On Semiotics

by Deric Morris

	
ON SEMIOTICS
     Beyond the Psi*Phi Event Horizon

With nothing but the best intentions, too often the karass falls 
into the memetic trap of nailing Jello to a tree. Iıve quite 
frequently wished we could establish a common psi*phi domain from 
which to move on to more important matters. Herewith, a few 
observations and hypotheticals to hopefully bring some clarity. 
So we can at least know what weıre disagreeing about!

By way of illustration, allow me a brief syntactic fugue:

DM: Synchronicity IS basic implicate causality; attractors ARE 
teleology; metarecursion IS system diagnostic; meaning IS the 
implicate-explicate hologram. Definition IS always recursive. Mind 
IS the meaning of Universe. 
SR: I'm tired, it's late, and I dont understand the above. 
Too many ISes.

This was Swintonıs last-gasp closure at the end of an arduous and 
assiduous (exiguous too!) attempt to clarify some of my semiotic 
ravings. I guess what is needed is for me to clarify further. The 
entire text, by the way, can be found on RASı (& my) website, at:

So - That farrago translates thus: "Synchronicity is basic implicate 
causality" states that the innate causality of unfolding from the 
implicate to the explicate is in fact nonlinear/synchronistic; 
"Attractors are teleology" notes that unfolding causality is elicited 
by attractors, (as in "emergent order accretes to attractors by 
synchrony"); "Metarecursion is system diagnostic" means that the 
definition of a functional system (as opposed to some "simple" 
random collision/collusion of logistics) is that the system is 
metalevel recursive; and "Meaning is the implicate-explicate hologram" 
relates to how the class of semiotic/memetic categories we assign as 
"meaning" are a holographic mapping of the entire 
implicate-unfolding-to-explicate psi*phi "process".

Further, "Definition is always recursiveı says that as we 
assign/define "reality" in the face of Goedelıs theorem, we must 
necessarily depend on recursive terms. Finally, the point of "Mind is 
the meaning of universe" is that our holographic mapping of the  
phenomenal "universe" (read: "meaning") fits all criteria for what 
we label as "mind". And likely without "mind" the universe would be 
meaningless. 

That wasnıt so bad, was it?

<<"A clear understanding of consciousness and the self compressive 
force at the non mechanical level" This rung a bell with my belief 
that compression is the key for sifting out the random from the 
self-similar.>>

This quote and comment are from a recent email Swinton sent me. 
My own take on this is that the "compression" and "sifting out" he 
mentions are precisely the same as the memetic process by which I 
endeavor to winnow out sense from the multifurcative heuristics of 
my thinking; and thereby the very specific actuarial pattern of my 
"terse" and "aphoristic" writings!

I do keep trying...lately I think Swinton may feel Iım somewhat more 
accessible.

Now: letıs get down to cases. Semiotics is the field in which the 
uses of abstraction, the assignment of symbols, and the development 
of self-similar, self-referent systems of number, notation, and 
entity are examined on the basis of quantifiable terms. Thus 
semiotics, at its core, must needs deal with the ways in which we 
conceptualize phenomenal processes and how our concepts relate to 
observed event. 

Semantics (the study of meaning: theories of denotation, extension, 
naming and truth); Syntactics (the formal relations between signs or 
expressions in abstraction); and Pragmatics (the relation between 
signs or symbols and their users, hence our selection and application 
of signs), comprise elementary semiotics. This applies to mathematics 
as well as to linguistics. Chomsky has theorized that children learn 
language with ease because there is a "hardwired" capacity for 
grammar and syntax in the human brain. Iıd say rather that, just as 
there is an intrinsic semiotic framework to phenomenal Universe, so  
is there likewise a self-similar aspect of "mind" manifest in the 
brain. 

Note here that, as defined, "semiotic" is consistent with the usage 
of the word "metaphysic", i.e. "The system of principles underlying 
a particular study or subject." I submit that semiotic is metaphysic -
psi*phi is the subject. Call it Ozmic Consciousness.

Following various strands of semiotics (e.g. Hofstadterıs 
"Eternal Golden Braid") leads to more refinement in terms of 
relationships among abstractions, as myriad modes of heuristics, 
and so on. Ultimately any such house of cards runs smack into Goedel: 
it "turns out" to define, better than anything else, its own limits. 
The failure, as I had once expressed it, "of its own cartographic 
coherence".

Put simply, any self-consistent system of abstraction (e.g. 
mathematics, English, DNA) can never fully contain its own definition. 
Semiotics eventually encounters its own Event Horizon. And, like the 
event horizons of the phenomenal Universe, thereıs a singularity on 
the other side. 
(Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!)

The good news is that singularity isnıt the Death Star of semiotic 
definability: singularity isnıt a place, but a state-space. Where 
every level connects, just out of sight, as it "pops" to the next 
higher level. The "hole" in the system is the wormhole through which 
each level can metarecurse. In this respect the Dandelion Model is 
an aptly chosen metaphor. And since we canıt define a system from 
the inside, the central singularity state gives us an exogenous point 
of reference from which to conceptualize the whole shebang; this is 
why semiotics evolved in the first place. 

