RE: What Meaning Means

From: Chris Lofting (
Date: Mon 19 Jun 2006 - 00:22:59 GMT

  • Next message: Tim Rhodes: "RE: What Meaning Means (was: RE: presentation)"

    From my work on meaning derivation we find that there are distinct differences between the singular nature (each of us with a unique consciousness) and our particular nature (each of us as genetically-determined members of the species).

    Of interest in the latter is the lack of recognition of individual differences, but recognition of collective differences. By this I mean that the methodology in deriving meaning also comes with the derivation of purpose within the species. This is identified in other neuron-dependent species in the form of 'warriors' or 'drones' or 'workers' or 'alpha males/females' etc etc

    What is noticeable for us as a species is that the typologies we have developed (such as the MBTI, HBDI or 'Big-5' etc) seem to pick up these group identities operating in our species where the individual is of no concern.

    Thus the focus on, for example, the 1% of the USA population that map to the INTP 'category' are not considered as singulars, only particulars. From a biological/genetics position this approach is one of use of numbers to achieve some purpose for the species. The closest analogy is to sperm with their drive to fertilise the single egg. Thus the INTP category reflects a specialist element of the species that contributes to the species with no regard to its members in that they are all 'one' (as photons are or electrons etc) and so allow for survival of the species over generations in that specialist perspectives are retained at all costs.

    This gets into issues of historicism as touched on by Popper where 'small world' network analysis goes against what Popper wrote in such texts as "The Poverty of Historicism" - see comments and additional references in

    The self-referencing involved in meaning derivation allows for the encoding of purpose across our species and into specialist groups to serve the species over generations.

    From a SINGULAR perspective this encoding of purpose for our particular nature can elicit behaviours in ourselves that we observe but don't understand. For example, our instincts/habits get encoded in/close-to the input areas of our neurology. This is energy conserving in that it allows context to push. Our consciousness can sense this 'push' but in that sensing can interpret it as if someone 'invisible' is doing the pushing - and from that comes the realm of the 'spiritual' (e.g. see )

    The group nature of the particular allows for the encoding of 'group' meaning that is outside of our singular awareness (or has been to date) such that 'traditions' etc can reflect the expression of these universals in the form of some local context where the question of "where does this come from, what are its roots?" is singularly 'unknown' where it in fact is originated in the purpose element of the particulars that is outside of singular consciousness; as such singulars can get caught-up in some particular expression as if in a 'light trance' state and so not able to describe cause-effect since that cause-effect spans their lifetime as singulars in that it covers the time span of the species.


    =============================================================== 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:

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon 19 Jun 2006 - 00:43:14 GMT