RE: point of memetic saturation

From: Chris Lofting (ddiamond@ozemail.com.au)
Date: Sun Jul 16 2000 - 15:12:25 BST

  • Next message: Chris Lofting: "RE: Memes and Sexuality"

    Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id OAA15134 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Sun, 16 Jul 2000 14:57:08 +0100
    From: "Chris Lofting" <ddiamond@ozemail.com.au>
    To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
    Subject: RE: point of memetic saturation 
    Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 00:12:25 +1000
    Message-ID: <LPBBICPHCJJBPJGHGMCIGEFMCHAA.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: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D3101745918@inchna.stir.ac.uk>
    Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk
    Precedence: bulk
    Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    

    Compare my comments on SAMENESS, and in particular Stephen Rose's research
    on the memory/categorisation of chicks, with Vincent's comments on autism.

    I wrote:

    "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."

    Vincent's text:

    > So, for example, if they [autistic individual] encounter a poodle with a
    red collar on,
    > and someone tells them that is a dog, then they accept a poodle with a red
    > collar as a dog, but only a poodle with a red collar. If they then see
    > another breed of dog, or even a poodle with a different colour collar on,
    > they will not recognise it as a dog.

    There is a pattern here. Vicent goes on..

    ">The author made an analogy to a tree,
    > and how normal people can associate and collate lots of variation within a
    > category like 'dog', resulting in large central branches with offshoots,
    > whereas autistic people cannot do this, and as such have
    > multitudes of very thing branches."

    There is a STRONG emphasis on not being able to group, which means not being
    able to abstract DIFFERENCE, only SAMENESS; the emphasis in both cases is to
    RED, a particular harmonic of colour.

    I go on in my comments re chicks and objects/harmonics:

    "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."

    Vincent ends his comments by saying that:

    "> In this sense, then perhaps autistic people do indeed have
    > some kind of information overload- either that or they are
    > allergic to other people's memes!"

    I would say that the development phase has malfunctioned such there is no
    overload but more a problem in refined development such that going beyond
    SELF is a problem.

    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 : Sun Jul 16 2000 - 14:57:59 BST