Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id LAA03231 (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 11:10:33 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 22:18:17 +1100 Message-ID: <LPBBICPHCJJBPJGHGMCIEENPCMAA.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: <200101190924.EAA06275@mail6.lig.bellsouth.net> 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
> -----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 8:22
> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> Subject: RE: ....and the beat goes on and on and on...
>
>
> I should know it is impossible to instruct the brainless (sigh), but I'll
> try again...
> WHAT IS NOT deals with what cannot happen in the present.
> WHAT COULD HAVE BEEN deals with what might have happened
> in the past.
> WHAT COULD BE deals with what might still happen in the future.
> As the first term, WHAT IS NOT, possesses a negative not found
> in WHAT COULD HAVE BEEN and WHAT COULD BE, they do
> not correlate as isomorphic expressions in differing time contexts;
> WHAT MAY or MIGHT (now) BE IS THEIR LOGICAL
> COMPLEMENT.
>
Oh is *THAT* what you are raving about, symmetry! 1:1 ness!. God, Joe took
you a while to get that across. Ok I get you now but you are sort of 'wrong'
:-) In my writing the emphasis of the NOT deals with an additional cognitive
process, namely the use of identifying something by its negation (if you go
through my material there is an emphasis on 1:many etc and cognitive
processes ..).
Hmm..I think the 'problem' in our communications is you try to come from a
more logical perspective (or assume mine is 'pure' logic) whereas in fact I
have always come from a cognitive perspective. (and so my emphasis on
neurology/senses etc 1:many etc etc etc, you try to work within, I work
across).
Logic is 'limited' in that it is highly localised; it is applied 'locally'
and then generalised (and we still experience the 'illogical' everyday :-))
Illogic, or the perception of it, is part of our being (leads to delusions,
illusions etc etc) and so a cognitive analysis is called for; apply logic
and you will find a logic of sorts in all disciplines but a cognitive
analysis shows you underlying links *across* disciplines (and so the ease in
which we make analogies etc).
For example, when dealing with such a categorisation as the MBTI, people
apply logic and use the I/E function as a fundamental. The logic of that is
fine as long as it is developed *within the discipline* (i.e. kept LOCAL).
When you *compare* disciplines from a cognitive perspective (and so the
expressions used to distinguish 'wholeness' from 'parts' etc) the logic is
'false' in that there is underlying cognitive pattern that links all of the
disciplines and that pattern 'changes' the logic, it points out categorical
errors (consider the 'logic' in electronics where the positive/negative
poles were named incorrectly once we understood electron flow etc but
retained their labels through a change in interpretation; cheaper than
changing all of the labels! Thus a positive end and a negative end favoured
a flow interpretation of negative to positive. Once we understood the
reality of things so the positive end has excess electrons and the flow is
positive to negative. Logic remained 'true' but did not pick up the 'error',
experimentation, and so cognition, did. The logic is too mechanistic,
reversable. Life isnt.)
If you look at my MBTI mappings, Mathematics mappings, I Ching mappings, etc
etc all to the object/relationships template, it is based on a cognitive
mapping since you cannot use a logical approach since WITHIN each discipline
there are categorical distortions that are 'ok' within the discipline but
step outside to look behind ALL disciplines and the cognitive patterns
emerges and serves to 'correct' logical distinctions (often caused by
confusing 1:1 ness with reality. The advantage of the I Ching symbolism is
yin/yang cover 1 as well as many).
In my categorisations of brain function etc my distinction of WHAT IS NOT,
reflects the MANY bias of this 'side' of perception, the bifurcation where
(a) the emphasis on 'pure' negation as in literally 'what is NOT' and (b)
the emphasis on a 'mixed' negation as in using shadows to identify the too
bright, too dark, or untangable, thus we use harmonics analysis (which are
NOT the thing) to aid us in understanding. We derive laws of logic (ISness)
from negation (De Morgan).
Cognitive processes like this share the same space, the 'right' brain
processing.... *Now* your frustrations make sense!
The moment you try to seek some sort of 1:1 bias you LOSE the 1:many bias
reflected at the cognitive level. You are trying to be precise, the 'one'.
Thus your attempted to make a MANY into a ONE to keep symmetry - but the
brain is NOT symmetrical, it is skewed with an emphasis on the particular,
the ONE on one 'side' and an emphasis on the general, the MANY on the other
'side' (speaking generally of course, genetic diversity adds some flavours).
I can see where the problem is, you assumed that WHAT IS NOT was pure
negation etc no it isnt (!) the term captures the TWO perspectives where
there is a hidden positive, what is NOT does not just oppose what IS, it
also complements what IS. Your emphasis on dichotomies as oppositional is
causing some problems (look at the definitions given in
http://www.ozemail.com.au/~ddiamond/dicho.html ) you are being too
archetypal, too 'pure', get into cognition and witness the differences, the
typal, the MIXING.
I have read the rest of the email, but it reflects an error in
categorisation about me and my work approach etc so I ignore it. :-)
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 archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jan 19 2001 - 11:12:11 GMT