Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id CAA06111 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Mon, 24 Jul 2000 02:13:23 +0100 Message-Id: <200007240111.VAA01355@mail2.lig.bellsouth.net> From: "Joe E. Dees" <joedees@bellsouth.net> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2000 20:15:58 -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: <LPBBICPHCJJBPJGHGMCIOEIFCHAA.ddiamond@ozemail.com.au> References: <200007222055.QAA25022@mail5.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 18:37:56 +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 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. Semiotics
> 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.
>
Object is simplicity, devoid of meaning and apprehension. When a
consciousness perceives the object, this adds the level of
perception to the object, and is not a bifurcation, but a recursion to
the next level (secondness, consciousness of being). The
imposition of a meaning upon that being can only issue from a self-
conscious awareness, and this involves a further recursion
(thirdness, consciousness of consciousness), not a bifurcation.
>
> 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.
>
If you had read my paper TOOLS, LANGUAGE AND TEXT: The
Serial Isomorphic Evolution of Symbolic Capacity in Human
Consciousness, you would know how bogus such a charge is, as
in that paper I describe, among other things, how the sign is
progressively abstracted from its referent (kinda like - and this is
only a metaphor - evolving an equilateral out of an isosceles where
sign and referent are at first very close). Certainly the structure of
sign, referent and interpretant is irreduceably triadic, but that is
because semiotics itself is synchronic and structuralist, kinda like
phenomenology. Their complements, respectively, are memetics
and genetic epistemology, which are dynamic, evolutionary,
diachronic and functionalist. Each gives us what the other cannot.
>
> 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)
>
Burn them thar books, Heathen! Ya gotta Be-LEEVE! Only that
old-time stuff is true!
BTW, I have an extensive religion library, including most of the
pivotal texts in just about any religion you can name, but would
never propose that Barak and Arafat snuggle up for a little I Ching
night reading together. I would rather ask them to read Robert
Axelrod's THE EVOLUTION OF COOPERATION, in which the two-
party Prisoner's Dilemma is subjected to game-theoretical analysis
to identify the most mutually optimizing solutions.
>
> 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 : Mon Jul 24 2000 - 02:14:16 BST