Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id NAA07341 (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 13:08:15 +0100 Message-ID: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D310174591C@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: scale and meaning; sameness and dif ference part 1 Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 13:06:18 +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
Level (d)= autism?
> ----------
> From: Chris Lofting
> Reply To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2000 5:13 am
> To: Memetics
> Subject: RE: Philosophy of Technology: scale and meaning; sameness
> and difference part 1
>
> 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 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 - 13:09:02 BST