Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id HAA24125 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Wed, 13 Dec 2000 07:34:51 GMT Message-Id: <200012130731.CAA17413@mail2.lig.bellsouth.net> From: "Joe E. Dees" <joedees@bellsouth.net> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 01:36:47 -0600 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: The Unbreachable Barrier X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.01b) Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
Chris Lofting keeps insisting that the totality of irreduceably
triadic systems should count on the same basis as any
constituent element of those systems. Thus, by his pseudologic,
the system of signification should count alongside sign, signifier,
and signified, the system of conception should count alongside
conceiver, conceiving, and conceived, the system of perception
should count alongside perceiver, perceiving and perceived, the
system of vision visual input should count alongside color,
brightness and shape, the system of auditory input should count
alongside pitch, loudness and timbre, the perceptual field as a
whole should count alongside focus, field and fringe, etc., the
complexure of experience should count alongside mind, world and
perception generally, all as if a whole could be counted as if ir were
one of the parts, committing an egregious category error and
violating a cardinal concept of mereology (the philisophy of wholes
and parts), all in the service of giving him his all-important fourth
constituent. However, his problem is more basic, and more lethal
(if such a thing were possible) than even this. In specifically and
irreduceably dyadic systems, such as being and becoming, rest
and motion, presence and absence, self and other, living and dead,
even sameness and difference, he would of necessity have to, in
order to be self-consistent, include the systems which these dyads
comprise in his counts, yielding (gasp!) THREE! He cannot have
his cake and eat it too. There can be no rational reason why the
whole has to be counted alongside its parts in triadic systems at
the same time that such a device is forbidden in dyadic ones.
Either such a device is mandated in both triads and dyads or it is
forbidden in either. This insoluble conundrum is the unclimbable
logical mountain; the barrier which his methodology cannot breach,
and which consigns his assertions to the realms of either logical
error and mistake or reductio ad absurdums them into
nonsensicality. There is no room to wriggle between the Scylla
and Charybdis horns of this fatal dilemma. Game over. Q.E.D.
===============================================================
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 Dec 13 2000 - 07:36:16 GMT