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

metonymy?

Expand Messages
  • Trinidad Cruz
    Metonymy; oh it just sounds so intelligent to use such a term in philosophical criticism. Metonymy is just a form of literary expression, a figure of speech,
    Message 1 of 9 , May 27, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      Metonymy; oh it just sounds so intelligent to use such a term in
      philosophical criticism. Metonymy is just a form of literary
      expression, a figure of speech, involving a conceptual hierarchy where
      a lesser related term that is a part of a general larger concept is
      substituted, usually for interest impact, in place of the larger term:
      i/e "He's on the bottle." in place of "He's an alcoholic." alcohol
      generally being sold in bottles, or "the crown" in place of "the
      king", or "the sword" in place of "killing". It is a curious
      distinction to make, given that a lesser term is generally chosen by a
      writer to add more emotional impact or more clarity. In such a
      situation I wonder actually which should be labeled the greater
      concept? That said, we need to remember that metonymy is a concept. Is
      it a greater or lesser term? It can be taken as a lesser term for
      literature, or literature can be taken as a lesser term for metonymy.
      Deconstructionists argue that the latter is true, but with arguments
      conceptualized in the dynamic terms of the former. This kind of
      criticism of philosophy is utterly agnostic and anti-humanist because
      metonymy has no actual critical bearing on literature unless
      literature itself is taken as a concept. A relativist, or a
      materialist, may argue that literature is purely referential to
      dynamics in a whole. Perhaps, but unlikely, because to be actually
      referential in a whole the producer of the literature would have to be
      the whole. It is not enough for literature itself to be whole and
      finite. The producer of the literature must be whole and finite. This
      is often taken in Hegelian fashion to be an argument for a "species
      consciousness" as being mentally causal. It may be fun to take an
      analytical approach to literature, but in fact it has nothing to lend
      to philosophy, indeed of less importance than a punch in the mouth.

      Now, C J's accusation of metonymy toward philosophical discourse is
      based in what Foucault would call its own "enunciatory function" and
      in my simpler existentialist terms a "given meaning". He assumes that
      human being is first, and human discourse is second in order of
      function. He then considers discourse a lesser term for being. His
      complaint is: that literary discourse can only be a metaphorical
      expression of being, and as such is an obstacle to be overcome in any
      human pursuit of meaning. On the surface a good deal of analytical
      philosophy and Heidegger seem to go down the same path, but there is a
      difference in the immediate enunciation or bases of meaning in such
      analysis of discourse by these philosophers, and a difference in
      expectations for them from C J. Arguments in analytical philosophy are
      generally discursive, but never discounting of any self-didactive
      expectation through the function of discourse, or in other terms, the
      possibility of an intuition even unrelated to any particular
      discursive function. C J on the other hand is essentially concerned
      with a process of recursive definition which concludes with the
      proposition of an algorithm for human thought processes or mental
      functions - a modern agnostic pipe dream, and neither analytical
      philosophy nor humanism. So of course I will disagree. 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.

      The philosopher would say that discourse and being can be
      differentiated from one another, but such a differentiation is
      essentially only discursive or reasonable, and that human being and
      human discourse are, though apparently hierarchical in discourse,
      actually co-active regardless of any discursive or reasonable
      arguments for an apparent non-simultaneity; so no recursive definition
      of activity is possible through any terms of discourse period; because
      in fact the initial enunciation of differentiation is made only in the
      specific terms of discourse - a lesser term than being in the first
      place.

