Hi Chris,
absolutely: mine was not an attempt to enforce censorship or suggest you
shouldn't post your ideas - I apologise if you had this feeling.
> Unless... you see mind as independent of brain!? ...do you?
No, mind is not completely independent of the brain. But, in any layered system
such as a communication network or the world, a layer built on top of another
can exhibit a wholly new nature, that requires new words and new concepts to be
analyzed. Emerging patterns. Semantics from syntax. Meaning. I think the MOQ
does say a lot about this. Reverting to mind (brain) workings when discussing
problems that are raised *by* the mind and to which *the mind* begs a reply is
likely to be useless.
As I said: if everything is a metaphor, of course it must be a metaphor for
nothing.
> BUT... there is an intuitive element in your post, namely that you pick up the
'vibe' that science can 'kill' conversation
> and if you are more into 'waving hands' mode then you are more into keeping
the conversation going --
> not for the 'facts' but for the 'high', for the 'stimulation'. I see no
derivation of MOQ from that ... unless there is no intent > to develop such a
concept, just a need to talk about 'what could bes' - an exercise in topology?
:-)
What you find in MOQ is that it is simply a delusion to think that scientific
"facts" are something better or more true than the "stimulation" as you call it.
Like it or not, a *mind* is writing this mail message and a *mind* has wrote
yours (both probably implemented in full by a brain, but so what?). If you take
it down to neurobiological basic workings or whatever, then why not take a
further step and speak in terms of particle physics? Many naive scientists
probably think that we don't treat everything with particle physics concepts
because it would be too complex. That higher level sciences such as biology and
sociology exist because it would be *too* hard to explain, in physics, why a guy
robbed a bank or had a nervous breakdown. If you had all the knowlegde it
requires... and the resource to compute that huge amount of data... then you
could explain a nervous breakdown in terms of quark level interactions. Isn't
that true? Well the answer from the MOQ is (IMHO): NO! You couldn't! It's not
that it is too complex - the point is that it is not *pertinent*, and you see it
as soon as you reject the subject/object dychotomy. Higher levels bring up new
concepts and any question raised at that level must be answered with concepts at
that same level - otherwise you are cheating.
Question: "Why did you do this to me?"
Answer: I hand you a 3D map of my brain.
So what?
Maybe I'm just going round and round in a basic misunderstanding of your ideas.
If you feel like helping me out of this misunderstanding, I'll be glad to read
another reply - or will simply keeping reading your posts as they appear, which
I always did - as a side note, I may try as hard as I can to understand your
language, but the less technical the higher the chance I understand your reply.
Andrea
Chris Lofting ha scritto:
> Andrea,
>
> The below email is a wonderful example of an individual who seeks difference
> over sameness! One who seeks the uniqueness of the expression. For me, I
> seek the patterns BEHIND the expression, the sameness out of which comes
> differences!
>
> So let me get this right.. You would prefer I dont reply since it in some
> way upsets your train of thought!? Wow - censorship!!
>
> The Paciderm asked about metaphor, what is it? etc I answered from a level
> of precision not 'waving of hands' mode. To develop an MOQ you need
> ordinality as well as cardinality. The cardinal deals with topology, the
> distortion, the stretching, twisting etc; the emphasis on exageration of
> harmonics to identify aspects of a whole.
>
> Ordinality is required when you zoom-in to get the details and that includes
> HOW metaphors are created, used, etc etc and from that perspective identify,
> again with precision, the GENERAL patterns BEHIND metaphors such that you
> can decode the metaphor quickly rather than spend years 'waving hands';
> waving hands lacks precision, it is useful when there is nothing else but
> when you have facts regarding brain and mind, to ignore those facts for
> whatever reason is .........!!
>
> BUT... there is an intuitive element in your post, namely that you pick up
> the 'vibe' that science can 'kill' conversation and if you are more into
> 'waving hands' mode then you are more into keeping the conversation going --
> not for the 'facts' but for the 'high', for the 'stimulation'. I see no
> derivation of MOQ from that ... unless there is no intent to develop such a
> concept, just a need to talk about 'what could bes' - an exercise in
> topology? :-)
>
> Some references re metaphors (from cognitive science but readable by all):
>
> Fauconnier, G., (1997)"Mappings in Thought and Language" CUP
>
> Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M., (1999)"Philosophy in the Flesh : The embodied
> mind and its challenge to Western thought" Basic Books
>
> Lakoff, G., & Nunez, R.E., (2000)"Where Mathematics Comes From : How the
> embodied mind brings mathematics into being" Basic Books
>
> Chris.
