Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id EAA06116 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Thu, 13 Jul 2000 04:58:09 +0100 From: "Chris Lofting" <ddiamond@ozemail.com.au> To: "Memetics" <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> Subject: RE: Philosophy of Technology: scale and meaning; sameness and difference part 1 Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 14:13:17 +1000 Message-ID: <LPBBICPHCJJBPJGHGMCIEEEMCHAA.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) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Importance: Normal Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
Vincent, (et al), try this, I think it makes things a lot clearer :-) It is
something I submitted to my own list (re semiosis) but I think it is also
relevant here. In two parts due to list restrictions...
(1) Human communication is not limited to one mode. By this I mean that for
discussion purposes we assert that each individual has within them a number
of levels and these communicate with the same levels in others; there is
parallel processing going on with the range of possible meanings determined
by the overall structure and dynamics of a particular level and its
relationships to the other levels. The spoken/written word is thus a
digitalisation, an encapsulation, of analogue sensory systems that when
converted back to analogue activates various parts of our neurology. (From a
neurological aspect there ARE levels in the brain as well as evidence of the
translation of words into internal sensory experiences. However for this
current discussion we do not need to focus on that as yet).
(2) The differentiation process in (1) takes what seems to be a continuum of
states between two poles, one pole expressing SAMENESS and the other pole
expressing DIFFERENCE, and emphasises levels within this continnum. For my
purpose, SAMENESS links to the concept of species and DIFFERENCE to
individuals within the species.
NOTE: I think this continuum is more of an 'interdigitation' of the
SAMENESS/DIFFERENCE dichotomy where after a few recursive steps we get
something approaching complexity/chaos patterns and the process itself
demonstrates a movement from SAMENESS to DIFFERENCE (from one to many) and
yet retains groups of SAMENESS within DIFFERENCE. Note that with these basic
distinctions so SAMENESS, by its nature, includes encapsulation, a grouping
and so an emphasis on the one whereas DIFFERENCE emphasises the many, which
includes the exceptions, the NOT one.
(3) For my purpose we can define four levels of communication within the
individual/species but these levels are not totally independent from each
other, they are like levels in a pyramid or cone with the base manifesting
sameness and the top manifesting difference (aka uniqueness). Neurologically
we 'see' this sort of pattern in the layers of neocortex where the 'point',
is on the surface of the cortex under which there are six 'support' layers.
The point can be one or a few neurons grouped together that react to a
particular stimulus.
I think for now modelling four levels will be enough to get my point (!)
across.
(4) The four levels are:
(a) Species level. This is a level based on SAMENESS, it is a strongly
consensus-driven level which utilises emotional resonance to get a sense of
meaning (When compared to 'out there' it reflects SAMENESS within DIFFERENCE
where the DIFFERENCES are with other species). The set of possible meanings
within the species is defined by the dynamics of the neurology and is
generally restricted to differentiation of objects (the what) and
relationships (the where) and the refining of these distinctions using
recursive dichotomisations. This level is very general when compared to the
next levels and is strongly linked to fundamental emotional states that
elicit a general sense of 'meaning'.
(b) Cultural level. This is a level again based on DIFFERENCE within
SAMENESS (b compared to a) but from *within the culture* and so *within the
individual*. There is thus a smaller group emphasis on SAMENESS in that the
DIFFERENCE is detectable when we compare this level (level b) to the
previous (level a) as well as cultural groups within the whole level of (b);
'individual' cultures if you like. This level rests upon the species level
and so is influenced by that level and I suggest the use of symbolisation,
metaphorcation acts to refine the meaning structures found in (a) as well as
allow for more complex forms of expression which, at the level of (b) are
taken as if fundamental.
(c) Family level. This is again a level based on DIFFERENCE within SAMENESS,
in the form of the family as DIFFERENT from the culture. This level is influ
enced by all previous levels and there is also an increase in a emphasis on
being 'different'.
(d) Individual level. This is again a level based on DIFFERENCE within
SAMENESS but here there is no group, the emphasis is strongly on uniqueness
and so the particular over the general. This ensures that the individual is
always 'different'. The 'price' of this difference is the requirement for
education to maintain sameness at the family/cultural level but this
education is more than often limited to refining and so maintaining the
'value' of levels (b) and (c). if you do not have (b) and (c) you get an
individual within a species and so 'driven' by genetics combined with
ideosyncratically-derived concepts. We can suggest that (a) and (d) are the
more fundamental levels with (b) and (c) emerging both from gene forces as
well as individual experiences passed on to others; local distinctions
leading to 'group' patterns.
