Re: Levels

t (
Tue, 6 Jul 1999 09:40:58 EDT

From: <>
Date: Tue, 6 Jul 1999 09:40:58 EDT
Subject: Re: Levels

In a message dated 7/6/99 5:53:05 AM Central Daylight Time, writes:

>> I think the 'problem' as far as I am concerned is trying to 'view' models
reality other than that which we currently have and which I suggest are
'distorted' by projecting method properties onto 'out there' and seeing
these as if 'out there'.

Aaron has failed to respond to the particular interference pattern email I
sent other than to say he cannot understand it. However there are many who
find no problem with it other than what it implies (which to some is great,
to some is stressful, and to others is ridiculous since it can cause one to
reconsider too much of what has been done so far in our map-making)

There are other articles at my website that cover this but he is not
prepared to shift his ground and press the button over the hyperlink... such
an easy thing to do! :-)

There is much in my work (which is on going) that requires us to re-think
many things and this includes development of complementary models (object
bias and relationships bias.. Aaron has raised this issue and it is work
that needs to be done at the particular level, for example, what ideas do we
get about gravity etc by applying the dual model?)

If we look carefully at the data, a levels model does introduce some
concepts that are worth working on. By this I mean that due to the structure
of our neurology that IS hierarchic and levels oriented (1 layer in the
reptilian brain, 3 in the limbic system, 4 in cingulate cortex and 6 in the
neocortex) any mapping ACROSS levels will work like a recursive dichotomy in
that data emerges from the 'middle', 'inbetween' the levels (layers) we
pickup interference.

In the quantum mechanics concepts I am pointing out that the detection of
particles at the slits is one level of analysis -- very precise -- but when
we move back and try to detect things implicitly (through the analysis of
patterns on a photographic plate) we have changed levels, our answer is no
longer 'precise' (statistical analysis starts with a PAIR being treated as
if 'one') but we try to see it as such and so span levels and 'see' patterns
that come from the method of analysis. In this concept, to understand things
you cannot include data from out of your level for to do so leads to
'confusions', all you can do is shift levels, as we have done with TOE in
that adding a dimension (another dichotomy) suddenly all is made 'clear'.

My website deals with the use of dichotomisations to generate 'meaning' and
there is a neurologically-based template that we use to generate this
meaning. If we have adapted to our environment by internalising information
processing characteristics then this template reflects all we can know and
it is used to create instruments that emulate dichotomous processes. This
creates 'resonance' where 'in here' resonates with 'out there'. However this
also allows us to preempt things, to IMPOSE template properties onto
experiment results unconsciously and this can lead us into 'strange' worlds
that might be fun but are also illusions and the deeper we go maintaining
the fantasy the more strange things can become.

I am glad to see that my website 'warmed' you a bit as it suggests that at
least some people can understand it :-)

I am endevouring to restructure things but this takes time and my living has
little to do with my 'homework'...



I can't claim to have followed this entire philosophical battle here. It has
been competing for my spare time with my current reading of Lakoff and
Johnson's "Philosophy in the Flesh", and the book has been mostly winning.
But bits of the skirmish has come through in waves -- especially those parts
that seem most coherent with that book. Specifically these concerns about
our models being distorted by our methods -- neurologically based templates
of understanding -- and so forth. These all to me -- aside from the accuracy
or lack thereof of the details which have escaped me -- reflect approaches
that are more responsible toward an *embodied* philosophy like they describe.
Not falling victim to myths of radical subjectivism, but also not being
seduced by the naive intellectual temptations of delusional disembodied
metaphysical "objective" realism. I am wondering whether any of the
participants have sampled Lakoff and Johnson's newest opus?


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)