Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id OAA20935 (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 14:18:31 GMT Message-ID: <002601c08546$88097520$5eaefea9@cable.rcn.com> From: "Aaron Agassi" <agassi@erols.com> To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> References: <LPBBICPHCJJBPJGHGMCIIEBBCNAA.ddiamond@ozemail.com.au> Subject: Re: ....and the beat goes on and on and on... Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 09:12:33 -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: Tuesday, January 23, 2001 7:11 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 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.
No, Chris! You explain more clearly. Learn how to write!
>
> This is
> > a kind of
> > universal relativism.
>
> I am into what is behind it
Chris, just stop using inane expressions like "behind it", which have no
linguistic sense in the way you use them. Be more literal and precise.
And "into" is truly an inane vague expression!
Try sentances structures such as:
I understand this point about that subject...
And be specific. Share the whole map fragment.
>such that your words above are reducable to
> objects,
"Words are reducible to objects" -What linguistic nonsense! Words, perhaps,
represent objects. Words are objects of grammar. Can one speak objectively?
All these are sensible expressions, that signify, and differently. What you
mean, Chris, in anyone's guess.
I cannot sufficiently express my resentment of your vague and obtuse
Hippie-speak, Chris.
>relationships,
Perhaps, Chris, you mean that Vincent employs sentences that map and
describe the relationships between the objects, of whatever sort, that are
represented by Vincent's words, or more specifically, nouns?
Well, Chris, if you yourself are not using various other grammatical
components to conjoin and relate different nouns, then you don't know how to
speak!
>and from that sets of meanings. IOW a METHODOLOGY.
No, Chris! A Methodology is a systematic applied Epistemology.
> You spend your time trying to find meaning out of expression
Where as, Chris, do you champion sheer Dadaism, in the alternative?
Or do you actually deny that communication bears meaning? Let me guess:
Perhaps communication is merely and exchange of reciprocal behavioral
stimuli, mapped onto the brain!
>but all
> expressions are sourced in a species-wide generally invarient set of
> emotions.
Chris, that is sheer Reductionism to dismiss meaning and the elements of
grammar, simply because they may have historical and evolutionary roots in
emotion.
>All else is metaphor to communicate those emotions.
Do you deny that there is any message content save emotion, Chris?
But if you want, I will tell you of my emotional response to your words:
Rage. Simply because I have to get to the end of a paragraph to see what it
means, if I am lucky that it will be intelligible at all.
Perhaps you somehow think that it would betray your Post Modern ideals to
make one discrete intelligible statement, follow up with another such, and
then build and relate into a third point, such that a reader may follow step
by step. I suppose that would be too Dialectic. And that admits the effort
at clarity, which historically is associated with the quest for knowledge of
the truth, defined as correspondence to reality. And which sought for
certain proof in clear axioms. (Of course, Einstein already demonstrated
that proof exists only in Logic and Mathematics, but Popper successfully
salvaged the Dialectic by embracing conjecturally. But, characteristically,
you ignore this, Chris. If you can't have certainty, then you'll turn your
back on Ontology and the real world!)
Your writing style, Chris, or lack there of, infuriates me. Should I then
conclude that your posts are intentionally hostile, because, as you assert,
emotion is the true content of verbal communication? Or would appropriate
interpretation of your message be possible only by Ad Hominem, imputing to
you smug vanity in your collections of tools no longer associated with any
Epistemological or interpretive application?
The bottom line is that I don't like the feeling I get from your writing
style, Chris, which dangles on the synapse, until, if all, the expression
completes, and may or may not resolve into intelligibility. And I heartilly
resent you inconsideration to the reader. And I wish that you would be
willing to encode some basics of writing style onto your pathways.
>Therefore to
> comprehend all we can now look at the set of meaning embedded in the
METHOD.
No, Chris. That approach of yours is a failure.
>
> Everything we CAN know is already known, pre-coded as a feeling (which we
> may never experience).
No Chris, by definition, a feeling is experienced. An emotion, however, may
or may not arise to consciousness.
But, taking your meaning (I hope), this is more silly Reductionism and abuse
of Presentationalism into denial of Ontology on your part.
Chris, you have asserted that all possible meanings are encoded. But this is
imprecise. The monads and processing structure for all possible meanings are
encoded, perhaps. We are equipped to configure new meanings. (Or else,
perhaps, there may be meanings that are only possible and ever present to
the very different minds of alien creatures somewhere else in the universe,
but not poor Primates such as we.) But, it is sheer Essentialism to assert
that they are already existent as Potential.
