Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id UAA11550 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Fri, 14 Jul 2000 20:26:59 +0100 From: "Chris Lofting" <ddiamond@ozemail.com.au> To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> Subject: RE: Philosophy of Technology: scale and meaning; sameness and difference part 1 Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2000 05:42:21 +1000 Message-ID: <LPBBICPHCJJBPJGHGMCIAEFGCHAA.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: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D3101745925@inchna.stir.ac.uk> 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 Vincent Campbell
> Sent: Friday, 14 July 2000 11:09
> To: 'memetics@mmu.ac.uk'
> Subject: RE: Philosophy of Technology: scale and meaning; sameness and
> difference part 1
>
>
> It's this bit that I don't agree with (sorry for just chucking the remark
> in, it was a bit knee-jerk, as I read through your posts):
>
> '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.'
> >
> [a]Doesn't this suggest a fundamentality of meaning in any
> communication?[b] Where's your evidence that this is the case?
(a) YES, this is what I emphasise with my template discussions. The
fundamentality is at the level of species patterns and SAMENESS. Objects are
objects (at the base level just one object with many relationships all seen
as to itself), relationships are relationships. Move past this level and you
start to enter the world of DIFFERENCE where we are forced to distinguish
'this' from 'that' and do so by 'painting' particular objects and
relationships with emotions as well as adding a context.
(b)Our neurology works processing patterns linked to the
what(objects)/where(relationships) dichotomy. There is plenty of evidence
for this and this is what I emphasise in that there is a template of basic
meanings that function at the SAMENESS level that will influence all other
levels 'above' it.
> Does it apply to forms of symbolic communication (language, writing,
> art etc.)?
>
YES. Read all my comments on SAMENESS. This is level (A) in my four levels
discussed. It is this level that determines OBJECT from RELATIONSHIP and
refines these distinctions where object is refined into 'whole' or 'part'
and relationships is refined into 'static' or 'dynamic'. The template allows
us to entangle these distinctions into text/context relationships. AS you
move 'up' to consciousness so you are 'presented' with a meaning, that
meaning is in the form of patterns of emotion linked to the words etc.
There is plenty of time for our nervous system to encode and decode data,
like A-to-D converters. There is a definite delay in information processing
as these encode/decode processes go on.
The encode/decode processes are filtered my memory that acts to play-down or
exagerate content (gets back to Chomsky's deep/surface structures and the
use of deletion, distortion, generalisation etc).
Memory acts to modify data such that by the time it gets to 'us' we see in a
perception of a face someone we know even if the face is NOT of that
someone.
At the human level there is discernment for both objects and relationships,
for lower lifeforms with less memory capability and neurology, we see a lack
of discernment. See comments below on the behaviour of chicks.
It is the presences of DIFFERENCE that allows us to exagerate a boundary and
from that we learn discernment. This process is biased to approximations
such that we make a boundary 'fuzzy' and in doing so move it from EITHER/OR
to BOTH/AND, we encode in the boundary a degree of choice in interpretation
and we can do this intentionally or by accident.
<snip>
> Now I assume you're going to say I'm focusing on surface
> expressions, not the underlying patterns, but the question is where does
> meaning lie?
SAMENESS level is the bedrock; the level of species that supports cultures,
families, individuals. This is what my template is about. As you move from
SAMENESS to DIFFERENCE so you qualitatively move from general to
particular. You do this by using emotions to 'colour' the SAMENESS patterns.
This 'colouring' acts to metaphorise, symbolise the basic meanings such that
we can differentiate 'this' object from 'that' object and so on. This
ability introduces variations in interpretations; every individual now has
their own perspective, they can choose between what is an object and what is
a relationship.
> In this model of communication meaning does not lie in some
> deep formations of any particular communication. The debate about this in
> literary studies has been intense- particularly the Stanley Fish/Wolfgang
> Iser dispute, over whether or not there is only one 'correct'
> meaning of a
> text, or whether there are multiple valid meanings of a text.
They should look at the more recent neurology and psychology work :-)
>
> Therefore, when one talks about the meaning of theories/concepts, we
> are not talking necessarily about particular neurological patterns, but
> pieces of mediated information. There is no reason to assume that
> 'Darwinism' triggers exactly the same pattern in the brains of those who
> accept it, let alone in the brains who simply come across the concept.
>
'Darwinism' has within it a structure that will 'resonate' with some and not
with others. Due to individual DIFFERENCES you will get variations in
interpretations but in general those who are more sensitive to SAMENESS as
the positive emphasis in the development of a species will respond more
positively to Darewinism than those who are more sensitive to DIFFERENCE
where the emphasis shifts to the space in-between species; dynamics,
relational space.
At the level of SAMENESS an object is an object, there is no alternative. In
fact I suggest that there is only ONE object. As DIFFERENCE emerges so
choice emerges such that an object can be seen as a relationships or visa
versa and whats more there are DIFFERENT objects. However, the moment you
start to differentiate objectA from objectB you include such possibilities
of A being taken for B as well as explicitly dropping the A and B and so
confusion when you talk of 'object', which one? A or B?
At the level of 'pure' SAMENESS there is only ONE object and MANY
relationships but these are seemingly to itself, since there is only one
object. Move past this single object and you get into the emergence of
self-awareness.
Add the recognition of other objects and there is a relational shift which
requires refinements in meaning determination due to the expansion required
in determining SAMENESS as well as DIFFERENCE. There is a suggestion that
the development of an awareness of other MINDS was a big breakthrough as far
as we are concerned as a species.
If you look at Stephen Rose's work with chicks and memory, these chicks
function at a SAMENESS level and so not to objects, but more to a particular
harmonic of the object, namely that of COLOUR (in the experiments concerned
with this study). Colour reflects DIFFERENCE. Thus a red object that when
eaten causes sickness leads to ALL RED objects being rejected as food.
The emphasis here is on RED not on the shape of the object, ANY object that
is red is avoided suggesting that the object experience is at the general
level, there is only ONE object and it appears in MANY forms.
Thus there is the subtle emphasis on SAME where a visual harmonic aids in
particular identification, object is object and so to identify the chick
uses a harmonic - RED object. There is no discernment at the object level
but there is at the relationship level and this is so strong that ALL
objects are avoided if they have this colour regardless of shape. This sort
of memory, and so a source of meaning, will, without reinforcement last
about four hours or so.
The emphasis on ALL reflects the EITHER/OR characteristics of SAMENESS, the
sense of the absolute and all communications will contain these sorts of
'hidden' emphasis, if it didnt then we could not make the assumptions we do
in communications (and at the DIFFERENCE level get more into
mis-understandings when we take surface structure as the whole meaning). My
recent comments on this are about our failing to 'look' at the species level
that is present and so get 'behind' the surface and use the deep to light-up
the surface from below.
At the basic level there is only ONE object, MANY aspects. Advance the
neurology and you start to be discerning about objectS etc.
ALL (!) of these sorts of processes are at work on any communcations.
Cognitive Science suggests that our consciousness represents only 10% - 20%
of our information processing with lots of unconscious filtering etc going
on and this includes family influences on the individuals as well as
cultural influences on individual/family and way down at the 'bottom'
species influences.
Thus meaning is 'all the way down' (or up...) and at the conscious level all
of these subtle 'deep structure' influences 'pop' out in a word, sentence,
paragraph etc.
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 : Fri Jul 14 2000 - 20:27:50 BST