Re: CRITICAL-CAFE: Method needs Methodological context

chris lofting (
Tue, 8 Jun 1999 15:26:16 +1000

From: "chris lofting" <>
To: <>, <>
Subject: Re: CRITICAL-CAFE: Method needs Methodological context
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 15:26:16 +1000

-----Original Message-----
From: Aaron Agassi <>
To: <>; <>
Date: Tuesday, 6 July 1999 5:17
Subject: CRITICAL-CAFE: Method needs Methodological context

>How, then, if at all, does pattern projection out of the Method, tending to
>reflect itself, constetute a mistake? First of all, if the Method is a
>mistake, for some other reason. But not even then, strictly speaking. In
>fact, it would be correct procedure from a mistaken premise. "Garbage in,
>garbage out".

which leads to illusions which you then go on to live by. To be unaware of
methodology-derived patterns and so to take results literally rather than
realising their metaphor reflects a degree of intellectual corruption; or
more so the 'mind of children' who do not want to grow up and face the

Another implicit reason why pattern projection out of the
>Method, tending to reflect itself, might be a mistake, would be if it is
>arbitrary. An arbitrary notion, reinforcing itself, would be likewise,
>arbitrary. The results could only be correct by sheer lucky accident! But
>the premise is sound, then extrapolation from them might be productive.
>The question remains, is reality testing really possible? Because, reality
>testing remains the crux of the matter. If all perception is reduced to
>projection, some argue that the cause is lost. But if it is allowed that
>cognition is in any way shaped by existence in reality, then there may
>be hope.

Reality testing is always done within a context set by our neurology and in
particular that neurology's method of information processing. To understand
'out there' free of 'us' you MUST take into consideration patterns that are
seen as if 'out there' that are in fact created by 'in here'.

No physicists etc do this since they are ignorant of
neurological/psychological functioning to a degree where one of the main
tools, mathematics, is believed to come from its own 'universe' rather than
be a manifestion of neurological development processes.

>In the case of statistical analysis of interference patterns in light,
>experiments where never intended to prove that light is a wave. That light
>is a wave is the premise experimentally supported before hand, "justified",
>if you will, by previous experiments and observations.

....but the set-up of the experiments creates the data and so you need to be
aware of potential interpretation problems.

We don't even really
>believe that light is a wave, because how can light be both wave and
>particle at the same time?

IT isnt, it is the interpretation, the pre-emption put into the experiment
that then creates this when we compare one experiment with another
forgetting the context. If experiment A detects particles and experiment B
detects waves that does NOT mean that the thing being analysed is 'both'. It
is CONTEXT that determines the result, as it does in genetics etc all
experiments are examples of EXPRESSION and you MUST include contextual
distinctions prior to making any assertions about equality.

In wave/particle duality the context is (a) when we go for particulars we
see particles and (b) when we go for generals we see waves. There is a
strong contextual difference that leads to the conclusion that the METHOD
determines what we see. Particles are 'primary' and waves are secondary in
that they reflect dynamic relational characteristics.

In the context of genes or memes they are primary and waves come into it
when we get into expression but that is not seen as a property of our method
of analysis and so a potential for confusion...

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)