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 transformation function. The totality is expressed with the concept of a tensor, a matrix made-up of many vectors. The transcendence function reflects the ability to exaggerate or distort a perception and as such is more reflective of left brain processes than right brain. Since the transformation function focus in on protection, so the transcendence focus is on exaggeration of protect in the form of an ability to ESCAPE. Note how by identifying the transcendence function as dependent on timing and being the source of integrated responses to stimuli, so we associate distributed systems and the division of labour as prime elements of the transcendence process. A fundamental property of the transcendence function is 'getting it right' - expressed in the form of exact timing, of perfect synchronisation of all elements of the psyche/soma in all forms of information processing. The dependence on high precision and the exact 'moment' relates the transcendence function to the emphasis on 'dot' precision. The transformation function, more attuned to habits and instincts and so more GENERAL in nature than the transcendence function, is more biased to approximations in processing information and as such has an emphasis more on 'field' precision where the linking of different 'dots' leads to an IMPLICATION of some sort or another - there is a focus on signs rather than taking things literally, the latter a trait of the transcendence function.
The transformation function reflects an emphasis on BALANCE, homeostasis, and so a bias to INTEGRATION. The transcendence function reflects an emphasis on EXAGGERATION and a focus on REPLACEMENT and so a bias to DIFFERENTIATION. The dynamics within is entangle integration and differentation to varying degrees. We can here identify the set of generic meanings we have identified as resulting from recursion, as properties of the neuron.
We can turn all of this abstraction into a concrete example of the protect/exploit dichotomy at work:
Capitalism is an excellent example of exploitation, the drive for the recruitment of others to aid in achieving one's own 'transcendence' where Capitalism needs to 'keep producing' to keep the money coming in and so each year a new model 'replaces' the old and is deemed 'better' than the old. The 'recruitment of others' is the exploitation where these others do not receive the same benefits (profit) as does the recruiter. The basic resources for capitalism are those of human labour as well as the labour of other lifeforms and the exploitation of natural resources of the planet. Socialism is the expression of mediation as a reaction to the exploitation of Labour (in particular peoples labour-power) by Capitalism. This mediation activity has led to the development of labour unions, arbitration commissions etc etc to mediate the exploitation. Conservationism (the Green movement) is the expression of mediation as a reaction to the exploitation of the Means of Production in the form of raw materials - in other words the exploitation by Capitalism of the natural resources of the planet. The product of all of this need for mediation is the growth of a mediation industry - accountants, auditors, umpires, lawyers, park rangers, lobbyists, psychotherapists etc Of note is that the mediation industry itself is also open to the exploit/protect dynamic where within the industry are those out to exploit it as are those out to protect it. In other words a degree of self-referencing occurs such that the focus by some in the industry is on the industry itself rather than on the mediation process being applied externally. Mindless Capitalism ('unbridled' Capitalism) has its focus on transcendence, on the 'new' and as such will not consider consequences of its actions in its endeavors to produce the 'new'. All it 'knows' is 'new' means 'benefit' in that the species is attracted to the 'new' in that we exploit the 'new' for social identity (as in "*I* have this year's BMW.. etc etc") - the 'new' helps one to 'transcend', can give one a 'lift' (as does the act of acquiring the 'new' - shopping!). Here we witness the benefits of the Transcendence function running out of control where the success of the function means we transcend to transcend, we get off on the 'buzz' of the new, ignoring consequences as well as ignoring the main focus of transcendence as a force of escape from 'unwelcome' contexts where it allows one to break habits - in the transcendence loop the process has become 'habitual', where seeking of 'freedom' has no purpose, there is nothing one needs to escape from, the escape process has been transformed into a process of seeking 'more', somewhere to go for the sake of going rather than somewhere to escape to. We can see that the social problem is that as new-ness becomes addictive, as we transcend to transcend, as we get high of the buzz of 'new' without consideration of consequences - so we have the exploitation of children etc in factories as well as the exploitation of natural resources to supply energy/raw materials to create the 'new' etc. As the mediation processes introduce labour laws, conservation laws etc, so these laws influence Capitalism where the capitalist's focus on labour shifts to exploit the labour of those countries without such labour laws etc. As conservation laws influence Capitalism so the focus is upon those countries that have the natural resources but not the laws etc Thus Indonesia gets stripped of trees and Reebok etc build factories in Indonesia for cheap labour etc
The analysis of socioeconomic processes by Karl Marx demonstrated the perspectives of exploit/protect without recognition of the role of mediation in these processes such that Marx's focus, or more so that of Marxism-Leninism, was more on replacement than integration where the Capitalism of the Marx's focus was that of the unbridled Capitalism of the 1850s.
