Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id PAA27571 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Thu, 20 Jul 2000 15:11:22 +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? Israel and Palestine. Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 00:27:00 +1000 Message-ID: <LPBBICPHCJJBPJGHGMCIMEHGCHAA.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) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D310174593C@inchna.stir.ac.uk> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 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: Thursday, 20 July 2000 8:29
> To: 'memetics@mmu.ac.uk'
> Subject: RE: Was Freud a Minivan or S.U.V. Kind of Guy?
>
>
> Ok, I think I've finally understood what he's saying, but I still
> think, so
> what?
>
> I'm tempted to go into another attempt to explain why I don't think this
> offers anything helpful, but I'll try and keep it short, and try
> a different
> tack. What it boils down to, for me, is that it simply replaces
> one set of
> categorisations (of whatever discipline, or disciplines you like) for
> another.
sort of. It actually shows you the fundamental set of categorisations that
all others are made from. Many of the 'other' categorisations are derived
from heuristic processes. Understanding the underlying structure makes this
task a lot easier.
However alliterative and pleasant to say one makes these terms
> (all the Bs :-)) how does that actually get 'behind',
> 'underneath' etc. etc.
> except to make rather obvious statements that humans are limited
> perceptually by being human, and that we construct the world in terms of a
> basic categorisation of same/different?
>
There is a structure involved in that ANY dichotomy will automatically
'create' an instance of that structure and analysis will fill in the spaces,
connect the dots. That structure becomes the source of meaning and as such
again serves as a guide to fleshing-out raw concepts in that it gives you
patterns to look for since all possible patterns of meaning are already
present, determined by the neurology even if only generally.
By understanding this ONE format so you can quickly get the ideas 'behind'
all other formats since all others are metaphors, particularisations for the
ONE.
The bind-bound-bond-blend development path alone is worth understanding
since it seems to be the 'standard' development pattern moving from many to
one (and in reverse one-to-many). This pattern is not restricted to
Darwinism etc, it is a fundamental pattern that is encoded in our ideas and
in their generation.
There are no disciplines that I am aware of that give you this level of
precision in analysing themselves as well as other disciplines since we are
dealing here with bedrock.
One point to reflect upon is that since there exists the distinction of ME
and NOT ME so all decision making, all predictions, will be expressed in
terms that map to the template and as such the template gives you all
possible patterns that can emerge from any point in time; thus it can be
used to predict as well as clarify things.
For example, using the bind-bound-bond-blend pattern (b1-b2-b3-b4) let us
reflect on the current Israeli/Palestine situation.
The template material, applied to ANY dichotomy, asks three questions of any
state and with that can determine where on a path the situation is and so
HOW to get to the next state if there is a blockage or you need things to go
a bit faster.
(Q1) Is the concept in question dealing with facts or values? Based on what
has been going on in the area for over fifty years (and more) the emphasis
is on VALUES expressed in the form of LAND ownership. (you can select facts
if you wish but watch...) The overall emphasis is very SOCIAL, GROUP rather
than particular, individual.
(Q2) IS the concept about what 'was/is/will be' or about 'what could have
been/is NOT/ could be'? I would say the former, it is about what is/will be
in that BOTH parties have their own agendas and are not really into what
could be.
(Q3) IS the concept proactive or reactive? I would say reactive in that it
was the US that was proactive to organise a meeting; prior to that all
meetings etc where more reactive between the isrealis and the palastinians.
These three questions, interpreted this way, reflect a state found in the
template called contractive BOUNDING. This state deals with containment and
control and is linked to MBTI types that emphasise
preservation/conservation.
This puts the current state of affairs at the BOUND position heading towards
BOND and then BLEND (All previus work delt with BINDING, getting the two
parties to talk in the first place). The bound position emphasises
BOUNDARIES and in this particular scenario, Isreal/Palestine, that is the
primary sticking point at the moment. How do we change this? How can we
change this BOUND into a BOND?
Looking at the SYMBOLISM (the I Ching material) the above questions map to a
symbol called water, the abysmal. It looks like this:
___ ___
_________
___ ___
(yin line over a yang line over a yin line). This symbol has been created
from the three questions asked where Q1 is YIN and is represented by a
broken line in the BOTTOM position. Q2 is YANG and is represented by the
middle position. Q3 is YIN and is represented by the top position. The
format of the three questions has been derived after a lot of work and is
based on how our brain starts to process data that is particular, a whole.
The base line is the fundamental, very hard to change and the distinction of
facts/values is what drives gender differences for example.
To continue, noting the development pattern of B1-B2-B3-B4, we need to get
to the BOND symbol (B3) and it looks like this:
_________
___ ___
___ ___
(yang line over a yin line over a yin line). This trigram is called
mountain.
TO get from BOUND to BOND requires two changes, the form of the top TWO
lines. Relating these to the questions, Q2 and Q3 in particular. What does
this say?
Firstly Q2 needs to be changed from what WILL be to what COULD be. Since
both parties are very 'will be' at the moment this will require a little
trickary in the form of saying 'ok lets PRETEND for a minute regarding the
process of alternatives to the two we have.'
Once you get a 'could be' agreement you have changed the format of Q2 and so
line 2.
Now, Q3 needs to be changed from a reactive state to a proactive state. This
is best done by an emphasis on the hope/anticipate dichotomy where firstly
we emphasise HOPE and once that is established we then manipulate this
dichotomy by moving from the reactiveness in HOPE to the PROACTIVENESS in
anticipation; that is the only change requires to shift one from hope to
anticipation, to move from leaning back in your chair to leaning forwards.
By just changing these two lines you will shift the whole situation from
BOUND to BOND and that will be a shift towards total trust in others since
the b1-b2-b3-b4 sequence with a VALUES base is all about distrust_of_others
to TOTAL_trust_of_others. (the YANG sequence deals with trust in yourself).
Overall the current context is governed by the trigram of water, of
contractive bounding, and it is interesting to drop down a few levels and
see what other states are within this one. In particular there is a blend
state that deals with finding compromise (hexagram 6) and a another blend
state that deals with establishing uniformity AKA the ARMY. Note the overall
containment-control emphasis.
IF you can move to BOND you move to self-restraint-discernment as the main
emphasis. That is another story but I think that this simple description of
the template gives a good idea as to what is going on and has NOT come from
in depth analysis of the middle east but from the simple, general,
categorisation and so establishment of an overall context that is
influencing things (contractive bounding) and by knowing the properties of
that, being able to link the dots.
I hope this has helped in demonstrating the ease in which this system can
work as well the quality of the data it can generate that we, at the
particular level, can then work with (in this case changing the top two
lines :-))
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 : Thu Jul 20 2000 - 15:12:11 BST