Hi Chris, Hi All,
Be cautious, it's long and weird!
Thanks for filling up your ideas, I do get along with it by now. Maybe you
should do some more of this filling up to reach more participants in this
discussion forum. I still think there is much about it, but you have to
understand people to go by your articles and read the ones, that are closer to
oneselfs understanding. I guess, it may be in fact a problem, that you have
dealt upon this for very long and therefore not being aware of your 'big steps'.
It is similar to the 'lecturers problem'; they don't grasp, what and why the
students do not grasp his/hers thought :-).
It may be with some of my articles as well - some on which I spend much thinking
- so I sometimes cannot tell, whether my ideas are too self-evident that it's
almost ridiculous to talk about, or to far away from other peoples subjects of
consideration and thinking. It has been both from time to time, I guess,
assumingly mainly the first, but I can never tell, not to mention imprecise
language on my part or also wrong directions (though those quite seldom as far
as I can see).
Chris Lofting wrote:
>
> Hi JoVo,
>
> Try this:
>
> The moment you make a distinction of A so you force the creation of the
> distinction of ~A.
>
> This process of distinction making is the fundamental way in which we humans
> make maps of reality.
>
> When we make a distinction we then more often than not zoom-in on the
> distinction and make it a context within which we create more distinctions
> as we attempt to refine our analysis of A. This is an attempt to be precise,
> to clearly identify A from ~A.
>
> The process of zooming-in has structure in that we 'cut' A into bits which
> we then label. At the general level these labels are:
>
> A -- the whole
> ~A -- all else of A
I agree to this. IMO these dichotomies, in fact, are of great importance, when
human 'thinking' is considered. All this relates very well to my personal
considerings, concerning the 'value-being'. The value of dichotomic decisions
lies in it's economy, in this case the economy of thinking. To consider only two
possible ways to go on, is much easier, than to think about three, which is
easier than four and so on, leading to an infinite number of possiblities in the
end (which cannot be handled anymore because than, all is flux).
In short, a dichotomic processing is the minimum requirement to have CHOICE and
the most economic in the same moment. But on the other hand it is a reduction of
reality, a simplification, but one that can be successful as long as there is
'space' to act like this; and also leaving aside the fact, that all this
decision-taking (not making) is leading to an agglomeration of knowledge all
gained by this method.
> Zooming-in on ~A helps to differentiate ~A into such distinctions as:
>
> parts (wholes in their own right but here seen as objects in the context of
> a greater object)
> relationships, both static and dynamic.
>
> Zoom-in further and out pops a general distinction best associated with the
> concepts of positive/negative, text/context, foreground/background,
> expansive/contractive etc.
>
> All of these distinctions are 'natural', they are not learnt in anyway, just
> refined through education.
Yes, and it is making sense for most cases, it's economic to do so. I support
your point of view here, because it seems as if this being an advantage to the
one it inheres to.
> Thus ANY distinction-making includes a set of properties that are part of
> the method of analysis, you will 'see' A/~A fleshed-out into distinctions of
> wholeness, partness, static relationships, dynamic relationships. These in
> turn are fleshed-out into, for example, the text/context distinction, thus
> you have whole as text, whole as context, parts as text, parts as context,
> static relationships as text, static relationships as context, dynamic
> relationships as text, dynamic relationships as context.
In fact, following logically the above, though I still do not understand, what
is meant by 'contractive vs expansive'. Besides, as far as I understand, it
refers to my 'pet theory' (dynamic vs static individuals)
Johannes on: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 03:12:01; MD Re:MEMES
> And a last word about it (really!); an image not being very nice nor fair, but
> it seem to be also useful in my opinion. The hang-loose type is the one looking
> straight forward in direction of dynamic quality while not very well being aware
> of static quality and in contrary the hang-stiff type is standing, leaning his
> back against the hang-loose types, looking backwards to where is static quality,
> so keeping an eye on static quality while not seeing - not so good as the
> hang-loose type does - dynamic quality.
The dynamic individual widens space and the static one gives order to what has
been 'found' by the dynamic, giving this bit of information a place in the realm
of knowledge.
But I'd like to see dichtomies, more precise the underlying principle, i.e.
taking a choice out of two possibilities, more as being (one) a basic principle
also for other value-beings, that happened to occur long before the rise of the
human being. Bifurcation is the minimum requirement for a value-beings
processing, to be able to go on at last. The expansion of this principle leads
then to multifurcation, but not unless the 'space' is crowded, so the
environment forces to a refined decision-taking, you, me and every value-being
get along very well and moreover more economically with a tendency to reduce
every decision to only two ways to move on.
You can very well argue at this point, that I say so, because of my underlying
tendency to dichotomy (you seem to point at this, I guess); that is indeed
worthwhile to consider. But this attempt to describe (above paragraph, general
tendency to bifurcation) is at least one reason for all of us taking part in
this discussion forum, to find out, whether there is a principle, that can be
found in an atom as well as in a human being. That is primarily Quality (it's
quest) in the Pirsigian sense, but I personally look also at other shared
patterns.
[...]
> In the context of this list, take the MOQ as the 'universe of discourse'. We
> will naturally flesh-out the properties and methods of this universe by
> using recursive dichotomisations to identify 'meanings'. Thus the MOQ will
> naturally fall into the distintions of whole, parts, static relationships,
> dynamic relationships etc as discussed above re ANY distinction.
[...]
> Thus 'MOQ' is a universe of discourse, it is a 'whole' as such and we
> automatically use dichotomisation to analyse MOQ and then label the
> distinctions we make such that MOQ is fleshed-out into a concept with its
> own language and as such MOQ becomes a tool for interpreting reality.
