Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id TAA02619 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Tue, 11 Jul 2000 19:42:59 +0100 From: "Chris Lofting" <ddiamond@ozemail.com.au> To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> Subject: RE: Philosophy of Technology Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 04:58:10 +1000 Message-ID: <LPBBICPHCJJBPJGHGMCICEEECHAA.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: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D3101745910@inchna.stir.ac.uk> 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 Vincent Campbell
> Sent: Tuesday, 11 July 2000 9:16
> To: 'memetics@mmu.ac.uk'
> Subject: RE: Philosophy of Technology
>
<snip>
> That's not what you've provided, despite the length of your
> posts. Despite
> all your previous posts I cannot see any way in which the statements that
> astrology and astronomy make us feel the same, Lamarck and Darwin are the
> same, or that mammals came from rocks, could be correct except in a
> relativistic sense.
>
Here is where you miss the point in that your emphasis, you concentrate on
expression. You have linked what I am saying to 'astrology and astronomy
make us feel the same' WRONG. You miss the point big time; my problem of
course but a surprise, I though I had made myself reasonably clear in that
the structures of the expressions, the meanings behind them are invarient.
Thus Astrology, what you see and hear, is at a conscious level obviously
different to Astronomy but underneath that is a shared level.
At the expression levels disciplines/concepts appear DIFFERENT, and need to
be to particularise perceptions where we need difference, but these
disciplines are NOT semantically, neurologically *independent* of each
other, there is no hard-wired 'Astrology' section in your brain or a
hard-wired 'Lamarckian' section since the neurology is efficient and shares
neurons but to do this requires to cut back on differences, thus the SAME
patterns can point to different words.
This means that people operating within the disciplines, within a particular
context, experience the discipline as 'fact' not because it is but because
the METHOD in creating the disciplines is the SAME and so all the meanings
you find in particular disciplines are common to all. MEANING is not in the
disciplines it is in the METHOD such that the same senses of 'truth' you can
get, or sense of 'beauty' you can get, from mathematics is experienced in
Astrology.
The method is 'in here', there is NO tie of 'in here' to 'out there' other
than resonance such that you set a particular context and apply labels to
invarient feelings such that you experience difference but it is to some
degree illusion.
When we create a map, and that is what these disciplines are, they are
encapsulated and you get a 'copy' of all possible meanings permissable *by
the method of analysis* and this includes feelings we experience as 'truth'
etc. When you make the map you then test it by getting resonance with 'out
there' but this resonance is at the 'hidden' layer where the invarient
emotions create the meaning, not the expressive aspects of the discipline
(i.e. the words which you seem to be concentrating upon). Drop a level, go
BEHIND the expression and you will find generally invarient patterns that
are applicable in ALL disciplines since they are all metaphors for
describing object/relationship patterns through the use of recursive
dichotomisations.
This allows for people to 'fight to the death' for their belief in
Astrology, Tarot etc etc since underneath does not make the differences
distinctions, it favours sameness as in object/relationship patterns. We are
tied to our biology but try to ignore it.
Thus all these 'different' disciplines are metaphors and as such have an
underlying sameness that you can use on one discipline to 'flesh-out' the
other(s) or else 'go deep' in one you are not too familar.
This is how it is possible to make analogies etc. Problems come when I take
this internal representation, interpretation, literally. Darwinism,
Lamarckianism, Astrology, Astronomy are all maps using the SAME set of
possible meanings but these are made different through adding a sound, a
word. It is not Astrology or Astronomy that make us feel the same, it is the
level BEHIND these expressions that does that and that level is linked to
what I have set out as the blend, bond, bound, bind distinctions and their
more complex forms.
Understand this level and it makes understanding the difference level a lot
easier.
> I apologise if this seems deliberately obtuse or obstreperous, that is not
> my intention- understanding is my intention.
>
mine too so at least we have one thing in common.
Chris.
>
>
===============================================================
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 : Tue Jul 11 2000 - 19:43:46 BST