From: "Chris Lofting" <ddiamond@ozemail.com.au>
To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: information transmission
Date: Sun, 21 Mar 1999 02:24:44 +1100
-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Mills <mmills@fastlane.net>
To: Memetics List <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
Date: Sunday, 21 March 1999 1:24
Subject: Re: information transmission
>Chris,
>
>>...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.
>
>Great.
>
>How do you connect this to memetics?
>
patterns. genes. memes.
>How does this relate to the 'information cannot be transmitted' proposal?
>
I think the distinction is too fundamentalist. EITHER/OR. too reactive. At
the same time I see the Lamarckian emphasis as too 'proactive' -- see
section below.
In making our maps of 'out there', the distinctions of object/relationships
is, I think, hard-coded as a method. Intent determines what you interpret as
an object/relationship and so adds 'variations', novelties but nothing
'new'. By this I mean that all potential emotional experiences are precoded
in the form of the range of potential states possible in the
positive/negative emotion dimension. Treated as waves, the best metaphor to
describe emotion, neutral states are in fact out of phase positive/negative
emotions and so neutralise each other, but they dont 'go away' there are
always there...
Thus we have a template, all information is reducable to it and it is this
that allows us to share meanings in the form of emotional resonance, for
each template state so a general emotional pattern exists and so functions
like a reference beam in a holographic film. Due to the structure we can
also preempt information, 'know' what is to come.
In this context memes have a source and so are 'a thing' that has many
patterns. The template is the 'gene' and the patterns the 'expression' but
the feedback process also allows for 'preparation'.
Overall, The emphasis is on the fundamental nature of 1:many type
dichotomisation, genotype/phenotype, memetype/phenotype etc
In this context, at the social level, so a word acts as 'the one' and the
emotion-based wave pattern it elicits is 'the many'. The relationship
between the two elements of the dichotomy come in four 'basic' modes:
They can blend (whole)
They can bond (invarient relationship)
They can bound (parts)
They can bind (dynamic relationship)
positive/negative is added in the form of applying the oppose/cooperate
dichotomy (a negative blend is a cancellation, a negative bound an
opposition). These strong negations come from 1:1 thinking. The universe
seems to reflect 1:many although these distinctions are all properties of
the method of analysis we use and so apply to memes and genes but could be
'false' :-)
If memes manifest 'habit' then they manifest the entanglement of 'text' with
'context' and become part of the personal holographic film we all have and
where once engrained we return to a stimulus/response format; reference
beam -->image. no 'inbetween'. The establishment of habit requires feedback
processes as part of the 'entanglement' process and included in this is the
categorisation filtering. This is a 'fundamental' reference beam manifest in
intent where we project the object/relationship distinction onto what we are
analysing, thus first impressions are very hard to remove, perhaps at best
we can neutralise them.
This leads us into consideration of the dimension of evolution which to me
is defined by two poles, Darwinian, reactive processes in a hostile
environment and so 'forcing' self-containment to stay alive, and a
Lamarckian, proactive process in a coopperative environment that forces
integration such that as we approach the integration point we start to lose
sight of who did what over what period such that we perceive inherited
characteristics. I suppose this is a form of indeterminism or even
equivalence, both of which can lead us to confusions where the former
prohibits the EITHER/OR distinctions and the latter combines them, both
leave us with causality problems, in a BOTH/AND state of possible
expressions/causes over actual.
I think the time has come to realise that the Darwin/Lamarckian dichotomy is
not one of opposition, it is time to see it as one of cooperation, they are
poles on the evolution dimension with one emphasing long term, reactive
behaviour and the other short term proactive behaviour. This latter case
gets into foresight, plan-ahead behaviour and if there is a template
involved but not recognised to exist, then the observed behaviour can seem
contradictory to Darwinian processes.
best regards,
Chris.
http://www.ozemail.com.au/~ddiamond
===============================================================
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