Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id IAA02350 (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 08:42:06 GMT From: "Chris Lofting" <ddiamond@ozemail.com.au> To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> Subject: RE: Phonosemantics and parallels in the genome (and elsewhere) Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 19:49:41 +1100 Message-ID: <LPBBICPHCJJBPJGHGMCIAENLCMAA.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: <4a.10454215.279891f6@aol.com> Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 X-RBL-Warning: (orbs.dorkslayers.com) Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
other parallels -- http://www.ozemail.com.au/~ddiamond/dna.html
The parallels come from the METHOD of analysis. The METHOD EITHER developed
from the sensory dichotomies OR developed from the adaption of life to its
context and that includes internalising a 'map' that allows you to become
more proactive, shift from reactive to proactive development.
So either basic object/relationships distinctions emerged out of our senses,
primarily applyingh the audition(dot)/vision(field) dichotomy recursively or
else we internalised these distinctions such that they apply to all senses,
the internalisation reflecting object/relationships distinctions are
fundamental 'out there' ... so is the fermion(particle)/boson(wave)
dichotomy due to our sensory map-making or did that dichotomy dictate the
adaptions of all else?
Note that applying these dichotomies recursively leads to emergence of more
complex context in which to evolve. and so on and so on .. the beat goes on
.....
Chris.
------------------
Chris Lofting
websites:
http://www.eisa.net.au/~lofting
http://www.ozemail.com.au/~ddiamond
List Owner: http://www.egroups.com/group/semiosis
> -----Original Message-----
> From: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk [mailto:fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk]On Behalf
> Of Zylogy@aol.com
> Sent: Friday, 19 January 2001 5:38
> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> Cc: Zylogy@aol.com
> Subject: Phonosemantics and parallels in the genome (and elsewhere)
>
>
> I hope anyone who'd been following what I was talking about has
> had time to
> digest it. I'm not a one trick pony, though. Been finding that similar
> overall structural motifs seem to pervade material reality at different
> hierarchical levels of organization.
>
> For instance, there are different types of language- at one
> extreme we have
> the isolating/analytical type (isolating meaning that words are strictly
> separated from each other/analytical meaning that each word only
> contains one
> "thought" unalloyed). Chinese, to a certain extent, is or was
> like this (with
> historical complications). At the other extreme are
> fusional/synthetic types
> (like many Native American languages- fusional means words come
> all as one
> big piece- even to the level of entire sentences as single
> words/synthetic
> means that each piece in this big word consists of more than one
> "thought".
>
> Parallels in genetic structure are the split genes of higher eukaryotes
> (allowing all sorts of mix'n'match, like Chinese) on the one
> extreme, and the
> overlapping genes of many viruses, where there is NO freedom of
> movement in
> the form (parallel in the word-sentences of American languages, again no
> freedom).
>
> Agglutinating languages such as Turkish, Mongolian, Korean, etc.,
> where the
> forms are appositional strings, parallel the appositional gene sequences
> found in bacterial genomes. Functional serialization is found
> with both the
> language and genome organization, in that A leads to B leads to C, etc.
>
> Split genes need editing, but the introns so cut out may have
> housekeeping,
> tallying or even other functions which help compartmentalize the final
> product(s). Interestingly, Chinese and the other analytical/isolating
> languages appear to have historically embedded internal grammatical
> information. This often severely alters the surface form of the
> ancestrally
> reconstructed word root. My guess is that this is unconsciously
> snipped out
> (but used to construct the syntax and context), much as are the
> introns in
> the genes.
>
> As for the overlapping genes of viruses, one has to wonder how
> such overlap
> could have evolved, given the structural and functional
> constraints on the
> operation of the genes and their products. The same questions, of course,
> apply to synthetic, fusional languages- how can the mind "unzip"
> overlapping
> lexical and grammatical morphemes?
>
> Things don't happen unless they CAN, so obviously mechanisms must
> be in place
> at both levels of material reality to "shoehorn" the various
> parts and pieces
> into place and still allow for the orchestration of effector
> action on them.
> That of course leads one to suspect that the "standard parts"
> model is still
> valuable: Phonosemantics on the linguistic level, codon triplets
> and higher
> structural motifs in the genes (either for such things as hairpins in the
> nucleic acids, or helices and sheets in their products, not to
> mention such
> extra markings as chemical modification of both- there are grammatical
> parallels in language here as well).
>
> Long ago I read a paper on the chemical solubility of the side-chains of
> amino acid residues. Apparently the organization of the genetic
> code is far
> from random, as far as where chemical species are in the matrix, which of
> course depends on the codon sequence. But graphic representation isn't a
> fixed, forever given, and what you see on a page may NOT be the
> best way to
> represent a structure, though it might seem that way at first glance.
