Subscribe to IDMeaning
Powered by groups.yahoo.com
"...a science that is free from metaphysics is on the best way to become a dogmatic metaphysical system" - P.K.Feyerbend
"Genuine progress can only happen through increasing enlightenment, which means the continuous destruction of myths" - G. Orwell
"The world we have created today as a result of our thinking thus far has problems which cannot be solved by thinking the way we thought when we created them." — Albert Einstein, The Price of Excellence.
111 - DDD 110 - DDI 101 - DID 100 - DII 011 - IDD 010 - IDI 001 - IID 000 - III
Reading through the literature of the Neurosciences, Cognitive Science, and Psychology, it is possible to identify two fundamental functions sourced at the level of the neuron that seem to be generalised and so reflected in behaviours of the columns, lobes, hemispheres of the brain and 'out' into the behaviours of the individual, collectives, and species. These functions I will label as the Transformation, or Compliance, function and the Transcendence function. These functions depend on two more primitive processes of the brain, that of differentiation and that of integration and as such we need to cover these processes first since they form the foundations upon which the transformation and transcendence functions rest.
As such the qualities derived from entangling the primary processes of differentiation and integration become the qualities we use at a general level to identify both ourselves, others, and in fact all objects and relationships. As such the IDM model give us insight into the information categorisation methodology we use at the species level, and so spanning the general method used by all collectives/individuals within the species.
The focus of the process of differentiation is extremely intense where the process reflects attempts to identify the one from the many and as such reflects the more common neurocognitive term of identifying the WHAT, thus reflecting an 'Object' perspective where the intense focus acts to isolate whatever it is we wish to analyse. On the other hand, the process of integration focuses on at least TWO objects to link (be it text to text or text to context or context to context) and as such reflects the more common neurocognitive term of identifying the WHERE, thus reflecting a 'Relationships' perspective.
The GENERAL term of WHAT can be differentiated (!) into the more particular terms of what, who, and which. The GENERAL term of WHERE can be differentiated into the more particular terms of where, when, and how. All of these terms stem from the identification of the expressions of the processes of differentiation and integration and we can convert object perspectives into relational perspectives and visa versa as part of our attempts to identify/re-identify reality. As the reader will discover, in IDM the focus is on differentiation/integration, a dichotomy synonymous with the more common neurosciences dichotomy of WHAT(object)/WHERE(relationship). The WHAT/WHERE pathways from the visual system to the frontal lobe areas are split between the WHAT path that is VENTRAL (pass through temporal lobes etc) and the WHERE path that is dorsal (passes up and over through the parietal lobes etc). Note that the WHERE path links with the IDM focus on integrations and so a more IMPLICIT perspective *when compared* to the IDM focus on differentiations, the WHAT, and so a more EXPLICIT perspective. We can categorise these as a COVERT pathway (WHERE) as compared to an OVERT pathway (WHAT). (recall also the precision issue, differentiation to one, integration to no less than two) It is the interactions of these pathways that act to give us the 'whole picture' on something. If either of these pathways are damaged we get two conditions: (1) prosopagnosia = the complete inability to recognise previously familiar faces. This reflects a breakdown of the OVERT pathway (the WHAT) such that some recognition is possible but IMPLICIT in form, reflecting the still functioning COVERT pathway (the WHERE) and as such a 'sense' of recognition. (a bit like 'blindsight'. Skin conductance responses reflect the recognition in that the audition system is independent here re vision and so can serve to identify the person from their voice and so cannot be used to verify the implicit visual recognition). (2) Capgras delusion = the recognition of the face but the belief that the person is an impostor/alien; someone has 'taken over' the person. This problem reflects the functional OVERT pathway but a dysfunctional COVERT pathway - the underlying threads that integrate what is seen with a set of implicit links to associations that add 'depth' to the identification have gone, leaving a sense of 'right face; wrong person'; there is an implicit sense of 'unknown' conflicting with the 'known' face. What we see here is the dynamics of differentiations and integrations, as reflected in the composite forms of the differentiate/integrate dichotomy presented in the IDM material. As such, we use both to give us the 'full picture' but can also bias perspectives to one or the other but with an obviously skewed set of meanings within each, where the object nature of differentiations is found to be lacking 'depth', as compared to the relationships nature of integrations where there is a lacking in precise, clear, expression; In other words there is a lack in congruency, there is something 'not right' in both cases. This also takes us into the realm of the dichotomy of KNOWN/UNKNOWN in that the realm of the UNKNOWN has previously been mapped in the IDM work to the relational realm where we seek links to context to develop an identity and so to label those relationships and make a KNOWN. In (2) above we see this confirming element of 'known' reduced to its base state of 'unknown' but the image is labeled as KNOWN and so the notion of an impostor etc emerges. We can thus add another dichotomy to our list (given below), that of overt(differentiations)/covert(integrations). (For an interesting read see: Ellis, H.D., and Lewis, M.B. (2001) "Capgras delusion : a window on face recognition" IN Trends in Cognitive Sciences Vol 5. No 4 2001 : 149-156)
Through an IDM-focused analysis of such current work in neurosciences/cognitive sciences we can come to some conclusions re the nature of our species and of our personal senses of awareness - and from that identify some 'issues':
Physicist David Bohm touched on some of the following in his book "Wholeness and the Implicit Order" (RKP, 1981) through reference to 'fragmentation and wholeness'. Research in neurosciences and cognitive science now allows us to look under the hood of the brain and 'see' where such notions of fragmentation come from. The following stems from taking a look under the hood from an IDM perspective: We can make two major distinctions re our nature - as individuals and as members of a collective (elsewhere I cut 'collective' into two - collective meaning a social group, a culture, as compared to our species as 'just another lot of primates') Our development seems to be sourced in a few million years of species development such that our instincts, our senses, etc etc have all developed from the species perspective. An example of the 'mindless' stimulus/response process of instincts is where in Baboon troops that start to move across country a particular pattern forms instinctively where young and elderly are in the middle of the troop surrounded by the 'warriors' etc. The "flocking" behaviour concept, common in collectives, reflects the development of rich patterns of social behaviour that are not sourced in any one individual - these behaviour comes from all individuals making local distinctions and that activity being amplified and so spreads across a collective with a life of its own. The species operates in the everyday of the universe through instincts/habits and as such works off full spectrum responses to stimuli - whole responses to whole stimulus. There is a strong collective perspective here. The refinement of the brain, especially in our species, where from the GENERAL wholeness perspective has emerged a PARTICULAR partness perspective, means the emergence of a problem in that: (1) as species members our instincts/habits work 'holistically'. As a species we operate in the everyday of the universe, the universe "AS IS". This is a realm of unconscious activity, stimulus/response. (2) as a refined species, where the evolution of neurology has allowed for the focus on parts of wholes, we can refine our instincts/habits through parts analysis (details processing) and so make our holistic responses more context sensitive, be more refined. This can take time in that it is 'mindless' feedback processes but the process gives the species leverage in dealing with sensations and so developing a dominant position on the planet. (3) the development of individual consciousness as a consequence of increased sense of the particular, increased neural complexity, introduces a distortion in the species, namely that the species' whole responses to the environment, and so a focus on whole as whole, conflicts with the parts nature of our responses where, given consciousness, so this parts realm is considered from the individual mind as a whole, it is the realm of "AS INTERPRETED". (4) What comes from (3) is that, at the LOCAL level of perception, and so the parts perspective, the individual perspective, we experience paradox in that we fail to recognise our parts nature in sensory processing (where our senses reflect species adaptations not individual adaptations) and so interpret parts expression as wholes expression and so can experience paradox. (5) (4) is supported by the ability of the brain to see a 'complex line drawing' just prior to our focusing on details and our consciousness 'naming' the parts of the 'complex line drawing' as if wholes sharing the same space. (see the page on paradox ) (6) in summary, our species nature precedes our individual and so awareness natures but our individual nature does not make the distinction and as such will interpret parts perspectives as if wholes perspectives; a species activity of metonymy, part-FOR-whole mapping, has been transformed by consciousness into part-AS-whole. This can lead to 'error' and we see these 'errors' all the way 'up' from basic sensory processing of paradox to the so-called EPR 'paradox' where the structure of the experiments are parts oriented but interpreted as wholes oriented. (7) OUR individual reality is LOCAL, we as a conscious species are more precise than the universe. The reality of the universe is NON LOCAL and contains within it our unconscious species nature where that nature is part of the integrated whole that is the universe as is each individual a part of the whole species. Consciousness is NOT fundamental, it is derived and causes problems in perceptual processes in that it shares the same experiential space as does the 'parts' focus of our species nature, our primate nature - a nature that 'sees' parts whereas consciousness can see these as 'wholes' and in doing so get 'confused' in interpreting reality and our species. So... through reflections upon the findings of IDM, presented below regarding how our species derives meaning, we can identify empirically-derived data that shows that species nature came before self, and others, awareness, before 'consciousness' emerged as we know it. With the emergence of consciousness so confusion can develop where we conflict as 'whole individuals' vs 'parts of a species' and this confusion is reflected in our interpretations of, and the structuring of our experiments upon, reality. To recognise our 'special' talents re consciousness etc we need to understand that consciousness appears to