Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id LAA03493 (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 11:43:46 GMT Message-Id: <200101191145.GAA01874@mail1.lig.bellsouth.net> From: "Joe E. Dees" <joedees@bellsouth.net> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 05:25:01 -0600 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: RE: ....and the beat goes on and on and on... In-reply-to: <LPBBICPHCJJBPJGHGMCIEENPCMAA.ddiamond@ozemail.com.au> References: <200101190924.EAA06275@mail6.lig.bellsouth.net> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.01b) Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
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: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 22:18:17 +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: 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).
>
I need read no further. Once you have renounced logic, you lose
the ability to argue for or against anything, since all argument
proceeds logically. I have long suspected you of knowing how
illogical and nonsensical you are; I never expected you to actually
admit same. However, now that you have rendered yourself
publicly unabledue to lack of logical tools, to distinguish truth from
falsehood, or to discern either validity or soundness, or the
absence of either, you are revealed to be absolutely useless to any
rational pursuits.
>
> 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).
>
You are intensely laughable as you mire yourself in blatant self-
contradiction attempting to argue logically that logic does not apply
to what you are attempting to argue about.
>
> 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.)
>
The fact that people commit logical errors does not convert them
into logical truth; this statement applies a forteriori in your case.
>
> 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).
>
De Morgan's Theorem is symbolized thusly:
~(p v q) = (~p + ~q)
~(p + q) = (~p v ~q)
What these mean in english is that not (either P or Q) is equivalent
to not P and not Q, and not (both P and Q) is equivalent to either
not P or not Q. It is a law that covers distribution of negation and
is a PRODUCT, not a SOURCE, of the Four Laws of Thought,
which cover the self-consistency of a single term and are
convertible to each other,
If P then P
If ~P then ~P
P v ~P
~(P + ~P)
And are abstracted from perception thusly:
If something is present, then it is present.
If something is absent, then it is absent.
Either something is present or it is absent.
Something cannot be both present and absent.
and the Aristotelian Square, which covers the possible relations
between terms
All P is Q
No P is Q
Some P is Q
Some P is not Q
I have taught logic; you obviously never bothered to learn it. That
being the case, it would greatly behoove you to avoid loosely
slinging logical terms about where logicians can see them mislaid.
> 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.
>
Dichotomies are both oppositional and complementary, the very
opposition is mutually correlative and grounding. There is no
contradiction between opposition and complementarity; for you to
imply that ths is an either/or rather than a both/and once
again betrays your lack of understanding of logical relations.
>
> 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. :-)
>
You're very good at ignoring inconvenient facts, evidence and logic,
aren't you? Well, we remember.
>
> 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 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 - 11:45:37 GMT