Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id UAA01844 (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 20:53:31 +0100 From: "Chris Lofting" <ddiamond@ozemail.com.au> To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> Subject: RE: Gender bias for memes Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 06:08:56 +1000 Message-ID: <LPBBICPHCJJBPJGHGMCIIEJCCHAA.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) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 In-reply-to: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D310174594F@inchna.stir.ac.uk> Importance: Normal 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 Vincent Campbell
> Sent: Tuesday, 25 July 2000 12:14
> To: 'memetics@mmu.ac.uk'
> Subject: RE: Gender bias for memes
>
>
> I know, I know, I said I'd let this one lie. But just as I decided to do
> that, it became interesting again!
>
hmmm... got under your skin .. cool! you are infected.
> I don't agree with this division of Joe and Chris' positions at all. I
> don't see gendered differences in their manner of debating, only
> differences
> in their ability to make arguments.
>
Agree.
> Chris has two basic responses to any criticism. 1) to repeat, in just as
> much detail, previous posts; 2) to say 'look at my website'. In other
> words, Chris' responses are self-referential, and persistently so. Chris'
> theory is self-sustaining, and this is one of the things that bothers me
> about it. Any theory is only a model of how things are, a simplification,
> so claims of absolute correctness should always be under suspicion.
>
point taken but (!) when we are dealing with sameness and so bedrock level
there is only self-reference. Any fundamental will have a self-referencing
aspect as a result of it being a fundamental.
Physics and Chemistry (more so the former) are fundamental and contain
within them concepts that are self-referential since these area are
archetypal, originating structure and so an initial oppositional emphasis
that will develop into a perceived cooperational emphasis where we shift
from sameness to difference; from genetic 'purity' to genetic diversity.
The purity emphasis, the emphasis on the one, by its nature contains
self-replication, asexual/androgyne concepts as a structure of that way of
thinking. You pick up the 'primacy' in what I am talking about and with that
thought comes a whole set of associations, properties of the method of
thinking, that will include awareness of the presence of self-reference.
From a psychological/neurological point of view that is the base level,
local, self biased, the one that then gets generalised to the many. This
process of generalisation introduces diversity, variations on a theme, a
concept that is a property of diversity-thinking where you move from object
emphasis to relational emphasis.
Using the BBBB concepts so movement from the one to the many is like
UNblending, like a seed that in the process of opening-up leads to
expressions and the particular expression at any time is determined by the
context. Each individual, each one, has a variety of expressions depending
on the context but that does not come out of no-where, it is a property of
the one.
> Or, am I in a minority to regard with suspicion the response to a
> criticism
> with 'Have a look at what I've written..'?
>
I emphasise the websites more through lazyness, why repeat something that is
accessable to all by simply clicking on a link? Some of my more lengthy
posts have been more so since many seem to find clicking on the link and
wandering through a website too stressful, or perhaps they are lazier than I
am! :-) so I write from 'scratch'. (a common trait for the more object
oriented thinkers is the conservation of energy; not to move from one's
position until it is absolutely necessary and if need be to throw what ever
you can at the perceived 'threat'. You can see here the roots of 'going down
with the ship'.)
> Take for example one of Chris' asumptions, that there is a false
> distinction
> between 'in here' and 'out there', with everything we think we know and
> understand about 'out there' actually coming from 'in here'. OK- where is
> 'in here'? 'In here' is the human brain, which actually exists
> 'out there',
> as physical matter in the universe, otherwise it wouldn't be possible to
> have an 'in here', which is therefore a product of 'out there'.
I think you are confusing levels and failing to make the primary distinction
that there is no mind observable other than the one we have 'in here'. Our
minds are embodied, we are self-contained units, little spaceships, planets
whatever with our own atmospheres and so on. WE communicate as if signalling
from ships and the ability to do that goes down to the sameness level in
that all patterns of emotion are, to a general degree, the same in all of
the members of the species. In this sense the only minds 'out there' are
'in' other objects, there is nothing in the space in-between other than what
we 'put' there.