be a 'mutation', sourced at the PARTS level and so allowing for individuals to feel 'whole' rather than as parts of a collective, a species. As we see in studies on apes etc, so the sense of self-awareness needs an additional development of neural complexity to allow for the development of a sense of others-awareness, a theory of mind so vital for high detail communications other than that of instincts. This feeling of unique identity, of personal 'wholeness' manifests the development of consciousness BUT out of our species nature, not preceding our species nature. When we use consensus to agree on things, that consensus acts to re-affirm the parts perspective as if 'whole' - an error when trying to interpret reality (reflects the neurocognitive foundations of metonymy - part-for-whole association - VERY useful for a species member where we see only a part of something, like the tail of a snake etc, but can become a problem when individual consciousness comes to the fore and we start to use self-referencing to derive our identity and in doing so take part-for-whole (an INDICATIVE perspective) for part-as-whole (an ICONIC perspective) When we, as a collective of 'scientists' etc, create experiments to 'map' reality, when we get down to the nitty gritty so we can 'err' in that our consciousness forces a 'wholes' perspective out of a parts perspective and we can get paradox, where the IMPLICIT whole that is A AND B is replaced by our high detail, high 'parts' perspective, brains that demand A XOR B, a demand sourced in our sensory systems adaptations to the immediate context and the generalisation of those adaptations to general information processing. Shift to the wholes perspective of the species and you shift to IDM areas - a realm of 'differentiations', 'integrations', 'objects', 'relationships'. Shift further and you enter the realm of AS IS, a realm of instincts/habits, full spectrum responses to stimuli. We cannot communicate precisely here, other than in the precision of a mindless response to a stimulus, we need to specialise, to localise by deriving different names for all of the wholes, parts, etc etc and then communicating by stringing parts together - the spoken/written word (and even then we spend a lot of time trying to decipher what was said, what was IMPLIED) In the context of ANY modern interpretation of QM reality, until the physicists and philosophers start to understand the neurocognitive processes of their species they will continue to wander around in the dark. Such esoteric metaphors as the I Ching can help in that through it we recognise the 'partness' of yin/yang and how that partness gives us leverage in understanding the whole but is not the whole. The whole is the state vector (also see the page on our senses and map making ), the implicit integrated whole of our species nature, the AS IS of our senses and our instincts; a realm closer to what the Chinese call T'ai chi than yin/yang (In taoism true T'ai Chi is when you can no longer see parts). Our consciousness, our individual sense, comes out of our parts nature and as such creates illusions that we then live by and so experience delusions. As the link to the EPR 'pardox' of Quantum mechanics shows, If I take the binary distinctions and apply then recursively with some indeterminacy I will get a pattern that suggests wave interference at work The pattern comes from the method that includes a distortion. ANY experiment based on this sort of 'yin/yang', 'left/right' mapping, as done in the double slit experiments, will come up with these patterns due to the structure of the experiment, its parts focus. This has nothing to do with reality, it deals with the interpretations and the methodology used. QM is living off a 'distortion' in that the originators had no idea about how our brains process information and categorise. From those processes come all of our ideas re experimental design etc IOW our brain processes act to determine our experiments. Since consciousness comes out of a parts perspective, but does not seem to understand that, so we get 'paradox'. Locality is the 'parts' realm of our species brain where species wholeness, the realm of mindless stimulus/responses is the realm of non-locality, of an integrated whole but out of conscious awareness. Neural complexity has led to our consciousness being local and in doing so believing it is 'reality' - it isnt, it is a mutation - we are creating our reality day by day, a hybrid of our idealism plus the everyday of the universe. As the above linked page on paradox shows, just a moment before our parts nature cuts in our brain 'sees' a complex line drawing, THAT is our species level 'wholeness'. When the parts level starts to cut up the whole, and our consciousness starts to label, so out pops paradox. There is no paradox in the 'real' world, only that created by our parts perspectives.
As we shall see in the development of the IDM perspective, through reflections upon the findings of IDM re meaning derivation we can identify empirically-derived data that shows that species nature came before self, and others, awareness, before 'consciousness' emerged as we know it.
The method of differentiation is a process where the objective is to clearly identify a particular amongst many. The process thus acts to zoom-in upon a 'something', isolate it, and zoom-in further to acquire details where the details themselves become 'somethings'. This process reflects the use of recursion where, as the process concentrates focus on a something, it differentiates within the previously differentiated and so on, and from there identifies the contents of that something until all elements, all parts, of the something have been clearly laid-out and in doing so has that something, as a whole, been identified.
What is important to note is that the 'zoom-in' process reflects INTENT, where a genetically-sourced intention is always to differentiate and/or integrate 'something' and as such there is always a 'reason' for these processes, a reason that need not go beyond the habits of differentiating and integrating; as such we can idly, unconsciously, be differentiating/integrating the everyday and it is a difference that attracts our attention, this attraction reflecting our genetically-driven 'need' to identify, adapt-to, adopt, or to replace.
The methodology of recursion is where, once I make the distinctions of A and NOT-A, something as compared to all else, any attempt to go further in the analysis reflects taking the original distinctions of A/NOT-A and applying the A/NOT-A dichotomy to each element within the dichotomy, thus I zoom-in on the A and try to identify purer aspects of A as well as those aspects that are more NOT-A. This process means I am trying to differentiate all of the parts of what is under analysis, where the differentiation can be at the local level of what is WITHIN something, or at the more general level of relationships BETWEEN somethings, the latter being that I need to differentiate the nodes, the objects, between which there are relationships. There are energy distributions at work here and from them develops the Normal, or Gaussian, Distribution that is tightly related to the use of recursion of dichotomies, as show below:
What is also noteworthy is that the derivation of the normal distribution curve as a 'smooth' curve is in fact false in that focusing on the recursion part of the diagram (fixed to the Y axis) at the fine levels of differentiations the 'continuum' of possible energy states is in fact 'lumpy' in that it is made-up of the stringing-together of PAIRS that reflect different energy levels derived from the recursion of the original pair - the elements of the dichotomy (as shown in better detail in the recursion diagram). As covered later in this page, there are interesting properties and methods resulting from these perspectives including identification of something by implications and the ability to flesh-out whole sections as if 'stand alone' in that the recursion process encodes the whole in all parts (and so the 'lumpy'-ness that can come with this recursion).
What these diagrams reflect are the DIFFERENCES in the manner in which the brain processes approximations and that includes the concept of negation where inverse correlations 'rule':
In our species, and for that matter in all species using neurons to form brains to process information, there is a natural process where the brain oscillates such that at any particular moment the brain is in an A/NOT-A mode of operation or 'frame of mind' but the expression of the NOT-A can be done in an 'A' manner. To stick to the dichotomy of differentiate/integrate, at any one moment in time the bias in the brain's general perspective is to be focusing on differentiate OR integrate. Thus at any moment where our attention is drawn, the acting of drawing attention isolates 'something' and thus sets a context, a 'universe of discourse', within which analysis is made. This focus may recruit sub-modules of the brain, sensory neuron networks, motor neuron networks, association (inter)neuron networks, lobes within hemispheres, 'sub-brains' (limbic system, RAS etc) and these can be in different modes of operation, differentiating, integrating, or a mix of both, but in GENERAL, whatever is being analysed as a whole, will be done so in a differentiating or integrating manner and be categorised, in general, as being an expression of differentiating or integrating.
The differentiate/integrate oscillation process, when interpreted as what is POSSIBLE at any one moment, leaves us with initially TWO general choices, differentiation or integration. Thus at M0 (moment 0), when something new attracts our attention, we can have two choices from which to make an initial categorisation of what has attracted our attention, and one of which we will select or just 'be in' at that moment. If we continue our focus on 'something' and pass from M0 to M1 (moment 1) our set of POSSIBLE choices has in fact jumped from two to four in that the M0 set of choices serves as a context within which we make the M1 set of choices. The combination of these possible choices means that at M1 we have choices of qualities that are useable to describe the something as stemming from the processes of:
(1) M1 - Differentiate WITHIN the context of differentiate set at M0. This reflects 'pure' differentiation and as such a focus on the 'dot', the 'thing', an object unique from all others, but there is also an aire of the final object being WITHIN another, the second differentiation is made within that of the first such that we see a development path from general to particular.
(2) M1 - Integrate WITHIN the context of differentiate set at M0. This reflects firstly differentiating to then integrate. This reflects identifying all of the 'parts' and then integrating them into a 'whole' - the focus is on 'this WITH that' but the integration done WITHIN that which was originally differentiated.
(3) M1 - Differentiate WITHIN the context of integrate set at M0. This reflects firstly integrating to then differentiate. This reflects a form of grouping and then differentiating the group(s) from others/each other; - the focus is on 'this FROM that', as with pure differentiation, but with a group emphasis, as reflected in the root distinction at M0 of integrate.
(4) M1 - Integrate WITHIN the context of integrate set at M0. This reflects pure integration and as such a focus on an identification based on uniting everything and from that we can imply a 'whole' (to assert a whole, to explicitly identify it requires an act of differentiation). There is a focus here on recruitment of context to establish identity, as compared to (1) where the focus is more on assertion of self and so of context.
