Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id JAA24585 (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 09:41:57 GMT Message-Id: <200012130939.EAA01383@mail3.lig.bellsouth.net> From: "Joe E. Dees" <joedees@bellsouth.net> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 03:44:19 -0600 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: RE: The Unbreachable Barrier In-reply-to: <LPBBICPHCJJBPJGHGMCIAEKBCLAA.ddiamond@ozemail.com.au> References: <200012130731.CAA17413@mail2.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: The Unbreachable Barrier
Date sent: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 19:21:10 +1100
Send reply to: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> 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!)
>
Typical of you.
>
> 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.
>
Left, right, forward, backward, above, below, here. And the eighth
term? There ain't one. Oh, yeah. The System, which you can't
add to your precious dyads, but which you Must add to all triads.
Reet, Reet, Error, Error, self-contradiction, fallacy.
>
> 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 ...
>
Voluminous verbiage cannot conceal an irresolveable self-
contradiction. triads must be added to, dyads must not be. Pitiful,
pathetic, failed and futile. Not to mention illogical, unreasonable,
irrational, nonsensical and absurd. There would have to be a third
added to the one-many system (which is a true dyad) to justify the
mereological violence attempted against the numreous
irreconcileable triads i have previously enumreated. Anyone can
understand such error, but only the true believer cannot adhere to
such. Farce over. Travesty over. I need not correspond with you
any further, and neither does any other reasoning human being on
this list.
>
> 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 - 09:43:46 GMT