Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

41411RE: [existlist] Re: metonymy? ibidem

Expand Messages
  • Chris Lofting
    May 28, 2007
      > -----Original Message-----
      > From: existlist@yahoogroups.com [mailto:existlist@yahoogroups.com] On
      > Behalf Of Trinidad Cruz
      > Sent: Monday, 28 May 2007 11:23 PM
      > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
      > Subject: [existlist] Re: metonymy? ibidem
      > "But not unlike the deconstructionists, and the fundamentalist
      > religious, C J can only argue within the terms of his enunciation and
      > the purpose of his discourse, having predisposed of any other hope of
      > meaning."
      > I only drink snake-oil for the taste, not for the cure. I don't know
      > how the brain works beyond any hard scientific data, but C J, my point
      > is neither do you, and you have exited the sensible constraint of
      > science in your giddy proposition,

      ALL of my perspectives are backed up by current research and
      references/further-reading is supplied. (See end of this post)

      All I see in your prose to date is rhetoric - aka wind.

      All philosophy is derived from what is possible given our neurology.
      Different labels will customise the sameness into differences to bring out
      local contexts and so the words of Hegel or Kant or Sartre or Plato or
      Aristotle etc etc etc are representations of aspects of the whole that is
      what is possible given our species nature.

      The full spectrum is not in consciousness, where our consciousness can cover
      only about 7+/- 2 'things' at once, and so there is a continuous dynamic of
      dropping some things to be able to include others (and Science has this
      perspective in its piecemeal focus on research etc) as there is the issues
      of local context (small world) customisation of potentials.

      The whole that we are conscious of is small than, an aspect of, the whole we
      deal with as a species member - see comments and references in

      You need to read more dude - outside of your limited box. To aid your

      Reference/further reading lists for IDM are covered in:





      Basic ref list:

      There are also references in the pages if a quote etc - see the IDM pages
      proper starting with

      And such summary pages as:

      The draft on a property of recursing a dichotomy covering entanglement comes
      with its own ref list:

      The IDM material has used four specialist perspectives to illustrate the
      underlying template seeding those specialisations and so the isomorphism and
      so the metaphor nature of specialisations - the main ones being:

      Categories of Mathematics (see tables in

      The table needs extension to flesh out in finer detail the shift from
      symmetric perspectives to asymmetric perspectives and so increased focus on
      developing the notion of sequence where we move into complex numbers all the
      way to octonions.

      Categories of emotion (with emotion refs):

      (To cover the change from symmetric thinking using emotion to asymmetric
      thinking is covered in the work of Matte-Blanco and his notion of bi-logic:

      http://www.scispirit.com/matteblanco5web.htm )

      Categories of yin/yang:
      (IE browser only, some issues with the javascript of RoboHelp used to
      generate the pages and so limited to IE) OR for all browsers:

      references/further reading listed in:


      Linking of IDM, emotions, and yin/yang give us a methodology accessing
      emotional assessments of context that, at times, bring out incongruence in
      what the emotions focus upon and what consciousness focuses upon (and so
      censors 'taboo' perspectives)


      This is a 'lite' example of the work on dealing with the unconscious through
      use of generic questions that elicit a representation of the context, all
      due to what the IDM template captures - sense of wholes, parts, dynamic
      relationships, static relationships.

      What the yin/yang material brings out is how people get meaning from what
      science says is 'rubbish'. There is discussion of the method used and how
      questions etc can elicit better associations with existing context than the
      traditional random/miraculous methods.

      The work on Chinese perspectives has been of interest in the context of
      comparing Western socio-economic categories of production, distribution,
      filtration, exchange, consumption and the properties of Chinese five-phase
      theory (linked together in another example of IC categories -

      What the socioeconomic work brings out is the dual encoding of form and
      process in the dichotomy of differentiate/integrate - in linguistics this
      duality is associated with the concept of nominalisation/denominalisation,
      aka noun into verb, verb into noun. As such the generic form of meaning is
      in the form of a gerund that is then refined into the differentiation part
      (A something) and the integrating part (TO something).

      No snake oil here pal. All is grounded in current research.

    • Show all 9 messages in this topic