As we maintain our focus on 'something', combined with the choice of differentiate/integrate at each moment, due to the simple passage of TIME we are in fact using passive recursion from which to derive a single quality we can associate with whatever it is we are analysing. The passivity is in that we are not intentionally using recursion, we are just focused and oscillating in our choices of differentiate/integrate, it is the passage of time that forces the recursion to appear. (an exercise here is in the juxtapositioning of any two words from the dictionary and 'reflecting' on that association, if there is any 'meaning'. If there is no initial meaning, no instant recognition (e.g. white flour), the continued focus will shift reflection from the face-value of the words to what is behind them, their associations to other words. The passive reflection will allow things to 'pop' into the mind. This process reflects the passive recursion going on as you analyse and so derive a set of possible meanings from which to choose one (or two etc) )
Our memory systems allow us to 'paint' something we have focused upon as, say, reflecting a quality derived from 'integrate within differentiate', and store that categorisation such that we can recall it and reflect some more later. This means that the categorisations can take place over milliseconds or centuries but each categorisation, each 'something', be it from reflections on the Universe to reflections on knitting or an instant response to something (based on the moment + memories), will use the SAME general method of category formation. Once a category level has been reached within a specific context, so you do not have to repeat the recursion - the memory systems recall where you left-off the last time such that you can use the stored categories or reflect some more and add more. Thus the M0-M1 moments mentioned above can 'start' where a past analysis left-off and as such can use more refined categories than the original four identified above which are used more for 'new' sensations, unknowns rather than knowns (there is an issue here regarding the concept of 'first impressions' which are often hard to change. More on this later)
Besides deriving new sets of categories, or more so new elements of the one set of generic categories, the use of analogy and metaphor allows us to recruit a successful set of categories, previously derived from the generic set and associated with a different perspective/discipline, and use that set to describe the 'new' perspective/discipline. This recruitment and abstraction process is due to the fact that all of the perspectives, all with seemingly 'different' labels and so 'unique', are in fact metaphors for the brain's differentiation/integration processing that is the common ground for all disciplines in general - this reflects the concept of isomorphism where the different disciplines are in fact the one discipline with elements having their name changed (e.g. as in from 'object' to 'car' etc)
The only way to capture the many aspects of a generic meaning of a category is to bind the category to a context where this binding is in the form of a word or symbol that takes the general 'differentiation/integration' elements of the category and ties them, integrates them, with the context through the use of a word. For example, we all, as species members, have a sense of 'wholeness' but there are an infinite number of ways to describe/associate the sense of 'wholeness' with 'out there'. Furthermore, 'in here' allows us to differentiate GENERAL senses of 'wholeness', I can have a whole that is sourced from continued differentiation, I zoom-in to the level of a 'dot' and that 'dot' can be interpreted as a 'whole', a unique form. On the other hand I can link an infinite number of dots to give me an increasing sense of wholeness, derived here by integration (but in doing so only allowing an implicit sense of 'wholeness', see more on this later).
The process of integration is a process where the objective is to link and sum relationships between things and as such establish a sense of 'wholeness'. This process functions WITHIN a whole as I sum relationships, as well as BETWEEN 'wholes' such as integration of semi-autonomous modules within the individual to enable the full expression of the individual.
It is from the realm of the 'everyday' that we as individuals/collectives etc extract sensations to analyse and as such the realm of the everyday is a 'balanced' realm of integration/differentiation and being balanced it is 'mindless', a realm of stimulus/response where the focus is on the use of habits/instincts. What is implied here is that further differentiation is applied to this 'balanced' realm and as such the act of differentiation is an act of exaggeration with the purpose of establishing clear identification of sensations and as such an intent to refine the balanced state of the everyday, although at times the intent is to distort the balance in favour of self/collective - this initially reflects a focus on protection in the form of camouflage to distort, to 'fuzz' boundaries, to cause interferences and so blend-in with the context OR to exaggerate and so stick out more than usual as a form of threat or attraction.
The process of exaggeration and the acts of identifying and re-identifying allows for the development of a hybrid 'everyday' made-up of the properties of the Universe as well as the exaggerations of our identifications that then become part of an 'everyday'. As such this hybrid everyday becomes increasingly symbol-containing and reflects attempts to be more and more precise in identifications through exaggerations.
As such, there is a 'dimension of precision' at work where energy levels, in the form of degrees of exaggeration to identify something, determine overall perspectives.
The differentiation processes, once complete, will often require re-integration to restore balance. For example, I can strip a car engine into all of its parts and using integration WITHIN the context of stripping the engine create a very refined, very ordered, very clear, parts list of the engine. I will then need to put the engine back together again and in doing so identify relational processes that function within the engine as it is running; e.g. the adjustment of, fine tuning of, distributor cap, tappets etc etc to ensure optimum operation - I usually cannot just put the parts back together and immediately turn the engine on to be used. This process of synchronisation reflects the integration processes required at the level of dynamics WITHIN the context of the engine and it is this synchronisation process that can make an engine 'transcend' its 'normal' operational parameters (to experience this, let your car engine run for 10 months and then get it tuned... or join a racing team and witness the almost continuous focus on tuning to get that extra 'grunt' out of a standard, an 'everyday', car.)
At this level of differentiation, the car engine, although 'complete' and tested, tuned etc., is sterile, it does nothing other than be something nice to look at and admire for its precision in engineering. To experience the full expression of the engine we need to place the engine in a context, inside of a car, aircraft, boat, etc etc and this process reflects the integration of the engine with other modules (chassis, steering, hydraulics etc) such that 'inferior' engineering in the other modules can affect engine performance but that performance, although noticeable, is not located in the engine but in the relationships to the other modules - and so more 'tuning' is required but now at a 'general' level. As such our integration issues have moved from a focus WITHIN a particular to a focus BETWEEN particulars.
This activity of differentiation/integration focuses across different levels, from the particular to the general, and reflects some fundamental properties of the human brain in operation. Thus the differentiation and integration processes described above re the car engine are identical to the process of creating an ontology - a parts list of reality, of 'being' where the ontology can be well formed etc but is sterile until it is put out into the Universe for a 'test drive' and from that has to go through 'tuning' until we get it 'right'.
This test drive results in the gaining of data useful for refining the integration processes of engine and car with the everyday such that the more refined the car so the more integrated it is with the context such that it is easy to use in the context. This process of integration seems to be reflected in our species in the form of instincts and habit formations where a habit reflects a response to a stimulus that is resident in the context such that the context PUSHES the individual's behaviour in that a stimulus from the context can elicit a response that is too quick or too unconscious for the conscious levels of the individual to process. As such, there is a sensitivity to context but it is universal in that it is hard coded as an instinct and as such there is no adjustments possible to vary the habit/instinct.
This 'push' nature is reflected in the discovery of the encoding of instincts and habits in the dendrites of neurons where the dendrites are the 'bush' of input sensors for the neuron and as such, when encoded with habits and instincts, act not only as raw receivers of sensory and feedback data, but also as filters of that data such that a change in weather conditions can set-off hormones that set-off instincts in the form of growing winter coats or molting for summer.
With this encoding of instincts/habits there is a strong focus on energy conservation, optimisation, in that the individual does not need to continually, consciously, monitor the context for changes (this has its downs as well though - uncommon, unseasonable weather conditions can 'fool' the habits into setting-off responses that are too early or too late and a stressful, novel, situation can lead to the expression of an 'out of context' habit/instinct response - compensatory behaviour for an anxiety)
Overall, the habit formation process reflects integration of patterns of behaviour to ensure integration with at least the immediate context and as such reflects a bias to the protection of the individual/species, ensuring quick, instinctive, responses to change. However, there is also allowance for these habits to become tools of proactive behaviour where the 'stimulus/response' to the moment is recruited and abstracted to serve as a stimulus/response for some future event; thus the habits reflect the context and as such allow for 'planning' of behaviours, for pre-empting changing conditions in that context (e.g. predicting the presence of sources of food now available as the ice covering a river starts to melt). Overall we can call this process of habit formation the Transformation function in that the process allows for changes in expressions (shape shifting) without change to core senses of identity and as such reflects the core sense of identity as we find dominating the discipline of analytical, or formal, logic which is the logic of Mechanics.
What the habit development shows us is the adaptation to sameness and as such the habituation to sameness in the species. As such at the conscious levels of operation we are more attuned to detecting differences which is understandable in the context of a possibly hostile environment and as such can also consciously vary the intensity of a habit/instinct response to a stimulus and as such so a context sensitivity beyond that which has been 'programmed' in habits/instincts.
The detection of differences means the demand for differentiation skills, skills that can 'zoom-in' to identify subtle differences that could mean huge consequences if not noticed quickly. Since the 'habit' process puts an individual on 'auto pilot' so it is advantageous to develop some alternative system for processing the environment and this seems to be done at the neuron level through the process of synchronisations, where this activity is managed at the neuron body that functionally comes AFTER the habit-encoded dendrites. The neuron body controls the firing of the neuron and can have inhibiting/exciting connections to other neurons etc all of which act to synchronise responses.
Synchronisations allow for a 'holistic' response of a lifeform to a stimulus but also allows for 'errors' in processing where a synchronisation anomaly can introduce a novelty to a habitual response. This novelty could be in the form of an error but also in the form of an innovative act that serves to improve the relationship of individual to context and, through the learning mechanisms, lead to the recruitment and abstraction of this 'novel' behaviour to become integrated as part of the habit. This novelty also includes the possibility of escaping a situation where the habit is not working and as such of 'transcending' a situation. Overall this Transcendence function reflects, using the engine metaphor, the affects on engine behaviour through synchronisation processes - tuning.
What is noticeable about this transcendence function is that it is strongly single context and as such reflects the concept of REPLACEMENT of the existing context either by a lifeform asserting its own context, or else escaping to another, more suitable context; either way the result is the current context is replaced. This replacement process is very different to the transformation function where the focus is more on retaining the existing context and strongly integrating with it.
