Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id TAA17881 (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 19:19:39 +0100 From: "Chris Lofting" <ddiamond@ozemail.com.au> To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> Subject: RE: Cons and Facades - Welcome to My Nightmare Part 2.Bb Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2000 04:34:18 +1000 Message-ID: <LPBBICPHCJJBPJGHGMCICECHCHAA.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 In-Reply-To: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D31017458FB@inchna.stir.ac.uk> 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 Vincent Campbell
> Sent: Wednesday, 5 July 2000 9:55
> To: 'memetics@mmu.ac.uk'
> Subject: RE: Cons and Facades - Welcome to My Nightmare Part 2.Bb
>
>
> I won't pretend to have understood most of your recent postings, but here
> goes with a few comments.
>
The intent was to help Wade understand how people find 'meaning' in
Astrology etc, it was all done as a response to his 'take me into the tent'
request :-) It was a bit 'intense' so may need a few reads (if one is
interested :-))
> First, there's a lot of Jung in what you say, but isn't Jung about as
> credible as Freud when it comes to social analysis? After all
> his notion of
> archetypes stems from his belief in a collective unconscious- what's your
> position on that?
>
There is also Freud, Skinner, etc etc ALL of these individuals have used
recursive dichotomisations in their mapping and so they all touch on some
'fundamentals' that are 'in here' at a level underneath their expressions.
In mapping expressions I would put Jung with Lamarck in that the emphasis is
on relational space and so the space inbetween the dots. Freud maps more to
Darwin but not as much as Skinner. You can 'order' the different
psychologies along a continuum:
Skinner..Freud..Jung.. and these reflect a shift from fundamentalist, object
thinking to relativist, relational thinking.
You can zoom-in on each of these individuals and apply the SAME analytical
method and find the same types of patterns; same patterns at all scales but
with degrees of refinement in expression.
We often think that a dichotomy is a 'basic' expression that we then expand
upon, this expansion is an illusion in that what we do is apply the same
dichotomy (or others that fit 'within' the base one) to themselves and so we
contract from a general to and increasing number of particulars. Thus the
original distinctions always continue to influence unless you get to the
point of emergence...(this is all complexity/chaos based).
ANY dichotomy has within it a set of properties linkable to each element in
the dichotomy REGARDLESS of level of analysis or discipline, thus when you
create a dichotomy it 'maps' to neurological/psychological characteristics
such that in a 1:many type the '1' is usually mapped to fundamentalist,
object thinking (more 'left' brained) and the 'many' to relativist,
relational thinking (more 'right' brained).
Jung's typology, as well as the extentions into the MBTI, 'map' to the
underlying template very well and my emphasis is on the typology in
particular rather than his more general ideas re collective unconscious etc.
However, to map archetypes you can make the dichotomy of
Freudian_Archetypes/Jungean_Archetypes.
Freud's are 'rigid', black/white, oppositions oriented, Jungs side adds
colour and cooperation. You cannot swap these elements due to the 1:many
bias inherant in the declaration.
Go through their works and the above assertions are 'correct' since their
works are words that reflect the underlying method we use for analysis and
the biases that come out of that method.
Zoom-in on Skinner and you can make the dichotomy of
behaviourism/other_psychologies and the SAME patterns will emerge as you
categorise the differences between the two elements of the dichotomy. (and
this includes for Behaviourism a fundamentalist approach).
My emphasis is NOT so much on the expressions, the names, expressed ideas
etc of the individuals but more so the underlying generally invarient
properties and methods linked to dichotomisation itself; the act of
emphasising A/~A maps to a NEUROLOGICALLY determined 1:many type of
information processing that has properties that we 'project' onto the
expressions linked to the 1 or many.
(an aside: use recursive dichotomisation plus indeterminacy and you get
patterns that suggest wave interferences as work. AT ALL SCALES. Quantum
mechanics does this but most fail to see what is happening in that the
structure of the experiements are dichotomous in form so the results map to
patterns that demonstrate characteristics of the method and not necessarily
characteristics of what is 'out there'. But then how many physicists get
into how we process data...)
When we review psychoanalysis or analytical psychology at a 'higher', more
general level they are more 'many' in that they assume there is always
meaning (they dont deal with psychosis -- too random for them!). These
disciplines reflect harmonics analysis and so *many* interpretations rather
than the goal of Science that seeks 1 interpretation. Prediction is
testable, but secondary analysis gets into prophecy etc and so a more
qualitative precision, highly subjective, approximations that people *feel*
as being 'right'.
