Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id WAA03700 (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 22:43:55 +0100 Message-Id: <200007222142.RAA26645@mail2.lig.bellsouth.net> From: "Joe E. Dees" <joedees@bellsouth.net> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2000 16:46:27 -0500 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: RE: Was Freud a Minivan or S.U.V. Kind of Guy? Israel and Palestine. In-reply-to: <LPBBICPHCJJBPJGHGMCIMEIDCHAA.ddiamond@ozemail.com.au> References: <200007221749.NAA01572@mail3.lig.bellsouth.net> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.01b) Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
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: Sun, 23 Jul 2000 06:40:29 +1000
Send 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.
>
You refute nothing while dismissing everything, attempting to
disguise the lack in an avalanche of preachy and repetitive
logorrhea, and claiming, like the missionary man, that one must
view things as you do, accept uncritically, and believe rather than
know, meanwhile maintaining that all who rationally disagree with
you, and present good evidence for their disagreements which you
do not (because you CAN NOT) address, are damned to the hell of
obtuse ignorance. Either use logic OR abandon it; you cannot
claim to use logic to persuade people and then reject it in favor of
emoting when it doesn't cut your way.
Meaning is neither male nor female, dewde; it is HUMAN.
>
> 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.
>
In other words, whatever "final" structure may emerge (and
according to you one must), it must have 2*n elements. That
walks, talks andf quacks like an unsupported and unsupportable
article of belief to me, as you have not (and can not) present any
conclusive and irrefutable evidence for same, and I have already
proffered an unrefutable counterexample.
>
> 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.
>
Actually, our brains are not just electrical/digital, but
electrochemical/analog-digital, and the complex webs and multiple
interrelational loops of feedback and feedforward are not
describable in such simplistic and reductionistic terms.
>
> (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.
>
Do you discuss, quadrichotomies, quintotomies, etc.? Empirically,
when scientifically and pragmatically minded people (not
evangelical structural Plato's Cave idealists) draw their data and
through induction extract invariants rather than a priori imposing
them and refusing to credit what falls outside their lines, they can
come up with useful yet limited heuristics. Such is not the case
with your grand theory of everything, precisely because it
(purportedly) HAS a position (which must be different from other
positions), and therefore cannot represent everything, precisely
because meaning entails exclusion of alternatives, and a TOE can
allow for no exclusions.
>
> > 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.
>
Like I said - poorly understood.
>
> > 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.
>
You pooh-pooh rather than answer. If the answers are there and
you can't tire your fingers, then cut and paste.
>
> > 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.
>
A marvellously self-decriptive projection.
>
> > 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:
>
They arer all conceivable by us (because they have been), but are
not reducable to each other, thus your claim to find their common
fount in a particular (starkly bifurcative) schema is bogus. That is
my point.
>
> 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.
>
Not according to the Santa Fe Institute's John Holland. I suggest
you peruse his book EMERGENCE: FROM CHAOS TO ORDER to
discover that 1: many is not a bifurcation, but an interrelational
system where any of the many may be relativistically labeled the
one, and the effects of Kurt Godel upon recursivity, completeness
and closure. Serial bifurcations are by nature closed systems, and
once one adds feedback and feedforward (such as SDIC, the
sensitive dependence on initial conditions otherwise described as
the Butterfly Effect), one is left with an open-ended system
indescribable in such impoverished terms.
>
> >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.
>
Vision and audition are wave-based distal senses, gustation and
olfaction are chemically based, and taction is temperature and
contiguity (physical pressure) based. We have a LOT more going
on than some quantum brain quasimodel can convey. In a way,
this wave-exclusine sensorium appears to be some sort of warmed-
over solipsistic autopoetic pseudotheorizing, full of screen clutter,
but signifying nothing.
>
> 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.
>
Emotions are often quite wrong (see sexism, racism, homophobia),
and contradicted by the evidence (if you doubt this, then you can
be converted by a fervent Shiite). The difference between
knowledge and belief is not internal (there they're the same), but
external and intersubjective (between, not within, people), where
the presence or absence of evidence is the deciding factor as to
whether a position is known or merely believed. You have
presented no evidence, while I have presented a counterexample.
This permits me to consign your "system" to the realm of belief,
not knowledge, as just another numerological exercise, and helps
me to understand your emotional investment/attachment to it, your
attempts to multiply its memeset through aggressive and
interminable proselytization, and your belief that you are helping
others "see the light" when you do so.
>
> 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 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 - 22:44:45 BST