There is the implication that the synchronisation process functions in a more 'refined' manner at the level of the individual than collective and as such it is the individual that can have 'innovative' insights, the collective having more 'adaptive' insights and as such the synchronisation processes are best identified WITHIN the individual and so fall into the realm of differentiation even though reflecting an overall integrative focus (the novelty after all IS a difference).
The transcendence function reflects properties more associatable with dialectical logic, the logic of Thermodynamics, where, for example, the replacement emphasis reflects dialectical logic's concept of "negation of a negation" where the interaction of a lifeform with context and the replace of the context allows for a 'transcendence' and as such a 'whole new ballgame'. The initial relationship of lifeform to context reflects A vs B and the resulting 'replacement' is C where the degree of replacement can vary from total replacement to partial where in the latter the transcendence recruits elements of the former context to aid in the transcendence. {there are subtle differences here re negation - see comments on Analytical Negation vs Dialectical Negation where the analytical reflects an exaggeration of, a particularisation of, the dialectical)
The dynamics of the brain mean that the transcendence/transformation dichotomy, reflective of differentations/integrations, will 'oscillate' and so express variations on their themes made-up of composites of these basics.
This transcendence function within the differentiation processes allows for variations in the experience in that the function is intense WITHIN the individual or particular collective, and more general within the context of BETWEEN individuals/collectives, collectives/species.
In fact, at the species level there seems to be instincts that 'say':
ALL sensations are [potentially] meaningful.
ALL sensations are [potentially] linked together.
These two integration-biased instincts reflect a general protection bias for the species that, if exaggerated, as done in differentiation, can lead to 'novel' identifications of spiritual concepts that seem to 'transcend' the species/collective/individual. This does not mean there ARE such concepts but more so that the delusion/illusion that there are can easily develop, especially if there is no awareness of the properties of the data processing mechanisms in the brain of the species. The source of these 'spiritual' concepts is of course obviously in the integration processing of the species where these spiritual concepts, be it one 'God' or many, act to integrate, serving as attractors, such that the use of the 'spiritual' can serve as a source of motivation and thus be 'uplifting' at times. This reflects the spiritual sense as originating from the SPECIES and nowhere else where the original, local instincts for protection have been generalised to become useful as tools of exploitation - beliefs can move mountains. This sense of the spiritual comes from the exaggeration processes in pouring-in energy to identify 'something' in detail. That process will force the suspension of time experience (due to the reciprocal relationship of subjective time experience and increased metabolic rate in processing information) and from that suspension comes the notion of, the feeling of, the 'eternal'. This feeling, due to a lack of understanding about what creates it, has become a property of our species nature, the everyday of the Species, and as such differentiates us from the Universe:
For an analysis of how a sense of the spiritual can emerge from a misunderstanding of neurocognitive processes, see in particular the page on identifying the source of such concepts as angels and demons.
To summarise the basic properties of IDM, IDM is not reductionist. Its description IS. IDM reflects the level of meaning derivation from the mindless processing of neurons where what emerges is a basic set of distinctions, of qualities, focused upon differentiations and integrations. An extract from an email of the author to the IDM list explains this:
"The realm of the everyday of the universe is the realm of the everyday of all species - it is the realm of mindless stimulus/response, habits and instincts. The development of the neuron from stimulus/response to stimulus/considered_response begins the process of feedback processing within the lifetime of an individual rather than along the Darwinian time periods that favour 'random' mutations over centuries or local adaptations over decades; where instincts are sourced in the survival of species offspring. At our level we store 'instincts' in the form of books, tapes, videos etc lots of 'how to' manuals and so allow the individual to 'learn' instincts as habits gainable within the lifetime of the individual and at the same time ensure those 'off line' instincts are not dependent on existence of the individual (unless that individual destroys the libraries etc!) The ability to process information and store it as a memory and use that memory as feedback for future processing takes us from the 'everyday' of the universe to a developing everyday of the species where we have developed leverage in our adaptations to the environment. The DEGREE of value of these memories is covered in the Dimension of Precision concept where those life forms that favour two past context frames as feedback focus on fibonacci patterns as 'meaningful' and so on. The ability to EXAGGERATE, to differentiate 'this' from all else, the stimuli of the everyday of the universe allows us (and other neuron-dependent lifeforms) to focus on particulars in real-time rather than be run by our instincts. This focus on DETAILS allows us to REFINE our instincts, to learn habits and so 'improve' our position on the planet. The exaggeration process is done through the isolation of 'something' and through input of energy we idealise this 'something' BUT in the realm of the universe this is an act of REDUCTION. Language REDUCES, is derive from, processing of the senses down to a label and we use the label to communicate and cause resonances in other species-members due to the labels carrying meaning that elicits the patterns of 'differentiations&integrations' we all share as a species and where the association of feeling-to-label (taught in school etc) allows us to memorise (the labels as such are mnemonics). This ability to reduce things to a parts perspective, and label those parts, and use those labels to represent those parts (and so create a map for the territory) has been so successful that we work out of that parts realm as if it is the everyday of the universe - it isnt. It is a continually developing everyday of the species that is a hybrid of the universe + our exaggerations. The spoken/written word reflects acts of reduction. IDM does not deal with these tokens, it deals with the patterns of differentiations/integrations that come out of the neurocognitive processes and serve as the base level source of all meaning. IOW IDM focuses on the GENERAL. IDM focuses on the SPECIES. IDM focuses on FEELINGS (as abstracted to blend, bond, bound, bind, and as sp re-labeled to the common set of emotions ) The act of reduction is the act of moving from the general, the "AS IS" of the universe, to the particular, the "AS INTERPRETED" of OUR universe. We move from general to particular, as identified in IDM through such concepts as the Dimension of Precision. This act of reduction requires exaggeration, we must distort the everyday of the universe, our perceptions of it, to derive parts and so reduce past the 'whole' that is the integrated universe - we move from symmetry to asymmetry, from non-local to local. (recall the hierarchy in Chinese philosophy of: differentiated / integrated = T'ai Chi / Wu Chi (great extension (archetype) / no extension - general) Yin-Yang / T'ai Chi (exaggerations of the archetype, harmonics analysis / the archetype) Yang / Yin (A/NOT-A, high precision focus - particular) language emerges from yang/yin - it is like words taking on gender. We then apply it to try and describe the 'higher levels' but will fail in that we need to understand the 'language' of T'ai Chi/Wu Chi to 'grok' it all, we move back up from male/female to androgyny and to 'no distinctions' etc IDM aids in doing that. ) IDM is basically symmetric (or as symmetric as possible given the built-in distortion of differentiations/integrations precision issues). IDM does not care about the details, it cares about what details are possible given the set of generic feelings, qualities, we use as categories. You can 'specialise' IDM but there is no need since all specialisations reflect IDM and as such do a better job at the local level [see for example the pages on Mathematics, the MBTI, and the I Ching] - IDM does not replace, it serves to integrate such that its use at the local level is as a guide and no more. MY point re Philosophy etc is that all of these disciplines now require consideration of IDM etc in their 'reflections' upon reality. IDM is not biased to Hegel or Heidegger or Kant or Plato or Spinoza or God or Marx etc etc etc since it reflects all of the particulars, all of these reductions, in the set of generic qualities. The application of IDM perspectives to these specialisations can aid in 'restructuring' of the perspectives of these specialisations but as such IDM does not replace them since its realm is more general. Being not aware of this reduction process of the species means that, for example, we derive such 'issues' as the EPR paradox etc., we move 'past' the everyday of the universe and try and interpret that position as if the universe. This ability to reduce, to distill, general everyday data to precise labels is reflected in our focus on purity where that act is an act of REDUCTION (and so the intuitive 'attraction' within the species to alchemy etc. Fundamentalism, and so specialisation, is reductionist, down to the 'answer' being 'God' or 'Darwin' or E=MC2 etc etc) From that reduction process, where we derive rich language, so we increase our knowledge but in the form of representations, words, not in the form of the 'thing itself'. We more than often lose sight of this and so when 'in' a specialisation so we take things literally. This is fine locally but when you try to apply this to the non-local you will have problems in that you have to step out of the box, to the box of the species, to be able to describe 'clearly' within the realm of the non-local. That is where IDM comes in in that an understanding of the general qualities, the properties and methods of how the neurons work to derive species-level meaning, is required in that the generic structure of all isolations, all specialisations, is determined by the neuron and so by the general qualities identified by IDM. Thus, I say that IDM is not reductionist. To describe it IS since we do not have the time to communicate 'objects and relationships' as high precision empathy (or a 'blending' of minds, we cannot share the same space). We have to reduce these feelings etc to labels and use those to elicit a species-level quality linked to a specific context. IDM is linked to habit formations, intuitions etc etc that serve the reduction but as such are not reductionist in that IDM functions from the level of the communication system we use as a species. Note that this parts perspective and development of language gets into the 'hard coding' of metonymy where part elicits whole. (and so a probabilities perspective)." Now lets move on to refining the original distinctions made by IDM.
Given the above description of basic differentiate/integrate patterns, symbolically I can map-out the steps of an analysis such:
Initial differentiation: A from NOT-A
second level: A and NOT-A elements WITHIN A, as well as A and NOT-A elements WITHIN NOT-A. This gives us a context of A and distinctions of finer details WITHIN that context. This also gives us a context of NOT-A and distinctions of finer details WITHIN that context.
