Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id HAA16231 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Wed, 5 Jul 2000 07:58:53 +0100 From: "Chris Lofting" <ddiamond@ozemail.com.au> To: "Memetics" <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> Subject: FW: Cons and Facades - Welcome to My Nightmare Part 2.Ba Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2000 17:13:31 +1000 Message-ID: <LPBBICPHCJJBPJGHGMCIIECECHAA.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 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
Sent on Wed but too big so split into 2.Ba and 2.Bb....
-----Original Message-----
From: Chris Lofting [mailto:ddiamond@ozemail.com.au]
Sent: Wednesday, 5 July 2000 6:48
To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
Subject: RE: Cons and Facades - Welcome to My Nightmare Part 2.B
hmmm..no questions...okay, to continue:
Given that the human brain seems to utilise a method of information
aquisition and information dissemination that favours the use of sets of
meanings derived from recursive dichotomisation, let us look a little closer
at this method together with a number of disciplines that, based on what has
been said so far, should reflect the method in their structure and
expression.
At the fundamental level, with some refinement to enable a suitable degree
of differentiation, we have eight 'states' that serve as windows onto a
continuum of 'meaning'. These windows are large enough to enable the 'clear'
identification of patterns of meaning and small enough such that each
pattern is qualitatively identical with the other patterns and as such does
not dominate.
There is however one bias and that is the bias imposed by the brain's bias
to 1:many processing (discussed below)
Thus in the original distinctions we have:
expansive blend (whole)
expansive bond (Static relationships)
expansive bound (parts)
expansive bind (dynamic relationships)
contractive bind
contractive bound
contractive bond
contractive blend
(note I have used the expand/contract dichotomy to capture the dynamics of
positive/negative elements, this is favoured as the e/c terms have a
dynamics about them that is not clear when using the more static expression
'positive/negative' and I wish to emphasise some dynamics in the above list
later. Also note that the positive/negative emphasis presented is centered,
text bias, thus the negative 'end' has a positive element but this 'resides'
in the CONTEXT, not the text which is seen as more 'negative')
The positive 'end' is the expansive end and that has a bias to the 'one'
especially in the distinction of expansive blending. The other members of
the set of expansives are not as positive in that they all require an
increasing exposure to context in their descriptions. Thus the pure
expansion of blending, where the 'one' just spreads out, does not require
the 'one' to be aware of the context, there is present a very strong 'push',
a drive, that is so singleminded that all else is not even recognised as
being in any way 'meaningful' or else is seen as secondary, inferior etc the
drive is to assert a context, or the 'self' and so no real distinction
between ME and NOT ME but an emphasis on asserting identity.
The negative sides, in the form of contracting, capture the identification,
or re-identification, of something by what it IS NOT. This side works with
harmonics and so context where particulars in the context are used to 'shine
light' on the text, the context is seen as positive when compared to the
text that is interpreted as 'in the dark' and so 'faint' at best. This bias
to harmonics introduces us to the 'many' in that any harmonic (or set of)
can be used to re-identify or assert some aspect of the fundamental. (When
refined further this all ties into NOT ME, aka OTHERS).
Overall there is an imposition of a bias onto the basic eight states of
meaning where at one 'pole', the positive pole, there is strong intensity,
an EXPLICIT feeling of 'one', whereas at the other 'pole' there is a diffuse
feeling of 'many'. However this diffuse feeling has an IMPLICIT sense of
oneness in that all of the harmonics, when summed, make the 'one'. This
implicitness ties us to the experience of intuition where the summing of
harmonics (in the form of particular feelings gained from past experiences
as well as some hard-wiring) allows us to have intuitions about things that
we then 'zoom-in' on through particularisations, to come to a 'point', the
recognition, the *identification* of something/someone.
IN general, these states (and their more complex forms) form a set of
meanings that are contained within the method of analysis/synthesis, i.e.
recursive dichotomisations.