Our METHODS of analysis will ALWAYS impose meaning, you cannot have meaning
without a method since meaning amongst difference demands interpretation and
the method of interpretation at the general level is species biased --
neurological. Move through cultures and individuals and you see different
interpretations expressed, but look BEHIND the expressions and you find the
sameness of species.
So, where
> does the fundamentality lie in such a distinction- or rather where's the
> evidence to justify making such a distinction? (The denial of
> 'out there' as
> being entirely constructed by 'in here' sounds like someone trying to come
> to terms with having spent time as a mercenary, and pretending that it
> didn't 'really' happen.)
>
:-) subtle swipe Vincent but note that I have said it is likely that we have
adapted to our environment by internalising fundamental characteristics of
'out there', and that includes those of evolution, except that we can do in
centuries (decades? weeks?) what the random sourced universe has taken
billions of years to do.
The process of recursive dichotomisation and so the emergence of diverse
expressions from out of the 'middle' of a dichotomy is reflected 'out there'
in the fundamentals of chemistry where the most diverse elements,
carbon,silicon etc contain 'natural' dichotomies in their valence shells in
that the electron distribution is in the 'middle' of the 1/8 range.
Chemistry is to Physics what relational space is to object space; the source
of static/dynamic relationships and these seem to be founded on
dichotomisations, a process we seem to have inherited from 'out there' and a
such enables our dichotomy-sourced maps to 'resonate' with 'out there'. BUT
from the SPECIES level all possible meaning is sourced 'in here' such that
the patterns I have just mentioned are possibly the result of the method of
analysis such that we can 'miss' a lot about 'out there'. Thus I can
generate an idea 'in here ' that is total fantasy when related to 'out
there' but found to be 'meaningful' from a SPECIES perspective, it can make
you feel good/bad etc and those are feelings and so not 'out there' (other
than other lifeforms who have adapted the same way).
> I see no problem with regarding the I-Ching or any other number of ancient
> (or modern) numerological or other kinds of systems reflecting elements of
> brain structure, and thus offering a reason why people find
> meaning in them.
> Where I see a problem is in trying to claim that because of this, such
> systems are therefore genuinely meaningful, or as meaningful as systems
> which make accurate associations between cause and effect, and
> make accurate
> predictions about external phenomena.
>
The I Ching etc can make general predictions about human interactions as
well as flesh-out ideas etc. The BIND-BOUND-BOND-BLEND sequence (An
observation that comes originally from the template ) DOES demonstrate a
predictive element in that it shows the paths to/from oneness; it shows the
steps that will occur regardless of level of analysis and so reflects a
FUNDAMENTAL pattern of development and so prediction. This does not mean
that once you start the sequence you will follow it through; from a persona
perspective you can develop within a particular bias; e.g. BINDING types but
within the types are BLEND positions which we instinctivly go for.
The analysis of the current middle east position was IMHO valid in that it
emphasised the current 'problem' which deals with BOUNDING, boundaries and
their establishment etc. That analysis was based on asking only three
GENERAL questions, no content required.
> A good example would be Tarot cards. Now, I've no idea if Tarot cards fit
> Chris' system or not, no doubt he'd say they do.
See, you too find it impossible to click on a link. Behind the tarot cards
are dichotomies and my research suggests a multi-tiered system of
categorisation based on the earth/air. fire/water dichotomies (the latter
dichotomy being secondary to the former)
The actual use of tarot
> cards, however, is a mixture of cold-reading, and sleight of
> hand.
Currently, yes. As is the I Ching when used other than the way I propose.
All of these systems are seen as 'independent' forms, and as such we 'react'
to them. If you use the template to become PROACTIVE then things change, you
CAN get useful information out of these systems since they REFLECT
you/us/the species (and, if the internalisation concept is valid then by
implication these systems CAN reflect 'out there').
As long as you try to treat the I Ching or Tarot etc literally then you will
have problems; see them as metaphors and things change.