      Real science has a specific charge, and a specific enunciatory
      function based on a given meaning, in all its discourse. This is not a
      flaw, or a mistake, or a particularly fecund criticism, (contrary to
      Foucault or the "repressive hypothesists") simply a fact. Science
      seeks to lend to a human authoritative meaning in terms of data more
      human than not. Some of the responses to my last post reflect some
      confusion over my view, so I can only blame my own discourse. My
      criticism had an undisclosed target. For some years the dialogue
      between Dennett and Rorty seemed to me to hold some promise of a
      resolution of some simple facts of human discourse. Since the
      publication of "Freedom Evolves" it seems to me that Dennett has
      stepped back into a position of recursive definition: that is he
      suggests evolution as an applicable algorithm for human existence, in
      fact virtually suggesting a circumscription of all human meaning in
      its terms. I maintain that is simply not true, and cannot ever be true
      for human being. I consider evolution a scientific fact. It carries
      with it the enunciation of paradigm that is science, but no modern
      philosopher would argue that evolution, actually a lesser term than
      human discourse (metonymy?), could pardigmatically circumscribe the
      scope of human meaning, any more readily than that a God could do the
      same. I like Richard Dawkins, and consider his efforts for atheism
      admirable, but as I have related before, I wonder how solid his
      atheist view would be unbolstered by science. My atheism stems from
      reason and philosophy, and though it finds supportive arguments in
      science it does not depend on them, in fact takes them as
      coincidental. My concern for science is just this: will it slip into
      an anti-humanist agnostic view as the influx of information swells
      exponentially in the coming years conveniently or politically
      forgetting its very human enunciatory burden as it has been prone to
      do throughout human history? At times it seems to me that Dennett
      already has. Science is a lesser term than discourse, because of this
      it is prone to be overwhelmed by mathematics which is essentially
      agnostic discourse. Contrary to the simplistic view of this new
      generation of pseudo-scientific writers; mathematics seeks to
      essentially avoid exclusion not vice versa. Outside of that primary
      function it can produce facticity, but also fallacy, indeed
      anti-scientific and anti-humanist fallacy. It is up to philosophy to
      continue to clarify, but the burden threatens to overwhelm it as well.
      About that Lyotard was right.

      Trinidad
    • Chris Lofting
      A wonderful example of someone raving on without knowledge of how the brain works and so seeds all categories etc. ... Is true but also false in that it lacks
      Message 2 of 9 , May 27, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        A wonderful example of someone raving on without knowledge of how the brain
        works and so seeds all categories etc.

        Thus the assertion that:

        > Metonymy is just a form of literary
        > expression, a figure of speech, involving a conceptual hierarchy where
        > a lesser related term that is a part of a general larger concept is
        > substituted, usually for interest impact, in place of the larger term

        Is true but also false in that it lacks scope, it limits itself to
        literature unaware that literature is a specialisation and so metaphor that
        comes with its own language but each term in that language exploits the
        underlying sameness across all specialisations - the properties and methods
        of the brain.

        One of the properties is associated with the use of dichotomies to derive
        meaning and in this particular case the dichotomy of metonymy/metaphor.

        The ASYMMETRIC nature of the dichotomy brings out metonymy as an
        exaggeration of some particular from the metaphor to serve as if the
        metaphor, and so an aspect/part is presented as if the whole.

        This is NOT a property limited to literature and the realm of tropes; it is
        a property of our brains in the mapping of, derivation of, meaning - and it
        fact it has its roots in sensory paradox - e.g. the necker cube experiments
        etc where a part/aspect of the whole (a complex line drawing) is considered
        to be the whole (as a cube oscillating in orientiation).

        See examples in http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/paradox.html

        Of interest from an existentialist perspective, is that our singular nature
        is metonymic in the context of the individual as a singular consciousness
        (and so the 'whole') often serves as a representative of the species and, in
        drug induced behaviour becomes a 'species'! ... and so part-for-whole
        mapping.

        Chris.
      • Trinidad Cruz
        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
        Message 3 of 9 , May 28, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          "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, while I have not. So I am assuming
          you are proposing a philosophy based upon your recursive definition of
          how things are. In that case you can be sure that your soul belongs to me.

