Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id DAA06204 (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 03:27:07 +0100 Message-Id: <200007240225.WAA08435@mail2.lig.bellsouth.net> From: "Joe E. Dees" <joedees@bellsouth.net> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2000 21:29:41 -0500 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: RE: Another Irreduceable Triad In-reply-to: <LPBBICPHCJJBPJGHGMCIGEIHCHAA.ddiamond@ozemail.com.au> References: <200007222154.RAA05714@mail2.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: Another Irreduceable Triad
Date sent: Sun, 23 Jul 2000 22:22:51 +1000
Send 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.
>
Actually, matter/energy are not only convertible to each other, but
coprimordial with spacetime (their interrelational connection being
the gravitational field).
>
> 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.
>
Probabilistic emphasis and indeterminacy basically mean you work
with analog spectrums, which cannot be crammed into a priori
dyadic OR triadic structures, or indeed any which depend upon
integral (translation digital) solutions.
>
> 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'.
>
There you go with that foundational and fundamentalist "one".
People have advanced in their conceptions far beyond that sort of
thing, and now understand that there are a multiplicity of
interlocking and co-primordial principles (in other words, a system)
from which we may elaborate systemic consequences. Quantum
Mechanics works this way. The Standard Model of Particle
Physics works this way. Special and General Relativity work this
way. Even LOGIC works this way. THERE IS NO SINGLE
CENTRAL PRIMORDIAL FACT UPON WHICH ALL OTHERS
MUST, OR EVEN CAN, BE BASED. No fact has meaning outside
of a context, which must be at the very least coprimordial with the
fact.
>
> 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
>
A flat line would be a wave of 0 Hz, and is a real (that is, not
realizeable) limit, just as a wave of oo (infinite) Hz is likewize
unrealizable. But aside from purely logical considerations, we are
talking perception, and neither of those waves could be perceived
by us.
>
> 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).
>
Timbre is a function of the shape of the wave, that is, the
WAVEFORM. All waves have a shape, thus all have timbre. There
is no such thing as a shapeless wave (well, a nonexistent one,
lacking all extension, perhaps).
>
>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).
>
Fourier transforms are indeed a summing-up, but that does not
translate into only being able to hear unsquare waves with the left
ear. Check out a dichotic listening device and you will find out that
info from either eye or ear goes all over the brain; otherwise we
could not make sense out of stuff whispered in our left ear (since it
crosses to our right brain and our semantic lists are stored left-
brain for righties).
>
> 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 another fellow with this "One" fixation, perhaps traceable
to Plotinus, called Brett Lane Robertson. You two know each
other?
>
> 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.
>
All this is is an artifact of the perceptual field, which also involves
an irreducable triadic structure of a focus, surrounded by a field,
and bounded by a fringe (Aron Gurwitsch, THE FIELD OF
CONSCIOUSNESS). You're just noticing that when you focus on
one point of a triangle, the other two are not focused upon, but
reside in the environing Gestalt field. There is no lesson to be
drawn from this except that if you had chosen a square and
focussed upon one point, you would have to explain one of the
remaining two away, or invent one if you were looking at one end of
a line (and there are a lot of other polygons out there, too). This
strange pseudoexample reminds me of mystical Pythagoreanism.
>
> 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! :-)
>
But that involves leaving digitality altogether, not just jumping from
2 to 3.
>
> 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.
>
Sign, referent and interpretant are irreduceable to each other, and
what happens when intersubjective discourse is assayed? Then
we have Person 1, Person 2, two related but not identical realities
(due to spatiotemporal exclusivity) comprising their intersubjective
milieu, two differing yet relational understandings of the meaning of
a term and two differing yet relational meaning-structures in which
each term resides in gestalt interrelation (due to differing history of
the persons), a carrier (such as sound waves or light for (hand) sign
language), a more or less common code (different from the
understandings) which possesses sign-sign relations (syntax) and
sign-referent relations (semantics) which impose mutual
constraints, a message (which is the particular sequence created
from the general possibilities within the code), and so on. This is
much too complex to be assimilated within your simplistic models,
which would require drastic accomodation to be relational.
>
> 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.
>
The illusion of a simple, single fundamental bedrock from which
everything can be derived or elaborated is your first and I'm sure
dearest delusion.
>
> 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.
>
No, Peirce was a structuralist, and was in the business of deriving
invariant structures. The functional complement of semiotics (and
Greimassian semiotics is perhaps as valuable as Peircean) is
memetics.
>
> 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'.
>
I have maintained that irreduceable triads exist, and have provided
some, and have also maintained that complex systems exist which
are not so easily crammed into a number, EITHER 2 OR 3. Our
dynamically recursive self-conscious awareness is one of those
systems.
>
> 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'.
>
Here's a counterexample, and let's get as simple as it perceptiually
gets. You see a dot. With no context, there is only one state for it
(no such thing as closer than or farther away than). With two dots,
you have three possible states; one is closer, the other is closer,
or they are at the same distance. With three dots in a line, there
are thirteen possible states (with one being closest, two being
farther, and three being farther still, and allowing for repetition for
objects of the same perceived distance): 111, 112, 121, 211,122,
212, 221, 123, 132, 213, 231, 312, 312. There is an explosion
beyond that point, and no discernible 2*n evolution in it. We
routinely navigate a world in which an incredible number of such
ever-changing distinctions are made. Meaning is grounded in and
derivative of being (it's what meaning is ABOUT). It is uch too
complex to be contained in such a system, and there is NO WAY
that you can absolutely maintain as a received truth that the total
number of distinctions in the navigational system is 2*n, rather
than, say, 2*n + 371, or 2*n + 963495.
>
> 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.
>
Absolutistic dualism is ideal, rather than real, and abstract, as it
cannot contiguously adhere to any concrete referent.
>
> 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. :-(
>
Actually, you have reduced nothing except perhaps peoples'
opinions of your grasp of matters with your irrelevant and
unsuccessful nonresponse. You obvoiusly have no idea how your
"in here" works, and not being able to bear that fact, have
constructed a personally soothing, if empirically inapplicable,
mythology concerning it. You have reduced nothing, least of all the
semiotic triad, and I provided you with an irreduceable
phenomenological triad to bookend it, as well as an example of
perceptual complexity which washes over your feeble attempts to
constrain it within a dualistic system like a tsunami dissolves a
footprint on the beach. If you were capable of serious thought
yourself, you would acknowledge these things, instead of
attempting to extricate yourself from the solidly anchored charges
of simplisticism and naive foundationalism.
>
> 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 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 - 03:28:00 BST