The focus here is to flesh-out concepts we find in the work of Karl Marx vs the IDM concepts of the Transcendence function (exploit) and the Transformation function (protect). In his texts "A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy" and the "Grundrisse" Marx starts to fleshout his circuit concepts where, fundamentally we have: C - M - C (commodity - money - commodity) vs M - C - M' (money - commodity - money+) The first circuit reflects the selling of a commodity to get money to buy a commodity. This is 'simple' exchange of one commodity for another and so reflects an overall 'integrated', a balanced system where all is conserved. This concept reflect the properties and methods of IDM's Transformation function where 'shape shifting' satisfies the need to remain integrated within a context and so overall the focus is on maintaining symmetry. The 'refinement' is in the original circuit being C - C, basic exchange, where the C - M - C allows for the seller to have choice in what is later bought in that the choice is in the form of using M and so delaying 'final' exchange. The second circuit reflects the notion of "Surplus Value" in that we use money to buy commodities we can sell for more money. This reflects the IDM Transcendence function in that the aim is to replace M with M' (and so 'transcend') but to do that we have to recruit and exploit C (commodities). This process reflects the development of asymmetry (which can focus upon the breaking of symmetry - a form of 'escape'). Note also that in the C - M - C relationship there is usually a personal need for the C, there is a relationship of seller/buyer to C whereas in the surplus value circuit what C is is immaterial, the focus is on the M/M'. The general categorisation of these circuits are fleshed-out in Marx's Capital Vol I but of more interest is the analysis of the dynamics of these circuits (or more so the surplus value circuit) and this dynamic is focused upon in Capital Vol II. The IDM material identifies the Transcendence and Transformation functions as being fundamentals to our neurocognitive processes and as such expressed in the development of our species in social context as well as personal contexts. In other words it is 'inevitable' that Marx would come up with what he did (and these circuits are covered in general in the earlier economic theorists such as Adam Smith and David Ricardo, both upon whom Marx drew extensively in his analysis of political economy) BUT, in Marxist-Leninist philosophy the idealism starts to come out in that 'socialism' is deemed the path to 'communism' as a replacement for capitalism. One of the main aspects of this process is the 'abolishment of exploitation'. As we seem to make-out in analysis of our neurocognitive processes, the recruitment and exploitation of A to help B transcend is 'built in' where at the neuron level this 'transcendence' is in the basic form of increasing bandwidth with which to process data and we see this 'drive' in neurons where, for example, neurons in the brain usually linked to processing a specific type of data (limb movement, vision processing) will be recruited by nearby neurons if the original source of information ceases to function (amputations, blindness of an eye etc) Furthermore, the synchronisation processes in the brain allow for one area to be recruited to aid another in processing data - I.e. 'increase bandwidth' and so 'transcend' the current state for something 'better'. In other words exploitation is a property sourced at the level of the NEURON (or more so neural network) and is thus a property of all neuron-dependent lifeforms. Since our behaviours, their patterns, have their roots in our neurocognitive processes so at the level of consciousness, both social (others-aware) and personal (self-aware), these patterns will be expressed in particular abstract forms. What is noticeable about the "Surplus Value" Circuit is its reflection of transcendence as in M' to replace M but also that the exploitation process actually bifurcates C into a pair of (a) Labour as a commodity and (b) Means of Production as a commodity where these 'means' are in the form of raw materials etc. (we also get into C' etc reflecting the refinement of commodities that become marketable for more M'' etc etc) Through the application of IDM has been identified a process where, in the focus on exploitation there is a 'drive' to protect