Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id MAA00235 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Wed, 4 Oct 2000 12:15:51 +0100 From: "Chris Lofting" <ddiamond@ozemail.com.au> To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> Subject: RE: the conscious universe Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2000 22:17:06 +1000 Message-ID: <LPBBICPHCJJBPJGHGMCIIEIKCJAA.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: <20001003123446.AAA20096@camailp.harvard.edu@[128.103.125.215]> 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 Wade T.Smith
> Sent: Tuesday, 3 October 2000 10:35
> To: memetics list
> Subject: RE: the conscious universe
>
>
> On 10/03/00 07:34, Chris Lofting said this-
>
> >If you push hard enough you move into
> >relational space and you will take on Robin's perspective of 'all is
> >connected',
>
> I don't think any rational and somewhat learned person of this era would
> ever contend that all things _are not_ connected. I certainly don't, and
> I'm at the low ramp on the bell curve. In fact, I contend just the
> opposite, and make some insistence that all things are connected.
>
> I just don't go off the blind-sided end and claim all things are
> conscious, in the same way I look at the Gaia hypothesis with veiled
> amusement.
>
Sure, and that reveals another map, another interpretation, based on a more
'middle' position which in an evolutionary sense is the 'better' position in
that it is one where there are more choices, flexibility. It is the position
in the 'middle' of a dichotomy, which in a dynamics context oscillates
between the extremes and in doing so creates somthing 'else'.
The 'all is linked' bias is a bias of linkage BETWEEN species such that one
influences the other in development -- this is the world of Lamarck,
dynamic, proactive change but BEFORE these processes there exists a
Darwinian perspective of an emphasis of a specific species, all development
is WITHIN, reactive, slow. This latter perspective 'fits' a map that favours
discreteness, a very much opposition biased 'them vs us' perspective. The
Lamarckian perspective is more 'them and us', there is a perception of
cooperation and this comes from the method of analysis and need not be so.
From an 'in here' perspective there is an interpretive method that favours
the 'all is linked' as well as an interpretive method of 'all is discrete,
linkage is only WITHIN and not BETWEEN'. Out of these basics come composite
forms which can also serve as the ground for further interpretations.
All of our maps, no matter how much we talk, no matter how many words we
use, will fall within the object(discrete)/relationships(continuous)
context. As our technology and culture develop so we re-identify the
patterns to 'fit' the current context. The work of the neurosciences is
helping this along giving us more refined distinctions and in doing so
helping to clear away a lot of dust.
We can in fact zoom-in on the extreme perspectives and identify definite
behavioural characteristics that serve to 'attract' people of
'likemindedness' as well as repel others. Analysis of these general patterns
can be used as feedback to context setting to bring out traits as well as
'hide' other traits.
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 : Wed Oct 04 2000 - 12:18:53 BST