Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id DAA17557 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Mon, 11 Dec 2000 03:53:14 GMT Message-Id: <200012110350.WAA14363@mail5.lig.bellsouth.net> From: "Joe E. Dees" <joedees@bellsouth.net> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 21:55:29 -0600 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: RE: virus: Psychological Profile of Hall, Pt. I In-reply-to: <LPBBICPHCJJBPJGHGMCIIEILCLAA.ddiamond@ozemail.com.au> References: <200012092013.PAA11680@mail3.lig.bellsouth.net> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.01b) Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
From: "Chris Lofting" <ddiamond@ozemail.com.au>
To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
Subject: RE: virus: Psychological Profile of Hall
Date sent: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 23:45:44 +1100
Send 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)
>
Once again, in all three cases, fallaciously equating an entire
system with each of its constituent components, in order to
illegitimately derive your Holy Four. It's like saying a hydrogen
atom is composed of a proton, an electron, and an atom. In
philosophy, this is known as a category error; the particular field in
which it is most unequivocally pointed out is the discipline of
mereology (the philosophy of wholes and parts). Everyone
understands these simple points but you, who willfully refuse to do
so. The same for the other examples given, which prove my point,
not yours, and will never cease proving my point, rather than yours,
because, unlike you, I have a provable (and proven) point. But it is
useless corresponding with you; as I said before, and as you
interminably continue to prove, you are a zombic memebot, and
will not let logic, facts or evidence deter you from the mindless
proselytization of your precious beliefs.
>
> 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.
>
The simple fact is that in a system, the constituent components
RELATE to each other; they are neither polyfurcated, fragmented,
or otherwise nonrelational to each other, nor are they identical to,
seamlessly united with, or otherwise amorphously fused with each
other. You just cannot pull precise digital values out of a system;
they are complex and if they could even be assigned numerical
values, they most likely would be fractal. But such subtleties and
nuances are lost on the likes of you.
>
> 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 sound like nothing so much as a Scientologist. Left/right, in-
front-of/behind, above/below are a triad of dyads, comprising SIX,
just as are being/doing (one must be to do), knowing/saying (one
must know to say), and having/making (one must have to make),
but the latter can also be organized being/knowing/having
(passive/static) and doing/saying/making) (active/dynamic).
>
> 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.
>
Onece again, the mereological category error of conflating two
distinct classes. Say I havbe a cat, a collar, and a leash; three
things, right? No, you maintain that it is four things, counting the
cat-collar-leash system. But this is counting the constituents
TWICE; once in isolation, once in relation. Counting constituents
of a system cannot include counting the system as a whole as a
single constituent, but this is your continual error. Would you then
maintain that positive-negative, being-becoming, and other dyads
should have the dual system counted separately, yielding THREE?
Of course not; you only introduce your error when it serves your
purpose, while I point out that there are irreduceably dyadic AND
irreduceably triadic AND irreduceably nondyadic aand nontriadic
polysystems to be found. You try to make your part the whole
generally, which is perhaps why you are so prone to commit the
error of equating wholes and parts.
===============================================================
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 : Mon Dec 11 2000 - 03:56:21 GMT