Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id MAA19700 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Tue, 23 Jan 2001 12:05:25 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: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 23:11:45 +1100 Message-ID: <LPBBICPHCJJBPJGHGMCIIEBBCNAA.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) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D3101745BF5@inchna.stir.ac.uk> 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 Vincent Campbell
> Sent: Tuesday, 23 January 2001 1:04
> To: 'memetics@mmu.ac.uk'
> Subject: RE: ....and the beat goes on and on and on...
>
>
> You want an example, here's one-
>
> You completely fail to understand semiotics, as Joe has so evidently
> demonstrated. If you can find a semiotician on the planet who
> concurs with
> your intepretation of it, I'd like to know who they are.
>
All I am doing is bringing semiotics out of the 19th century and into the
21st. It is Joe who refuses to move (and obviously you to).
> Your interpretation of valid questions obviously doesn't include ones that
> offer simple oppositions to your ideas that you can't answer and won't
> answer. I'll try again, Chris; how do light-bulbs work?
>
friction. Electrons. Resistance. :-) The light is a PRODUCT of this and when
you try to analyse the PRODUCT you find that its characteristics varies
depending on context. A light bulb is just filiment and glass and a power
source.
> If the characteristics of light were entirely interpretation, lighbulbs
> should have stopped working as soon as the particle/wave problem was
> identified.
>
What the F*** are you on about? Boy you do have an interpretation problem...
> The colonial remark was a cheap shot, but if only you'd stop talking about
> people's arses... not a coprophiliac are you?
>
Read all of the posts between I and Joe -- he is the one with the mouth and
he uses it when there is threat that he may have to get out of his box to
understand things.
> As to being scared- Am I ignoring you? Or refusing to engage in
> discussion
> with you?
>
> Let me explain in simple terms Chris, where you've gone wrong. You've
> obviously picked up the idea that absolute, concrete truths cannot exist,
> because they will always be filtered through human perception and
> interpretation. But, you conflate this when then arguing that as a result
> of this realisation, that the entire universe and everything in it is thus
> merely an interpretation, with no independent existence.
No I dont. You are coming from an expressionist perspective; that is all
you seem to be able to see. Look deeper.
This is
> a kind of
> universal relativism.
I am into what is behind it such that your words above are reducable to
objects, relationships, and from that sets of meanings. IOW a METHODOLOGY.
You spend your time trying to find meaning out of expression but all
expressions are sourced in a species-wide generally invarient set of
emotions. All else is metaphor to communicate those emotions. Therefore to
comprehend all we can now look at the set of meaning embedded in the METHOD.
Everything we CAN know is already known, pre-coded as a feeling (which we
may never experience). The interest is in all the expressions that elicit
those feelings.
The invariant set of general meanings are FUNDAMENTAL and THAT is NOT
relativist, it is the EXPRESSION that reflects relativist perspectives. At
this fundamental level we are dealing with sameness, genes, species level
stuff which at the LOCAL level gets relative.
Relativism comes out of developing a relational bias over an object bias.
BOTH perspectives give us data but to get more precise results you need to
understand the characteristics of the METHOD.
The cognitive analysis shows a sense of 'truth' as a feeling derived from
territorial mapping. There is nothing 'mystical' about truth and its source
despite how hard some of you seem to be looking.
The template based on what/where processing is a 'truth' or more so a 'fact'
and it is fundamental. It points to answering questions about our METHODS of
analysis and that includes our understanding of what a 'truth' is. BUT this
is all cognitive stuff, BEHIND the expressions.
The template is 'the' truth about metaphor creation and wetware processing
where all meaning, to be processed, is reduced to object/relationship
patterns. There is nothing 'mystical' involved and there is no need.
Interpretations are FOUNDED on the template, you cannot use the template to
interprete other than communicating 'wholes, parts, static relationship,
dynamic relationship' etc BORING. You deal with this by LOCALISING by
creating metaphors etc WORDS that help to DIFFERENTIATE 'that whole' from
'this whole' etc' and from THERE your interprete. BUT the template leaves
behind cognitive patterns that link all disciplines and it is analysis of
them that shows how we process data.
No matter how abstract the words are, no matter how many layers of metaphor
you use, the basic distinctions of objects, relationships 'shine through'.
You fail to see that this is BASE level stuff, there is no BEHIND here, this
is the bedrock level. The distinction of objects and relationships and the
patterns of dynamics is bedrock level.
Thus it is a 'truth' but it is not expressable as such, it is too general
for us locals to use at the expression level BUT we can use it analysing
what is BEHIND expressions, and we find that all of this is rooted in the
methodology of recursive dichotomisations in that taking the
object/relationship dichotomy and applying it recursively gives me sets of
feelings that at the GENERAL cognitive level are reflected BEHIND the
'different' words used in many metaphors to communicate reality.
You, Joe and Aaron need to think deeper; you are too 'lite' at the moment.
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 : Tue Jan 23 2001 - 12:07:09 GMT