In other
> words, meaning for people doesn't come from some innate structure in their
> brain that is reflected by the cards, but by the card readers' ability to
> fix the cards to come out in a pattern that fits the information they have
> extracted from the subject in other ways.
For sure. Most have no idea what they are dealing with; they have
intuitively picked-up patterns and use them heuristically and when you move
into these areas, colourful metaphors, so you move into SECONDARY thinking
where, since it is more sourced in the space in-between the objects --
relational space -- you can find meanings that do not exist! In the
relational world 'all is meaningful' since from a neurological position this
world is harmonics biased and so assumes a 'truth' in that the objects, the
fundamentals, are 'valid'.
But then model building does that; our brain allows us to create whatever we
like (using dichotomisations to structure the models) and then FEEDBACK
determines whether the model is 'true' or not. But personal/cultural truths
are not necessarily universal truths.
If I go to a Tarot reading it acts to reflect myself. Another person acting
as interpretor is the same as using the I Ching where you toss coins etc to
create hexagrams; you use 'randomness' as a tool to give you an insight that
you may have overlooked in self-analysis.
The template shows that whenever you make a distinction, an identification,
the template opens-up to be filled-in. Thus for ANY distinction the FULL set
of hexagrams, the FULL set of Tarot cards are present in that they are ALL
aspects of a distinction and you will find 'meaning' to varying degrees in
ALL of the cards, hexagrams etc etc. The emphasis is on VARYING degrees
where ONE of the cards/hexagrams will in some way strongly resonate with a
given moment, it becomes a fundamental, and the rest become harmonics.
Imagine the cards or heaxagrams forming an ordered set with the
qualitatively most preferred at the front and its opposite at the end. In
between these are all of the others and the front card acts as a primary, a
fundamental, and the others act as harmonics.
NO-ONE has done what I have done which is to look behind these seemingly
'rubbish' systems and discover that in principle, when used 'correctly',they
can work since at the general level they have the SAME roots as mathematics,
logic etc etc i.e. recursive dichotomisations. These ancient systems stay
around because people intuitively 'feel' that root. These systems are
'unrefined' when it comes to the quantitative precision of maths etc but
qualitatively they will continue to work and are easier to communicate than
abstract mathematics.
Rather than glibbly write them off, study them and with the aid of the
template you will be able to 'see' their 'truth'. :-) (there is an 'old'
essay on this "The Logic of the Esoteric" see
http://www.ozemail.com.au/~ddiamond/esoter.html where you can see how the
expressions have changed over time but the underlying patterns have not,
thus Astrology which is 12 sign shows its roots in a 4-8 pattern. Tarot
shows in layered approach of Major Arcana and a split in minor arcana
between numbered cards and court cards etc)
Indeed, for the particularly
> unscrupulous card reader, and the particularly gullible subject,
> the reader
> doesn't even have to stack the deck, as they can make up the
> meaning of the
> cards as they see fit- the best one being that the 'death' card doesn't
> necessarily mean death. The subject doesn't care what's going on
> as long as
> the reader gives them the illusion of control over their future, which is
> what people want.
Sure, and that is the problem in that these systems are taken literally and
taught as if something 'out there' that is independent of us. They are not
and my work demonstrates this.
(Another example would be people who walk on hot coals
> with the aim of beating terminal diseases- it's the illusion of control
> again, this time fostered by the incorrect notion that walking on
> hot coals
> shouldn't be possible so if you can do that you can take control
> of things
> like cancer).
>
Tony Robbins used to use this to demonstrate the power of mind over body..
but perhaps he did some studies on body physics first where your approach
can lead to a short term 'barrier' between hot coals and flesh -- (sweat?
cant recall but the physics has been looked at). Overall the emphasis is on
faith in yourself and that HAS been shown to be of benefit when you are sick
in that it shifts your behaviour; e.g. you dont get angry/depressed but
remain positive and keep taking the tablets and -- voila - you are 'well'
:-)
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 : Mon Jul 24 2000 - 20:54:26 BST