The general properties discussed are linked to the METHOD of analysis, a
method that 'maps' to our brain structure to such a degree that analysis of
the method alone, the set of meanings that it can create, will give you an
insight into the characteristics of what you are applying the method to. The
set of meanings is GENERAL in form but can act as a guide to decode
particular expressions and so quickly pick up the general 'flow' of a
particular idea, personality, whatever...
> Second, the A/~A distinction sound remarkably like Wittgenstein's approach
> to logic and the formulation of knowledge, the distinction he
> makes is P/~P.
> Where do you stand on Wittgenstein's notion that meaning of words
> rest only
> in negation?
Dont recall this. Havent really read it (Tractus.?) since I have more or
less started from first principles, i.e. what does the neurology tell us
about how we analyse and determine meaning. However it is a good point in
that the origin of words seems to emerge out of harmonics processing, right
brain areas that the left then expresses (the left favouring precision etc
in most, thus harmonics patterns are 'summed' by being labelled with a
sound). In the previous emails on this subject I pointed out that it seems
that negation is a property of the right brain (a gross representation but
good enough for now), it is one of the harmonics of the fundamental. So for
Wittgenstein (with little knowledge at that time of refined neurological
processing), good call. rough, but good :-))
At the extreme level of 'left brained' there is a 'pure' yes state, all
drive, no consideration/reflection on others and so little or no awareness
of negation. Negation requires an object first and the development of the
spoken word also requires it in that to express a particular you have to
choose a word and so implicit reject (negate) all others. What this means is
that the chosen word is foreground and all else background and background =
context and context = NOT text and so the word, the text does 'rest' on
negation.
The ability of Wittgenstein's work to 'stay around' is due to the insights
that intuitively 'map' to the neurologically determined processes and their
meanings; his work can generate a resonance, a feeling of 'correctness' --
template at work. Current work in neurology enables us to review these works
and perhaps 'clean' them up a bit :-)
>
> Third, I don't like (:-)) this notion that meaning comes back to specific
> states of emotion, of which there are a finite number, and a finite number
> of associations between them- if that's what you're saying.
>
(1) I am sure you dont since you intuitively pick up on some consequences
:-) but
(2) there is no finiteness other than at the level of general
communications. You apply the recursions ad infinitum and the set of
possible expressions becomes infinite but also too particular, too personal
and so hard to communicate; the set of possible people who would understand
diminishes. Thus to get a general point across 1 of 4096 or 16 Million is
enough.
That said, the set of possible expressions are perhaps finite in that as you
approach infinity so you approach a problem in perception of distinguishing
one state from the next; this is a resolution problem and to some degree is
determined by education where higher education makes finer and finer
distinctions but they can also make too many in that a few well chosen words
describe something enough from others to get a 'resonance', the same
feelings without too much subjective detail.
Each state reflects a general feeling as well as a particular, context will
determine the degree and the words used to describe the state are many so we
do not consciously 'see' the invariance but when analysed the general
feeling is noticable.
> Overall, and apologies for this because you've clearly gone to some length
> to elucidate your position, I'm not sure what the overall point of what
> you've written is - in terms of memetics that is. Are you saying
> something
> about the innate structure of things that spread between human minds, or
> about why we are susceptible to memetic engineering, or...?
>
Wade was discussing Astrology and NLP etc as basically being 'meaningless'
and I have tried to demonstrate how it is that people find meaning, deep
meaning, in these disciplines and that is because of the use of recursive
dichotomisations that we instinctively use as our method of analysis.
Scientology comes to mind as another. ALL of these disciplines, and ANY
others, that use the method will feel as if they are 'right' but this is
because we confuse the words with the underlying patterns of emotion,
meaning is in the patterns not necessarily the words.
Each discipline creates its own lexicon and tries to be 'the one true...'
etc but underneath ALL of these disciplines is the ONE set of species
specific (at least) patterns of emotion that 'map' all meanings; many words
point to the one general meaning.
Each discipline then gets feeback that acts to validate it. Some work. Some
dont. Many dont seem to 'fit' with Science but then they are more relational
oriented, 'into' many interpretations with a qualitative emphasis. Sometimes
they overstep the mark in that they try to de-metaphorise, to take things
too literally (as Science does at times, Science is a method of
interpretation first).
In the context of memes, same patterns but with a more relational bias
(space inbetween the dots, genes are more in the dots. Thus memes link more
with Lamarckian concepts (or the equivalent concepts expressed in Darwinian
terms! :-))
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 - 19:20:24 BST