          tc

          --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Chris Lofting" <chrislofting@...>
          wrote:
          >
          > A wonderful example of someone raving on without knowledge of how
          the brain
          > works and so seeds all categories etc.
          >
          > Thus the assertion that:
          >
          > > Metonymy is just a form of literary
          > > expression, a figure of speech, involving a conceptual hierarchy where
          > > a lesser related term that is a part of a general larger concept is
          > > substituted, usually for interest impact, in place of the larger term
          >
          > Is true but also false in that it lacks scope, it limits itself to
          > literature unaware that literature is a specialisation and so
          metaphor that
          > comes with its own language but each term in that language exploits the
          > underlying sameness across all specialisations - the properties and
          methods
          > of the brain.
          >
          > One of the properties is associated with the use of dichotomies to
          derive
          > meaning and in this particular case the dichotomy of metonymy/metaphor.
          >
          > The ASYMMETRIC nature of the dichotomy brings out metonymy as an
          > exaggeration of some particular from the metaphor to serve as if the
          > metaphor, and so an aspect/part is presented as if the whole.
          >
          > This is NOT a property limited to literature and the realm of
          tropes; it is
          > a property of our brains in the mapping of, derivation of, meaning -
          and it
          > fact it has its roots in sensory paradox - e.g. the necker cube
          experiments
          > etc where a part/aspect of the whole (a complex line drawing) is
          considered
          > to be the whole (as a cube oscillating in orientiation).
          >
          > See examples in
          http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/paradox.html
          >
          > Of interest from an existentialist perspective, is that our singular
          nature
          > is metonymic in the context of the individual as a singular
          consciousness
          > (and so the 'whole') often serves as a representative of the species
          and, in
          > drug induced behaviour becomes a 'species'! ... and so part-for-whole
          > mapping.
          >
          > Chris.
          >
        • Chris Lofting
          ... 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
          Message 4 of 9 , May 28, 2007
          • 0 Attachment
            > -----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
            http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/wavedicho.html

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

            Reference/further reading lists for IDM are covered in:

            Abstracts:

            http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/neurorefs.html

            http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/dencerefs.html

            http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/formrefs.html


            Basic ref list:
            http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/brefs.html


            There are also references in the pages if a quote etc - see the IDM pages
            proper starting with
            http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/idm002.html

            And such summary pages as:
            http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/ideal.html


            The draft on a property of recursing a dichotomy covering entanglement comes
            with its own ref list:
            http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/properties.html


            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
            http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/introIDM.html


            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):
            http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/emote.html


            (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:
            http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/IChingPlus
            (IE browser only, some issues with the javascript of RoboHelp used to
            generate the pages and so limited to IE) OR for all browsers:
            http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/newindex.html

            references/further reading listed in:

            http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/irefs.html


            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)

            http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/EmotionalIC.html


            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 -
            http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/icfive0.html
            )

            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.

            Chris.
          • eupraxis@aol.com
            What a load of cr*p! WS ... ************************************** See what s free at http://www.aol.com. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            Message 5 of 9 , May 28, 2007
            • 0 Attachment
              What a load of cr*p!

              WS

              In a message dated 5/28/07 7:01:36 PM, chrislofting@... writes:


              > ALL of my perspectives are backed up by current research and
              > references/further- references/further-<wbr>reading is supplie
              >
              > 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
              > http://members.http://membehttp://membehttp://members.http
              >
              > You need to read more dude - outside of your limited box. To aid your
              > development:
              >
              > Reference/further reading lists for IDM are covered in:
              >
              > Abstracts:
              >
              > http://members.http://membehttp://membehttp://members.http
              >
              > http://members.http://membehttp://membehttp://members.http
              >
              > http://members.http://membehttp://membehttp://members.http
              >
              > Basic ref list:
              > http://members.http://membehttp://membehttp://membehttp
              >
              > There are also references in the pages if a quote etc - see the IDM pages
              > proper starting with
              > http://members.http://membehttp://membehttp://memberhttp
              >
              > And such summary pages as:
              > http://members.http://membehttp://membehttp://membehttp
              >
              > The draft on a property of recursing a dichotomy covering entanglement comes
              > with its own ref list:
              > http://members.http://membehttp://membehttp://members.http:
              >
              > 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
              > http://members.http://membehttp://membehttp://members.http
              >
              > 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):
              > http://members.http://membehttp://membehttp://membehttp
              >
              > (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.scispirihttp://www.scisphttp://ww )
              >
              > Categories of yin/yang:
              > http://members.http://membehttp://membehttp://mem
              > (IE browser only, some issues with the javascript of RoboHelp used to
              > generate the pages and so limited to IE) OR for all browsers:
              > http://members.http://membehttp://membehttp://members.http
              >
              > references/further reading listed in:
              >
              > http://members.http://membehttp://membehttp://membehttp
              >
              > 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)
              >
              > http://members.http://membehttp://membehttp://members.http:/
              >
              > 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 -
              > http://members.http://membehttp://membehttp://membershttp
              > )
              >
              > What the socioeconomic work brings out is the dual encoding of form and
              > process in the dichotomy of differentiate/ process in the dichotomy of di
              > duality is associated with the concept of nominalisation/ duality is asso
              > 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.
              >
              > Chris.
              >