That semiotics was evolved to be a human attribute is an 
anthropological fact. Somewhere between 75,000 and 200,000 years BCE 
our ancestors developed their rudimentary proto-language into a 
full-blown mother tongue. Brain structure in the cortex had changed 
to provide a true speech center. This biological change engendered 
a paradigm shift: newly expressed capabilities adapted to the birth 
of grammar and syntax; abstract reason became organized into 
mathematics and linguistics, i.e. semiotics! So Stephen Hawking was 
exactly right when he said "Then, something happened: we learned to 
talk" and "All we need to do is remember to keep talking."

It is interesting to examine the semiotic development and 
preservation, from preliterate societies to the present, of the 
peculiar collections of cultural metaphor we know as myth. Many 
scholars have acknowledged the manifold and proximal parallels 
between ancient sacred texts. The often overlooked context of these 
writings is that they are all essentially transcriptions from oral 
traditions which were maintained for millenia by prehistoric, indeed 
archaic and isolate, tribal peoples. 

The important point here is that, before history, written language, 
or agriculture (and its requirement of village peasant organization 
and hierarchy) people needed a way of keeping track of change and 
chance. This need was filled by myth. Inasmuch as the exigencies 
various peoples encountered were predictably similar, this 
commonality was reflected in their myths. Myth is thus not so much 
historic as it is semiotic;  such concepts as linear time, history, 
science and progress hadnıt been invented yet!

I think the "dreamtime" tribal lore of the Australian Aborigines 
(thought to be mankindıs oldest continously "living" cultural folkways)
can be seen as a self-evident case in point.

And since keeping oral traditions alive has always been the province 
of bards and shamans, it is little wonder that the "meanings" they 
express are more mystic than prosaic. Much as Dogon mystics had "seen"
that Sirius had a dark companion, and Asian sages had envisioned 
their esoteric cosmology.

Looked at in this context, the great sacred writings, such as the 
Vedanta, the Upanishad, and the Pentateuch (not to mention all the 
unwritten Tribal American, African, and Australian Aboriginal 
traditions), can be seen to have many elements in common. And 
frequently there is more to their collective subtexts than meets 
the eye. 

For example, think of the subtexts within the Book of Genesis from 
a semiotic point of view. Orthodoxy aside, the text is a mythic 
narrative which encapsulates human development in terms of sequential 
metalevel stages. Seen in this light, we note a series of fabulist 
and didactic  scenarios, parables if you will, used to make the 
message clear.

The point of myth is to give people a simple, clear, and easily 
remembered set of images with which to timebind and perpetuate their 
cultural reality as a living paradigm of tribal heritage. Itıs not 
really about actual people, places, or events so much as itıs about 
the gestalten development, through time and space, of their 
particular group identity, as expressed in metaphor; a psychological 
anchor for their sense of Self, of place and time. This is not to 
say there are no factual historical references; indeed there is 
clearly a considerable degree of overlap. But such mundane details 
are simply not the point.

Consider, then, that the story of Adam in Eden refers to humankindıs 
earliest moments of awareness; surviving in a primate social group of 
cooperating foragers not unlike present-day baboons (weıve always been 
more like them than we care to acknowledge - see any street gang for 
proof); the extended family is our natural pattern. Adamıs naming of 
the animals around him denotes the emergence of our gift of 
abstraction and representation: language, as well as semiotics. 
(Black monoliths notwithstanding.) 

(Since the transcription of the mythos occurred around the time of 
the Diaspora, the Adamıs Rib bit was thrown in by the scriveners by 
way of retro justification for their own tribeıs repression of women 
to chattel status.)

Then when Eve "tempts" Adam with the forbidden fruit from the 
"tree of knowledge of good and evil" they are cast out of the Garden, 
to "till the earth" and "live by the sweat of his brow." That is, 
to forsake the dreamtime paradise for pastoral and agricultural 
modes of living. And when agriculture led to the development of 
village society, clothing naturally was required, not only to 
"cover their nakedness" but also as overt indicators (signs!) of 
rank and status.

The murder of Abel refers to the ascendancy of agriculture over 
pastoralism, a paradigm shift which had widespread and deadly 
repercussions. In fact it marked the invention of large-scale 
territorial warfare, since croplands reduce habitat. Such conflict 
can be seen in the history of the Anasazi, or indeed of Native 
American peoples in general (as well as in Australian and Amazon 
tribes, in African genocide, etc.) to this day. Manifest Destiny.

The angel with "flaming sword" posted to bar the gate of Eden could 
only have been a later invention as well; the development of the 
sword was a bronze-age technology. Up til then knives and axes were 
the norm; stone swords donıt work very well. Again this indicates a 
screed from the period of the Diaspora.

I could continue with further examples in support of my thesis here, 
but I feel the point is made. Suffice it to point out that Hebrew, 
Hindi, and English are all memetic and semiotic descendants of 
Sanskrit; that Sanskrit is an ancient, hieratic (and written!) 
language; and that our presumptive powers of abstraction and 
expression cut both ways.



B. DERIC MORRIS
(c) 01.08.01

This page hosted by Get your own Free Home Page