Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id MAA04801 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Wed, 11 Oct 2000 12:31:54 +0100 From: "Chris Lofting" <ddiamond@ozemail.com.au> To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> Subject: RE: the conscious universe: subjectivity/objectivity of beliefs Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 22:33:40 +1000 Message-ID: <LPBBICPHCJJBPJGHGMCIIELGCJAA.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: <200010102219.SAA23978@mail4.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
we are working on the problem.... :-) Emotional resonance is the only way to
share the same space, figure out its structure and you can refine space
sharing.
BTW take within and between and mix them to take you beyond L (within) and G
(between)...
IF L is within then the emphasis is on the one and is local, self-contained.
IF G is between then the emphasis is on the many and is non-local,
others-contained.
Both are 'pure' interpretations and so contain a 'one' bias. Now mix.
How would you describe an L context within which operates a G?
How would you describe a G context within which operates an L?
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: Wednesday, 11 October 2000 8:24
> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> Subject: RE: the conscious universe: subjectivity/objectivity of beliefs
>
>
> From: "Chris Lofting" <ddiamond@ozemail.com.au>
> To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
> Subject: RE: the conscious universe:
> subjectivity/objectivity of beliefs
> Date sent: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 21:54:15 +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 Lawrence de Bivort
> > > Sent: Tuesday, 10 October 2000 1:32
> > > To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> > > Subject: Re: the conscious universe: subjectivity/objectivity
> of beliefs
> > >
> > >
> > > From: Joe E. Dees <joedees@bellsouth.net>
> > >
> > > Lawrence:
> > > > > The neural basis of ideas, I would suggest, is no more
> significant for
> > > memes
> > > > > than it is for non-memetic ideas, and so I find the
> neural elements of
> > > memes
> > > > > not particularly or intrinsically interesting when it comes
> > > to studying
> > > > > memes and their workings.
> > >
> > > Joe:
> > > > The difference is one of perspective - first-person vs.
> third-person -
> > > > upon the same phenomenon. My ideas are objective to me, as
> > > > they are objects of my mental attention/intention. That which is
> > > > called subjective is objective to the subject. There is no absolute
> > > > objectivity; only intersubjective agreement.
> > >
> > > Yes, agreed. In my classes, I use the term "subjective reality"
> > > to refer to
> > > the internal processes of perceiving, pattern-recognition,
> thinking and
> > > decision-making. This is as 'real' to the individual as anything,
> > > yet is so
> > > intensely idiosyncratic to that individual that it appears
> 'subjective' to
> > > observers of that individual. One of my interests is how, then,
> > > the observer
> > > can himself perceive and understand what is going on in
> another person's
> > > "subjective reality." We see each other through the lenses of our own
> > > "subjective realities."
> >
> > Not totally. there is underneath the species filter and that is
> > objects/relationships and so the mechanism to eventually understand each
> > other -- discover the metaphors used to particularise the
> > object/relationships patterns and you get communication that
> all members of
> > the species should be able to deal with regardless of local nuances.
> >
> We understand each other, to a degree, on this list, but absolutely
> understanding each other, or even ourselves, is an abstract ideal
> which can never be concretely realized; Peter cannot be Paul, and
> they are both ever-changing.
> >
> > 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 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 11 2000 - 12:33:26 BST