Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id LAA24682 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Tue, 3 Oct 2000 11:32:24 +0100 From: "Chris Lofting" <ddiamond@ozemail.com.au> To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> Subject: RE: the conscious universe Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 21:33:58 +1000 Message-ID: <LPBBICPHCJJBPJGHGMCIEEICCJAA.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: <200010030038.UAA28052@mail6.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: Tuesday, 3 October 2000 10:43
> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> Subject: RE: the conscious universe
>
<snip>
> > Joe is talking from an internal linkage perspective, object
> bias, sometimes
> > too rigid (and he still has not replied to my comments re the article he
> > wrote, on-line he tries to be 'robust' and offline he runs, tsk
> tsk Joe!)
> >
> You did not write anything worth a reply. You claimed that
> everything in my article had to do with dyads, but there were tools,
> language and text (one triad), the three passivities of being, having
> and knowing (a second), and the three activities of doing, making
> and saying (a third). Obviously, you read with preconceptual
> blinders.
And you dont write with preconceptual blinders? sure Joe sure Joe... keep
taking the tablets..:-)
Not only are you the most shining and sterling example
> of the very same egomanaicality you purport to deplore.
The above sentence is not English Joe...but perhaps you didnt notice that in
your haste to respond to the stimulus! :-) (a comma perhaps? but then you
did capitalise the next word so it looks more like an error! shock horror
Joe, an ERROR! ooooooowwwwaaaahhh....)
> You can
> not even get out of your sad and simplistic pseudointellectual rut
> that EVERYTHING in the WHOLE WORLD is dyadic, even when
> presented with innumerable irreduceable triads, pentads, etc.
Here you are off the track, probably as an attempt to promote yourself. I
have repeatedly stated (both on and off line to you) that the 'many' is the
world of X-otomies and these all emerge from the method of analysis which
moves from one to two and on. Thus all of the X-otomies are contained within
these initial distinctions, you do not START with 3 which is what you push.
I do
> not deny the existence of dyadic relations, but simply point out
> that they do not comprise all systemic interrelations; you feel
> compelled to deny all BUT dyadic relations, even in the face of
> irrefuteable examples.
Go back and read the emails again as well as my websites, I emphasise a
1:many process along the lines of bifurcations (which is were the term
dichotomy means branching and so 1:many, as compared to the 'rigid' 50/50
perseptive we find in 1:1 mapping; if you bothered to read you would have
understood that.). I emphasise the ROOTS of all else in our method of
analysis and that moves from 1 to 2 to 3 etc but these are aspects of 1 and
they do not come out of nowhere. Our METHOD determines the path and that is
the recursive application of the 1:many dichotomy (NOT 1:1 which you seem to
favour).
Peirce's perspective, Freud's perspective, Lacan etc etc follow the 1-2-3
and in doing so FAIL to see the process is more 1-2-4 as shown in the 4
methods of interpretation of quantum mechanics (Feynman, Schrodinger,
Heisenberg, and Dirac). The emergence is demonstrated in that from the
template work you can trace the methods backwards such that the two 'root'
forms are Feynmans and Diracs and they are 'opposite' in that you cannot go
from one to the other. The only way is when you take this basic dichotomy
and apply it to itself and from that emerges Schrodingers method as well as
Heisenberg and it is THESE that you have to use to map from Dirac to Feynman
and visa versa.
Popper has made a similar 'error' in his three worlds model (Popper felt
that Peirce was the closest person to his model) although recognising that
within world three so one and two are repeated, the bifurcations at work.
For Popper you must have a hypothesis and so something negatable. This
sources his perspective in secondness-thirdness etc but this means you must
have a SINGLE context to do Science but that context is DYADIC to start
with, you cannot start with inductive processes, but genetics, evolution
DOES, to genetics there is no such thing as 'negation'. Thus Popper's
arguement restricts Science to Fourier Transforms that try to get as close
as possible to the 'square' wave of 'certainty' which at the fundamental
level has no expression of its negation -- it comes down to faith. :-) (The
restriction is like axiomatic set theory, trying to get away from those
horrible logical inconsistancies! yuk!) This 'faith' was the 'problem' that
Popper found with induction.
You have faith Joe, in Science just as others have faith in there 'gods'.
From a strictly interpretive context based on feelings of *meaning* your
perspective is no superior or inferior to that of others in that they as you
make a living, they SURVIVE and PROSPER and that is what evolution is all
about. What 'causes' the survival? To some it is science, to others it is
god, to others it is the current drug they 'live' for.
