Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id UAA08234 (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 20:33:40 +0100 From: "Chris Lofting" <ddiamond@ozemail.com.au> To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> Subject: RE: nightmare jabber (Sameness) Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 05:48:42 +1000 Message-ID: <LPBBICPHCJJBPJGHGMCIEEFBCHAA.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 In-Reply-To: <396D5710.7C54D53F@green.net.au> Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> -----Original Message-----
> From: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk [mailto:fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk]On Behalf
> Of laurie@green.net.au
> Sent: Thursday, 13 July 2000 3:44
> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> Subject: nightmare jabber
>
<snip>
> Chris ? How would you approach the 'creation' of another
> lexicon, the lexicon that mapped the BEHIND , the landscape
> that the trap& the lure have emerged from. How would this
> lexicon escape the METHOD?
>
If developed from looking back then it would not escape the method. This
reflects a fundamental problem in Physics where many look 'back' with sexual
eyes (DIFFERENCE) whereas the roots are more asexual/androgyne - SAMENESS.
This SAMENESS in Physics is expressed in the SAMENESS of all particular
particles regardless of scale of analysis, thus what we call fermions are
'the SAME' but are still divided into leptons and quarks and so DIFFERENCE
within SAMENESS. All photons are 'the SAME' other than local expressions
(polarisation etc) as are all electrons 'the SAME'. There is an emphasis on
eternity in that conservation laws etc ensure things dont 'die', they just
'change' energy levels!
Bosons are 'the same' other than the distinction of the associated four
types of force that bosons 'carry'. TOEs/GUTs are trying to make these
'one', to make them 'pure'. So far this has been 'successful' other than
with gravity.
In Physics there is a strong presence of SAMENESS but the METHOD of analysis
can create these interpretations so you need to be wary in that we are not
projecting onto 'out there' 'in here'; we make the projection but interpret
the expressions as if independent and 'out there'. That said, I favour the
'we have adapted to our environment by internalising its characteristics'.
Thus natural selection is now becoming conscious selection.
I think if you zoom-in on SAMENESS so there is no lexicon other than
resonance in feelings. This gets a bit 'weird' but here goes....
SAMENESS is, for the species, for ANY species, the baseline. At this level
there is no DIFFERENCE, it is the level of pure genetics, of clones if you
like, and as such there is no acknowledgement, no experience of DIFFERENCE.
The only possible recognition would be of members of the species to other
members or else an absolute, oppositional response to all that are NOT
'this' species.
There is no other discernment in SAMENESS since discerment demands
DIFFERENCE to work.
There is encapsulation in SAMENESS and so emerges all the properties and
methods associated with encapsulation, namely objectification and so an 'us'
vs 'them' distinction (Which can develop as a instinct), an emphasis on
purity, on *maintaining* purity within the GROUP; within the boundary that
differentiates 'our' species from 'other' species.
There is a 'drive' to take over, to assert, the context. There is no
recognition of 'others' as being 'equal' since 'others' are DIFFERENT and so
'evil', 'worthless', 'meaningless', 'not as good as us'.
SAMENESS does not require the spoken or written word since the words stems
from communicating DIFFERENCES. All communication is species-wide, there is
no particularisation.
With all communication being species-based so all 'individuals' within the
species act as one. Like neurons in a net where they synchronise firings to
make the net 'fire' as if one. If you look at social behaviours in other
lifeforms we are like ants; even in them there is a degree of DIFFERENCE but
underneath is this 'originating' SAMENESS where many group behaviours are
generated from all individuals making the *identical* local distinctions.
(This gets into flocking of birds etc).
In SAMENESS there is rigid stimulus/response since it is genes that drive
things at the species level. Learning, something that requires feedback,
is at best very 'rough' if at all present.
This is because, due to the group communications there is no need to learn,
all 'meaning' is hard coded and the same for all members of the species;
there are no 'interpretations' or 're-interpretations' required, there are
only absolute meanings and these need no 'interpretation',there is only
response.
One of the most interesting areas of studying SAMENESS in our species is
with identical twins. At the cellular level, study cancer cells and their
spreading, there are times when you can interprete behaviour as if there is
some sort of communications going on that is 'outside' of our experience.
Zoom-in to quantum mechanics and consider the EPR paradox and Bell's
inequality where the only 'connections' come from CORRELATION, and so an
emphasis on SAMENESS, of family. It is as if time and distance are
'meaningless' since these concepts demand DIFFERENCE.
The behavioural emphasis in our species of the value of SAMENESS, of PURITY,
suggests something very basic and very 'old' influencing us. Even in our
world of DIFFERENCE there is a strong 'drive' to find SAMENESS within
DIFFERENCE, the opposite of the development path of DIFFERENCE within
SAMENESS.
So to try and come-up with a lexicon within SAMENESS is limited to the
objects/relationships dichotomy being applied recursively. What we see as
DIFFERENCE is encoded at the species level in a format that is SAMENESS
bias, objects are objects, thats it. Complex forms are emotions based on the
entanglement to varying degrees of object and relationships; thats it. No
more is necessary at this level since, even though variations are implicitly
allowed, there are no individuals.
From this level we have emerged, DIFFERENCE came out of SAMENESS, but this
DIFFERENCE will still contain properties of SAMENESS and I think this is
manifest in different biases to personal satisfaction etc where either you
wish to take-over the context (and so be 'one') or else sink back into it,
dissapear, and so also be 'one' by blending with the 'many'.
Either way there is a strong SAMENESS emphasis here at the expression level,
either to assert it or sink back into it (and so escape DIFFERENCE.).
From our mythology we 'see' SAMENESS in the form of the archetypes, the
battles in the eternal war between the 'Gods'. The emphasis is on structure,
on establishing the 'correct' position but in doing so the 'Gods' are
eternal, never changing and so expressing the basic characteristics of
SAMENESS. This may favour immortality but it also favours genetic
'sterility'.
Along the way DIFFERENCE emerged in the form of sexual reproduction,
relationships were no longer short term with the intent of just getting
through the next battle, relationships led to long term cooperations and so
the emergence of genetic diversity.
All of our 'old' books are metaphors for describing these basic, universal,
processes and as such can aid in our analysis of SAMENESS but even then,
just the mention of 'DIFFERENCE' removes us from the conscious experience of
SAMENESS.
Hope this answered your question :-) (probably raised more!)
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 - 20:37:28 BST