              **************************************
              See what's free at http://www.aol.com


              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • Chris Lofting
              ... Hmmm ... can you be more specific? What aspects disturb you? Or does the whole disturb you? If so, then in what way(s) are you disturbed? Chris.
              Message 6 of 9 , May 28, 2007
              • 0 Attachment
                > -----Original Message-----
                > From: existlist@yahoogroups.com [mailto:existlist@yahoogroups.com] On
                > Behalf Of eupraxis@...
                > Sent: Tuesday, 29 May 2007 11:26 AM
                > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                > Subject: Re: [existlist] Re: metonymy? ibidem
                >
                > What a load of cr*p!
                >
                > WS
                >

                Hmmm ... can you be more specific? What aspects disturb you? Or does the
                whole disturb you? If so, then in what way(s) are you disturbed?

                Chris.
              • Trinidad Cruz
                ... wrote: You need to read more dude - outside of your limited box. To aid your development: C J Lofting Aw geez CSW. I m gonna pop. You know C J, of late
                Message 7 of 9 , May 29, 2007
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Chris Lofting" <chrislofting@...>
                  wrote:

                  "You need to read more dude - outside of your limited box. To aid your
                  development:" C J Lofting

                  Aw geez CSW. I'm gonna pop.

                  You know C J, of late my Doctor, who is a very nice man, a genuinely
                  compassionate man; has advised me against reading things that insult
                  my intelligence as I become too agitated. Unfortunately I don't
                  consider him, though reasonably scientific, to be much more to me than
                  a nuisance. I opted for self-diagnosis years ago, and personally think
                  I am an exception to the rule, and will continue to live that way as
                  my behavior and its consequences are my responsibility. One could say
                  I was dying, but it would be an utterly irrelevant statement since I
                  began that process along with living the day I was born. At least thus
                  far he has been sharp enough not to advise me against sexual activity,
                  though that may have something to do with me dating his daughter,
                  though I suffer constant warning about smoking at her hands which I
                  generally ignore. At least she's sharp enough not to admonish me about
                  drinking. I remember the story of Jack going out to the beach on Fire
                  Island, and approaching a young bikini clad woman with "Hi I'm Jack
                  Kerouac." She looked at the pestering old bum and squealed "No way you
                  weirdo. You're not Jack Kerouac." or some such proclamation. Society
                  in general pretty much tells us we are not who we think we are, and
                  those of us who are lazy or stupid or diffident tend to turn to
                  expertise for some definition. I admit myself to having drifted toward
                  that comfort a few times along the way. Unfortunately my experiences
                  with such "expertise" have resulted in substantial relationship losses
                  along the way, generally about the time the teeth gnashing started.
                  Why is it these days so many "academics" never actually become
                  academic? In the answer to that question is my accusation. These times
                  in academia are generally insipid and faddist I admit, but a general
                  assumption that a human textual appraisal of the universe can contain
                  the workings of the human mind is hilarious. Right about the time you
                  think you are constructing yourself you're going to find out that
                  nobody else notices, in fact often don't even want to notice, and
                  furthermore that you have simply invented only another closed and
                  useless discourse on a par with nursery rhymes. Therein is the texture
                  you are drawn in and to - comfort and a good night's sleep. I want
                  comfort and a good night's sleep myself, I just don't ever want to
                  believe that they matter to anything about me other than my living or
                  dying which are already clearly not good enough for me or anyone who
                  actually cares about me.

                  I've seen the butterfly effect, on the windshield of a Mack. It's the
                  same thing that makes it so hard to get up off the couch at the end of
                  the day - gravity. John Cage used to do a piece called "Moths" I think
                  he called it. I saw him do it back in the 60's once when it surprised
                  even him. He tossed a platter full of moths in the air expecting the
                  sound of fluttering wings, and not a single moth flew, but rather fell
                  to the stage in series of sickly plops. He smiled though. It was dark
                  in the auditorium. I was feeling up my girlfriend and only noticed
                  because I felt her giggle. I was not thinking about living or dying,
                  or the effect of anything, neither the plops nor the flutters. Cage
                  was right. It was music, but he wasn't performing it, I was. I write
                  my own song C J, `cause the one the universe writes is just not
                  beautiful enough for me, and what you haven't understood is that I can
                  actually hear that universal song, and obviously more clearly than
                  you, because my intent will always be to re-write it in my terms - not
                  a God's, not a scientist's, not a mathematician's, not a preacher's,
                  not an artist's, not a poet's, not a musician's, not even a
                  philosopher's - nope, just whatever the hell my human terms are for me.

