Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id NAA24838 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Wed, 19 Jul 2000 13:17:34 +0100 From: "Chris Lofting" <ddiamond@ozemail.com.au> To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> Subject: RE: Was Freud a Minivan or S.U.V. Kind of Guy? Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 22:33:14 +1000 Message-ID: <LPBBICPHCJJBPJGHGMCIMEHACHAA.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: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D3101745938@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: Wednesday, 19 July 2000 12:13
> To: 'memetics@mmu.ac.uk'
> Subject: RE: Was Freud a Minivan or S.U.V. Kind of Guy?
>
>
> I just realised the post I sent just before this one was perhaps a bit
> absolutist; my apologies.
>
> On the point of this post though, I still don't get this
> sameness/difference
> thing at all.
>
<snip>
>
> I just don't see how this approach enables us to better evaluate the
> appropriateness of theories, whether it be memetics or anything else. It
> may tell us how we process theories we encounter, but so what? It doesn't
> tell us whether the theory is appropriate in terms of explaining external
> phenomena. What's the application of such an approach?
>
> [If this is all just the gibbering idiocy of a social scientist, then I
> apologise unreservedly.]
You seem to think that the theory is 'outside' of you ('it may tell us how
we process theories we encounter'). The theory is created by you or someone
like you and understanding the underlying mechanism that leads to the
expression of the theory can help to refine your interpretations, to enable
you to quickly pick it up as well as identify possible 'loose ends'. ALL
theories will come to you as seemingly different but underneath the
difference is sameness and looking at the sameness will aid in clearly
understanding the difference.
When you went to school did any class teach you the basics of our species
information processing? no. They went straight into expression giving you
the fundamentals of mathematics 'as is' with no explanation of its source
other than such idealist concepts of 'Platonic' universes that exist outside
of us! This is like teaching mathematics from a creationist viewpoint.
The reason for this is that not until recent times have we had enough 'good'
information on how we process data, how we find meaning, what is meaning
etc.
We now have enough data to be able to present a model of human information
processing that once understood can aid us, make us more efficient, in
processing data and in determining 'fact' from 'fiction' and in these
dynamic times that aid can be useful.
What is suggested is that we have internalised 'out there', we have
internalised the characteristics of evolution and these internalised
characteristics are applicable to ANY idea, being, whatever.
The characteristics are GENERAL in that we have a basic distinction of
objects/relationships and from applying those recursively emerge more
refined distinctions, in particular that of whole, parts, statics, and
dynamics.
We add to these a development path, both in constructing and deconstructing
ideas etc. (See my past posts re BIND, BOUND, BOND, BLEND and the reverse
path).
For any theory to 'work' it MUST have the above distinctions encoded within
it (and will in development follow the same paths). If the theory does not
have these distinctions then there is a problem since it will not 'fit' with
'out there'.
If the theorty does have these distinctions then it CAN fit with 'out there'
but that does not guarantee that it will; feedback will do that.
Every idea, theory, is like an individual since it is a complete theory and
by definition is thus a closed system and so an object. These ideas are
given life and treated like children and so take on personalities. These
ideas have to develop, to evolve, and in doing so will follow the same
processes that any other 'lifeform' follows.
Every idea has characteristics that are unique at the level of expression
but identical to other ideas at the level of underlying structure. Thus you
can find MANY ways of describing the ONE thing. E.g. in Quantum mechanics
there are FOUR fundamental methods of description: Dirac's Transformational
mechanics, Heisenberg's Matrix mechanics, Schrodinger's Wave mechanics,
Feynman's sum-of-histories mechanics.
These FOUR methods all describe the same thing but from different 'root'
perspectives. They are akin to using the four elements to describe
something! There are some interesting patterns as well, for example to
transpose Feynman to/from Dirac you have to go through either of the other
two since Feynman/Dirac manifest 'pure' expressions whereas
Schrodinger/Heisenberg manifest 'mixing' and so include transformation
processes (on the template the latter two map to BIND/BOUND concepts that
are the source of parts and dynamics analysis, necessary for transformation
processes).
Thus the appropriateness of a theory is sourced in the
psychological/neurological makeup of the originator as well as the
culture/species and being able to map that (which is what the template does)
can certainly aid one.
All of our theories that seem to 'make sense' do so through resonance in
that the object 'in here' resonates with 'out there' and so is deemed to be
'meaningful'. However this system allows for the creation of perceived
'fictions' where the format of the theory is correctly structured but
projecting it onto 'out there' by taking it literally leads to anomolies;
e.g. Astrology, Quantum Mechanics, etc. In simple terms the brain has no
idea about 'out there' other than it is dealing with objects and
relationships and so ANY objects and relationships 'map' to the brain's
sense of meaning and that includes fictionous objects and relationships; it
is intent that goes to determining 'what' is an object or relationship and
it is feedback that aids in validating these determinations.
With the template material, by understanding it, you have a format to play
with in analysis and synthesis of ideas in that you can insert any dichotomy
and from it derive a full set of meanings, of expressions, for each element
of the dichotomy before even trialing the theory.
What this does is give you all possible expressions that we can deal with,
being a species that filters data into object/relationship distinctions.
For example, in the concept of information processing along biological
lines, when we assign a gene to 'one' and a meme to 'many' we get patterns
of meaning that are congruent with our experiences. If you abide by the
original categorisations then things seem to 'fit'; confuse the
categorisations and you wander off the path and that is easily tested using
feedback.
The 'fact' that when we look, the categorisations that emerge from the
template without going 'out there' are found to be 'out there' suggests that
the template is the source of meaning and as such can serve as a guide not
only in understanding theories but in refining their construction. (you
could just work at the base level but that gets boring :-) metaphors are fun
as long as you dont take them literally)
When a creationist looks 'out there' they look with eyes clouded by their
filtering, namely the belief in the existance of God. When darwinists, or
lamarckianists, look 'out there' they are doing so with the same type of
filters.
The template approach cuts all of that out by reducing the filtering to what
our senses filter; we reduce all filtering to the bedrock , the underlying
sameness in all of us, and from that work 'upwards'.
ALL external phenomena (and for that matter internal) is ONLY explainable
within the context set by our senses and they operate by making
SAMENESS/DIFFERENCE distinctions which lead to the generalisations of
objects and relationships. That is it. All of our tools, Mathematics in
particular, can be shown to have developed from these fundamentals.
In principle there are an infinite number of 'meaningful' states when
working from the bedrock level, the SAMENESS level, due to the use of
recursive dichotomisations but these states are all too general. When you
get to the DIFFERENCES level, the level of expression, we need to
particularise using words, symbols etc., we create metaphors to expand, to
exagerate, the differences between one object and another and so be more
precise. However this precision is not so much in value as in
identification.
There is structure in all of this and learning about the structure aids in
analysis and synthesis of meaning. Thus understanding the template DOES
establish a base level appropriateness re dealing with external phenomena.
IF you do not like that idea, fine. Stick with dealing with all of the
different expressions and the increasing workload that that entails :-)
As a social scientist your world would more likely be in the space
in-between objects, the world of memes etc and from that position, so rich
in dynamics, the thought of a template, a form of restriction, could be
upsetting but note that in the world of relationships you are dealing with
expressions that seemingly have no underlying structure other than their
own. I assure you there IS structure and understanding it enables you to see
past, to see behind, the expressions and that is useful.
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 : Wed Jul 19 2000 - 13:18:24 BST