RE: DNA Culture .... Trivia?

From: Chris Lofting (ddiamond@ozemail.com.au)
Date: Fri Jan 19 2001 - 08:40:13 GMT

  • Next message: Chris Lofting: "RE: Phonosemantics and parallels in the genome (and elsewhere)"

    Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id IAA02265 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Fri, 19 Jan 2001 08:32:24 GMT
    From: "Chris Lofting" <ddiamond@ozemail.com.au>
    To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
    Subject: RE: DNA Culture .... Trivia?
    Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 19:40:13 +1100
    Message-ID: <LPBBICPHCJJBPJGHGMCIKENKCMAA.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)
    In-Reply-To: <200101181751.MAA11847@mail5.lig.bellsouth.net>
    Importance: Normal
    X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
    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: Friday, 19 January 2001 4:57
    > To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    > Subject: RE: DNA Culture .... Trivia?
    >
    >
    > Chris, you blithering idiot! An isolated meaning would be if there
    > were onlt one - say, there were a meaning for 'fork' unattached to
    > any other meanings, that is, any other symbol systems; a
    > language of one word! Such things are clearly impossible,
    > because words in a language have meanings due to the
    > relationships they have with things (oppositional, identical and
    > more-or-less similar) and the relationships they have with other
    > words in a symbol system which represent these other things
    > (Ferdinand de Saussure). You can't have a one-word language,
    > you can't have an isolated meaning, contextless signification is a
    > sheer impossibility.

    you see grasshopper, you are too stuck in thirdness, in LIMITATIONS! :-) You
    link meaning solely to words. Over 50% of communications (even internal) is
    non-verbal (you have been on the net too long! :-) get out more! stop
    talking to yourself! :-)) This limitation will stop your creativity in the
    area of innovations (using abduction you seem to not be able to go past the
    first text-context match you come to! Go past it, deeper :-)). You will have
    no problem with adaptions though.:-)

    The above that 'you cant have a one-word language' is false in that the
    applying of a dynamic to a single feeling allows me to create other meanings
    e.g.111 is different to 1111 etc) IOW the applying of dynamics to a single
    word allows for the emergence of meaning 'in here' and so totally isolated
    from 'out there'. Out if this one word language can emerge more words and so
    the dynamic forces emergence of DIFFERENCE from a world of SAMENESS. Have a
    look at the secret languages of identical twins etc. This said, there are
    cases of children who were raised 'wild' and as such have language problems
    (I think one famous story is about "Jenny",a girl imprisoned in a basement
    until she was discovered at age 12).

    Feed all of the basic 'single-word' expression back on itself and things get
    interesting -- that is if you can. For example the behaviour of autistics is
    similar to the behaviour of chicks in that they cannot clearly distinguish
    more than ONE object; the can sense MANY aspects of that object. IOW they
    are working in a sort of one word world but with lots of adjectives! :-)
    There are feedback problems here. Extend this into psychosis or those with
    severe physiological damage and it is possible for some being to have an
    'isolated' meaning.

    SO.. dont write all of this off to quickly :-) think a bit more rather than
    knee-jerk, especially in the neurology of memory etc in both autistics and
    chicks (Stephen Rose has done most of the work in the latter)...and language
    is not all words/sounds, neither is communication in general.

    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 archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jan 19 2001 - 08:34:05 GMT