                  Oh crap. Honey help me. Too late.

                  To me you're on par with a "Moonie". You think the I Ching is genetic
                  code? I was kinda wondering what kind of instrumentation they had in
                  2000BC? Was there some long lost X-ray crystallography machine or gene
                  sequencer in the FRICKIN' STONE AGE? Are you saying they got the info
                  from space aliens? Are you a secret Sitchenette? You think the
                  corporate world is gonna naturally evolve a conscience? Jesus are you
                  brain dead? I wanna argue with your Marquette math professor but I can
                  only take the stress drunk. I live in Lake Geneva. I can come up there
                  some night. I know some people in Milwaukee. I'll bring `em. I want no
                  fee, just a couple of cases of beer on the stage for me and a couple
                  of my buddies. When the beer's gone I'll leave. Bring Ashton Kutcher,
                  we'll kick back. If he brings Demi I can probably get some actual
                  mathematicians to come. I'll try to talk Knotthead into coming too. I
                  think he's in Chicago. You'll probably have to pay him though. He
                  understands comedy so commands a much higher price. Picture it. What a
                  butterfly effect. Lake Michigan could turn into beer. Why didn't I
                  think of this a long time ago? That would be cool dude. I'm with ya
                  buddie. I see the good sense in your approach. Let's make `er happen.
                  Wil, goddamnit I think he's got `er dialed in. It's just an
                  experiment. Let's try it. You know it just occurred to me that if I go
                  into analysis with one of these guys Lake Michigan could turn into
                  beer. I'm always game for a good cause. I dunno. Maybe there were
                  aliens. Maybe that's who tried to kill me in Denver. Damn. I'm
                  beginning to see the light. I always thought it was the NSA. What the
                  hell did I do with that box of sticks? Where's my gun?

                  Oh shit.

                  Settle down now Trini. Don't get those little white sparkly things
                  going again. I hate that goddamned ping that shoots down my neck.
                  Gimme a cigarette honey. Please. I'm gonna pop. Yeah, yeah, yeah. The
                  complaining's harder on me than the cigarette. For chrissake you and
                  your old man are gonna kill me tryin' to make me live. OK. I'm sorry.
                  Get me a beer. That's better. Don't worry. I'm just excited about Lake
                  Michigan. Honey, where's that protest against sea-going ships in the
                  Great Lakes going to be?

                  Love and kisses, 'r uh,
                  peace out baby
                  Trinidad
                • Exist List Moderator
                  ... Trinidad -- I do nothing now but research how the brain works for my Ph.D dissertation and I don t pretend to follow the postings of late. As I have said,
                  Message 8 of 9 , May 29, 2007
                  • 0 Attachment
                    On May 29, 2007, at 10:16, Trinidad Cruz wrote:

                    > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Chris Lofting" <chrislofting@...>
                    > wrote:
                    >
                    > "You need to read more dude - outside of your limited box. To aid your
                    > development:" C J Lofting
                    >
                    > Aw geez CSW. I'm gonna pop.

                    Trinidad --

                    I do nothing now but research how the brain works for my Ph.D
                    dissertation and I don't pretend to follow the postings of late. As I
                    have said, I exist in Wonderland because (1) I prefer scientists to
                    my colleagues in the humanities (2) my emphasis is on the
                    neurological underpinnings of how individuals communicate with words,
                    not theory without brain scans and similar data.

                    I think being an older doctoral student, coming from private
                    enterprise, I have found I am more sensitive to the fact academics in
                    the humanities spend most of their time arguing over words and
                    meaning. I have met one who spent decades studying four incomplete
                    fragments of Greek aphorisms. I can't understand such pursuits at all
                    -- at least not full-time!!!

