Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id KAA19739 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Thu, 6 Jul 2000 10:34:10 +0100 Message-ID: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D31017458FC@inchna.stir.ac.uk> From: Vincent Campbell <v.p.campbell@stir.ac.uk> To: "'memetics@mmu.ac.uk'" <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> Subject: RE: Cons and Facades - Welcome to My Nightmare Part 2.Bb Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2000 10:32:04 +0100 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
Thanks for this response Chris. It certainly clarified my understanding of
what you're saying.
Vincent
> ----------
> From: Chris Lofting
> Reply To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> Sent: Wednesday, July 5, 2000 7:34 pm
> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> Subject: RE: Cons and Facades - Welcome to My Nightmare Part 2.Bb
>
>
>
> > -----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 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 Jul 06 2000 - 10:34:54 BST