This second level differentiation process aims to identify the purest elements of A as well as those elements of NOT-A that in fact, upon closer examination, reflects qualities of A.
We can make-up the following list to reflect the differences (where the symbol '~' means 'NOT'):
Quality of 'pure' A in the form of AA.
Quality of 'not so' pure A in the form of A~A
Quality of 'not so' pure NOT-A in the form of ~AA
Quality of 'pure' NOT-A in the form of ~A~A
This differentiation process acts to extract details of something, and the something itself, from the realm of 'all else' and as such the realm of 'all else' is an integrated whole out of which we have 'isolated' a part.
We can in fact replace the A/~A terms used above with the concepts of differentiation (D) and integration (aka NOT-D represented as I) in that the A of the dichotomy is the differentiated something, and so a particular, and the ~A is that from which we have differentiated, and so more of a general.
Thus the concept of AA reflects a process of Differentiation to Differentiate, or differentiation within/after differentiation. The other list members have been presented in the previous section.
The four processes reflect methods to derive meaning and as such the completion of each process results in the establishment of a feeling, a sense of meaning, of identification.
Referring to the previous list by number, both (1) and (4) reflect focuses on purity, on 'wholeness', but using different methods to achieve that identification - the (1) through repeated differentiations to get to the 'point', the (4) through repeated integrations to get to the 'pattern', the linked 'whole'.
Note that (1) has a bias to explicit identification as it zooms-in on the point or 'dot', whereas (4) has a bias to implicit identification as it established links to, once in place, imply a 'whole'. We can identify the precision of (1) with the concept of 'dot' precision, and the precision of (4) with the concept of 'field' precision where the patterns of relationships reflect a geometric pattern indicating something. What is noticeable here is that the geometric nature of (4) reflects recognition of dimensions. When we zoom-in using differentiations we move from a geometric perspective to a more algebraic perspective where the focus is on the dimensionless - the dot - as shown below:
The overall focus on 'wholeness' of the previous list's categories of (1) and (4) can be represented by another term - blending, to become, to be, ONE. We can also include the concept of un-blending.
Both (2) and (3) above reflect entanglements of the D and I distinctions and as such reflect maintaining the distinctions of D and I in a clear manner, there is a 'line' or 'border' between them where FIRST is X and THEN is Y. The sum of this process reflects the concept of a boundary, of a distinct requirement of two processes and as such the concept of PARTS, where the whole is made-up of two parts, a D element and an I element; thus the products of (2) and (3) lack the 'pure' wholeness of (1) and (4). The overall 'partness' of (2) and (3) is represented by the term 'bounding' to reflect boundaries, enclosures, paths, the sharp distinctions of 'this from that' as compared to the distinctions of 'pure' wholes as 'this'.
As such the above list identifies the concepts of WHOLES and PARTS, with the concepts each containing two methods of identification, the processes of differentiation and integration.
What is noteworthy is that the concept of PARTS still reflects a 'pointedness', a sense of 'something' that is tangible and as such represents a whole in a relationship to a greater whole and as such an understanding of 'objects'; there is still an aire of 'differentiation' in these categories but as we shall find in the next section this aire changes when we zoom-in for finer distinctions.
As an initial example of the above four generic categories appearing in our more 'refined' categorisations we can consider the following categories related to persona typologies, and so 'meaningful' patterns sourced recursively, of the MBTI®/Keirsey Temperament Checker:
We can see these differences in temperament reflected in a normal distribution curve that maps energy levels that reflect the general distribution of energy 'outside' of the individual, into the context, to assert identity. As we move from the energy-conserving NF to the energy-expending SP so we narrow the context dependency until we cross-over from links to local context to attempts to assert one's own context - we move from an integrating/balancing perspective to a more differentiating/replacement perspective:
If we apply the Differentiate/Integrate dichotomy again to the previous four categories, and so another level of recursion, we move from four categories to eight, I will abbreviate the terms using D and I and noting that each derivation is made WITHIN the context set by the previous:
DDD - pure differentiation, D to D to D : whole by triple differentiation (WHOLE, BLEND)
DDI - D to D to I : whole by double differentiation, then integrate
DID - D to I to D : whole by oscillation starting with differentiate (PARTS, BOUND)
DII - D to I to I : whole by differentiation, then double integrate
IDD - I to D to D : whole by integrate, then double differentiate
IDI - I to D to I : whole by oscillation starting with integrate (PARTS, BOUND)
IID - I to I to D : whole by double integration, then differentiate
III - pure integration, I to I to I : whole by triple integration (WHOLE, BLEND)
There are four new qualities here that need identification. The first pair is that made-up of DDI and IID. From a categorical perspective the quality represented here is a quality that lies in-between that of WHOLENESS and PARTNESS, but it is also a quality that has its roots more in WHOLENESS than PARTNESS (i.e. the two initial terms derived from the whole - e.g. DDi and IId).
The first clue that springs to mind is the fact that the concept of OBJECTS is reflected in the notions of WHOLES and PARTS and as such we are now focused on the space INBETWEEN the objects, this space is the space occupied by 'pure' relationships. The relationship of PARTS to WHOLE is, by definition, a STATIC relationship in that the parts-to-whole relationship is invariant, is eternal, for the 'whole' to retain that identification of being a 'whole'; particular parts may 'move around', but the general bias is to a static identification. Thus we allocate the definition of "STATIC RELATIONSHIPS" to the DDI and IID qualities. As we shall see this categorisations works extremely well. In identifying a term other than the phrase 'static relationships', a term that reflects a 'feel' of static relationships, we use the term 'Bonding'.
The other two new categories are those of DII and IDD. Since a STATIC relationship is invariant what is left is relationships over time, dynamic relationships. The term used to reflect this feel for relationships over a time period is 'Binding' (as in a contract etc)
Thus we have eight generic qualities derived from recursion of the basic brain processes of integration and differentiation:
DDI - D to D to I : whole by double differentiation, then integrate (STATIC, BOND)
DII - D to I to I : whole by differentiation, then double integrate (DYNAMIC, BIND)
IDD - I to D to D : whole by integrate, then double differentiate (DYNAMIC, BIND)
IID - I to I to D : whole by double integration, then differentiate (STATIC, BOND)
These qualities reflect four 'universals' - wholes, parts, statics, dynamics - which we qualify using the same dichotomy we used to derive them - differentiate/integrate, thus we have wholeness through differentiation, wholeness through integration, as well as a sense of 'wholeness' derived from the perspectives of parts, as well as perspectives rooted in the use of the concepts of static relationships and dynamic relationships.
What is implied here is that the eight qualities represent methods based on differentiation/integration that can elicit a sense of 'meaning' and so of COMPLETENESS, akin to the 'pure' wholeness of DDD and III.
Working from a general perspective, these eight qualities reflect (a) different aspects with which to view the whole and (b) autonomous units that are therefore wholes themselves.
This being the case, since the basic methodology of the brain is that of differentiate/integrate, and the development of a species member reflects combinations of nature (genetics) and nurture (environment), so the above set of qualities can not only serve as the building blocks for our maps of reality but also as identifiers of all the different ways each member of the species can perceive reality, both 'in here' as well as 'out there', and as such how particular individuals can PREFER to interpret reality based on their combinations of nature and nurture.
Before we go any further, we need to flesh-out the characteristics of the above eight qualities a little more. To do this I will introduce another label change, for reason best given later. For all Ds we replace them with '1' and for all Is we replace them with '0'. The 1/0 dichotomy, when applied recursively, correlates with the Normal Distribution curve as reflected in the below diagram:
Thus DDD becomes 111 and III becomes 000. The following descriptions are vague but intentionally so, reflecting the general focus of these universal categories:
The main focus here is on identification of the 'purest' level; the drive is for 'dot' precision and as such the identification of something for 'ever', for eternity, assertion of a 'universal'. This strong, high energy focus, means a narrowing of focus to the exclusion of all else such that the overall perspective is very precise but also very local. The intensity of this focus means a single context perspective that is very clear and very detailed.
There are consequences for this level of precision and they stem from the physiological consequences of high focus of attention upon 'something'. These consequences are that, since the Universe, as expressed in the concept of the 'everyday', is a dynamic universe, so to identify something 'precisely' requires that we stabilise it, we 'stop' the universe to identify this 'pure' something.
At the level of the neurocognitive processes of the brain this 'stopping' is in fact achieved due to the reciprocal relationship of high energy expenditure and subjective time experience - the more energy you put in to focusing, the more time seems to 'stop' or at least become impoverished, removed from its tight link with thermodynamics and so its irreversibility, to a concept that is mechanistic in perspective - time is reversible and as such more scalar than vector (these terms are described in more detail below).
From this 'stopping' of time can emerge the notion of, the feeling of, the 'eternal' and as such can emerge concepts identified as 'Archetypal' in that the precision picks up patterns that are repeated in identification of things and these are exaggerated (another property of the perspective) and formed into ideals.
This high energy focus acts to distort what is under analysis to enable a precise mapping of all aspects such that aspects can be over-exaggerated to bring out a point and in doing so the over-exaggerated aspect STAYS over exaggerated - it can form into a caricature and the use of stereotyping in communications.
Overall, the D3 perspective is idealist and as such reflects an idealist as well as idealism in general in that the idealist attempts to differentiate by asserting their own context as THE context over all others and in doing so will recruit others (be it people or tools) to aid in REPLACEMENT of other contexts with their own and so 'transcending'.