The dichotomisations emerge in that once you have a context, your
hypothesis, so you use the abduction/deduction loop to validate it. There is
no trichotomy at this level, X-otomies can emerge but are not expressed at
this initial stage. Keep going and you move off into X-otomy land -- the
many.
The path from syntax to semiotics to pragamatics is one of bifurcations
where the 'thirdness' level, the pragamatics level, in fact manifests FOUR+
interpretations, as a whole, as a part, as a static relationship, as a
dynamic relationship. You can interprete ANY hypothesis from this
perspective (and then add ITS negations and move to 8) and in doing so you
get FOUR biases, as we find in quantum mechanics or the four elements used
in various typologies etc.
You need to move on Joe. Sometimes you show a 'spark' of intelligence --
time to grow up and use it.
You already took this sad tale to the JCS
> list and had it destriyed there while I silently watched; having failed
> in that venue, are you now priming for a second run at this one?
I have no record of any 'fail' Joe, this is more like you using whatever you
can to try and throw shit! :-) typical. The last correspondence I had on the
JCS was very positive but you probably deleted it as it could 'disturb' your
little world :-)
> >
> > Joe's emphasis on 'empirical facts' denies humanity. He shows a
> preference
> > for objects over people and so a dislike for illusions, not
> realising that
> > the whole of social structure is based on illusions -- they are
> 'fun'. Joe
> > wants it all 'perfectly clear' and is in that sense doomed in
> his struggle
> > for determining meaning since meaning includes lies and so 'fuzzyness';
> > random events can generate generations of 'meaning'!
> >
> You need to work (a lot) on the armchair psychologizing; you are
> extremely poor at it.
then you obviously cant tell when your buttons are being pushed! :-) Cool,
that means I am REALLY good!
> In fact, I make distinctions between the world
> of meaning and the world of being, and point out that semiotics is
> the structural view of the meaning-relation, whereas memetics is
> the functional view. Memetic analysis will as a result be fuzzier, as
> is Piaget's genetic epistemology, because it is looking at the
> functioning of a phenomenon in motion, while semiotics, like
> phenomenology, can give one a clear structural static snapshot,
> but cannot represent evolutionary development. They are thus
> complementary disciplines; each offering what the other cannot to
> the total picture (which itself must remain incomplete), kinda like
> particle and wave measurements in physics.
But particles and waves come from the method of analysis Joe and so your
link is not 'out there', it is a result of the method based 'in here'. If
you think modern physics is 'hard science' you are mistaken since the moment
you take on Popper's 'need' for negation you move into subjective areas.
As for Piaget. yeh sure Joe. You need to get out of your current
interpretation mode, getting out of date...
These two disciplines
> will never achieve the status of the hard sciences; they may be
> viewed as either complementary soft, or social, science
> perspectives, embodying similar explanatory principles to
> those found in much theory present in political science and
> economics, or as complementary philosophical stances.
Really. You would be surprised how easy it is to set a context and get
people to react :-) The context can be specific, well constructed such that
you can predict the behaviour of any person put in that context. Even you
Joe :-) Stimulus/Response. A bit of reflection move us to
Stimulus/Considered Response and then with some work we move back to
Stimulus/Response in the form of habits. Habits for Peirce was thirdness but
it is more the development is third, the expression is back to firstness.
> Philosophical description is the art of carving reality at its natural
> joints, but depending upon where one stands in relation to that
> reality, different sets of natural joints will emerge to view.
>
Current philosophical description is crap. Two thousand years behind the
times Joe. Dead. It is being re-written but obviously you are missing that
being so entrenched in your interpretive context!
Burn all of your philosophy books Joe. Look at the neurosciences and start
again. Break free of your history for a moment and see with 'new' eyes --
like Zen! Yes you will find 'the same patterns' but you will also find
interpretations that are more 'efficient' :-)
We all need to grow up Joe, time to get off your, our, arse(s), stop playing
around and get serious and that means breaking free -- very uncomfortable at
first but I am sure you can deal with it and it is far better than all of
this shit you fling; or is it sand? did you like to 'control' the sandbox as
a kid? Like to keep things to yourself -- avarice is not just restricted to
money, it is also expression in keeping 'hidden' or 'secret' knowledge as a
way of establishing meaning and identity, of feeling 'special'....
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 : Tue Oct 03 2000 - 11:34:05 BST