Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id VAA03488 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Sat, 22 Jul 2000 21:24:33 +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: Sun, 23 Jul 2000 06:40:29 +1000 Message-ID: <LPBBICPHCJJBPJGHGMCIMEIDCHAA.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: <200007221749.NAA01572@mail3.lig.bellsouth.net> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
Hi Joe et al,
> -----Original Message-----
> From: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk [mailto:fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk]On Behalf
> Of Joe E. Dees
> Sent: Sunday, 23 July 2000 3:54
> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> Subject: RE: Was Freud a Minivan or S.U.V. Kind of Guy? Israel and
> Palestine.
>
>
> 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 sent: Sat, 22 Jul 2000 10:33:45 +1000
> Send 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: Saturday, 22 July 2000 12:51
> > > To: 'memetics@mmu.ac.uk'
> > > Subject: RE: Was Freud a Minivan or S.U.V. Kind of Guy? Israel and
> > > Palestine.
> > >
> > >
> > > Just one more comment, and then I'll let it lie.
> > >
> > > I'm not a neuro-scientist, so I can't really comment on that
> > > aspect of your
> > > claims, but I'd be incredibly surprised to find that neuroscience
> > > in any way
> > > supports the notion that if we switch one I-ching symbol for
> > > another we can
> > > explain or solve problems in the Middle-East.
> >
> > You see, you miss the point totally. You are stuck at the level of
> > expression and so incapable of seeing BEHIND the I ching
> symbol. What does
> > it REPRESENT? It represents a neurologically determined general
> pattern of
> > meaning. The I Ching is a metaphor, as are all other forms of
> expression.
> > Metaphor for what? A metaphor for describing the interactions
> of objects
> > and relationships and how, given a particular starting point, you can
> > generally determine where things will go, how things will move.
> >
> All the I Ching is, is a 2*6 (64) complete digital set (broken and
> unbroken instead of 1 and 0). A line can be broken (B) or unbroken
> (U) (two alternatives). Two lines can be BU, UB, UU or BB (2 x 2,
> or 4 alternatives); do this with six lines (2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2), and
> you get the I Ching structure. Whoopee.
Jeez Joe two failures in two emails! :-) tsk tsk you must do better. IMHO
you fall into the same 'trap' as Vincent, you totally and utterly miss the
set of generally invariant feelings BEHIND the symbols; you are so tied to
the expression, the 'pure' mathematics that you have lost touch with what is
behind it all. If you prefer that, if you prefer to stick to single context
thinking and so retain quantitative precision that is fine but to get into
this I am afraid you will have to shift to qualitative precision -- the
'female' within you. :-) THAT is where you get your sense of meaning.
Is it more profound than
> if it were only carried through five lines (32 total), or less profound
> than if you carried it through seven lines (128 alternatives)?
When you carry it through to 16+ million (4096^2) it does get a bit
'difficult' to grasp, but we dont need to. If you go to 4096 (64^2) that is
enough for us to describe the aspects of ANY dichotomy (that is if there is
enough data to get this far, although the brain being what it is it can
'extrapolate' past levels by putting-in more than is really there). I stress
ANY dichotomy.
All n-
> line digital structures (2*n sets) are, are dualities to differing
> exponential powers. There are many more relations than this one
> extant, and no reason to consider it more central, fundamental, or
> all-encompassing than many others
Our genes are geared to 1:many processing. The 1 is static and we vary the
many. Our whole bodies are derived from bifurcations. Our thinking also
reflects this and so dichotomisation takes on a VERY fundamental role. Read
some of the reference material I have posted (all the neurology stuff). Get
out there and seriously try to understand the distinctions our senses make
and how they influence our thinking; IMHO you are missing a lot. That said,
sticking to a strickly mathematical viewpoint is fine for making general
maps, but then mathematics is founded on basic distinctions applied
recursively.
(for instance the thesis-
> antithesis-synthesis triad represented in the Levi-Strauss triscale
> and found to obtain in Genesis matrimonial laws through the
> Terrahite Connubium.
You obviously have not gone to my websites where there is discussion of
dichotomy and TRIchotomy. IF you wish to discuss these issues at least have
the nous to get more details before you go into these rants.
> One of the "hooks" of this particular
> memeplex seems to be its attempt to complete some sort of
> Strange Loop by uniting supposed "ancient wisdom" with the most
> contemporaneous of scientific results, even (and especially) when
> both are poorly understood in themselves,
until now where if you bothered to go through the material you will find
that I give you the structure and so source of meaning for all of these
categorisation systems.
