Nightmare Part 1.A
>
>
> Chris,
>
> >A good analogy for these left-high/right-low distinctions is the
> >consideration of a gene encoded in DNA vs the same gene encoded
> in mRNA. DNA
> >coding manifests 'right hemisphere' processing where the gene is
> 'diffuse'
> >in that it is spread-out through the DNA strand(s).
>
> This is probably not the topic you had intended to raise, but I
> your use of
> term gene raises some questions for me. I can't remember seeing the term
> 'gene' being used as a 'substrate free' control/regulatory entity.
> Specifically, you describe the transfer of gene from DNA to mRNA.
>
> Can you quote any articles that use the term 'gene' in this substrate free
> sense?
>
not off hand, at this point I am just making an analogy from micro to macro
in that the extraction of a particular from a general is reflected in each,
as is the reversal where a particular can be 'inserted' into a general.
Overall we are 'seeing' distinctions in the form of 1:many;
particular:general, and so a pattern that I think is more than just
coincidence.
From the frequency perspective I can extract a particular frequency from a
potentially infinite set and that frequency becomes the 'carrier' of
information.
From a holographic viewpoint, the extracted frequency becomes the reference
beam that allows me to see, as well as encode, information gathered within a
single context, the context being the reference beam. This is like being
unable to recall what happened the night you were drunk until the next time
you are drunk! You have to be in the same state (state specific memories)
and so the same general context.
Our ability to 'flip' through texts or contexts rests on our ability to
choose a point of reference. Consensus in the form of feedback then acts to
enhance or suppress our choice of frequency (choice here can mean simply an
initial iterative process, intent free, 'chance' if you like, that elicits
something of 'value' that we hold constant and with feedback from others who
also hold it constant develop a general 'meaning'. The sense of value is
both genetic as well as memetic in the form of memories etc.)
> If the term gene can be used in a substrate free sense, then
> where else can
> it be encoded? proteins? cell membranes? neural tissue? artifacts?
>
I was just reading the latest biomednet news sheet (HMS Beagle newsletter)
where there is a piece on prions passing on hereditory information....
> There is no mention of the word 'meme' in your post. I suspect your
> substrate free definition of 'gene' makes the term 'meme' unnecessary.
In this set of emails I have not got to the level of stepping too far
outside of the methodology box as yet and so have not become too deeply
involved in discussing the expression of dichotomies, the particulars rather
than the general, however since you bring it up memes seem to take the same
position as Lamarck in the Darwin/Lamarck dichotomy (where genes map to
Darwin).
Thus memes can be interpreted as mapping to BETWEEN and genes map to BEHIND
(or WITHIN). Genes are thus tied to archetypal, structural emphasis with
dynamics only leading to change being over an extended lifespan of the
species. The concept of a meme maps to relational dynamics across species,
cultures etc and so a more typal emphasis (mixing over purity) and a very
increased rate of change.
From our species level, where there is intent and cooperation in
communications rather than just the perception of cooperation, there is a
bias to meme processes in the form of explicit and implicit communications
that act to modify behaviour in existing and future generations. (The
re-writing of history allows us to modify the behaviour of the past
generations as well!).
Whereas the memetics emphasis has a more 'others-contained' emphasis, the
genetics emphasis is more 'self-contained' with mutations being seen as a
threat to survival more than as a sustainer of survival despite the fact
that the mutation can sustain survival. There are qualitative links to the
term 'mutation' that are predominately negative amongst the population in
general and these conform to the frame of mind that is archetypal and
favours purity and so the 'battle' is the retention of sameness within
different contexts and the analysis of those differences that emerge and
their affect on the survival of the still underlying 'sameness'.
Thus 'out there' is negative and potentially 'evil', very much 'NOT us'. But
this approach reflects one of two fundamental methodological perspectives
and as such is not necessarily 'true'; I can introduce the other fundamental
with an emphasis on mixing and many will find it to be the 'preferred'
perspective, it will 'resonate' but it too is will not be necessarily
'true'. (There is also the question re 'fundamental' in that the second
perspective makes some assumptions that can only come about given the first
perspective is fundamental; IOW you cannot have 'Lamarck' without FIRST
having 'Darwin'.)
IF we view all of this from the frequency angle, genetics favours the 'one'
gene, a particular expression that is long term and so 'no change', it maps
to the concept of the fundamental harmonic and ties to the emphasis on clear
and precise identification (which we dont like to change). Memetics favours
more the 'many' in that a meme can be one of many that map to the same
expression; we do not have different genes for 'blue' eyes but we do have
different memes for 'expressing' blue eyes. Memes thus links to change in
expressions, 'they' act as boundary interferences and so RE-identify.
> >From your perspective, 'genes' could be encoded in the brain or
> artifacts,
> the memetic territory. Break free of the absolute gene-DNA link and there
> is no need for a term called 'meme.'
>
:-) true but I cannot think of a more suitable term at the moment. I suppose
the problem with memes is their being put on par with genes the same way
that astrology is by some put on par with astronomy. Genes and Astronomy
deal with structural issues of the physical. Astrology and Memes deal with
structural issues of the mental and as such can work 'faster'. Astrology as
a *typology* is fine, the problems come when the metaphor that it is is
treated as if 'fact'; the Moon is interpreted as that 'object' out in space
rather than as a metaphor for a particular set of human characteristics that
we all share to varying degrees.
