Re: The Unbreachable Barrier

From: Lawrence de Bivort (debivort@umd5.umd.edu)
Date: Wed Dec 13 2000 - 09:17:50 GMT

  • Next message: Joe E. Dees: "RE: The Unbreachable Barrier"

    Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id JAA24469 (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 09:24:38 GMT
    Message-ID: <001e01c064e5$92089be0$b463b8d0@default>
    From: "Lawrence de Bivort" <debivort@umd5.umd.edu>
    To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
    References: <LPBBICPHCJJBPJGHGMCIAEKBCLAA.ddiamond@ozemail.com.au>
    Subject: Re: The Unbreachable Barrier
    Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 04:17:50 -0500
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
    Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
    X-Priority: 3
    X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
    X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300
    X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
    Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk
    Precedence: bulk
    Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    

    Chris, are these distinction you are making related to G. Spencer Brown's
    'algebra' in any way? (LAWS OF FORM).

    - Lawrence

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: Chris Lofting <ddiamond@ozemail.com.au>
    To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
    Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2000 3:21 AM
    Subject: RE: The Unbreachable Barrier

    > ho humm .. when differentiating anything you focus on a particular, you
    make
    > a distinction and that process creates an initial distinction of ONE vs
    NOT
    > ONE aka MANY.
    >
    > The ONE is now the context within which you do further analysis. If you do
    > not retain this context then all that follows is 'meaningless'.
    >
    > Dichotomies, Trichotomies, X-otomies, as I have repeatedly stated both on
    > and offline to Dees come out of the MANY, the NOT ONE, ~A.
    >
    > It is here that we start to disect the ONE and the initial process means
    > applying the SAME method but now within the context of the ONE. IOW we
    > always retain a sense of the CONTEXT within which we are interpreting, the
    > universe of discourse within which we make A/~A cuts ad infinitum.
    >
    > This disection process can be seen in nature; consider light. WHITE light
    is
    > broken down into its harmonics, aka colours, and in doing so we find that
    > WITHIN THE CONTEXT of white light we have your TRIADIC format of
    > RED:GREEN:BLUE. But this is NOT the COMPLETE story since ANY context has
    its
    > negation as a harmonic. In light it is BLACK and this takes us into
    another
    > TRIAD, of cyan, magenta, and yellow (not 'precise' though, mixing them
    comes
    > out as a sort of muddy brown so we cheat and add a bit of black!)
    >
    > So we have:
    >
    > WHITE - RED, GREEN, BLUE
    > BLACK - CYAN, MAGENTA, YELLOW
    >
    > oow, look, 8 states to give a complete picture (!). Trying to work with
    > threes without any reference to the context is the realm of fantasy, of
    > dreams, illusions.
    >
    > The initial distinction is of WHITE/BLACK which is the same as A/~A except
    > that the MANY contains both negation as well as all harmonics. More
    > reflection is when we then look at HARMONICS from which emerges all else,
    > all of the 'chords' of colour as well as of music as well as of thought.
    > Harmonics analysis favours the use of wave analysis and probabilities, of
    > DYNAMIC processes; QUALITY is reflected in probabilities.
    >
    > The INITIAL distinction of a 1:many manifests the root DICHOTOMY we use in
    > the form of BIFURCATIONS where the 1 is constant and the many is variable.
    > In the realm of the variable, 2 comes before 3, 3 before 4 etc BUT the
    > development of the movement from 2-3-4 contains within it the process of
    > bifurcations something DEES has a problem with, as he has with dynamic
    > processes.
    > This process favours exponential developments.
    >
    > In the analysis of such triad biased individuals as Charles Pierce we find
    > that, working in a context of late 19th century thought, there is a lack
    in
    > precision, in consideration of DYNAMIC processes such that relationships
    etc
    > are not differentiated properly. Dees shows his bias when he emphasises a
    > 'whole and parts' perspective which is TOTALLY out of touch with analysis
    in
    > that EMERGENCE comes from the space INBETWEEN objects, a whole new realm
    of
    > study has emerged since the mid 19th century and it is time that we got
    more
    > involved with this work, which includes all of the oscillations etc I
    > referred to in my previous emails.
    >
    > Dees seems to be mentally 'stuck' in the 19th century whilst trying to
    > function in 20th-21st ...
    >
    > 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 archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Dec 13 2000 - 09:26:03 GMT