OF note is that the fundamental state, present in the base dichotomy, is of
the form 1/Many where 'many' is a variable. Furthermore, due to the
discovered nature of the brain (to date) so the Many is tied to relational
space.
With all of what we have covered so far in mind, let us look at one
particular discipline that is used in our species to map reality and so
allow for predictions to be made. That discipline is Mathematics.
I want to particularly focus on (a) the FEELINGS linked to the types of
numbers we use and (b) the development paths within particular methods, e.g.
that of Calculus differentiation.
(a) Taking our four basic 'feelings', blend, bond, bound, bind, some
interesting associations develop when we reflect on types of numbers. In
particular the following:
The distinction of whole numbers is mappable to the feeling of blending, of
'onenness', of an object, something that is seemingly context-free and so
ideal. Recall from the emails on the brain that the left hemisphere (in
most) has a bias to the more archetypal thinking, the identification of
particular objects and so a bias to precision, the '1', the dot, the point,
something that is seemingly irreducable.
When we zoom-in on this association by looking at basic characteristics of
whole numbers we notice that we can sub-divide the numbers into (1) PRIME
numbers and (2) COMPOSITE numbers.
What is noteworthy here is that PRIME numbers have characteristics that
tie-in to uniqueness, to the identification of an object, a 'one', something
indivisable, irreducable whereas COMPOSITE numbers, on the other hand, are
symbolically linked to the expression of a RELATIONSHIP between two or more
primes, e.g. 2+2=4, such that the product IS divisable.
Thus within the concept of whole numbers we find the core of the basic
'feelings' that we are suggesting reside at the unconscious level and aid us
by giving us a sense of meaning.
Not only are these patterns WITHIN the types of numbers but also ACROSS the
types. Thus the basic feelings are mappable to:
BLEND -- whole numbers
BOUND -- rational numbers (aka parts, form the harmonic series, the number
of parts I can cut the whole. The bound emphasis is on a boundary that
separates)
BOND -- irrational numbers (aka static relationships, e.g. PI, e, etc here
we make-up relational patterns by summing groups out of the harmonic series
as well as including other irrationals in the sums)
BIND -- imaginary numbers (aka dynamic relationships. Used to capture such
concepts as transitions and transformations).
In the previous email I commented that the basic feelings are combined into
more complex forms simply by 'mixing' the basics. Applied to these number
'feelings', I can create a type of number that elicits a feeling of a
dynamic context within which operates a whole e.g. composite numbers
(imaginary + integer etc expressed in feeling as bind + blend.)
These composites are infinite in form but the underlying set of feelings
allows us to keep layering type on type and still retain some sense of
'meaning'.
What is of further interest is in the development/teaching of mathematics in
that we always move from teaching whole to statics to parts to dynamics
(statics in the form of geometry etc. invariant relationships) Furthermore,
as I noted in the 'direction' of the eight states, one end is very 'one'
oriented whilst the other is more many with an emphasis on context. In
describing complex dynamic processes we have created types of numbers that
have this more context-oriented emphasis, namely the use of Hamiltonians
where the elements within the context are seen as the guiding influence on
the text, the 'point'.
Note that in teaching mathematics we do NOT start with complex numbers,
there is a definite path of development but in doing so we move more and
more for ideal, archetypal expressions to the more typal expressions, we
move from BLEND to BIND where the latter gets into dynamic relational
processes of object with context (both local and non-local).
We see this general pattern at the particular, best seen in the Calculus
where the process of differentiation takes us from the blend (the position)
to a bind (depending in where you want to go -- velocity to acceleration to
action); emphasis of going from a static to a dynamic. (to see the reverse
of this where we go from bind to blend, and to see it in another discipline,
consider the process of evolution.)
The point here is that I can describe feelings for numbers etc based on the
eight states (or for that matter just four) but these feelings are not
exclusive to mathematics, they are part of our neurological/neurochemical
functions that I suggest serve as the bedrock for all of our maps.
Continued in 2.Bb....
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 : Wed Jul 05 2000 - 07:59:41 BST