From: Chris Lofting (chrislofting@ozemail.com.au)
Date: Mon 19 Jun 2006 - 00:22:59 GMT
From my work on meaning derivation we find that there are distinct
differences between the singular nature (each of us with a unique
consciousness) and our particular nature (each of us as
genetically-determined members of the species).
Of interest in the latter is the lack of recognition of individual
differences, but recognition of collective differences. By this I mean that
the methodology in deriving meaning also comes with the derivation of
purpose within the species. This is identified in other neuron-dependent
species in the form of 'warriors' or 'drones' or 'workers' or 'alpha
males/females' etc etc
What is noticeable for us as a species is that the typologies we have
developed (such as the MBTI, HBDI or 'Big-5' etc) seem to pick up these
group identities operating in our species where the individual is of no
concern.
Thus the focus on, for example, the 1% of the USA population that map to the
INTP 'category' are not considered as singulars, only particulars. From a
biological/genetics position this approach is one of use of numbers to
achieve some purpose for the species. The closest analogy is to sperm with
their drive to fertilise the single egg. Thus the INTP category reflects a
specialist element of the species that contributes to the species with no
regard to its members in that they are all 'one' (as photons are or
electrons etc) and so allow for survival of the species over generations in
that specialist perspectives are retained at all costs.
This gets into issues of historicism as touched on by Popper where 'small
world' network analysis goes against what Popper wrote in such texts as "The
Poverty of Historicism" - see comments and additional references in
http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/history.html
The self-referencing involved in meaning derivation allows for the encoding
of purpose across our species and into specialist groups to serve the
species over generations.
From a SINGULAR perspective this encoding of purpose for our particular
nature can elicit behaviours in ourselves that we observe but don't
understand. For example, our instincts/habits get encoded in/close-to the
input areas of our neurology. This is energy conserving in that it allows
context to push. Our consciousness can sense this 'push' but in that sensing
can interpret it as if someone 'invisible' is doing the pushing - and from
that comes the realm of the 'spiritual' (e.g. see
http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/angels.html )
The group nature of the particular allows for the encoding of 'group'
meaning that is outside of our singular awareness (or has been to date) such
that 'traditions' etc can reflect the expression of these universals in the
form of some local context where the question of "where does this come from,
what are its roots?" is singularly 'unknown' where it in fact is originated
in the purpose element of the particulars that is outside of singular
consciousness; as such singulars can get caught-up in some particular
expression as if in a 'light trance' state and so not able to describe
cause-effect since that cause-effect spans their lifetime as singulars in
that it covers the time span of the species.
Chris.
===============================================================
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 2.1.5 : Mon 19 Jun 2006 - 00:43:14 GMT