Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id NAA04348 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Wed, 12 Jul 2000 13:18:57 +0100 Message-ID: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D3101745916@inchna.stir.ac.uk> From: Vincent Campbell <v.p.campbell@stir.ac.uk> To: "'memetics@mmu.ac.uk'" <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> Subject: RE: Philosophy of Technology Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 13:16:57 +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
No doubt you're tearing your hair out by now (or will be after this post).
OK, I see more clearly now what you are saying, but I'm still thinking 'so
what'?
I don't see how identifying an underlying structure to how humans make
meaning, which indeed must exist, changes in any way the material difference
between astrology and astronomy, in that the former deals with phenonema
that do not exist, and the latter deals with phenomena that do exist. This
is not a semantic difference 'in here', it's an actual difference 'out
there'. Now our responses to such information undoubtedly are shaped by our
biology which has provided a whole range of safety mechanisms that are
required for self-aware beings to function properly, such as beliefs, and
these undoubtedly work in particular ways. But our responses to each
discipline are independent of the veracity or otherwise of that discipline.
Mass belief in astrology (something like 60% of the population in the UK
claim to read their 'stars') doesn't make it 'true' or accurate in any kind
of verifiable manner.
Vincent
> ----------
> From: Chris Lofting
> Reply To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2000 7:58 pm
> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> Subject: RE: Philosophy of Technology
>
>
>
> > -----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 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 12 2000 - 13:19:45 BST