                    Give me a room of scientists and I can at least understand them,
                    usually. A room of literature critics and I feel dazed and confused.

                    - C. S. Wyatt
                    I am what I am at this moment, not what I was and certainly not all
                    that I shall be.
                    http://www.tameri.com - Tameri Guide for Writers
                    http://www.tameri.com/csw/exist - The Existential Primer
                  • Chris Lofting
                    ... Yes, that can happen with symmetric thinkers - their need for sameness limits their exposure to difference and so any difference is adaptive; innovation is
                    Message 9 of 9 , May 29, 2007
                    • 0 Attachment
                      > -----Original Message-----
                      > From: existlist@yahoogroups.com [mailto:existlist@yahoogroups.com] On
                      > Behalf Of Trinidad Cruz
                      > Sent: Wednesday, 30 May 2007 1:16 AM
                      > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                      > Subject: [existlist] Re: metonymy? ibidem
                      >
                      > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Chris Lofting" <chrislofting@...>
                      > wrote:
                      >
                      > "You need to read more dude - outside of your limited box. To aid your
                      > development:" C J Lofting
                      >
                      > Aw geez CSW. I'm gonna pop.
                      >
                      > You know C J, of late my Doctor, who is a very nice man, a genuinely
                      > compassionate man; has advised me against reading things that insult
                      > my intelligence as I become too agitated.

                      Yes, that can happen with symmetric thinkers - their need for sameness
                      limits their exposure to difference and so any difference is adaptive;
                      innovation is excluded since it is truly asymmetric.

                      The price of being innovative is the difference upsets people. They want
                      'likemindedness' and when faced with a 'difference' issues can develop. As
                      such they want the difference to be described in THEIR language but their
                      language does not cover the differences, does not contain such.

                      > Unfortunately I don't
                      > consider him, though reasonably scientific, to be much more to me than
                      > a nuisance.

                      Vanity does that.

                      > I opted for self-diagnosis years ago, and personally think
                      > I am an exception to the rule, and will continue to live that way as
                      > my behavior and its consequences are my responsibility.

                      More vanity - you're a hopeless case ;-)

                      > One could say
                      > I was dying,

                      We all are - from the moment we are born. The issues are with those who want
                      to avoid it and/or consider it all 'unfair' - "how can this happen to ME!?"
                      Etc - more vanity (and so seeds the narcissism collectives - all showbiz,
                      plastic surgery, genetic engineering and an overall focus on making the
                      world Disneyland and so play cops n robbers or cowboys and Indians with real
                      guns)

                      > but it would be an utterly irrelevant statement since I
                      > began that process along with living the day I was born. At least thus
                      > far he has been sharp enough not to advise me against sexual activity,
                      > though that may have something to do with me dating his daughter,
                      > though I suffer constant warning about smoking at her hands which I
                      > generally ignore. At least she's sharp enough not to admonish me about
                      > drinking. I remember the story of Jack going out to the beach on Fire
                      > Island, and approaching a young bikini clad woman with "Hi I'm Jack
                      > Kerouac." She looked at the pestering old bum and squealed "No way you
                      > weirdo. You're not Jack Kerouac." or some such proclamation. Society
                      > in general pretty much tells us we are not who we think we are, and
                      > those of us who are lazy or stupid or diffident tend to turn to
                      > expertise for some definition. I admit myself to having drifted toward
                      > that comfort a few times along the way. Unfortunately my experiences
                      > with such "expertise" have resulted in substantial relationship losses
                      > along the way, generally about the time the teeth gnashing started.
                      > Why is it these days so many "academics" never actually become
                      > academic?

                      Vanity - poisoned by the collective outlook of the 'me' generation. The
                      focus on universities being self-funded leads to opportunities for
                      exploitation and the capitalism-sourced theme of produce or die (publish or
                      perish). As such it all becomes superficial and show biz takes over, all is
                      superficial, there is no depth since depth requires history to develop but
                      the socioeconomic focus on re-invention means little time for such history
                      to develop! As such history becomes a detectable path of re-invention (e.g.
                      Madonna comes to mind!) - adapt or die. No time to 'settle', to 'mature' as
                      such - but then when one is seeking eternal youth who wants to 'mature'!