> and insisting that, contra
> fact, all these old quasinumerological systems can be reduced to
> the same template. What about the Tarot, the Runes, and the
> Qabbalistic Tree of Life? the 32 Shining Paths are composed of
> ten stations, from Malkuth through Kether, and twenty-two
> connections (just like 22 Major arcana), and there are 24 runes.
> None of these are reduceable to the 2*nth structure of the I Ching.
Wonderful words Joe since they demonstrate that you have NOT gone through my
website material where I demonstrate the links behind all of these
categorisation systems to object/relationship distinction-making and the
template in general and so the I Ching as well. Here you are in one email
suggesting an in-depth analysis of my 'sad' case and yet you show in the
above comments a total lack of knowledge; your grasping at expressions,
straws, and in doing so demonstrating a failure to 'get involved', to
seriously get your hands dirty.
> There are eight solar holidays (solstices, equinoxes and cross-
> quarters) and 13 lunar holidays in the Pagan wheel of the year, for
> a total of 21. thirteern minus eight, on the other hand, gives us the
> number of the pentacle, 5. What is the series? Fibonacci, where
> each next term is comprised of the addition of the two preceding
> terms (1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55, 89, etc.).
This is all covered at my website. The fib numbers reflect the first level
of feedback sensitivity where you can use feedback to develop, to grow.
(they are found in Pascal's Triangle right-to-left and at an angle) Read my
recent comments on lotto etc and people's belief in feedback systems. (or
read my articles at the www.eisa.net.au/~lofting website about the stock
market) I suggest Joe that you get you facts straight about what I am
talking about; it is obvious in these writings that you have no bothered to
move from your 'position' and get more details; you seem to feel that you
are in a 'safe' position with the knowledge you have. NOT.
> Pascal's Triangle
> 1
> 1 1
> 1 2 1
> 1 3 3 1
> 1 4 6 4 1
> provides us with yet another irreduceable series, where even
> though the addition of the terms in a horizontal line adds up to
> 2*nth, the simple reading of the numbers as a whole (with carried
> tens) is 11*nth. It is simplistic and reductionistic to attempt to
> reduce all the possible patterns within human conception and
> experience to one.
To one NEUROLOGY Joe. Here is an exercise that I am sure you must have done,
but just in case you haven't:
Expand Pascal's triangle to 12-16 levels (just enough to give you some depth
or apply n!/(r!(n-r)! to your choice) and then with two coloured pens (red,
blue) surround all ODD numbers with a blue circle and fill that circle in.
Then do the same using the red pen on all EVEN numbers. What you get
emerging from this is a Sierpinski Triangle manifesting fractal ordering and
this is tied to complexity/chaos processes and that is tied to bifurcation
of 1:many type dichotomies; the use of feedback leading to 'emergence'. If I
take a 1:many format it acts like a fractal; each level of analysis we have
the SAME template, same patterns of 'meaning' at all scales. (interestingly,
radio/TV arials made in the form of a siposki triangle are the most
efficient around -- relate that back to the emails on the brain processing
frequencies etc :-)) If you contain a random process you get this structure.
IOW from random processes can emerge the I Ching and Pascal's Triangle and
all within it :-) IOW we can trace the structure of numbers etc to
Sierpinski triangles to random processes that are contained.
From a neurological perspective all of 'in here' can develop from random
processes that our SENSES contain and in doing so CREATE internal
representations linked to such constructs as Sierpinski triangles etc. We
are a frequency-processing system (See previous emails or the general
summary of them on the www.eisa.net.au/~lofting homepage) and the Sierpinski
triangle happens to be the BEST system for clearly processing frequency data
and I would suggest that within that randomly created structure as emerged
our sense of meaning and with it the more particular manifestations of that
meaning in the categorisation systems we use.
I get the impression that you operate from an object-biased Platonist
viewpoint; that mathematics is all 'out there' and independent of us. It
isnt. We have adapted to our environment by internalising its
characteristics and through internal sensory bifurcations developed a method
of analysis that allows us to make models that 'ring true'. That 'ring true'
is in our emotions and it is the use of recursive dichotomisations of that
that allows us to get meaning.
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 : Sat Jul 22 2000 - 21:25:34 BST