Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id LAA03453 (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 11:40:45 GMT Message-ID: <010f01c0820c$2d4e52a0$5eaefea9@cable.rcn.com> From: "Aaron Agassi" <agassi@erols.com> To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> References: <LPBBICPHCJJBPJGHGMCIEENPCMAA.ddiamond@ozemail.com.au> Subject: Re: ....and the beat goes on and on and on... Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 06:37:17 -0500 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris Lofting" <ddiamond@ozemail.com.au>
To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
Sent: Friday, January 19, 2001 6:18 AM
Subject: RE: ....and the beat goes on and on and on...
>
>
> > -----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 ..).
>
I see no contradiction between Joe E. Dees' Ontological statement and Chris
Lofting's cognitive hypothesis.
Unless, of course, Chris Lofting is Post modern, or at least
Presentationalist, and denying, or just putting aside, Ontology.
> 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).
>
In that case, are you making any Ontological statement, Chris Lofting?
> 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).
Some may still insist that the operations of the outside universe are, in
some way, limited by logic.
After all, there are things that we not only cannot conceive of, but that
actually are impossible, and cannot be or happen. To the best of our
knowledge, the proscription of contradiction evidently is more than merely a
paltry human brain itch, and, indeed, a Law of Nature.
The NeuroStructural model, and the territory mapped, remain distinct, no
matter how good the model.
>
> 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).
Should not resolution of such contradiction be the aim of broader Science?
>
> 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).
>
This seems an acceptable cognitive hypothesis.
But any equivalent Ontological question must remain distinct.
IS Buddha truly not this and not that, add infinitum? Or is that merely the
path of cognitive perception? Can a Physics of substantiality as the
sporadic failure of void actually be true?
> 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.
What do you mean "loose"? And how so? Where does it goes? And isn't it still
there?
>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).
Which one, specifically, is Joe "trying" to make out of what many, Chris?
>
> 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.
Until Chris brings his NeuroOperational generality back to Joe's particular
statement, Chris will neither be clear nor have made his point.
>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 - 11:42:23 GMT