James,
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk
> [mailto:owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk]On Behalf Of James Evans
> Sent: Thursday, 9 November 2000 10:41
> To: moq_discuss@moq.org
> Subject: MD Deconstruction and Quality?
>
>
>
> >Your METHOD of analysis forces these distinctions upon you, forces the
> >feelings of meaning upon you.
> >you can list dichotomies such as:
> >
> >inside/outside
> >within/without
> >behind/between
> >Darwin/Lamarck
> >objects/relationships
> >the one/the many
> >gene/meme
> >positive/negative
> >static/dynamic
> >
>
> As a matter of interest, has anybody formally compared non-dichotomous
> Quality metaphysics with the deconstructionist analysis of traditional
> metaphysics as undertaken by Jacques 'The Outside Is The Inside'
> Derrida or
> the other sixties post-structuralists? if there's anything in the
> archives
> about this I'd be v. interested to read it.
> Cheers.
There is no such thing as non-dichotomous since your act of identification
forces dichotomisations!
Perhaps it is more that at the PRIMARY level of distinction making there is
no non-dichotomous methodology. Such works as Derrida etc can only develop
AFTER a dichotomy-developed methodology has been applied; IOW such works as
Derrida are SECONDARY+.
The moment you open your mouth to speak a word, or lift your finger to
indicate, or have an idea 'spring' into your head, you are demonstrating
dichotomous analysis of the 1:many type, you are indicating a particular in
the general and so a 1:many distinction. This method of distinction making,
when applied recursively, shifts focus from a rigid 'them' vs 'us'
perspective, rich in oppositional emphasis and archetypal perspectives, to a
relative 'them' AND 'us' perspective, rich in cooperational emphasis and a
more typal perspective.
The archetypal, where reproduction of body and mind is asexual/androgyne and
there is an emphasis on the eternal, on immortality and 'pureness', gives
way to sexual reproduction and so the mixing of 'them' with 'us' and so
genetic diversity emerges , archetypal gives way to typal (at the cost of
immortality in that this transformation leads to the emergence of
'begin-end' concepts).
Derrida's area can only emerge once a culture has reached this cooperative
level of meaning determination that allows for deconstruction. You cannot
deconstruct 'pure' concepts (e.g. a photon etc Physics is strongly
'archetypal' with the emphasis on 'sameness' for all particles inb a group
(e.g. photons are all 'the same', electrons are all 'the same' etc etc)
The template I work with starts with the distinction, the RIGID distinction
of 'WHOLE' from 'NOT WHOLE'. The not part is ambiguous since it contains
both the particular opposite of the object we call 'WHOLE' (and so a 1:1
emphasis) as well as all ASPECTS of the WHOLE. Our neurology reflects this
in the general characteristics we find in the operations of the neocortex
etc
When we apply the WHOLE:~WHOLE to itself things get interesting in that this
process (a) retains the distinction of purity in the concept of 'whole' and
(b) starts to flesh-out the '~whole' to eventually give us (after just three
'loops'):
WHOLE : STATIC RELATIONSHIPS : PARTS : DYNAMIC RELATIONSHIPS together with a
general dichotomy linked to such concepts as text/context,
positive/negative, foreground/background.
What is of interest is that this process reflects the ENTANGLEMENT of the
elements of a dichotomy, we move past the initial distinction of A/~A as
oppositional to patterns reflecting qualitative states that emphasise the
MIXING of the elements of the original dichotomy and so their perceived
cooperation.
Since mathematics forms the foundations of scientific investigations and
symbolisms it is of interest that the above general distinctions of wholes,
parts, static relationships, and dynamic relationships, all linkable to the
neurology's making of what (objects)/where (relationships) distinctions, can
be directly mapped to the types of numbers we use:
Whole -- whole numbers (broken down into the SAME patterns of PRIMES
(objects) and COMPOSITES (relationships) you should also find this in all of
the types that follows...)
Parts -- rational numbers, linked to the harmonic series ('perfect' 5ths etc
etc? manifest some sort of 'primality'?)
Static relationships -- irrational numbers, linked to invariance e.g. PI, e,
etc etc
Dynamic relationships -- imaginary numbers, linked to variance,
transitions/transformations.
These 'basic' concepts, derivable from making object:relationship
distinctions are then combined into complex symbols (IOW we see the SAME
process as above where 'primes' are combined into 'composites' and so on).
For complex representations, in particular transitions and transformations,
we combine these types, we link 'whole' with 'imaginary' etc.
At this level we start to approach a continuum of sorts in that the
dichotomisation process cuts down to the degree where we can no longer
differentiate due to loss of resolution power ,we have shifted from a
definite A/~A to using wave equations and probabilites etc, we have shifted
focus from the object to the object in a context and how that context
affects the object; thus we move from considering the 'dots' to the spaces
in-between the dots; relational space. It is here that rich aspectual
analysis leads to emergence of cultural as well as individual qualities.
It is HERE that Derrida etc comes into play, it is here that these sorts of
writings will find some sort of value.
However, in the distinction of 'quality = reality' we have to go back BEFORE
expression, before the 'word'. The neurological patterns seem to favour the
same sorts of distinctions made above (whole-parts- etc) but in reverse in
that the development path to an expression where that expression is
interpretable as a 1 out of many, and so a 'whole', moves from dynamic
relationships contracting to a whole.
I have been able to convert the whole, parts statics, dynamics concepts into
sets of FEELINGS expressed as:
a sense of blending -- whole
a sense of bounding -- parts
a sense of bonding -- static relationships
a sense of binding - dynamic relationships
The direction I spoke of is:
implicit:
bind to bound to bond to blend
In this path dynamic processes (binds) can lead to 'clumps' emerging
(bounds), these will become parts but at this level are still self-contained
forms. The next step is a clumping of these parts in that they have to share
the same space with each other, this is reflected in bonding in that
identity of a part is retained but a growing dependency emerges to a degree
where the self-containment is no more. The final transformation is from bond
to blend, to a 'one' and that is the moment of 'expression'. This process is
independent of scale, it describes the processes of the 'birth' of stars,
humans, ideas etc.
explicit:
At the point of expression so the energy is now push outwards into the
context following the 'reverse' pattern in the form of
blend-to-bond-to-bound-to-bind. (this is the path of entropy where the
intensity in the expression is like a 'star' pouring energy into space.
Interactions with the expressions of others forms a pool of transformations,
more potentials..).
We can link the source of rich qualitative elements in BINDING in that there
is a dynamics involved and a rich social life favours dynamic processes
working as the source of feedback. This being the case explicitly, by
implication is also the case implicitly and in the above implicit
development path our links to reality are at the binding level where we move
from the general to the particular; a 'different' sensory pattern attracts
our attention. Thus the qualitative level of things, the set of POTENTIALS,
is best found in dynamic processes which lead to a particularisation, a
difference that makes a difference (since the neurology quickly habituates
to sameness, the emphasis is on difference detection). However this is also
highly subjective and it is consensus that takes these subjective values and
'objectifies' them, introduces them as cultural values.
In all of this I think you can see the emergence of feedback as being
fundamental in determinations of value and this feedback can take-on a wave
nature allowing for different values to share the same space (called a
superposition). Interpretation then acts to 'collapse' the wave and the more
complex the waveform the more interpretations are possible.
I think you can see here a rich source for deconstructionist approaches.
best,
Chris.
------------------
Chris Lofting
websites:
http://www.eisa.net.au/~lofting
http://www.ozemail.com.au/~ddiamond
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:00:50 BST