Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id JAA04663 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Sun, 23 Jul 2000 09:22:04 +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 18:37:56 +1000 Message-ID: <LPBBICPHCJJBPJGHGMCIOEIFCHAA.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: <200007222055.QAA25022@mail5.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
> -----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 6:59
> 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: Sun, 23 Jul 2000 06:49:23 +1000
> Send reply to: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
>
> > BTW Joe, another 'source' of the S. Triangle is in Cellular Automata and
> > that too is based on bifurcations, recursion etc etc Look at the work on
> > Artifical Life etc
> >
> > For an up-to-date overview on patterns in nature see:
> >
> > Ball, P., (1999) "The Self-Made Tapestry : Pattern Formation in
> Nature" OUP
> >
> > Wolfram's new book is due out soon, covers CAs etc you might
> find it useful.
> > Try his website as well... www.stephenwolfram.com
> >
> > best,
> >
> > Chris.
> >
> All it takes is a single empirical counterexample (such as the
> irreduceable semiotic triad of signification) to discredit any claim a
> candidate construct may lay to universality.
you have not looked at the sites in detail have you Joe. tsk tsk. Semitotics
is based on BIFURCATIONS, thus the LEVEL distinctions of 1-2-3 reflect
powers of 2. Thus the content of each level is 2-4-8 and so on.
(read the summary of Peirce at the eisa website). The 1-2-3 process reflects
*levels* of analysis, syntactic, semantic, pragamatic. Syntax starts with a
dichotomy of correct/incorrect and from that basic distinction all else
follows and so things become predictable in the context set by the method of
analysis.
You seem to take the semiotic triad as a single context, immediate concept.
it isnt, it only emerges when you start to make the distinctions and as such
is a property of the method of analysis and that is based on makinh 1:many
distinctions recursively.
You really must get into the detail of things rather than coming from a
perspective that, to me, lacks any level of understanding bar that derivable
from reading texts from the 19th century onwards. Burn them Joe. Start from
the basics, our neurology and work with that. (I can burn the original text
of the I Ching etc it is the symbolism that is useful in describing
underlying feelings etc)
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 : Sun Jul 23 2000 - 09:22:57 BST