The original concept of a meme is a metaphor founded on the work of genes.
In most of these cases we drop the 'As If' (analogy, simile emphasis) and
map meme to gene to the extant that the metaphor is treated literally; as if
something you can touch.
There are relational processes going on where information is transferred 'at
a distance'. To deal with this information we have developed a 'pool' of
emotions that we share across the species and it is this 'pool' that
generates meaning through the process of resonance. Since emotion is clearly
determined by genes so the possible set of all meanings is 'in here' at all
times. Communications, both verbal and non-verbal, act to cause resonance
and so are founded on wave principles which 'in here' are linked to the
processing of frequencies etc., and we have established a link of emotional
sensitivity to rich sensory frequencies such as colour (harmonics of vision)
and chords (harmonics of audition); these elicit responses in the right
hemisphere of most, the hemisphere that is linked to processing this sort of
information and is also linked to refined emotions due to the ability to map
different waveforms into the one space and so create a virtual wave (that
becomes expressible by the more single context left hemisphere).
Memes 'work' with the waves such that I can be 'infected' by a speech, song,
catch phrase etc and the gene emphasis is in the almost self-contained
nature of these sorts of communications, they act AS IF independent of 'me'
or anyonelse with a definite 'drive' as 'found' in genes.
The point is that the CATEGORISATION is made by 'in here' and our
methodology INSISTS that we make these sorts of distinctions, thus the
emergence of the concept of a gene/genetics, all of its properties and
methods, will automatically lead to the emergence of a concept such as a
'meme' and memetics. Furthermore, the emphasis on individual gene and its
survival pushes the 'survive at all costs' since this concept is one of
those linked to the style of thinking I call object oriented, single context
(one thing on their mind :-))
I suggest that in our drive to make maps etc so ANY local(and so single
context, intense, particular) interpretation of reality becomes generalised,
especially if it 'works'. Some confusion emerges when the literal elements
become metaphors but are not seen as such, metaphorcation comes from
lazyness to some degree where it is easier to drop the "As If" we use in the
original analogies/similies and make the local interpretation of reality the
general interpretation of everything.
I think that the ease in which we do this is due to the underlying
neurology/psychology in that all interpretations, local or general, are
reducable to patterns of emotions and these 'map' to the set of possible
meanings permissable by our basic method of analysis. Thus the particular
interpretation based on associative processes (1:1 mapping) is in fact
metaphorcation but at the level of
conscious(words,labels)/unconscious(patterns of emotions) such that the
resulting map is taken as if talking about 'real' things.
"Electron" for example is a word linked to a particular pattern of data that
repeatedly appears on our instruments but we cannot 'see' one to touch. Even
so we 'trust' our instruments since they are an extention of our senses and
so take the word, which is a carrier of the patterns, as representative of
the 'thing' to a degree where we do not differentiate the representation,
word and pattern are as if 'one'.
Thus the local interpretations of reality (e.g. molecular bio,. quantum
mechanics etc) are in themselves metaphors and being metaphors share the
same space as all other metaphors and as such are generalisable to those
metaphors and can replace them as ways of describing local and general
reality.
The Darwinists (as well as the Lamarckianists) favour the singular
expression (staying in the box) such that something like the concept of a
'meme' is expressed within genetics and 'free' of Lamarckian influences but
as I have pointed out in the previous emails re Darwin/Lamarck to get to
that sort of mapping where there is a continuum from physical to mental you
actually have to remove BOTH Darwin and Lamarck from their 'leading'
positions and recognise the reactive-proactive dimension that ANY dichotomy
has behind it; Darwinism and Lamarckianism are not 'facts' but expressions
of our basic methods of interpretations and that is all we can do; interpret
within the 'box' created by our sensory filters and their abstraction into
the use of recursive dichotomisations.
Thus if we take the gene/meme dichotomy and see it as mappable to the
Darwin/Lamarck dichotomy then to get to the continuum that is behind we have
to change terminologies or add new ones or, when teaching, emphasise the
properties and methods that go with the METHOD of analysis such that we can
see the continuum BEHIND the dichotomies rather than see the dichotomies as
the expressions and the elements in eternal opposition (to varying degrees).
Note that in this proposed continuum there is a format such that one
perspective is seen as having a literal bias (e.g. genes, Darwin) and the
other as more of a metaphor bias (memes and Lamarck). The metaphor bias
emerges as a result of moving from the objects to the space-in-between;
relational space. This movement takes you from the 1 to the many and so to
MANY interpretations over the one interpretation.
This observation would come about 'naturally' if we treat the continuum as
more like a binary tree or the manifestation of complexity/chaos in our
analytical processes. Thus the process of the intergration of a gene with a
context leads to an increase in choices and so many ways of expressing the
one 'thing' and that is what metaphors are about.
Thus something that is perceived as a metaphor for X can be in itself
something 'real'. At the general level it is a metaphor (e.g. the use of
quantum mechanics concepts to discuss literature, the occult etc) but at the
particular level has a life of its own.
Hope this isnt too confusing! I will try to flesh out some of these points
in later emails on this subject.
best,
Chris.
------------------
Chris Lofting
websites:
http://www.eisa.net.au/~lofting
http://www.ozemail.com.au/~ddiamond
===============================================================
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 : Sun Jul 02 2000 - 15:09:47 BST