More over, that still leaves the question of whether such meanings are
purely idiosyncratic, or relate to an outside objective reality, the subject
of Ontology. I submit that it is possible that they do.
Calling such "resonance", rightly or wrongly, is no valid dismissal.
Pursuing the relationship between the observer and the observed, is still
fruitful, even if that offends your betrayed Classical Rationalism, Chris.
But Popper can still save you! If you can tolerate conjecture, without
rejecting Ontology. If you can accept Epistemology as the question of whence
and how knowledge, in whatever degree, arises, but not certainty.
>The interest is in all the expressions that elicit
> those feelings.
>
YOUR interest, Chris.
> The invariant set of general meanings are FUNDAMENTAL and THAT is NOT
> relativist, it is the EXPRESSION that reflects relativist perspectives.
Indeed? Have I not demonstrated the capacity to express my own
non-Relativist perspective?
>At
> this fundamental level we are dealing with sameness, genes, species level
> stuff which at the LOCAL level gets relative.
*Sigh!* Chris, learn how to write! It is not obvious what it means for
things to "get relative". You need to construct a whole cogent sentence.
>
> Relativism comes out of developing a relational bias over an object bias.
Too much jargon. I don't follow.
> BOTH perspectives
Since I am not clear about "both [or either] perspectives", what follows
does not signify much. And I know, from experience, that you, Chris, will
ignore any request for clarification.
>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.
What the fuck is 'truth' in quotes? Yes, my foul language communicates my
feeling of irritation! But I would still mantain that what is central is the
conceptual and Logical content. Alas, none clear from you, Chris.
Perhaps you speak not of truth, but clarity or even knowledge, arising when
the map is true (in correspondence to reality). The security and
satisfaction arising from successful error checking.
>There is nothing 'mystical' about truth and its source
> despite how hard some of you seem to be looking.
Or how hard you seem to be dodging, Chris!
>
> The template based on what/where processing is a 'truth' or more so a
'fact'
I avoid using the word 'fact', because I do not know what the word means. I
am not at all clear, in common usage, whether facts are truths (defined as
correspondences with reality, NOT any other [ab]usage of the word 'truth),
knowledge, or data sets.
> 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.
I still do not grok your loose [ab]usage of the word 'behind', Chris. I wish
that you'd trouble to spell out what you mean. But I know that you will
passively refuse.
Perhaps your intent as to the significance of 'behind' ought to be already
established, contextually. But it is not. At least not to me, Chris. Because
you demonstrate such contempt for the effort of writing style.
>
> 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.
Post Modern clap trap!
>
> 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.
Indeed, even before Neurology was ever invented, this was called grammar.
Learn it, Chris!
>BUT the template leaves
> behind cognitive patterns that link all disciplines and it is analysis of
> them that shows how we process data.
It is the steps from such unremarkable Premi to your idiotic Metaphysics,
Chris, that are rightly under attack.
>
> No matter how abstract the words are, no matter how many layers of
metaphor
> you use, the basic distinctions of objects, relationships 'shine through'.
Stop using slang that you have not mastered, Chris.
>
> 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.
What if it is? Consider the gestalt. The meaningful whole remains valid.
Considering how imprecise your usage of the word 'behind' is, Chris, perhaps
Vincent sees the Telionomy of the whole "behind" the structural monads. What
is behind, after all, depends which way one faces. Is my metaphor idiotic?
Good! Then perhaps I've made my point as to the dire need for tighter
terminology on your part, Chris.
>
> 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.
>
This a perfect example of a contextually dependant paragraph in the
abhorrent Chris Lofting writing style.
Fist of all, the loose usage of the word 'behind' is already enough to
frustrate any how of intelligibility. And the unreiterated dichotomy garble
also fails to reintegrate. And "GENERAL cognitive level" presents as a
completely meaningless verbalization.
>
> You, Joe and Aaron need to think deeper; you are too 'lite' at the moment.
>
No, Shithead, you need to map the Dialectic basics of writing style.
Unless, like so many self absorbed inconsiderate idiosyncratic
speakers/writers, you are in denial, and self convinced that people are
lying to you when they say: "HUH?!"
> 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 - 14:22:30 GMT