(5) In the context of the levels outlined in (4) My emphasis on
communication is more on the level of that described in (4(a)), the species
level, upon which all other levels refine their meanings; thus higher up
than (4(a)) an object is named and painted with refined emotions such that
it becomes particularised within a unique context (as in MY meaning, MY
family's meaning, MY culture's meaning); we thus aim to DIFFERENCE SAMENESS.
(6) My emphasis is that at all levels, when communicating with someone else,
there is consensus-derived communications and so SAME to SAME. This means
that all communciations have within them particular formations that are
encoded such that decoding is at a particular level and the data is not
necessarily 'meaningful' beyond/outside that level. This means that the
expressions of the individual, although DIFFERENT at the surface level, the
level of expression, have encoded in them data that is only interpretable at
the other levels and the full set of interpretations determines the overall
meaning. Thus sensitivity to body language helps to validate the spoken word
etc., we are sensitive to incongruent communications even if we only 'feel'
unsure, the expression etc seemed 'right' but there is something 'wrong'
which we cannot consciously put our finger on. This demonstrates how at the
same time these levels can operate almost independently of the others; they
are to some degree at least self-contained; autonomous. (As we find in the
behaviours of the left and right hemispheres of the brain when we cut the
communications channel between them, the corpus callosum, or put one
hemisphere to 'sleep').
(7) Due to the hierarchic nature of the overall structure of our species,
where it is DIFFERENCE within SAMENESS at each level all the way up, so
there are also influences across levels such that the unique expressions at
the 'top' are coloured by unconscious influences from the 'bottom'. We can
see from this a high level of complexity and redundancy in human
communications.
(8) We know that SAMENESS presented at our senses is eventually habituated,
demonstrating an overall sensitivity to DIFFERENCE which ensures that I do
not have to keep identifying something which has become a regular part of
the local or non-local context. Thus the level described in (4(a)), a level
biased to SAMENESS, is based on assumptions to such a degree that processing
this level's data is habit; there is no thought applied since it is so
general and so more SAMENESS than DIFFERENCE; there is a set of possible
meanings available and a communication selects one of these as a
particular;end of story. There is no DIFFERENCE detectable outside of the
set of meanings available. This is reflected in our sensory systems with all
of them having ranges, absolute limits in which we must operate. With these
sensory limits being the case, and emotion being the prime responder to
sensory data, it is acceptable that emotion too has its limits; fear and joy
have their bounds.
(9) The habituation-to-SAMENESS process so strongly favours sensitivity to
DIFFERENCE that I suggest that conscious reflection is biased to DIFFERENCE
to a degree where SAMENESS is not consciously detected or if it is it is
soon ignored. In particular I suggest that the SAMENESS of the level
described in (4(a)) is not detected or it is ignored.
(10) I think that this failure to teach detection of these patterns is the
cause of many of our communications problems in that the bias to DIFFERENCE
forces us to use LOTS of energy to identify concepts etc. However we can
conserve some energy by decoding the species level SAMENESS elements even
though these are expressed very generally. (I stress species-level since
SAMENESS in the cultural/family level can vary more dramatically for the
individual than the structure of the patterns at the species level.)
(11) All disciplines are made-up by their DIFFERENCES in that we
particularise context and then create a lexicon within that context to
specialise even more. In doing so we encapsulate to such a degree that the
species-level communication links, those more sensitive to SAMENESS, are
forgotten/ignored.
(12) Disciplines then become like species where to be a participant in the
discipline acts as a form of identity and so assert 'us' from 'them'. We
then learn the lexicon (the SAME language) and that favours more refinements
to such a degree where sub-groups form within the discipline (cultures,
families) to a degree where high levels of specialisation mean that few
groups can actually understand each other within the SAME discipline. Here
we see the SAME development processes being repeated within the disciplines
as we see within a species, suggesting a definite pattern at work, both 'in
here' and 'out there' or perhaps the pattern is imposed on 'out there' by
'in here'. We shall see.
(13) I think that the disadvantage of the perceived increase in complexity
as a result of the over emphasis on DIFFERENCE is found in an increase in
entropy at the individual level, the individual is pressured to become a
specialist and in doing so loses sight of the 'big picture' since it is
assumed that the 'big picture' contains too much data, too much 'DIFFERENCE'
to a degree where it can seem paradoxical and/or meaningless.
(14) This assumption, that 'out there' is paradoxical/meaningless, is, to
some degree, false in that at all times we still communicate at the
species-wide level of SAMENESS even though at a seemingly too general level.
Thus the DIFFERENCES in fact have ties to an underlying SAMENESS.
continued in part2....
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 : Thu Jul 13 2000 - 04:58:58 BST