From: Chris Lofting (email@example.com)
Date: Sat 17 Jun 2006 - 04:48:45 GMT
Neurology alone sets down the core qualities/categories used to communicate
'meaning'. All other meaning is in the form of relabelling the core categories where that ability differentiates one particular context from all of the others.
The categories derived from the neurology are categories derivable from the
development/adaptation of senses to an environment. This original 'capturing
of noise by a container' will, over time, set down a meaning 'structure'
represented in the form of the Sierpinski gasket, the properties of which
Our brain manifests the centralisation of information processing of our
senses and the reactive nature becomes proactive through the brain's
development of self-referencing - the oscillations across the asymmetric
structure of the brain where that structure is in the form of a dichotomy -
WHAT/WHERE aka differentiating/integrating. (the oscillation is equivalent
to the 'bouncing around' of noise entering a container and so the
elicitation of 'structure' out of which come categories etc)
Thus from randomness comes order. That order is in the form of the
properties and methods of the neuron (and so we cover all other
neuron-dependent life forms).
The development of brains in general indicate a development along cybernetic
principles and so a focus on control/regulation through the use of
The reactive nature of being pushed by the context elicits a response in the
form of increasingly proactive nature of self-regulation over
others-regulation. With this development so the life form increases control
of its local context - as it can respond to the push of context, so it can
also push back and in doing so adapt the context to its own preferences.
With these preferences comes the externalisation of values where meaning is
encoded into the environment in the form of signs that apply to one's
private interpretations of reality or the collective's interpretation of
reality. The idealism involved in this means that, from Space, if you see
straight line there is an implicit identification of the presence of
We can see in this development dynamic the overall focus on control. This
goes on 'within' in the development of self-regulation in the form of reason
developing from emotion as emotion develops from cognition. There is as such
an increasing DELAY in response to conditions as a life form develops
choices, learns the benefit of delayed gratification over immediate.
With the development of reason (frontal lobe dynamics) emerges a focus on
precision in control that can be over-regulated.
With the development of consciousness emerges the regulation of reason
through the ability to ESCAPE regulation.
With the development of unique consciousness, the individual consciousness,
emerges the introduction of a 'random' element into our species-nature and
so the distinctions of singular from particular-general where the latter
reflects determined expressions (and so genetics, history etc) and the
former the ability to 'change the world' where the realm of the singular is
a space containing the notions of the miraculous and the random.
The realm of the singular is a realm of the charismatic, of fundamentalism,
of innovation, of advertisement, of 'transcendence seeking', and also of
The realm of the singular comes with a focus on asserting the context and so
often of practising 'analytical negation' - we wipe the slate clean and
start again. With this comes the re-invention of perspectives through the
development of new languages for old things. This 'newness' is illusion but
not to those born into it; only with a study of history does one become
aware of the repetition of history. As such the 'new meanings' are just
relabelling combined perhaps with some new insights from a more precise
analysis/knowledge of what the 'old' was talking about.
As such, neurology alone is the source of meaning - all else follows where
much of that is relabelling.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com] On Behalf
> Of Tim Rhodes
> Sent: Saturday, 17 June 2006 11:44 AM
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: What Meaning Means (was: RE: presentation)
> Ted wrote:
> >It's a core belief of memetics that cultural meaning is
> >contained in artifacts such as books, musical scores,
> >game rules, etc.
> This statement seems incorrect to me, although to be honest, I can't
> evaluate it well because,
> (1) I'm not entirely sure what exactly you mean by the term "cultural
> meaning" above. ("of cultural significance"? "interpretation within a
> cultural context"? "significance to individuals of a specific culture"? or
> something else entirely?)
> (2) I don't think memetics actually speaks much to questions of "meaning"
> per se.
> Memetics is much better suited to address itself to questions of
> distribution, frequency & adaptation of cultural items, or trends within
> those aspects, rather than addressing interpretation of their
> objective/subjective "meanings" per se.
> >I initiated the RS thread specifically to dispute this point.
> >No one on the list expressed agreement with my assertion
> >that meaning is strictly mental.
> That's because it isn't.
> "Meaning", as far as cultural tokens or artifacts are concerned, is an
> emergent phenomenon resulting from the interaction of mind & artifact
> a cultural context.
> Just mind alone is not enough -- and neither is just artifact.
> -Tim Rhodes
> 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)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat 17 Jun 2006 - 05:20:32 GMT