Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id MAA16409 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Sun, 10 Dec 2000 12:40:42 GMT From: "Chris Lofting" <ddiamond@ozemail.com.au> To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> Subject: RE: virus: Psychological Profile of Hall Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 23:45:44 +1100 Message-ID: <LPBBICPHCJJBPJGHGMCIIEILCLAA.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: <200012092013.PAA11680@mail3.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: Sunday, 10 December 2000 7:19
> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> Subject: Re: virus: Psychological Profile of Hall
>
You still miss it:
The structure of signification requires a sign, a signifier,
> and a signified,
This is NOT threes this is FOURS:
Whole = concept of signification (a WHAT)
Part = A sign (gets into metonymy etc)
A signifier = a dynamic process (A doing)
A signified = a static process (A being done)
Whole = conception
Part = conceiver
Dynamic relationship = conceiving
Static relationship = conceived
Whole = perception
Part = perceiver
Dynamic relationship = perceiving
Static relationship = perceived
Further more these lack precision in that they leave-out at this level the
text/context, positive/negative, forground/background elements that take us
to EIGHTS:
e.g. concept of signification, interpreted AS A WHOLE, includes a
contractive perspective as well as an expansive perspective. IOW there are
elements of the WHOLE that remain associated with the concept and at these
levels of analysis are 'discrete'; not part of the other distinctions.
Concept of a sign includes the same dichotomy as does the concepts of
Dynamic and Static.
Thus perception, interpreted as a WHOLE, includes a contractive as well as
expansive emphasis.
The perceiver includes the same, as does the perceiving and the perceived.
IOW there are EIGHT modes of interpretation that serve as a basic set of
interpretive tools for identifying things.
With these eight we then 'mix' them together to give more complex modes of
interpretation etc
You seem to favour the triangular model without seeing the 'one' behind them
in that the WHOLE forms the single context, the root frame of reference
within which you identify your threes and as such forms FOURS.
If we work arse-about, from an analysis of DYNAMICS, then we note that the
brain works through oscillations (left-right-left-right, there are no threes
in this other than those that EMERGE from the process and so are derived..)
Our thinking processes involve taking the static BOTH/AND characteristics of
left brain and right brain being expressed at the same time and resolving
these statics into dynamic EITHER/OR states (which reflect 1:many
relationships abstracted to the concept of A/~A). We identify things, etc,
we particularise (and so seek EITHER/OR expressions) by working from a set
of potentials (aka the excluded middle we find in logic, what COULD be) that
exist in BOTH/ANDness and extracting one of those potentials, acualising it
(what IS or is interpreted as IS).
Mental experiences are derived from biases in the oscillations where over
time X we accumulate an so 'spend' more time in the 'right brain' than in
the 'left brain'. These oscillation processes and their affect on mental
states is well documented. From a philosophical/anthropological emphasis see
Gregory Bateson's "Mind and Nature" especially the last section discussing
form and process. From a more recent neurological perspective see the work
of Prof Jack Pedigrew at the University of Queensland and his research into
bi-polar disorders and hemispheric switching:
http://www.uq.edu.au/nuq/jack/jack.html
G Spencer-Brown's "Laws of Form" describes Spencer-Brown's indicative
calculus and the use of imaginary boolean values, required to describe
oscillations processes. (Spencer-Brown makes the point that "In ordinary
algebra, complex values are accepted as a matter of course, and the more
advanced techniques would be impossible without them. In Boolean algebra
(and thus, for example, in all our reasoning processes) we disallow them" (p
xiii "Laws of Form" 1972,1979 Dutton))
These concepts where extended by L H Kauffman and F J Varela in 1980 (see
"Form Dynamics" IN Journal of Social Biological Structures 1980 3, 171-206)
See also such websites as http://www.xenodochy.org/formal/ etc.
- 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 : Sun Dec 10 2000 - 12:42:06 GMT