From: "Chris Lofting" <ddiamond@ozemail.com.au>
To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: information transmission
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 1999 19:47:40 +1100
Hi Mark... re your link to Dramatica, someone else asked me to see what I
could do by applying my dichotomy template. I have done this and taken the
dichotomies Phillips and Huntley use and upon inserting them into my
template have been able to enhance their material way beyond the program
they created. Their dichotomies are well done but have some 'faults' that my
system demonstrates and it also demonstrates the solution to the problem. I
used two sets of their dichotomies, those applied to roles and characters.
My template lets you link these to MBTI personas, esoteric concepts (I Ching
etc), music formats etc etc simply because they are all based on dichotomies
and there is an underlying format -- the object/relationships template.
BY just using Dramatica's dichotomies in their roles and characters
categorisations, together with the other concepts one can easily expand
things very quickly.
The dichotomy template goes from 8 to 64 to 4096. By this I mean that to
analyse 'grossly' you work at the 8 level. To refin this you go to the level
with 64 states and then to the level with 4096 states. These deeper states
'refine' the basic 8. It also compensates for the distinction between
asexual categorisation (symmetric) and sexual categorisation (skewed
symmetry where the distinctions of male-female bring these two together and
so 'warp' the symmetry.)
The value of the system is that it goes beyond drama and into everyday life.
What Phillips and Huntley have not done is go deeper..my work does that and
in doing so enables one to 'bring out' their work since I reflect the way
they think, the way they categorised. Their dichotomies are 'words', it is
the underlying invarient patterns that determine meaning and influenced
their choice of words unconsciously.
I am doing a webpage on it as well as a javascript program of the template
to show how the abstract template influences the categorisation processes.
The idea is that you can slot in any set of dichotomies from a particular
subject and gleam details about where things are going etc
This is possible simply because all dichotomy-based categorisations are in
fact metaphors/symbolisms for describing object/relationship information.
This is 'fundamental'. We use the metaphors to differentiate, to
particularise, one object/relationship from another.
This affects us in everyday life and so our effects, but we are not aware of
this process. It is the source of meaning for all esoteric systems founded
on making dichotomies...
For a sample of the web page , see
http://www.ozemail.com.au/~ddiamond/onemany.html It has an esoteric bias (I
Ching) but you can see through it (the I Ching is metaphor) where 'yin/yang'
are templates for elements of any dichotomy. I am adding archetype
storylines etc to tell the whole story in form of a summary. (I have also
emailed Dramatica, no reply as yet) Otherwise if you go through the website
you will get more details but in bits'n'pieces.
best,
Chris.
-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Mills <mmills@fastlane.net>
To: Memetics List <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
Date: Friday, 19 March 1999 3:35
Subject: Re: information transmission
>Chris,
>
>>Try this:
>>
>>(1) all information is reducable to distinctions at the neurological level
>>of objects and relationships.
>
>ok.
>
>>(2) these distinctions are pre-coded and associated with patterns of
>>emotion.
>
>ok
>
>>(3) this general 'pool' of emotion is in all members of the species and it
>>has a structure that is the template for all metaphors.
>
>ok
>
>>(4) communication is through the process of resonance, particularised
>>through the use of metaphor/symbolisms that help to differentiate one
>>'object' from another.
>
>? I have a hard time with this. Maybe it is more of a leap than I can
>handle.
>
>....
>>(6) refining (1), so the neurons are the warp and
>>neurotransmitters/neuromodulators the left. The resulting patterns are
>>'memes' that can become entangled with each other and elicit a sense of
>>'meaning'. (note that the method of decription here is already
>>object/relationship biased).
>
>Basically.
>
>>(7) the development process follows complexity guidelines and so allows
for
>>emergence as a consequence of excessive feedback.
>
>OK.
>
>>(8) Further refining (1), objects can be seen as either wholes or parts
>>where parts are wholes in their own right but we need to change
focus/scale
>>to see them as such.
>>(9) Relationships are seen as either static or dynamic. This gives us four
>>fundamental categorisations:
>....
>
>OK
>
>....
>
>>(19) It all comes down to (a) Object/Relationship distinctions (b)
>>dichotomisations (c) metaphorcation, the mind makes a reality image to
work
>>with just as the brain has a body image to work with....
>
>OK.
>
>Check out http://www.techweb.com/se/directlink.cgi?EET19960722S0047
>
>This is an article in Electrical Engineering Times regarding a program
>some folks in California wrote to 'construct' meaning insights from a
>quad system much like you propose. I own the program discussed in the
>article and find it very useful. Let me know if the article makes sense
>to you.
>
>Mark
>
>===============================================================
>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