                      However, despite all of the papers produced there are 'gems' if you bother
                      to look for them, or if you have the time to do so. Thus the notion of
                      'quality references' is still present at a time when plagiarism abounds due
                      to pressures to perform (or to play the opportunist is post-modern society
                      where the emphasis is on 'any metaphor will do' and so attempts to 'borrow'
                      a metaphor amongst the plethora of such and hope no one picks up on it)

                      > In the answer to that question is my accusation. These times
                      > in academia are generally insipid and faddist I admit, but a general
                      > assumption that a human textual appraisal of the universe can contain
                      > the workings of the human mind is hilarious. Right about the time you
                      > think you are constructing yourself you're going to find out that
                      > nobody else notices, in fact often don't even want to notice, and
                      > furthermore that you have simply invented only another closed and
                      > useless discourse on a par with nursery rhymes. Therein is the texture
                      > you are drawn in and to - comfort and a good night's sleep. I want
                      > comfort and a good night's sleep myself, I just don't ever want to
                      > believe that they matter to anything about me other than my living or
                      > dying which are already clearly not good enough for me or anyone who
                      > actually cares about me.
                      >

                      Despair. It turns you inwards and so a focus on existence, on being, on now.
                      Reject history, make it NOW, every moment is a new history! LOL! You have
                      adapted to the times by rejecting 'out there' by internalising it! Thus "the
                      truth is out there" is reversed to "the truth is in here". This is an act of
                      symmetric thinking, dominated by emotion etc - when you see yourself as
                      metaphor then you become interchangeable with all others and so open to the
                      loss of self any minute. As such you live on a border and so let loose what
                      lives on borders - complexity/chaos dynamics. (if you covered Science you
                      would understand the experience, if not then you are stuck to live in
                      ad-hoc-ville)

                      > I've seen the butterfly effect, on the windshield of a Mack. It's the
                      > same thing that makes it so hard to get up off the couch at the end of
                      > the day - gravity. John Cage used to do a piece called "Moths" I think
                      > he called it. I saw him do it back in the 60's once when it surprised
                      > even him. He tossed a platter full of moths in the air expecting the
                      > sound of fluttering wings, and not a single moth flew, but rather fell
                      > to the stage in series of sickly plops. He smiled though. It was dark
                      > in the auditorium. I was feeling up my girlfriend and only noticed
                      > because I felt her giggle. I was not thinking about living or dying,
                      > or the effect of anything, neither the plops nor the flutters. Cage
                      > was right. It was music, but he wasn't performing it, I was. I write
                      > my own song C J, `cause the one the universe writes is just not
                      > beautiful enough for me, and what you haven't understood is that I can
                      > actually hear that universal song, and obviously more clearly than
                      > you, because my intent will always be to re-write it in my terms - not
                      > a God's, not a scientist's, not a mathematician's, not a preacher's,
                      > not an artist's, not a poet's, not a musician's, not even a
                      > philosopher's - nope, just whatever the hell my human terms are for me.
                      >
                      > Oh crap. Honey help me. Too late.
                      >
                      > To me you're on par with a "Moonie". You think the I Ching is genetic
                      > code?

                      With this statement you show you superficiality by not reading my material
                      which his not about expression but about what is behind it.

                      The I Ching is a metaphor, and so a source of representation, created from
                      self-referencing.
                      The genetic code is a metaphor, and so a source of representation, created
                      from self-referencing. (the self-referencing is the purine/pyramidine
                      dichotomy where it elicits the RNA/DNA codons etc)

                      This diagram covers the sameness:

                      http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/DIAG1.gif

                      The isomorphism is the methodology - self-referencing. Without understanding
                      that people make all sorts of associations since they mostly deal with
                      expression rather than essence - just like you do.

                      The originators of the IC had no idea what they were dealing with - their
                      own brain. Thus they tried to describe their feelings stemming from their
                      perceptions by links to local context - history, legends, myths.

                      The use of the material would bring out patterns related to self-referencing
                      and so elicit value, the source of which could not be identified so things
                      took on mystical themes etc but the endurance of the IC indicates there is
                      'something' there that works in the elicitation of meaning - and my work
                      brings out what that it - the dynamics of our brains where the processing of
                      noise elicits order through self-referencing.


                      > was kinda wondering what kind of instrumentation they had in
                      > 2000BC?

