Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id HAA16243 (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 07:59:01 +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.Bb Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2000 17:13:36 +1000 Message-ID: <LPBBICPHCJJBPJGHGMCIKECECHAA.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
continued...
As my recent email of the Darwin/Lamarck dichotomy showed, by applying the
basic eight states to the elements of the dichotomy ('positive' end to
Darwin, 'negative' end to Lamarck) I can describe the approaches of each
point of view not because I 'know' Darwin or Lamarck but because I know the
fundamentals of their determination of meaning.
Thus Darwin is more 'wholes and parts' and so object oriented (initial
emphasis on opposition, purity, archetypal etc) whereas Lamarck is more
'statics and dynamics' and so more relationships oriented (cooperation of
between species etc). If allowed to develop you would see entanglements and
eventually the emerging continuum that is the 'truth' behind the
dichotomisations.
One thing that rCBF studies have shown is that in processing information,
once a theme is set, one 'side' of the brain sets the overall 'colour' or
'tone' of the analysis such that a left bias, an objects bias, will favour
particular perspectives that are different to the relationships perspective.
Thus all relational perspectives that spring up later are seen with 'object'
eyes etc. These perspectives, when written down, RETAIN these biases such
that the biases are passed on in education.
This setting of a fundamental determines all harmonics that are of 'value'
such that the characteristics of what is discovered in the analysis are
predictable since the METHOD has properties that are 'seen' in the
information, there or not.
Over time feedback from model to actual can help to 'refine' our
perspectives but this can take centuries unless you have an understanding of
the METHOD we use to process information, what is BEHIND the words.
These distinctions, the four Bs (add positive/negative or expand/contract
etc etc giving 8) are 'in here' across the species. They are tied to each
other but can also serve as the 'base context' for mapping 'out there' as
well as 'in here'. Thus there are as many points of view as there are
emotional states since the emotional states 'colour' our perspectives.
However, IN GENERAL, all of these states are to some degree reducable to one
of the 4 Bs (or to at least a simple composite or set of composites).
In the analysis of Astrology we find two fundamental dichotomies being used
(and so only at level 2 (four types) rather than 3 (eight types)). These
dichotomies are:
AIR/EARTH (Fundamental)
FIRE/WATER (Derived)
From these have emerged all of the 'meanings' in Astrology and in general
these meanings map to:
expansive blending - AIR
contractive blending - EARTH
expansive bounding - FIRE
contractive bounding - WATER
These 'meanings' are then refined through associations with various internal
and external (!) elements to make up the set of meanings in Astrology. (See
my essay "The Logic of the Esoteric" for a more detailed mapping).
EVERYTIME you make a distinction the template of emotional states opens-up.
It is this template that is generally invariant and allows us to find
meanings and express them in an infinite number of ways.
Neuro Linguistic Programming (NLP) is founded on the making of dichotomies
and as such is guaranteed to elicit a sense of 'value' regardless of any
'facts'. For example, the particularisation of sensory data into Visual vs
Others is the formation of a 1:many dichotomy and that process alone will
'create' a template waiting to be filled out.
ALL objects (disciplines, 'universe of discourse', whatever..) have the
template as a source of meanings. Experiences, expectations, predictions
etc, favour the development of a particular path through the template (e.g.
a bind emphasis or a bond emphasis etc).
Words act to particularise, they act to point to a specific meaning but that
relationship is NOT 1:1, it is more many:1 where MANY words point to the one
feeling. This allows for the use of analogy across disciplines as well as
the creation of metaphors.
One metaphor in particular is symbolically very useful - The I Ching (Book
of Changes) in that whoever wrote it did a good job in capturing the subtle
patterns of emotion 'behind' the words. Thus over the centuries people have
seen so much 'in' the I Ching, not because it is there but because what they
have seen is the PATTERNS OF EMOTION tied to the template. Thus people 'see'
mathematics, physics, complexity/chaos etc 'in' the I Ching but it is the
ties to dichotomisations that creates these 'resonances', all of these
discplines/subjects are founded on the use of recursive dichotomisations and
that method has with it a set of meanings, apply the method to ANYTHING and
when comparing things you will pick up on the properties of the method
encoded in the words.
The disadvantage of the method at the 'base' level is of course its
generality -- we cannot communicate information when limited to describing
'objects' and 'relationships', we need to differentiate one object from the
next and it is with language and the process of particularisation that we do
this, WADE is different to CHRIS at the particular level, but not at the
species level and at this latter level is where we get general 'meaning'.
One of the other problems is that of taking a metaphor literally. I think
this is due to the underlying patterns of emotion that are identical to the
feelings we get from mathematics/science compared to Astrology/Tarot etc and
so this can elicit a sense of 'value' that is equivalent! Feedback from the
environment goes to support the 'value' and in Astrology there IS positive
feedback in that as a TYPOLOGY it works but the original associations to
planets as metaphors have been taken literally and so we have 'problems';
thus Moon in Cancer in reality is not the same as Moon in Cancer 'in here'.
What these sorts of typologies manifest are a lack in precision such that
you use whatever you can to describe something, thus these sorts of systems
when used as predictions ASSUME there is meaning present, they cannot deal
with 'randomness' since they are sourced in harmonics analysis, the general,
and as such, no matter how particular they can get, will always have an
approximation about them (as well as dismissing a false prediction by
suggesting 'external' forces were at hand etc. This gets more into the
prediction/prophecy dichotomy where prediction is 'pointed' and so definite
and I can prove it wrong but prophecy allows for relational dynamics and so
can never be wrong, after all the goalposts are dynamic as well!)
I hope this perhaps too intense series of emails has aided the reader (Wade
in particular) in getting an idea of what I am talking about re meaning and
how ANY discipline that uses dichotomisations as a root will find the same
set of meanings as other disciplines but will label them, create its own
lexicon, and in doing so seem to create the impression that the meanings
discovered are unique. I have not come across any disciplines that do not
have dichotomies as roots but then that is to be expected based on analysis
of how our brain seems to work.
Overall there IS an 'in here' and an 'out there' which forms a dichotomy
such that the method 'in here' seems to 'work' when applied to 'out there'.
We will always be able to find meaning in anything once we pass our analysis
beyond the initial dichotomy. By this I mean that once we think something is
'of value' or could be 'of value' we shift into dichotomous analysis and
that part of our brain assumes there is meaning as a fundamental!
It is feedback that acts to refine our sense of value beyond the genetic
basics of the template such that at the initial level we can learn to reject
something as 'meaningless'. An infant knows little about 'NOT', it has to
learn.
Many religions (Taoism, Zen, even some christian fundamentalists) favour not
going past the original dichotomy, live in the moment; reflection, feedback
processing, takes you 'away' from reality; remove you from the experience of
the 'absolute', the 'one'. The emphasis is sticking to making simple, local
distinctions. This favours an object oriented mode of existence however to
do this requires some learning and so some feedback processing and that
includes exposure to 'other' perspectives and this allows for comparisons of
perspectives, but rather than 'allow' for having to map all of these
expressions we have adapted to map patterns BEHIND the expressions.
Mathematics, the Sciences, the Occult etc are all particular expressions of
the SAME general patterns. Understand these generals and you can refine your
understanding of the particulars and this includes seeing them as metaphors
of varying degrees. ALL of these disciplines are 'self-contained' and the
more 'precise' ones maintain a sense of 'purity' and so try to develop in
'asexual/adrogyne' manners and so keep 'pure'. However they ALL share a
common lexicon 'behind' the ones they create and this is in the form of
patterns of emotion tied to object/relationship distinctions.
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 - 08:00:47 BST