>
> The genetic code is usually represented graphically by a 64 "cubie" 3-D
> matrix, with each axis representing one of the four possible nucleic acid
> monomers. The convention is to lay out the order of each of these
> the SAME
> WAY on each axis, much as we would on any Cartesian coordinate
> system. What
> you get, because of the redundant coding, are full or half
> columns of most of
> the coded amino acids, and this of course has partial ordering re
> chemical
> affinity of the residue side chain (i.e. water or oil
> preferences). But I've
> found that by tinkering with the structure of the representation, to take
> into account the actual hydrogen bonding structure at the double-helix
> base-base interface (which side has N, O, and whether the base is
> single or
> double-ringed), that a motivated variation in the ordering of
> each cube axis
> is in order.
>
> And, kabam! When you do this, you end up with a graphic
> representation which
> not only takes into account the chemical solubilities of the
> amino acid side
> chains and places them SYMMETRICALLY on the cube (absent from the
> standard
> rep.), but also accounts for the lengths and end structure of the
> side chains
> as well (so ring, branch, straight segment, zero)- also laid out
> symmetrically. Wouldn't have worked, on the first try, if there wasn't a
> structural motivation for it. Even the stop, start signals end up
> symmetrically disposed (and though I haven't tried it yet, my
> guess is that
> even the slight variant codings found in different organisms will
> follow this
> principle of symmetrical organization). By the way, this might be a
> structural parallel to phonosemantics- which also deals with physical
> properties- just not literally.
>
> At the next lower level of reality, consider the periodic table of the
> elements- the way it is usually laid out (as if it were a city
> skyline). Just
> one of the myriad attempts- and the one that got adopted finally. The
> motivation was to keep the quantum number blocks together (s, p,
> d, f), while
> at the same time maintaining the connectivity of atomic number
> increase as
> best as possible. People thought the one we see is the best compromise.
>
> One variant that apparently missed (and lucky for me), drops all
> attempts to
> try to keep the quantum blocks connected, and creates a third
> dimension for
> the layout of each block in sequence. A physicist named Ted Turner (a
> different guy) thirty years ago calculated that the binding energy of the
> atomic nucleus wouldn't be able to hold that nucleus together after about
> element 120. And of course the synthetic efforts are stalled just
> shy of that
> number. Sci Fi is nice, but I doubt they'll get further.
>
> Interestingly, 120 is also just enough to fill out the s shell.
> And, bammo!
> another fascinating structural organization becomes apparent: Stopping at
> 120, one finds that the s shell is 8 rows deep (2 columns= 2
> electrons fill
> the shell), the p shell is 6 rows deep (6 across), the d is 4 deep (10
> across), and the f is 2 deep (14 across).
>
> Those of you interested in numeral series/sequences will not fail
> to notice
> that there is method to the madness: counting filled
> orbitals/electron pairs
> (and not singlets) in columns, and adding to the row depths, you
> always end
> up with 9. Atomic numerology! The boxes decline as 8, 6, 4, 2
> in depth for
> s, p, d, f while the orbitals increase 1, 3, 5, 7.
>
> Most specialists dealing with quantum chemistry will probably
> think this is
> trivial. But once you map out the graphic representation as I described
> above, you'll see that interesting things pop out of it. You end
> up with a
> tetrahedron. And that gives one a new and fun way to represent
> the table- a
> lot more interesting and easy to remember than the one we use today.
> Secondly, and more importantly, the tetrahedron is ordered.
> Keeping the boxes
> aligned the same as in the current rep. the left edge is about having too
> many electrons, so the tendency is to ionize to drop them, giving one a
> positive charge on the species. The right edge is about not
> enough electrons,
> so you get ionization grabbing more, giving a negative charge. No big
> discovery here, but it helps make everything nice and neat.
>
> Ah, but the top edge is about nuclei which tend to fuse, while the bottom
> edge is for those which tend to fission (with caveats about
> isotopes, which
> add a fourth dimension I haven't mapped yet). There are
> tendencies on the
> top edge for elements involved in living processes, and at the
> bottom those
> inimical to them (though it may be, if you follow the clay-based
> life-origins
> scenarios, the opposite may have originally been true- same with energy
> sources for them).
>
> And of course there's the well-known semi-metal diagonal on the p box.
> Others? Who can say. All I know is that the tetrahedral
> representation lets
> you see all this stuff sticking out nice and symmetrically, just as the
> modified cubic representation of the genetic code does for its
> domain. Just
> as the geometrical models of phonosemantics do for their level of reality.
>
> Finally- what about that last other famous tabular set of items- the
> fundamental particles? That can be reordered as well, bringing
> charge (on the
> y axis of the common representation) into seqence (0/3, 1/3, 2/3,
> 3/3). The x
> axis (electron, muon, tauon matter) needs work, though. Nature
> really, really
> likes pairing at the fundamental level (even when higher
> combinations might
> like odd numbers- but then on the other hand there's spin, but
> don't get me
> started). I predict that there should be a zero-mass column of matter
> paralleling the others. We never see it, for the same reason that
> we almost
> never see neutrinos. The stuff would have had no tendency to clump
> gravitationally, even though three of the species in the column
> would have
> charge. The last member, zero charge, zero mass- would be a lost
> cause. Cold,
> dark matter?? Anyway, enough for now.
>
> Jess Tauber
> zylogy@aol.com
>
> ===============================================================
> 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 : Fri Jan 19 2001 - 08:43:46 GMT