> ------------------
> Chris Lofting
> websites:
> http://www.eisa.net.au/~lofting
> http://www.ozemail.com.au/~ddiamond
> List Owner: http://www.yahoogroups.com/group/semiosis
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Andrea Sosio
> > Sent: Tuesday, 27 March 2001 8:06
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Re: MD rogers metaphors
> >
> >
> > Chris,
> > You're saying something more radical than I meant...
> >
> > If everything is a metaphor, I guess that obviously means
> > anything is a metaphor
> > for nothing.
> >
> > As I mentioned in previous postings, I think your views are
> > perfectly good to
> > discuss brain workings, and as everything is possibly ultimately
> > rooted in the
> > brain, you will have no trouble to address whatever issue comes
> > at hand. Still,
> > if we have to talk about semantics, meanings, concepts - you just
> > remap them on
> > lower level feelings or whatever - and that will work, except
> > those lower level
> > feelings or whatever aren't really interesting if one cares for
> > meanings and
> > concepts, and they are not answers to any question. Like you
> > reply to question A
> > telling us what in our neurobiology makes us want to put the
> > question at all.
> > Interesting and probably correct - but this is no reply to the
> > question itself.
> >
> > At least that's the feeling I get from your postings. Tho, I
> > often like them too
> > :)
> >
> > Andrea
> >
> > Chris Lofting ha scritto:
> >
> > > elephant wrote:
> > >
> > > > ROGER:
> > > > > perhaps all we ever do is think and speak in metaphors.
> > > >
> > > > ELEPHANT:
> > > > This is something I seem to change my ideas about from time to time,
> > > largely
> > > > because no-one can tell me definitively just exactly what
> > metaphor *is*.
> > > >
> > > > Ideas?
> > > >
> > >
> > > Analogy is 'X is LIKE Y' and there is an implication there is
> > more to it,
> > > unlike simile. Metaphor is X described in terms of Y to a degree where X
> > > 'is' Y.
> > >
> > > Metaphor is always approximation, even if down to the 17th
> > decimal point!
> > > When we use mathematics to describe things then we are using
> > metaphor. All
> > > maps are metaphors in that once we create the map so we use it
> > to interprete
> > > and predict but that act forces us to see 'out there' through the map --
> > > metaphor, reality is described in the terms of the map.
> > >
> > > MOQ is metaphor, mathematics is metaphor, the I Ching is metaphor... and
> > > they all have something in common, they all have the same underlying
> > > structures and relationships that reflect our neruological/cognitive
> > > processes at work. That 'fact' allows us to make analogies across
> > > disciplines very easily.
> > >
> > > Metaphor shares the same space with metonymy where metonymy is to the
> > > particular what metaphor is to the general.
> > >
> > > The process of induction, where we move from particular to
> > general causes us
> > > to make maps -- aka hypotheses, theories, models etc etc These
> > are based on
> > > our experiences where we particularise from general sensory processes.
> > >
> > > As we build the map so we switch from local, reactive behaviours to
> > > proactive behaviours. The proactivity comes when we start to
> > use the map to
> > > predict and this in turn speeds-up development BUT it also
> > forces us to live
> > > through metaphors -- the maps. ... and yes, language too is a map.
> > >
> > > BTW Karl Popper did not like induction, for him it required too
> > much of a
> > > leap in faith but modern science has gone to reduce that leap,
> > although it
> > > is still there but maybe just at the Planck distance, 10^-40 metres...
> > >
> > > >From neurology/cognitive science research, metaphor processing
> > shares the
> > > same space in the brain as processes dealing with cardinality,
> > topological
> > > processes including object-to-context relationships.
> > >
> > > Chris.
> > > ------------------
> > > Chris Lofting
> > > websites:
> > > http://www.eisa.net.au/~lofting
> > > http://www.ozemail.com.au/~ddiamond
> > > List Owner: http://www.yahoogroups.com/group/semiosis
> > >
> > > MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
> > > Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
> > > MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >
> > > To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
> > > http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
> >
> > --
> > Andrea Sosio
> > RIM/PSPM/PPITMN
> > Tel. (8)9006
> > mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
> > Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
> > MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
> > http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
> >
>
> MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
> Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
> MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
> http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
--
Andrea Sosio
RIM/PSPM/PPITMN
Tel. (8)9006
mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