The main focus here is in the final step, that of integration post the double differentiation. Thus there is an aire of idealism present but at the final level there is a 'pulling back', reflected in the integration element. This category has been tied above to the concept of static relationships and the feeling of 'bonding'. This reflects (!) an aire of not going all the way, not becoming the 'whole' of the D3 but more so a REPRESENTATION and as such a REFLECTION. Thus the focus is more that of linking (and so the relationships element) WITHIN the intensity of the high energy differentiations of D3; a bond maintains the unique identity of those elements that are bonded and as such is a representation of the intent of the elements - a marriage license etc represents the true 'blend' of both parties, they seek to share the same space but it is NOT the marriage itself. A piece of art, a painting etc is a representation of 'something' and the artist the bringer-together of the original expression and its expression in artistic form. This process emphasises the REFLECTIVE emphasis in the D2I category, but of major notice is that the reflection is OUTWARDS, emphasised in the strong differentiation bias, the need to 'stick out', to be noticed from without.
The main focus here is on the concept of a border, a sense of containment but the differentiation aspect indicates the border is being pushed outwards; differentiation is always pushing things AWAY to reveal, to expose. The border is the integration process that separates the two differentiation processes. Thus the differentiate to integrate reflects making identifications to then link them together and from that process make further identifications. This 'oscillation' process reflects the development of a 'path' where we go no further until all that has past is integrated and then we use that to go on. We can abstract the concept of 'path' to that of a 'guide' or 'sense of direction' and abstract that into the concept of a map or an ideology. The focus on 'revelation' (differentiate) combined with 'consolidation' (integrate) favours a 'step by step' process in development and as such a degree of dependency on the 'map' to guide us. The overall focus on expanding, on pushing the border outwards reflects the notion of, the emotion of, acceptance in the form of ingesting.
The main focus here is on the double integration post the initial differentiation. Unlike the step-by-step of the DID the focus here is on identifications to link them into something used to link everything where the phrase 'integrate to integrate' suggests local integrations to then be used for general integration. This reflects a perspective that is more than just map-making, this is more paradigm making, a focus on a universal 'map' rather than a local 'map'. In the above derivation of this category the link was made to dynamic relationships and the concept of binding. These associations reflect an aire of 'change' and so of the 'new' or 'different' emerging from the DI2 category and as such this category, within the set of four expressing initial differentiations as fundamental, reflects the changing bias as compared to the sense of the unchanging, the 'eternal', in the D3 category. The binding focus is on binding/sowing things together that, if need be, can be unsowed to be used again in a different format; there is a rich dynamic of linking differences to 'see what you get'. This relationship focus ensures the parts retain their identity and also can be separated with no 'loss' - whereas in bonding, static relationships, any separation CAN cause 'loss' of some form.
The main focus here is on the double differentiation post the initial integration. Thus we pull things together with the intent to then differentiate to differentiate. This form of grouping allows us to cultivate and refine where the second differentiation focuses on assertion of a particular within that which we originally integrated to differentiate.
The main focus here is on the boundary condition, the oscillation of I and D etc. The integration process followed by differentition reflects a bounding of 'something', we group to allow for differentiation and so allow for integration; we group to emphasise a perspective, a clearly defined value set that in turn allows us to integrate. This boundary here serves to protect, to keep things out and as such reflects the notion, the emotion, of rejection.
The main focus here is on the double integration pre the final differentiation. The focus here is on the identification of QUALITY through the use of discernment where the gathering to gather to then differentiate reflects the use of 'this from that' processes to be used to differentiate, to identify differences in expression.
The main focus here is the intense integration. What is noticeable is that this category has characteristics which, when compared to those of 111, reflect a more general and more balanced perspective, even though we are dealing with a 'pure' form. The balanced perspective comes with the emphasis that in pure integration the focus is ALWAYS on at least a PAIR where the unit of measure is a pair that is interpreted as if 'one'. This has consequences in interpretations - we will discuss these later - but for the influence of the above on deriving emotions see "IDM and Emotions".
Given the above eight general, exponentially-derived, categories it is obvious that they are too general to be truly useful other than as generalisations. Thus we need to extend the categories and the logical thing to do is to keep applying recursion and so exponentiation of the D/I dichotomy. This will take us step-by-step through qualities derived from powers of 2.
This process of exponentiation is a process that is a member of a set of processes all relating to self-referencing. This set contains four members - addition, multiplication, exponentiation, and tetration - with the latter two of interest in the form of exponential growth, N qualities become 2N qualities, and hyperbolic growth where N qualities become N2 These processes all lead to the same results but the differences is in the speed in which the result is obtained as well as the bandwidth obtained where bandwidth affects how much information it is possible to express at any moment.
It is from hyperbolic growth where N qualities turn into N2 that we can quickly achieve the widest bandwidth to give us a rich set of qualities and it is from hyperbolic growth that we can 'stay in the box' of D/I categorisations, we do not have to step out of the box to use elements of other boxes to aid in our categorisations.
The hyperbolic process, as applied to our species development categorisations, works like this:
Once the basic set of general qualities has been derived, to a level where they are generally useful, we need to flesh-out the qualities of each quality. By this I mean that a universal quality linked to a particular context can express itself in subtly different ways when compared to its 'purest' expression where the text and the context are the same.
How do we do identify these differences? The process of hyperbolic growth reflects the taking of ALL of the members of the general set of qualities and using them as sources of analogy to describe the qualitative differences of expression WITHIN a particular general quality. Thus for each of the eight qualities derived above we derive eight analogies. This gives us eight octets, each octet containing the eight analogies applicable for each of the original eight qualities.
Symbolically we can extend the binary values we used to identify the general qualities by adding-on the binary values of all of the qualities. For example, the DDD quality, converted to its binary value format becomes 111. This binary value is the GENERAL quality and as such represents a CONTEXT, a universe of discourse, within which we make our analogies. Thus for the context of 111 we can make the following symbolic representations of the analogies:
context-text
111-111 DDD within a DDD context.
111-110 DDI within a DDD context.
111-101 DID within a DDD context.
111-100 DII within a DDD context.
111-011 IDD within a DDD context.
111-010 IDI within a DDD context.
111-001 IID within a DDD context.
111-000 III within a DDD context.
The next step is, once the analogies are made we can recruit them and abstract them to become autonomous units, descriptions of 'unique' qualities themselves rather than as analogies. Thus from a set of eight general qualities we have derived a set of 64 (8 x 8) more particular qualities (symbolically we remove the hyphen, thus the analogy expressed as 111-000 becomes the 'pure' quality of 111000)
We can do this literal-to-analogous-to-recruit/abstract-to-literal process ad infinitum such that we move from 8 to 64 to 4096 to 16+ million qualities of D/I processing very quickly (where N qualities become N2. and these become the new value of N and so on) But this can lead to an excessively long string of binary digits! For the sake of demonstration, as well as there being no real need at the moment to go to using high values, we will stick to the use of three to six binary digits and so to the use of 8 to 64 qualities in describing 'reality'. (4096 will become the norm later, but for now we stick to 64). This process of hyperbolic growth reflects the refinement from a perspective that is GENERAL to one that is increasingly PARTICULAR.
The movement from general to particular, when moving from a perspective of integration dominance to a perspective of differentiation dominance, reflects the fact that we are moving along a dimension of precision where the high energy 'dot' precise nature of the binary perspective of differentiation is complemented at the 'other pole' by the more conserving of energy, 'field' precise nature of integration. This dimension reflects that of covering the path from the UNARY to the BINARY. As we shall see, reference to the realm of the unary is meaningless in that there are no distinctions possible - all is 'one'. We find that the first point of distinction making is when we introduce 'memory' in the form of reference to a past context. The initial reference is to the previous context and we can derive a sense of the temporal, or sequence, in the form of '1,2,3,4...' but this fails to demonstrate patterns of development that are useful. It is in fact the next level of context-reference that patterns emerges, where we consider the previous two context frames. These patterns seemingly reflecting the influences of the 'golden ratio' and as such the fibonacci sequence rather than the binary sequence where this pattern reflects the 'perfect fit' of integration and differentiation processes - the perfect 'balance' that ensures development and yet conservation of energy in doing so.
This precision dimension allows us to start an analysis of reality from any point on that dimension and as such focus upon a set of patterns as being 'meaningful' to the exclusion, or at least subordination, of all other patterns. Thus starting at the point associated with the fibonacci sequence, all 'meaningful' patterns will reflect the fibonacci sequence and the ratio of the 'golden mean' - 1:1.618. Thus we identify a development pattern shared by galaxies as well as flowers.
If we wish, we can extend our analysis and yet stay with a particular perspective without moving along the dimension. We do this by using such concepts as hyperbolic development where the set of basic qualities derived using the particular precision perspective is recruited to serve as a source of analogies to 'flesh out' each quality within the original set; as such we move 'vertically' in development through the use of self-referencing - the advantage is we 'stay in the box', the disadvantage is the inevitable need for 'fresh blood' as the perspective can become too 'esoteric', too complex, too sterile, and so in need of a change of perspective.
If we move along the dimension, (see below diagram) and so become more differentiating in perspective, we reach the other pole that reflects patterns sourced in the binary sequence and so a ratio of 1:2. In all of these different patterns the associated number sequences reflect numbers that represent the degree of integration WITHIN a pattern - thus the higher numbers of the fibonacci sequence, when in pairs that form the 'golden ratio' relationship, represent the degree of turn, the 'tightness', in the spirals we see in these patterns.
