Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id NAA25029 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Tue, 28 Nov 2000 13:04:53 GMT From: "Chris Lofting" <ddiamond@ozemail.com.au> To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> Subject: RE: RE: Fwd: Thinking Like a Chimp Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 00:09:21 +1100 Message-ID: <LPBBICPHCJJBPJGHGMCIEEDJCLAA.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 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D3101745B45@inchna.stir.ac.uk> 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, 28 November 2000 1:28
> To: 'memetics@mmu.ac.uk'
> Subject: RE: RE: Fwd: Thinking Like a Chimp
>
>
> Well, I was going to mention the aptly named Fierce snake and the comb
> jellyfish, but the thought was just too scary!
>
> I didn't realise the Auzzie government was making the same mistake as the
> French and Chinese, in thinking they can control the internet.
> Interesting.
>
> You've got to get over this dichotomy-philia you have. Surely the
> point that
> much contemporary theory, even your theology-like idea, seems to
> point to is
> some level of relativism in human perception, thus making any claim to
> fundamentals pointless?
>
My emphasis is on the basics, the 'start' states and from the
complexity/chaos that comes from this emerges all else.
It does not matter what you make the particular context you use to interpret
you will instinctively 'cut' using 1:many dichotomisations; the moment you
particularise either in your head or through your mouth you form a 1:many
distinction and each development, in milliseconds or decades takes you into
a set of meanings that are pre-set. Note the 1:MANY, dont get confused with
seeing dichotomies as 1:1. Your BRAIN works using 1:Many distinctions. The
dichotomy-philia is 'in here' and nothing to do with me other than my
detailing analysis of the consequences of this to map making etc and the
creation of metaphors etc. and so meaning. All dimensions reflect
dichotomisations and it is with dimensions that we map the universe :-)
Relativism emerges out of these processes in that WHAT is an object and WHAT
is a relationship is a 50/50 call when you make the initial distinction.
Feedback will then seem to refine these distinctions but if you do NOT take
the initial distinction as 'end of story' then you are forced to move into
relativism in that 'deeper' analysis of the qualities of the original
distinction force you to apply the initial distinction to itself, you use
recursion in doing this.
Note that relativism in physics emerged from considering a LIMIT within the
interpretive context. IOW 'out there' there is no 'free for all', impose
limits and you FORCE context sensitivities. My point re physics etc is that
it reflects our implicit thinking, our brain at work, from rigid classical
to relativity to 'rigid' QM.
There is an element of illusion involved in that you think you are
'expanding', you are not, you are contracting, zooming-in on the 'thing'
making finer and finer distinctions (cuts) of the thing and in doing so
discovering a pre-determined set of general meanings that are associated
with the method of distinction making.
There is a path of development that moves from the ONE to the MANY and that
path is reflected in all of analysis, where 'classical' perspectives, very
ONE biased, concrete etc are 'thrashed' to a point where the natural
development will shift into a relativist position being necessary to resolve
some of the problems. Out of this emerges something 'new', in physics this
is QM where precise, 'one' biased, expressions include context sensitivites
and so 'probabilities' -- relativist concepts. QM thus reflects the
entanglement of classical and relativist physics but in doing so also
creates a context that supports expressions only possible in that context.
Classical perspectives are more object oriented, rigid EITHER/OR. As you
start to 'reflect' on what is BEHIND the different objects that seem to have
a shared set of 'rules' so you move more and more into contextual
sensitivity and that is a BRAIN based behaviour and is linked to dynamic
processes, space/time distortions, an emphasis on linkage BETWEEN DIFFERENT
objects etc etc
The neurological/psychological emphasis here is the exageration of aspects
to bring out or play down a particular aspect of something. This act FORCES
a shift from considering linkage WITHIN an object, its uniqueness, its
purity, to considering linkage BETWEEN objects and from that a consideration
of the grammar of things, the rules and regulations.
Even the distinction you make above of fundamentalist-absolute vs relativist
reflects the these processes. Your bias comes in your rejection of the
fundamentals but the point is that there ARE fundamental elements that
repeat at all scales no matter how complex and relative things seem to get.
That set of fundamentals is in the METHOD of analysis and they act to GROUND
all interpretations.
I think we can see in this the same analytical method and development
applicable to the concept of evolutionary theory where Darwin was more into
linkage within a species and Lamarck more into linkage between species. As
evolutionary theory developed so relativism (Lamarckian) was combined with a
'classical' Darwinian interpretation to become what it is today, a mixing of
concepts that contains ideas from both Darwin and Lamarck but has also gonee
beyond that due to these entanglements.
I think you need to be more wary of EXPRESSION vs BEHIND THE EXPRESSION. IF
you think 'it does not matter, relativism rules' you are wrong .. sort of
:-)
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 Nov 28 2000 - 13:07:29 GMT