RE: Was Freud a Minivan or S.U.V. Kind of Guy?

From: Chris Lofting (ddiamond@ozemail.com.au)
Date: Wed Jul 19 2000 - 17:11:52 BST

  • Next message: Joe E. Dees: "RE: Was Freud a Minivan or S.U.V. Kind of Guy?"

    Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id QAA25297 (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 16:56:10 +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: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 02:11:52 +1000
    Message-ID: <LPBBICPHCJJBPJGHGMCIOEHBCHAA.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: <20000719123018.AAA6120@camailp.harvard.edu@[128.103.125.215]>
    Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk
    Precedence: bulk
    Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    

    More or less Wade:-) Since the processes are applied recursively, and so
    follow complexity/chaos development patterns, apparent fundamentals can
    emerge at higher levels but are only so at, and beyond, the level in which
    they emerge. Thus the perceptions of mathematical processes emerge at higher
    levels than the neurology and due to their better differentiation are
    interpreted as if fundamental and can be used as such. However in the
    context of our species mathematical processes are not fundamentals, the
    differentiation has come from metaphorcation, symbolisation,
    particularisation, of the basic object/relationship, sameness/difference
    categorisations of the neurology. The template work does not take anything
    away from maths other than its mystique. What the template does is fill in
    the space in-between the bedrock and the top soil and in so doing show a
    continuous development, operating recursively.

    From this we can 'see' how disciplines develop, take-on a 'life' and how
    they serve as METAPHORS for describing object/relationship states. This
    process allows for the emergence of Astrology etc since the bedrock does not
    change, just the expressions in the top soil and these expressions can cause
    interpretive problems when taken beyond their original contexts.

    In principle ANY discipline can give you a FULL description of reality but
    it would be so 'intense', require the learning of an extremely
    complex/refined lexicon that for us it is a waste of time in that more
    general disciplines such as Mathematics etc can do a more precise/universal
    job since these disciplines are more general than the spoken word; almost
    culture-free (the spoken word being more *socially* precise than mathematics
    in that it gets down to individual/family levels and carries emotion better.
    Perhaps a 'new' mathematics will emerge, based on the wave metaphor, that
    can get down to expressing refined emotional content!)

    This use of Mathematics etc., does not take anything away from the more
    esoteric disciplines in that we recognise their sense of value as long as
    they are kept within their context, which for Astrology etc is a context of
    social persona categorisation using the planets and star patterns as
    metaphors to 'carry' the underlying meanings both in identifying an object
    (Aries TYPE) and relationships (Aries type to Cancer type etc). There are
    Aries personalities, they are just not all born in April!

    BTW The Aries type maps to the MBTI NT temperament; the other two fire signs
    are *refinements* of the NT type, the Aries type being the fundamental. Thus
    modern western Astrology can be traced back to 4 fundamentals, 8 composites
    which over time (and confusion about what was going on) became the 12 signs
    you 'see' today.

    best,

    Chris.
    ------------------
    Chris Lofting
    websites:
    http://www.eisa.net.au/~lofting
    http://www.ozemail.com.au/~ddiamond

    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk [mailto:fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk]On Behalf
    > Of Wade T.Smith
    > Sent: Wednesday, 19 July 2000 10:30
    > To: memetics list
    > Subject: RE: Was Freud a Minivan or S.U.V. Kind of Guy?
    >
    >
    > On 07/19/00 08:33, Chris Lofting said this-
    >
    > >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.
    >
    > There- Chris said it- his main proposition- in one paragraph.
    >
    > Take it or leave it.
    >
    > - Wade
    >
    > ===============================================================
    > 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 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 - 16:57:00 BST