From: "Chris Lofting" <ddiamond@ozemail.com.au>
To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: i-memes and m-memes
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 06:01:56 +1000
-----Original Message-----
From: James McComb <jamesmccomb@hotmail.com>
To: Memetics Discussion List <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
Date: Monday, 30 August 1999 1:43
Subject: Re: i-memes and m-memes
>Chris Lofting:
>
>Try this:
>
>im/mm (A/~A) level 1
>im+im : im+mm : mm+im : mm+mm level 2
>
>the middle two are 'emergent' from applying the level 1 dichotomy
>recursively. What do they mean though? im+im manifest a pure concept as
does
>mm+mm; they capture the concept of 'what'. im+mm and mm+im manifest
>relationships and so distinctions of 'this' from 'that' and so we see the
>influence of 'where'.
>
>Underneath these distinctions, for each element in the dichotomy, is a
>pattern of basic meaning such that im+im are seen as 'things' and thus
>objects and whole ones -- they are 'pure'.
>
>im+mm manifest the entanglement of A and ~A, manifests object in a
>relationship, aka 'part' where the word projects this entanglement (the
word
>is an example of a superposition in that the waveform for whole is combined
>with the waveform for relationship. In the mm+im the context is mm whereas
>in mm+im the context is mm. These contexts create biases in expression.)
>
>James McComb:
>
>Ummmm....
>
>I find this somewhat less than intelligible.
>
Yeh, it certainly does looks too 'muddy' doesnt it. Try this:
ANY dichotomy has meaning built-in at the 'hidden' level, 'behind' the
words. Thus there is a template that looks like this:
level 1: whole : relationships
level 2 whole : static relationships : parts : dynamic relationships
When you assert something where you are founding things on a dichotomisation
(in this case im/mm) all possible meanings derivable from the analysis are
already know at the general level; you are not doing anything new other than
create new labels for patterns of meaning that are built-in to the species.
The im/mm distinctions can easily be linked to dichotomies such as
genotype/phenotype, one/many etc etc simply because whenever we create a
dichotomy we do so by relabeling existing patterns of meaning. These
patterns are generally invarient and it is these patterns that lets members
of the species communicate; the ease with which we make analogies is due to
these invarient patterns resonating.
When you create a dichotomy, regardless of words used, with the creation
comes a set of properties and these include,
(1) a favouring of the opposition or cooperation of the elements of the
dichotomy.
(2) the application of the original dichotomy to itself (recursion) and from
this a set of meanings emerge that are related to the method.
(3) after a few steps of recursion the perception of implied wave
interference at the 'phenotype' level. These patterns are in fact built-in
to the method and so not necessarily 'out there'.
As you develop your arguement re im/mm so these properties will emerge....
best,
Chris.
===============================================================
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