against excess where out of the middle of the exploit/protect dichotomy emerges a mediation industry such that the 'breaking' of symmetry is possibly avoided. From these processes of transcendence develop mediation that, for Marx becomes the perspective of socialism stemming from the Labour exploitation (and so unions, government intervention re labour laws re exploitation of children etc) BUT there is also the perspective of Conservationism stemming from the exploitation of the Means of Production, in particular the finite resources of the planet. The modern-day political activity of conservationists as well as socialists reflects the precision in Marx's analysis of 'commodities' in that the distinct 'cut' of labour/means-of-production has been validated in the distinct differences in the political make-up of the socialist and conservationist movements. The focus of the capitalists was on socialism due to the immediateness of human-to-human interactions as compared to the at times seemingly 'limitless' resources on this planet. Once capitalism continued to develop so the protection of the means of production started to become an issue where the tension of social issues were reduced (comparing 1850s capitalism to that of today where interventionism aids in 'management') and environmental changes brought our attention to the 'means of production' issues. The point here is that IDM maps all of this from the generic level and as such can serve as a guide in both fleshing-out disciplines as well as providing predictions/prophecies stemming from the understanding of neurocognitive processes. We can map-out the dynamics of the mediation process in that there is a dynamic of exploit/protect where, moving from the integrated state of the 'universe', here symbolised as '0', is an exaggeration, here symbolised as '1': (exploit)1<---0 (protect) As the exaggeration becomes too exaggerating it threatens to break the symmetry rather than just exaggerate part of it to reflect 'asymmetry'. In other words the 1 becomes a threat to 0. Out of the middle of this, as an initial act of protection, comes mediation (+): 1<---+---0 This mediation then develops along the same lines as the original in that the position of (+) reflects a new focus on symmetry and so 0 and so emerges a new path. This repeats and repeats: ----+---- | | +----+---- | | | | +----+---- | | | | +----+---- | | etc etc The SUM of this horizontal/perpendicular process is an emerging focus on the diagonal and so the 'state vector' associated with the everyday of the universe. Thus, from the stress of capitalism -- socialism, there emerges a mediation process that initially is focused on protection and so reflects the '0' end, the socialist end, of the original dimension. Out of this develops the same general pattern where the protection, the mediation process, is itself exploited and so and so on. Since we have unbridled capitalism ----- socialism we have mediation --- excessive mediation (exaggeration of mediation). This act forces a restraining of development and so an apparent 'socialisation' process, we enter 'stagnation' in development - too many laws etc make 'innovation' difficult. as such, due to the excessive mediation so the 'drive' of exploitation can become too 'restricted'. This can turn into revolution if the bridle is to 'rigid', too imposed. BUT this can be a revolution of technology etc etc and from Marx's perspective so the development of a mediation industry to 'protect' workers etc reflects a form of 'revolution'. IOW the rigid EITHER/OR of Marx's thinking was over-precise, too rigid and failed to see what comes out of the middle. The strong details focus of Marx and later of Lenin etc DEMANDS a focus on REPLACEMENT as the only solution to problems. This is (1) LOCAL and (2) not necessarily in the form of 'armed conflict'. Over the 'long term' the focus is on integration over exaggerations such that replacement is not an option, more so revolution in the form of new perspectives/ideas/technologies allow for continued development of the long term, integrated 'whole' (and so 'evolution'). These dynamics reflect distinctions made by Hegel where he comments that:
"With regard to its form, logic has three aspects (Seiten): (a) the abstract or understandable (versändige) aspect; (b) the dialectical or Negatively rational (vernüntige) aspect, (c) the speculative or positively rational aspect."