> Feedback then goes towards validating MOQ to be a 'useful' way of
> interpreting or not.
>
> Structurally MOQ has the SAME set of distinctions as all other universes of
> discourse but this is hidden by the use of free will to label distinctions,
> to particularise them, to tie them to the particular universe of discourse.
>
> This method of analysis, dichotomous analysis, reflects your brain at work
> in that analysis of data is made by forming 1:many type dichotomies and from
> those eliciting a sense of meaning.
>
> IF you map-out the first few steps of this method you have the following
> distinctions:
>
> Level 0 - a whole (thus a general particularisation, the distinction of
> "MOQ" from everything else)
>
> Zoom-in to level 1 -- a whole + parts.
> Zoom-in to level 2 - (by looking at the space 'inbetween' the distinctions
> of whole and parts) whole+parts+relationships, where the latter is static
> and dynamic.
I'm going to go through your stuff, when I take my 'sabbatical' now, as I will
work through Rogers stuff, as well as Lilas Child and my personal archives. At
least it feels good in a way. The 1:many and all those other categorisations of
yours is still not clear to me, but I'll work on it.
>
> You may be puzzled here since isnt a part a relationship? so why the
> distinctions that exclude the concept of parts? This is because
> relationships exist between objects and as such can be interpreted as 'stand
> alone' -- virtual objects if you like. Thus 'love' can be interpreted as a
> 'thing' but in fact is a process, Thus love is a virtual object in that,
> like a tornado, when analysed it is found to have nothing to touch, it is
> all 'wind' :-)
Not at all, because what I say about value-beings and intervaluations is quite a
similar impetus; for example take my family description in one of my former
posts.
> With all of this in mind, when you analyse all categorisation systems based
> on observations of people, so the different systems - e.g. MBTI, HBTI, BIG-5
> etc are found to have the SAME structures behind the DIFFERENT words.
That excatly seems to be my determined life task, to find 'SAME structures
behind the DIFFERENT words'. ;-)
> Thus, to use the MBTI you find:
>
> NFP types are biased to behaviours linked to contractive wholeness, to
> blending by drawing someone 'in' -- disciples and advocates are like this.
>
> NFJ types are biased to contractive static relationships, to bonding, to
> sharing the same space with another (as do NFPs) but also to retaining some
> sense of their original identity.
>
> SFJ types favour parts, boundaries distinctions but contractive in form, aim
> to protect.
>
> STJ types favour dynamic relationships, they lack trust in others and so use
> BINDs to share space, they make contracts etc
>
> NTP types favour dynamic relationships but are expansive. They lack trust in
> themselves and so bind themselves to maps and philosophies.
As far as I'm personally concerned, that is true in literally sense. And I know
some of the other types too.
>
> NTJ types favour parts, expansive boundaries which they push outwards.
>
> SFP types favour static relationships but in an expansive form, to form
> bonds with their audience (these types are often performers etc)
>
> STP types favour expansive wholeness, singlemindedness, to assert THEIR
> context over all else.
But all that sounds not much different, from what I have said in my previous
post, isn't it?
> The above associations are made from analysis of the MBTI as linked to the
> underlying template of 'meaning' based on object/relationship distinctions
> unconsciously made by the neurology. The MBTI is a particularisation of
> patterns identification in a context of persona typing and as such is a
> metaphor for describing personality types.
[...]
> MY emphasis is on the structuring of these categorisations in that they
> reflect underlying neurologically determined categorisations.
>
> My understanding this 'hidden' level of analysis we can get a better
> perspective on concepts and so be more discerning in our analyse of things,
> we see expressions for what they are, metaphors, and as such withdraw from
> taking many of them too literally since that seems to be where we have all
> of our problems.
Here I don't completly share your point of view, when you say, that the way we -
the human being - look upon ('looking out in', might be better perhaps ;-) ) the
world and the universe is fully dependant on these basic dichotomies of humans.
In fact it has some influence, but this influence is not that encompassing, as
you seem to say, IMO. I can't support this for the moment, but I guess many
astonishing predictions derived by humans such as Einstein and others indicate,
that our worldview is also dependant on our properties, but on the other hand
not exclusively. If we had a different set of sensing, percepting and also
thinking tools, we still would have been forced to cope with our situation and
our environment, which is the same as before. Imagine the existence of aliens,
i.e. intelligent beings in other places somewhere the universe.
They also HAVE to cope with their situation; they have to find ways to develop
in a 'quality-direction', just like we do. And imagine further, that we,
someday, meet each other. In case this meeting would be a hostile one, the
species with the higher understanding of 'what's going on' around him and how to
manipulate it (in my model, that is called 'dimension'), would be the one who
rules. The question up to which grade that understanding goes, is surely a
secondary one, isn't it. :-)
But maybe you don't claim such an absoluteness concerning in your last
paragraph, in that case I agree with it.
I'd like to pull your attention, Chris, to the articles of Matt Coughlan,
especially this one MD WHY SCIENCE DISCREDITS ART; Sun, 19 Mar 2000, that shows
some parallels to your considerations, IMO. Maybe you could find something in
it. This stuff is a bit weird somehow, but nevertheless interesting (Me think so
). Weird stuff for weird people! ;-)
Thanks for giving me ideas,
Regards,
JoVo
countdown:5
"Ahh, both dials seem to fall....at last. We are boring slow, already...I mean
these are quality railtracks!? What's the stop after Engineer-town, then?"
"Maybe it's Quality-town, but I'm not sure, I haven't been on this route before.
What sort of quality adjustments should be done then?"
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 - 16:00:54 BST