Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id NAA07394 (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 13:18:54 +0100 Message-ID: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D310174591E@inchna.stir.ac.uk> From: Vincent Campbell <v.p.campbell@stir.ac.uk> To: "'memetics@mmu.ac.uk'" <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> Subject: RE: (part 2) Philosophy of Technology: scale and meaning; samenes s and difference Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 13:16:55 +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
So you wouldn't agree with The X-Files' Mulder then that
'The truth is out there' ? :-)
> ----------
> From: Chris Lofting
> Reply To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2000 5:19 am
> To: Memetics
> Subject: (part 2) Philosophy of Technology: scale and meaning;
> sameness and difference
>
> 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 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 - 13:19:41 BST