Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id JAA02558 (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 09:03:53 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: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 20:11:41 +1100 Message-ID: <LPBBICPHCJJBPJGHGMCIMENLCMAA.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: <200101181856.NAA25626@mail2.lig.bellsouth.net> Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 X-RBL-Warning: (orbs.dorkslayers.com) 203.2.192.82 is listed by dorkslayers.com 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 6:02
> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> Subject: RE: ....and the beat goes on and on and on...
>
>
> From: "Chris Lofting" <ddiamond@ozemail.com.au>
> To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
> Subject: RE: ....and the beat goes on and on and on...
> Date sent: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 18:50:36 +1100
> Send 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 :-)
> >
> As I said before, some systems are dyadic, some are triadic,
> some have other numbers of components. It is you who are biased
> to dyadicism; I am biased to no specific impositional quantity for
> structural components.
> >
> > 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.
> >
> No, you logical retard, WHAT IS NOT is present, WHAT COULDN'T
> HAVE BEEN is WHAT WAS NOT in the past, and WHAT COULD
> NOT BE is the WHAT IS NOT of the future.
tsk tsk, you still cant see it... I will try again:
my distinctions:
WHAT IS NOT deals with the present.
WHAT COULD HAVE BEEN deals with potentials in a past experience.
WHAT COULD BE deals with potentials in a future experience.
Very simple.
Your distinctions:
WHAT COULDN'T HAVE BEEN deals with applying GENERAL as well as particular
limitations on the potentials in a past experience and so is restrictive. It
lacks the FREEDOM of "WHAT COULD HAVE BEEN". In any model of behaviour you
have to allows for the experiences of the miraculous, the 'child' mind
(found in fundamentalists etc as well as children). Your term is too
restrictive to allow for this. Too anal. :-)
You CANNOT use the term "MAY" since it is associated with permission, a
social emphasis and that is too 'thirdness' from an originating perspective.
Your neurology is stimulus/response, socialisation allows for discernment
and so the development of a 'MAY' emphasis where we move past the
stimulus/response into stimulus/considered_response and then back to
stimulus/response in the form of habits as well as more choices in a
behaviour. That choice reflects 'MAY' which points to it coming LATER (as I
emphasised).
You do not START with permission (as sociopaths, psychopaths know) and I
think there is the 'fault' in your logic. You are trying to 'live' a
thirdness perspective without going up and down the hierarchy :-) Too
'reasonable', too anal in that any model of brain etc must have scope to
include anomolies and Mmy model does have this allowance. Yours does not
since it is too thirdness biased. There is no problem with that as long as
you stay in the 'consensus' context you are in but that staying will also
introduce feedback loops that ingrain you more with the context and in doing
so 'fog' your vision. :-) That is not a criticism, that is a fact and I am
sure you are aware of such facts -- the choice of whether you adapt or
innovate is up to you :-)
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 - 09:06:13 GMT