Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id FAA06143 (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 05:03:58 +0100 From: "Chris Lofting" <ddiamond@ozemail.com.au> To: "Memetics" <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> Subject: (part 2) Philosophy of Technology: scale and meaning; sameness and difference Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 14:19:12 +1000 Message-ID: <LPBBICPHCJJBPJGHGMCIMEEMCHAA.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
continuation...
(15) What my template work shows is that at the 'pure' SAMENESS level, that
of the species, all of the DIFFERENCE is encoded in SAMENESS in the form of
basic object/relationship distinctions that are unique to that level; there
is never anything 'new' other than a variation on an existing, for all
purposes hard-coded, theme.
(16) Furthermore, there is a degree of structure at the species level such
that when presented with data from a source, a discipline, that is 'outside'
of our realm of experience at the DIFFERENCE level, we can zoom-in (or down)
to the species level of communication and quickly pick-up the patterns that
operate at the species level and from there extrapolate back to the 'top'
level, the discipline-specific level. Thus we reduce the time it takes to
'understand' a particular discipline or concept/idea etc since at the
species level of communications it will have a format that we can use to
make analogies etc to other disciplines and so use DIFFERENCE (i.e. other
disciplines) to detect SAMENESS (common general meanings).
(17) In the particular context of the DIFFERENCES between Astrology and
Astronomy, both systems use dichotomisations (a species level tool) as the
source of their distinction making and as such the sense of VALUE we get
from each will be the SAME, the 'thrill' of discovering a 'new' truth in
either discipline is coded in the SAME way at the species level even if the
expression level is exceedingly DIFFERENT. The presence of the species level
allows for the apparently 'fictitious' to retain value since the SAMENESS of
the method of meaning determination at this level does not discriminate
between Art and Science, Fact nor Fiction but only on value; on
survivability etc.
(18) In the creation of ANY idea/discipline, even if 'absolutely' unique
from all other, there is an element of meaning present at the species level
that ensures understanding by all others, even if only in a general way.
This general way is just enough to be able to understand the contents of
that discipline even if the symbolisms etc seem 'obscure' but to achieve
this does require understanding of the structure of level (4(a)) and this is
something that, to date, I have not seen done in schools/universities etc;
there is no course on "Fundamental Information Processing in Our Species"
probabily because the neurological data to support such a course has only
recently been discovered.
(19) From the above analysis I think it becomes clear that our over-emphasis
on DIFFERENCE, and so specialisation, has distracted us from reflecting on
SAMENESS levels of communications as a possible source of easing the
pressures place on us by the emphasis on DIFFERENCE detection (as well as of
DIFFERENCE presentation since the habituation process to SAMENESS has a
price in a materialist world, we have to keep re-identifying, re-wrapping,
the old in 'new' forms to maintain sales etc To keep things dynamic requires
DIFFERENCE).
(20) Reflecting on (1) to (19) there is a noticable pattern of development
where we move from the general one (species) to the many (individuals within
the species). In terms I link to the species-level of communications, (and
described in more detail at my websites) there is a bias of moving from a
BLEND (the one) to a BOND (one starts to split) to a BOUND (two+, but
static) to a BIND (two+ but dynamic) state; the latter manifesting
independent forms (individuals) interacting over time but with no observable
connection. BINDING is like having a contract between two parties such that
over time their behaviour suggests some sort of dependence (e.g. their
species natures). Overall this pattern reflects a sort of unblending of the
original species once it is formed where genetic diversity is inevitable.
This diversity may act to ensure survival of basic species elements but in
doing so also acts to be the birth place for 'new' species.
(21) I have also noticed that, also from an evolution context, there is a
development pattern that is the reverse of the above, we go from BIND to
BOUND to BOND to BLEND. This pattern takes us from DIFFERENCE to SAMENESS
and is reflected in such concepts as initial processes in Darwinism where a
gene and a context start out 'different' and over time become so entangled
that they become 'one'.
(22) Thus the pattern within (20) suggests a process that is seemingly
INTERNAL but expansive, where a species will develop into sub species and
eventually lead to the emergence of 'new' species. There is a general
emphasis here of SAMENESS BEHIND/WITHIN DIFFERENCE.
(23) The pattern within (21) suggests a process that is seemingly EXTERNAL
but contractive, thus two species can interact and if it works out become
one either literally or in the form of a tight symbiotic relationship which
for all purposes is interpreted as if one. There is general emphasis here of
SAMENESS BETWEEN DIFFERENCE.
(24) We can thus combine these sequences into a thread of development that
is applicable to ALL ideas/disciplines/species etc etc., we have a basic set
of species-level patterns that will reveal the properties and methods of ANY
concept through the use of recursive dichotomisations and a set of basic
feelings. In moving 'up' levels we particularise these general distinctions
through words and symbols but these never replace the basic patterns they
just make them appear DIFFERENT by covering them; which is what metaphors do
in that the cover becomes the carrier of the underlying meaning. Overall we
seem to have found the basic method used by our species to process
information and as such determine/generate meaning.
(25) My template work has used the I Ching (Book of Changes) as an example
of this process of particularising species-level meaning such that I have
been able to take the Book of Changes way beyond its original form of 'a
divination system' and demonstrate it to be a very useful form of
symbolisation of species-level meaning in that the symbols work at both the
particular and general level and behind each symbol we find the set of
feelings that elicit at least fundamental meanings.
(26) The reason so many 'see' so much in the I Ching (e.g. mathematics,
quantum mechanics etc etc) is that the use of recursive dichotomisations in
this system reflect the use of recursive dichotomisations at the species
level of meaning, at the SAMENESS level, such that you can see 'anything' in
the I Ching or any system developed using the same principles.
(27) Such systems, such metaphors, as the I Ching thus work as aids in
zooming-in on any discipline, both from the point of view of whole/part
differentiation as well as static/dynamic relationships differentiation.
These GENERALS aid in understanding the underlying 'roots' of the
PARTICULARS and as such aid in assimilating information at a high band
width, you can process high level DIFFERENCES more easily since you can look
to the SAMENESS level, the species-level, to give you some foundations
without having to learn the whole lexicon from scratch before you can act.
(28) The above material demonstrates that we can make some assumptions about
information and that is that it will conform in some way or another to the
patterns at the species level of processing information; regardless of any
DIFFERENCES there is ALWAYS that level of SAMENESS, and understanding the
dynamics of SAMENESS can help us in understanding the dynamics of DIFFERENCE
and so see through the veil of specialisation to the underlying general
nature of our species.
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 - 05:04:48 BST