                      Their brain and its seeding of meaning from basic neurology processing
                      senses and categorising into generic 'feelings' of wholes, parts, static
                      relationships, dynamic relationships - but they had no idea what was going
                      on 'in here' other than their consciousness.

                      Of interest is the method they used for 'divining' - the use of randomness
                      (what they consider the miraculous etc)

                      The relationship in the divining perspective is identical to that of our
                      singular consciousness to species nature (our genetics and so determinism)
                      where consciousness is 'like' coin tossing. This is in fact hard-coded into
                      our brains! - consider this abstract:

                      Cerebral Cortex, Vol. 11, No. 10, 954-965, October 2001
                      C 2001 Oxford University Press

                      New Evidence for Distinct Right and Left Brain Systems for Deductive versus
                      Probabilistic Reasoning
                      Lawrence M. Parsons and Daniel Osherson1
                      University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, San Antonio, TX
                      and
                      1 Rice University, Houston, TX, USA

                      Lawrence M. Parsons, Director, Cognitive Neuroscience Program, Division of
                      Behavioral and Cognitive Sciences, Directorate for Social, Behavioral, and
                      Economic Sciences, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard,
                      Arlington, VA 22230, USA.

                      Deductive and probabilistic reasoning are central to cognition but the
                      functional neuroanatomy underlying them is poorly understood. The present
                      study contrasted these two kinds of reasoning via positron emission
                      tomography. Relying on changes in instruction and psychological 'set',
                      deductive versus probabilistic reasoning was induced using identical
                      stimuli. The stimuli were arguments in propositional calculus not readily
                      solved via mental diagrams. Probabilistic reasoning activated mostly left
                      brain areas whereas deductive activated mostly right. Deduction activated
                      areas near right brain homologues of left language areas in middle temporal
                      lobe, inferior frontal cortex and basal ganglia, as well as right amygdala,
                      but not spatial-visual areas. Right hemisphere activations in the deduction
                      task cannot be explained by spill-over from overtaxed, left language areas.
                      Probabilistic reasoning was mostly associated with left hemispheric areas in
                      inferior frontal, posterior cingulate, parahippocampal, medial temporal, and
                      superior and medial prefrontal cortices. The foregoing regions are
                      implicated in recalling and evaluating a range of world knowledge,
                      operations required during probabilistic thought. The findings confirm that
                      deduction and induction are distinct processes, consistent with
                      psychological theories enforcing their partial separation. The results also
                      suggest that, except for statement decoding, deduction is largely
                      independent of language, and that some forms of logical thinking are
                      non-diagrammatic.


                      ALSO SEE:


                      Oaksford, M., and Chater, N., (2001) "The probabilistic approach to human
                      reasoning" IN Trends in Cognitive Sciences Vol 5. No8 August 2001: 349-357

                      (published PRIOR to the above) From the intro:

                      "In a standard reasoning task, performance is compared with the inferences
                      people should make according to logic, so a judgement can be made on the
                      rationality of people's reasoning. It has been found that people make large
                      and systematic (i.e. non-random) errors, which suggests that humans might be
                      irrational. However, the probabilistic approach argues against this
                      interpretation" (p349)





                      > Was there some long lost X-ray crystallography machine or gene
                      > sequencer in the FRICKIN' STONE AGE? Are you saying they got the info
                      > from space aliens? Are you a secret Sitchenette? You think the
                      > corporate world is gonna naturally evolve a conscience? Jesus are you
                      > brain dead?


                      All I see in the above prose is ignorance and fear. You are like the ancient
                      chinese - no idea what you are dealing with and intent on expressions to aid
                      you in understanding when all they do is re-invent past expressions - same
                      essences, different contexts in both space and time.

                      Your struggling dude - do you like that? Is there a need for that?
                      Understand yourself requires knowledge of 'in here' and so how you, as a
                      species member, do what you do. THEN comes expression and the dynamics of
                      the singular, of consciousness, as the random seed to allow for diversity in
                      expressions and so ability to exploit situations, re-invent self etc etc etc
                      but behind ALL of this is your species nature and so your brain.

                      Read more dude - especially neurosciences (and IDM ;-)) Think. Take the risk
                      to go deep.

                      Chris.
                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.