These perceptions of various patterns of 'meaning' seem to have their roots in the consideration of how much data from the past we need to recruit to aid us in development - i.e the feedback from memories, from past contexts. If I have no memory then I work off instincts, genetics, and so each 'moment' of time is as such, a moment. We can symbolise this moment-to-moment development as a sequence of 1s representing each moment: baseline perspective : 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1,..... (you could also use a wave format reflecting an integrating perspective but I am using differentation to make my point!) If we move to being able to consider the immediate past in focusing on development then a little bit of energy 'lifts' us from the baseline and we end-up with a sense of 'time' - the recognition of this ability to note the past is captured through the use of summing the past with the present, we move through the above baseline adding the past to the present. This gives us the basic sequence of: first degree of awareness: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8,..... The BENEFIT to a lifeform that can do this allows for evolution and that includes increasing of energy available to 'lift'. IF I can now consider the past TWO moments then I get this: second degree of awareness: 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21,..... This is the mentioned fibonacci sequence and it is reflected in growth patterns from the scale of microtubules in the neuron to spiral galaxies. A property of this sequence is that it is the 'best fit' for differentiation and integration processes - it allows for a degree of development that is also conserving in energy usage and also elicits a sense of 'meaning' in that the patterns act to elicit a sense of being 'pleasing' to our species. There is nothing 'mystical' about these patterns in that the consequences of growth dynamics is the pattern. If you keep repeating this process of recruiting more and more context frames to aid in development you get to the level of recruiting ALL frames back to the 'beginning'; your focus moves from a balance of integration/differentiation, and so a more approximates perspective, to exaggerations and a more differentiating perspective. This process will give you the following sequence: nth degree of awareness: 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128.... This is a binary sequence (or approaching one in that further degrees just refine the sequence) The numbers reflect precision as in bit representations of, for example, colours etc thus a 32-bit system is not as precise as a 128-bit system. In the fibonacci patterns the numbers are reflected geometrically as a tightening of the spiral and as such a pulling 'in' to the center and so the 'point'. Thus not only is there precision in the increasing degree of awareness, but there is also precision WITHIN the degree reflected in the zooming-in on the 'point' the 'fact', the 'bit'. Now comes the 'fun'. EACH of these degrees of awareness set the context for perceptions such that the patterns associated with each degree are deemed the manifestations of 'truth', of deep 'meaning' and as such a lifeform developed within the precision context will be attracted to those patterns more so than all others. Genetic diversity can determine the degree of energy usage, of metabolic rates, optimum functions etc, in a lifeform such that a lifeform can 'prefer' a level and with that determine what patterns in reality 'resonate' the best. Overall, there is a 'zig-zag' pattern in approaching high precision where each point serves as the ground for a perspective that develops 'vertically' to a degree where the need emerges, a demand emerges, for a change in perspective to allow for new insights where the complexity present blocks all continuing work. The benefit of high energy function has been our domination of this planet (note that going BEYOND the binary is possible - it takes us into the realm of complexity/chaos, a realm of transcendence etc). The PRICE of this precision is in not recognising that it comes with distortions and requires high maintenance. Thus our ignoring of lower precision levels reflects our being OVER precise in that there are development patterns in the Universe that function at the fibonacci level (and for that matter lower reflected in the arrow of time a la 1,2,3,4....) and are so ingrained, so adapted to the Universe that there is no other choice in development. Analysis of the methodology we use in general as a species identifies the differentiation process as the ability to focus and 'lift' something out of the everyday for analysis and then RETURN that something to the everyday BUT the return is more to a hybrid everyday, a combination of 'as is' reality and 'as interpreted' reality - a 'species reality' which contains such properties as that of the 'eternal' (see below), a property that has certainly influenced our development as a species since from that property stems the notion of the 'spiritual'.
The precision possible through the use of differentiations is down to the level of the 'dot', the ONE. The precision possible through the use of integrations is down to the level of no less than TWO OR some form of probability list and so a focus on a ratio. The brain processes integrations differently than differentiations such that, when we deal with negation we focus on an integration, to NOT something I must have something to NOT! IOW there is an integration required more so than when I express the something. We can see these differences in PET/fMRI/rCBF scans of the brain as it processes negation( and that includes the searching for a past context to be introduced to convert, to REPLACE, a negative with a positive. This reflects the dynamics of 1:MANY processing that services the level of expression that is 1:1) An issue develops in the use of binary thinking in acquiring information in that the YES/NO format is interpreted as 1:1 BUT in reality is more 1:2 (or 1:many). The representation of the negation element is distorted in that we make note of the EXPRESSION in a context of binary thinking which is a POSITIVE, single context assertion of "NO", rather than recognise the VARIABLE nature of negation, its qualitative differences that have a RANGE when compared to the 'dot' precision represented in the expression of "YES". (recall the previous mentioned concepts of analytical negation and dialectical negation). In fact the variable nature of negation is reflected in the degrees of awareness identified above, all values LESS than the binary reflect sources of negation FOR the binary. The statistics graphs etc used to represent binary thinking will encode negation in the same manner as it encodes the assertion of "YES" - the graphs reflect 1:1 thinking but that is NOT what reality deals with, it is more 1:many such that the information reflected in binary perspectives idealise the 'many' into 'one'. (the solution to this seems to be in the use of log scales and that takes us into fibonacci patterns, or more so questions such as "IF YES then tick, otherwise do this little multiple choice covering the range of negations")
Of special note is what can happen when we reach this binary perspective and attempt to 'go beyond' through putting in additional energy than that of the 1:2 representation - we can do this by, for example, using memories of 'like' events to 'enhance' the perspective of the current event; in other words we EXAGGERATE. This process takes us BEYOND 1:2 and into the realm of emergence and complexity/chaos (as demonstrated by such works as that of Verhulst and Mandelbrot). This 'going beyond' indicates the high energy position of a perspective as being the point of 'transcendence' - although in extremely diffuse, low energy areas (e.g. low value fibonacci sequence) there is the suggestion that 'transcendence' may take thousands of years or perhaps not at all - just remain as 'potentials' that are never actualised due to the lack of energy.
Of note is that the development of 'dot' precision leads to the ultimate in precision, the dropping of all references to a context - we seek the 'purest' of form. The brain cannot operate without context and as such recruits whatever is under analysis as the supplier of context and so our 'dot' precision moves into the realm of self-referencing. Note there seems to be a link in precision processing to our models of reality in the form of the methods of interpretations of Physics etc - e.g. Quantum Mechanics vs Relativity - where the more 'dot' precision of audition emerges out of the more 'field' precision of vision and as such leads to issues regarding uniting different models into a Theory of Everything (TOE).
However, there are also issues regarding high precision in that the context forces misinterpretations or misleading labeling of a category as we find, for example, in precision issues in the MBTI® where there is evidence of distortion in that the high precision of the typology interprets persona types that are more integrating, or more balanced in differentiation/integration processes and so more focused on fitting-in to a context (the transformation function) rather than replacing the context (transcendence function), as types that 'seek' identity and so are at odds with the more universal categorisations that come with the typology; the high precision of the typology focuses is identifying the individual 'for ever' and as such works from the individual always asserting their given type rather than allowing the context to bring-out aspects of their persona that allow one to 'fit in' quickly; there is no need to take-over the context, to replace it, but more so to integrate with the context and so balance-out.
Of major interest here is that in the human brain, as we get more and more 'dot' precise so we enter a realm of probabilities as we attempt to identify the expression of 'something' in the dynamics of the Universe. These probabilities are extremely precise and in fact reflect the 'TENSOR' perspective mentioned later as being a consequence of our zooming-in to a quality represented in binary form. Thus we find that the precise identification of 'something' comes with being able to identify a set of possible expressions all waiting for a context to 'set them off' but also representative of the development of the 'something' over time.
To re-state the introduction to this paper, reading through the literature of the Neurosciences, Cognitive Science, and Psychology, it is possible to identify two fundamental functions sourced at the level of the neuron that seem to be generalised and so reflected in behaviours of the columns, lobes, hemispheres of the brain and 'out' into the behaviours of the individual, collectives, and species. These functions I will label as the Transformation, or Compliance, function and the Transcendence function but if we wanted to reduce these terms to very basic expressions then we are dealing with pushing and pulling.
The Transformation function reflects the processes of encoding instincts and habits within the dendrites of a neuron such that they work as filters and allow the context to PUSH the neuron. The benefit of this is in (a) conservation of energy through not having to continuously monitor the context for change and (b) integrate with the context through the formation of habits and so the ability to respond immediately to change and as such 'flow' with the context. Thus the sensitivity to context is on 'auto pilot' and is not conscious for us as a species; we can be placed in a context that 'sets off' behaviours that we have no immediate control of. Habit formation reflects the encoding of 'sameness' and as such the ability to instinctively respond to a stimulus where the response is highly precise and elegant, ensuring conservation of energy. The habit as such serves as a tool of PROTECTION and establishes a degree of stability in a relationship with a context and thus we can identify habits and instincts with the concept of rules and an overall focus on integration. (there is a subtle distinction here that associates instincts with LAWS and habits with RULES. Laws cannot be broken, rules can be broken.) This habit formation allows for the consideration of responses to a stimuli and so conscious descision making comes to the fore to aid in refining the habit that eventually becomes 'instinctive'. In complex species as that of ourselves, so the genetic context-sensitivity of the mindless instincts are supplemented by the mindful sensitivity to context. The stability of a habit implies the presence of a sense of the eternal where the instincts of a species, from an individual's perspective, are 'eternal' as are, to a lesser degree, the habits of a collective/individual. This sense of the eternal allows for the identification of the particulars of habits and so the recruitment of those particulars in the prediction of behaviours of both one's own as well as that of other species. The generalisation of the transformation function, through recruitments etc (see following comments on the transcendence function re recruitments), allows for (a) the learning of 'good' habits that ensure quick integration with a context, and (b) the internalisation of a map of the context such that certain events can elicit behaviours that reflect the pre-emptying of situations within the context - the general reactive nature of living in a context and being pushed leads to the development of a proactive nature - the ability to intentionally push and even pull others.
