RE: ....and the beat goes on and on and on...

From: Chris Lofting (ddiamond@ozemail.com.au)
Date: Thu Jan 18 2001 - 08:06:34 GMT

  • Next message: Robin Faichney: "Re: DNA Culture .... Trivia?"

    Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id HAA26657 (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 07:58:52 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 19:06:34 +1100
    Message-ID: <LPBBICPHCJJBPJGHGMCIGEMJCMAA.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: <005701c080c7$16be6e80$e502bed4@default>
    Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk
    Precedence: bulk
    Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    

    Hi Kenneth, Gerry, et al,

    Kenneth, your comments re the speed of light as a variable rather than
    constant reflects
    my very point re methodology, as does Gerry's outline of the wave/particle
    debate in Physics.

    Classical methods favour eternal concepts, as in
    the speed of light. When we 'keep looking' so classical will eventually
    change
    into non-classical where there is an increase in context sensitivity and so
    the
    universal constants are deemed to vary in different contexts. (What is
    noteworthy is that if the constant is a fundamental part of our mapmaking
    then
    we will not notice changes since any change in the fundamental causes the
    whole
    mapping system to automatically adjust to conform to the fundamental
    paradigm!)

    The point is that the METHOD of analysis guarantees you will follow the
    path,
    from classical to non-classical. Out of the non-classical can emerge
    classicals,
    'new' constants that someone somewhere will question eventually applying
    more
    non-classical analysis.

    The classical and non-classical perspectives develop out of a general
    methodology our species uses to identify and so establish meaning. These
    perspectives have properties and we often confuse these properties with what
    we
    are studying.

    For example, within the classical perspective we will insist that 'X is a
    particle' and 'Y is a wave'. We will then even allow for 'no..mistake... X
    is a
    wave' but we will NOT allow 'X is both particle and wave'.

    When we move to a non-classical perspective, where we spend more time
    reviewing
    the relationships of X to context, both local and non-local, then we find
    that,
    *depending on context*, X will be seen as either a particle or a wave or
    something oscillating between the two 'fundamental' distinctions. That
    context
    includes artifical ones created by us as part of the experimentation
    process.

    As we move more and more into non-classical perspectives so we see an
    increase
    in the use of statistical analysis, wave emphasis, and even particle
    differences
    within the same class -- e.g. the 'consciousness' in each photon! (gets into
    such concepts as pan-psychism). Note that it is a non-classical perspective
    that
    introduces these sorts of 'difference' concepts. In the 'purist' classical
    world
    so all photons are 'the same', all electrons are 'the same' and everything
    is
    mechanistic. In a species context this sameness is reflected in the concept
    of
    genes where context can allow for local differences in expression but
    underneath
    we are all the same.

    Move into non-classical perspectives and we can 'swap' genes with other
    species
    (e.g. jellyfish genes in a monkey). The emphasis here is that the change
    from
    classical to non-classical changes morality issues from rigid classical to
    more
    context sensitive, and so flexible, non-classical. IOW as we shift to
    non-classical so we shift to a more organic perspective and that perspective
    favours quick change, relativity, and so context sensitivity.

    In the context of memetics a gene view is a classical view (which within the
    discipline of genetics has camps that span the classical to non-classical
    approaches)

    A meme view is non-classical but has within the discipline of memetics the
    span
    from classical to non-classical approaches.

    from a sociological perspective, a classical view trusts noone, the trust
    emphasis is on yourself. The non-classical view has dependencies and so
    forces a
    'trust others' perspective. Note in this the links, in classical linkage is
    within, self-contained, like a species/gene. This is a Darwinian approach
    that
    works classically and yet within Darwinist camps emerge non-classical
    perspectives.

    The Lamarckian approach is non-classical in that the linkage emphasis is
    other-contained, it is the relationships with other species that are
    reflected
    in evolution and this is a more dynamic, as well as more context sensitive,
    emphasis than the classical perspective.

    These days we are entangling these perspectives where we now see genes in a
    non-classical way but still with classical influences, we emphasise the gene
    as
    'eternal', there is a 'core' element around which variations form. As you
    move
    more to non-local perspectives even the absoluteness of the gene dissapears
    and
    the word 'gene' points not to a thing but to a group of relationships,
    strange
    attractor if you will, where various relational processes are attracted to a
    point where there is nothing -- a bit like a hurricane where there is an
    'eye'
    :-)

    The distinctions of classical vs non-classical are abstracted to that of A
    vs ~A
    and that forms a fundamental dichotomy structure that is then applied
    recursively to give 'inbetween' states.

    It is this process that is fundamental (!) to our species as a method of
    indentification (classical EITHER/OR emphasis, WHAT IS, precision) and
    RE-identification (non-classical, BOTH/AND emphasis, WHAT COULD BE,
    approximations).

    The dynamics is in the oscillations of our brains across these two
    fundamental
    distinctions and out of that process comes mind and all other X-otomies.

    best,

    Chris.

    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk [mailto:fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk]On Behalf
    > Of Kenneth Van Oost
    > Sent: Thursday, 18 January 2001 7:50
    > To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    > Subject: Re: ....and the beat goes on and on and on...
    >
    >
    > Hi there,
    >
    > Hi Chris...
    > Just interupting things here,
    > About the speed of light....
    >
    > Last details about that state it clear that the speed of light is not a
    > constant
    > ( anymore).
    > Einstein formulated his Cosmoslogical- Constant- concept of which he
    > thought it was completely wrong.
    > Nowadays, scientists are picking up back the idea to proove that the
    > universe is expanding. That is, new evidence shows that the speed with
    > which stars are moving away from us, is faster in the outskirts
    > of the uni-
    > verse than it is ' here '.
    > This means that the universe is far more greater than exepted because
    > the light from so far away has not yet reached us.
    > This theory also claims that they can explain how the universe came into
    > existence.
    >
    > Regards,
    >
    > Kenneth
    >
    > ----- Original Message -----
    > From: Vincent Campbell <v.p.campbell@stir.ac.uk>
    > To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
    > Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2001 12:32 PM
    > Subject: RE: ....and the beat goes on and on and on...
    >
    >
    > > <Thus in the world of classical physics a particle is a particle and
    > > a wave
    > > > is a wave; one cannot suddenly become the other, these concepts do not
    > > > share
    > > > the same space.>
    > > >
    > > Don't take this as encouragement, but isn't light both a wave and a
    > > particle?
    > >
    > > By the way, that reminds me that you never answered that question
    > > about the invariability of the speed of light.
    > >
    > > I can't help thinking that if you ever put any of this stuff up for
    > > publication in peer-reviewed journals, rather than self-published
    > websites,
    > > then people more expert than I would tear your paper house down.
    > >
    > > Vincent
    > >
    > > ===============================================================
    > > 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 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 - 08:00:29 GMT