Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id HAA26574 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Thu, 18 Jan 2001 07:42:51 GMT From: "Chris Lofting" <ddiamond@ozemail.com.au> To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> Subject: RE: ....and the beat goes on and on and on... Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 18:50:36 +1100 Message-ID: <LPBBICPHCJJBPJGHGMCICEMICMAA.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) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <200101171340.IAA22258@mail3.lig.bellsouth.net> 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: Thursday, 18 January 2001 12:46
> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> Subject: Re:....and the beat goes on and on and on...
>
>
> Chris asserted:
> >
>
> >The shift in focus takes us away from the 'thing' and more to the
> >space
> '>outside', to relational space and this naturally shifts emphasis to
> >WHAT IS
> >NOT, WHAT COULD HAVE BEEN, WHAT COULD BE.
>
> Wouldn't this be WHAT IS NOT, WHAT COULDN'T HAVE BEEN,
> WHAT COULD NOT BE, where the complement to WHAT COULD
> HAVE BEEN and WHAT COULD (in the future) BE would be
> WHAT MAY (now) BE? Of COURSE it would logically be so.
>
Hi Joe,
Interesting points showing your bias to thirdness :-)
WHAT IS NOT relates to NOW.
WHAT COULD HAVE BEEN relates to a fantasy past as compared to WHAT WAS that
relates to a 'factual' past. The term WHAT COULDN'T HAVE BEEN relates more
to considering an expression within a set of rules and so not as 'free' as
WHAT COULD HAVE BEEN. IF you like we can split these into a pair:
what could have been = positive/neutral/negative interpretation of a past
event, potentials, a forward limitless perspective.
what could not have been = strongly neutral/negative interpretation of past
event, you are adding rules and regulations and so impose a limit. The
positive angle is reachable only in a roundabout way.
Thus the difference you introduce reflects your thirdness level where we
deal with rules, regulations etc and so can block fantasy. My point is that
full expression demands that we include fantasy; the minds of humans are not
all tied to logic you know, and there are many out there who 'lack' social
skills or prefer to abuse society.
Your use of the term 'MAY' implies permission; again you are coming from a
thirdness position where discernment plays a factor but my emphasis is again
on reflection without limitation. Thus what COULD BE reflects whatever you
are capable of thinking, whereas MAY imposes restrictions.
Your distinctions are not valid in the context of unbridaled expression
which is what the 'raw' brain is capable of.
Your distinctions are valid as add-ons in a cultural setting where the
culture acts to constrain, to impose identity from without. They reflect a
bias to working from the negative, by what something is NOT and so
identification is implicit. This is a very 'right brained' perspective,
nothing wrong (!) with it other than you start too far up the tree and so
miss behavioural properties acquired in firstness, secondness.
best,
Chris.
------------------
Chris Lofting
websites:
http://www.eisa.net.au/~lofting
http://www.ozemail.com.au/~ddiamond
List Owner: http://www.egroups.com/group/semiosis
>
> ===============================================================
> 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 : Thu Jan 18 2001 - 07:44:28 GMT