Note that the transformation function, being concerned with habits, will act in an inhibiting manner in that it expresses the particular characteristics of a particular habit and as such MUST inhibit all processes not reflecting the habit (but at the same time excite elements of the habit to express themselves - there is a focus here on passive expression, where what is not inhibited becomes the expression, and active expression where energy is expended to excite a pattern to 'stick out' from the set of patterns)
The shift from a reactive perspective to a proactive perspective is reflected in the other function of the neuron - the Transcendence function, where the transcendence is more exciting than inhibiting in that the process reflects the ESCAPE from a habit/context and as such the inhibition of the habit through the excitation of all else bar the habit (and as such the habit is inhibited) Of primary importance in brain function is the ability to integrate all elements involved in expression into a whole. This process is reflected in the neuron through the use of synchronisations where groups of neurons can fire 'as one' to ensure the proper expression of an instinct/habit. Circumstances can arise where the habit does not fit the context such that 'out of context' behaviour can result that can threaten the lifeform. The synchronisation processes allow for habit data, as it flows from dendrites through to soma prior to eliciting a firing down the axon, to experience an anomaly in the synchronisation such that the habit data is re-ordered, re-sequenced and so can elicit an 'error' in behaviour. However, this 'error' can also serve as an 'insight' into alternative behaviour that allows for (a) the escape from a context to another or (b) the assertion of one's own context over the existing context; thus the synchronisation processes allow for habits to be 'sliced n diced' and offer escape paths from the rigidity of stimulus/response. This ability to escape/assert reflects the REPLACEMENT of a context with a 'better', or potentially better, context and as such reflects the concept of transcendence. This process complements the transformation function where the focus is more on integrating with the existing context and as such focusing on retaining overall BALANCE of the ecosystem. What is of importance to note in the transcendence function is the process of synchronisation that implies the process of RECRUITMENT - the synchronisation process requires integration of many to fire as if one and this process enables a neuron to recruit another/others to widen bandwidth to aid in identifying and responding to 'something'. This does not mean that those recruited benefit to the same degree as the neuron that recruited them - it means that the process of recruitment is a property of transcendence in general and as such reflects the concept of EXPLOITATION. The transcendence function thus comes with an element of exaggeration as a property. Since the soma of the neuron FOLLOWS-ON from the dendrites so the transcendence function operates WITHIN the context set by the transformation function and so transcendence operates within a general context of PROTECTION in that the transcendence function is the last step in protection, the need to escape/take-over all being extreme acts of protection. Thus the properties and methods of the transcendence function stem from a focus on protection where the exaggeration abilities allow for the ESCAPE from a habit and/or context in that the habit either is not working or has become too oppressive in nature and so the transcendence function serves as a door to FREEDOM.
It seems as if, in the process of development, the transcendence function has itself transcended in that the seemingly original intent of exaggeration for protection has developed to include exaggeration for the sake of exaggeration - we 'get off' on the stimulation of the process, we enjoy the 'buzz' of the sudden exhilarance when we 'transcend'.
These dynamics of both transcending and transforming have their own creative nuances where transcending is, creatively, more innovative in that the creation is NEW and as such can REPLACE past perspectives. On the other hand creativity in the realm of transforming is more adaptive in that the focus is on a variation of something and so an addition to an existing toolset rather than the replacement of that set with something totally different.
Overall, The properties and methods of our species reflect the attempts to isolate and so 'divest' our selves of connection to the universe or more so to divest our selves of explicit dependencies. This divestment is enabled through the development of technology that initially is considered the 'servant'. The overall intent, the drive is to be 'free' of current contexts, to be able to, with our technology, be self-sufficient and so assert our context over others. Mindless dynamics in this perspective of development will focus on a demand for replacement - this is due to the nature of the thinking alone in that high precision thinking forces a single context perspective and so an A XOR B perspective that dominates the culture - there develops a transcendence seeking process that, originally there to enable escape from a context, becomes habituated where we transcend to transcend and so try to assert the context; we seek a 'better' X to replace all previous versions. This is a property functioning at the level of the neuron that has been abstracted to function at the level of consciousness-dominated collectives and so can lead to 'problems' where metaphors are taken literally, the map is taken to be the territory it represents; our created 'everyday', the everyday of the species is believed to be the everyday of the universe - it isnt, it is a hybrid. This replacement focus, this A XOR B perspect reflects a distortion such that the push for technological progress, the mindless, stimulus/response push, ignores consequences of one's actions and so ignores the ever-strengthening dependency on the resources of the planet to derive more technology as well as maintain the existing technology. Since the resources of the planet are limited so technology becomes a burden more than a 'godsend' in that it cannot be maintained OR people must lower their expectations or more so become the servants to the technology - or else we shift our economic focus and so be discerning about what we develop (and so billions of dollars required to make accelerators are focused more on social demands - schools, hospitals, defence systems etc) or we focus on universal transcendence - we seek to escape the planet and move out into the universe - but Einstein seems to have put a block in the way. Furthermore, technological progress as such can lead to diminishing returns and as such a push to favouring the development of monopolies etc where take-overs are required to keep the technology ball rolling. The point here is that all of the expressions, the formulas, algorithms etc etc are reflections of the underlying species-level manner in which meaning is processed - the dynamics of objects and relationships - such that understanding the manner in which we THINK reveals the properties and methods of all we can ever know and as such all of nature that we can ever know since to understand our technology so our technology is required to be extensions of us, never replacements for. By identifying the properties and methods from which we derive meaning so we can better identify what we can know as well as get a better idea re the filtering process we use in dealing with the universe (one consequence of which is the wave/particle duality issue in that for most interpretations context is ignored, people focus on this as a 'universal', it isnt other than being a consequence of methodology and so a reflection of pattern in our 'universe' but not necessarily 'the' universe.) The current trend in specialisations reflects the trend to try and understand the universe through some metaphor (that is not considered as such - it is considered as a 'pure' discipline, a magical '1:1' mapping of the universe!). The error here is in not understanding the properties and methods of the species such that no one discipline can achieve 'perfection' since all disciplines are LOCAL manifestations, expressions, of the GENERAL patterns of meaning we all share as a species. In other words these disciplines will always require 'fresh blood' as well as continue to 'bifurcate' into further specialisations - and so reflect the process of derivation (as in a sub-discipline that specialises on the properties and methods of 'location' compared to another that specialises on the properties and methods of velocities etc etc). In other words, to develop deeper understanding you have to step out of the box into the 'bigger' box of the species where that box is the 'root' box for all perspectives; otherwise you get caught-up in the infinite loop of specialisations and that takes you away from understanding the species nature. Thus the only way to refine these specialist disciplines is to tie them to the one generalist discipline - that covering the manner in which we as a species categorise and so derive meaning. In other words once you understand the properties and methods of the species so you can 'refine' your reflections within each of the specialist disciplines and treat them for what they are - metaphors for communicating meaning derived from the linking of the general set of qualities, with the overall transcend/transform focus, of the species with a specific context.
[Neuron-related References on Transformation] [Neuron-related References on Transcendence]
The dichotomy of Exploit/Protect is a common dichotomy reflected in social dynamics where the exploitation of X leads to the protection of X that leads to the exploitation of that protection and so on and so on. Out of the middle of this interaction of exploit/protect develops a mediation/service industry (e.g. lawyers, accountants, psychotherapists etc) that in turn uses the same dichotomy in its development; meaning that the mediation industry will itself reflect attempts at exploitation and so the emergence of a need to protect the industry from that exploitation. What is noticeable about the two functions is that they reflect properties we at the 'mind' level associate with Logic where analytical, or formal, logic is represented in characteristics of the Transformation function and dialectical logic is represented in characteristics of the Transcendence function - e.g. the replace issue of context A with B leads to a transcendence to a state C and as such we can identify the source of Hegel's concept of the negation of a negation (see more details on Logic). The 'eternal' nature inherent in the transformation function reflects the focus on the static emphasis in formal logic where the nature of instincts/habits reflect the identification of 'eternal' laws and such concepts as the law of identity, the law of the excluded middle, the law of contradiction; all laws applicable to assertions of 'eternals', the never changing - as in the form of instincts/habits. A prime function of the brain is in identification - of establishing a clear, eternal, notion of something/someone. We can split this function into two, (a) the identification of something from a universal perspective and so 'eternal', and (b) the identification of something from different contexts where we are often required to RE-identify in that context determines the expression - this re-identification process is reflected in the spoken word where, for example the closeness in sounding of the terms wail and whale mean the context will aid in identifying the meaning intended. The transcendence function works WITHIN the context set by the habits and so the transformation function. The transcendence function is strongly associated with timing, synchronisations and as such reflects a more vector perspective when compared to the more scalar perspective of t