Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id NAA04954 (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 13:06:50 +0100 From: "Chris Lofting" <ddiamond@ozemail.com.au> To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> Subject: RE: Another Irreduceable Triad Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2000 22:22:51 +1000 Message-ID: <LPBBICPHCJJBPJGHGMCIGEIHCHAA.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: <200007222154.RAA05714@mail2.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
Joe,
Wave processing is SECONDARY in form and emerges once you get into DYNAMIC
processes. No objects - no waves, but I can have objects without waves. Wave
processes are 'in-between' the objects; they are a property of relational
space and as such will always be SECONDARY to the PRIMARY object space.
As I have commented in a recent email, when you move from statics, from
stuctural emphasis and so determined, to dynamic processes which, by their
nature, introduce indeterminacy you will see a shift from powers of two to
powers of three as well as a shift from identification of a fundamental to
identifiction of possible fundamentals; you move to a probabilistic
emphasis. This shift in perception results from a loss of resolution by the
introduction of indeterminance due to the nature of dynamics.
As I have emphasised in the past there is an archetypal level that serves as
the 'root' and from that emerges a typal level -- dynamics that include
mixing and so 'the many'; at the archetypal the emphasis is on purity, on
'the one'.
The characteristics you speak of, as if all occuring within the same
analytical context, are not so. shape and timbre are treated as SECONDARY
properties by 'in here', as harmonics. You cannot have timbre without a wave
but you can have a wave that is timbreless -- a flat line is a interpretable
as a wave with no amplitude and a single note is also interpretable as being
timbreless, timbre comes from the expression of harmonics and you can remove
these (it becomes boring however, too SAME; the harmonics introduce is to
DIFFERENCE). All waves are reducable to the summing of sine waves with
varying frequencies; thus fourier transforms aim to create a wave that is
like a square wave but adding an infinite number of harmonics and in doing
so only make an approximation, thus reflecting their 'right brain' link to
fourier analysis and the 'left brain' link to square waves).
In establishing meaning you assert the 'one' and from that comes the 'many'
but the 'many' are not processed with the same 'precision' as the 'one'
until they are FOCUSED upon. This focusing can lead to the perception of a
harmonic as if a fundamental and it is possible for that to be the case but
you must be wary of doing this since you can take things as if the 'same
value' when in fact they are from different levels, different scales.
There is hierarchy involved in all of this. You can create a triangular
pattern but the apex of the triangle is the point of analysis, the
fundamental perspective, and the other two positions reflect dichotomisation
and qualitatively are reduced until you shift to making either of them the
apex. This shift contains a qualitative difference in scaling that you will
miss if you work in a single context frame of mind.
This shift is emphasised when we move from a precise, and so POINTED
analysis to a more approximated and so GENERALISED (diffuse) analysis as we
do in statistics. We 'forget' that the wave patterns that come from this
shift manifest a loss in precision, a loss in pointedness, simply because
precision requires things to be still! :-)
In the Sierpinski Triangle the view from each point is not identical for
all. You get a similar view from the base line positions but not from the
apex and this reflects the development, the bifurcation processes going on
when there is a scaling change. The apex is representive of the 'universe of
discourse' and the other two points the A/~A within that universe. In this
sense the A/~A distinctions are not of the same value as the universe of
discourse and the triadic approach used in semiotics reveals a failure to
properly differentiate states within a particular scale.
Waves are always reflective of SECONDARY processes, of dynamics, and as such
move you into powers of 3+ but my emphasis is on the bedrock from which all
of this emerges and that is rooted in recursive dichotomisations and from
that emerges dynamics and so we move into powers of three if we include
indeterminacy as a factor and that includes the crossing of scale
boundaries.
Peirce et al in their world of semotics FAILED to recognise the requirement
that you differentiate the concept of relationships into TWO types - static
and dynamic. This failure manifests the lack of precision that can come when
you move into thinking of dynamics. Peirce and his peers had no
understanding of neurological function and sensory processing of data in a
context of complexity/chaos so their failure is justifiable.
Thus the triadic interpretations, although seemingly 'valid' at the local
level will start to cause problems as you generalise since they are
off-track; as you generalise 'in here' will bifurcate and if you do not pick
this up you will dissapear into ga-ga land as did Peirce as he tried to
quantify his sign system and as we find if we do not take into consideration
the full set of 'initial conditions'.
In meaning, to get a 'reasonable' picture requires the differentiation of
FOUR states: whole, parts, static relationships and dynamic relationships
and these emerge from the recursive dichotomisation of the whole/~whole
dichotomy. An even more refined perspective is to move to EIGHT states
(2^3 -- note the 3). From these states no more is required other than
permuations upon permutations of the 8, 64, 4096, 16+million. IOW these
eight form a fundamental set of 'meaning'.
If you add-in indeterminacy then the 8-64-4096 shifts to a 9-27-729 patterns
and so on. The implied wave interference patterns that emerge just keep
getting 'stronger', 'bolder' in expression and you cannot see these patterns
emerge until you get to level 2^3+ in recursion.
To sum-up, your 'another irreduceable triad' is reducable :-) IMHO you lack
understanding about how 'in here' works and so you work from a position of
ignorance. I have supplied you with enough references to help 'resolve' that
problem but for some reason you refuse to properly engage; you are throwing
things without thought. A Pity. :-(
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 Joe E. Dees
> Sent: Sunday, 23 July 2000 7:59
> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> Subject: Another Irreduceable Triad
>
>
> Our very systems of vision and audition indeed depend upon wave
> reception, either photonic or air pressure, but waves themselves
> possess three irreduceable characteristics: amplitude (brightness,
> loudness), frequency (pitch, hue) and waveform (shape, timbre).
> This is not even to get into size (degree of field occluded) and
> direction from source.
>
> ===============================================================
> 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 : Sun Jul 23 2000 - 13:07:42 BST