This is not so much reflective of a trichotomy but more so the process of bifurcation. differentiations, and later integration. Thus (c) reflects the derivation of a quality (e.g. A AND B). (b) reflects the rotation process (where A AND B becomes A XOR B) and (a) the 'whole' that is the sum of these parts OR the cause of the differentiations into (b) and (c). A example of this is bifurcation process can be found using the works of Karl Marx where as a response to the exploitation by capitalism has emerged the anti-exploitation causes of socialism (fights the exploitation of labour) and conservationism (fights the exploitation of natural resources - the means of production). Note that to understand Capitalism one needs to understand the acts of exploitation of both labour and natural resources as well as understand the mediation processes that come out when the exploitation is extreme - as in the mentioned mediation industries of socialism and conservationism. I think you can 'see' how Marx etc al came up with their perspectives in that they intuitively picked-up on the above dynamics but could not put their finger on it other than the interpretation of replacement etc, not recognising capitalism as as an exaggeration of socialism and so when MANAGED can 'transform' as well as 'transcend'.
With the concepts of transforming/transcending, and the derivation of protecting/exploiting, comes the additional derivation of evolution/revolution. The transformation function, with its focus upon integrating with a context by learning 'good' habits reflects the concept of evolution and the use of what we can call dialectical negation. Dialectical negation is where, rather than totally, absolutely, replace 'something' we in fact retain elements of that something as elements of the 'new' perspective. This reflects an evolutionary process based on feedback processes where nothing is thrown out purely for the sake of 'starting again'; there is in fact a focus on 'shape shifting' where basic infrastructure is retained and only expression is 'new' and as such we see an example of adaptive creativity.
The process of 'starting again' reflects properties of the transcendence function and the concept of analytical negation where the past is totally replaced and so destroyed - there is thus no chance of going back, of restoring some past perspective; we move into the realm of innovative creativity. This replacement process reflects that of revolution where the intense 'passion' of the moment demands total replacement of the past such that at the level of collectives so a collective's history is 're-interpreted' to reflect the 'new' vision as if it was always there or else a new collective is claimed and so a new history begins. Note here how both dialectical and analytical negation exist WITHIN both evolution and revolution where in the latter the re-writing of history allows for a more dialectical form of negation ('keep what can be useful') whereas the assertion of a 'new' collective, and so totally eradicating the previous even as history, reflects the analytical form of negation.
In summary, through IDM, we can identify the notion of EVOLUTION with the IDM Transformation function based on the gradual integration with the context through the development of habits and so a sense of maintaining balance. We can identify the notion of REVOLUTION with the IDM Transcendence function with a focus on replacement of the current context with something 'better' - be it by direct replacement or escape to another context - as such there is an emphasis on continuity in the transformation function and discontinuity, the transition/'exceeding' focus, in the transcendence function. Recognising the dynamics of differentiation and integration so we here can recognise revolution as being an exaggeration of evolution, where the high energy focus reflects the over-exaggeration of a situation to allow for a replacement of context, and as such the revolution feeds back into the realm of the everyday to, in principle, restore some balance through eliciting development or constraining some form of over-development and so allowing for further evolution.
A point of interest in the context of evolution (and for that matter its revolutionary aspects) is that of the development of awareness of self and of others (a theory of mind).
We opened-up this work on IDM with the following comments (I have added some links to relevant material):
"We can make two distinctions re our nature - as individuals and as members of a collective. 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 reflects the development of rich patterns of social behaviour that is not sourced in any one individual - it comes from all individuals making local distinctions and that behaviour being amplified and 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, and so revolution at work,means the emergence of a problem in that: (1) as species members our instincts/habits work 'wholistically'. As a species we operate in the everyday of the universe, the universe "AS IS" (2) as refined species members 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. (3) the development of consciousness, initially awareness of SELF followed by awareness of OTHERS (as in their minds), 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. (for more on this 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. We see these 'errors' all the way 'up' from basic sensory processing of paradox to the so-called EPR 'paradox' of Quantum Mechanics where the structure of the experiments are parts oriented but interpreted as wholes oriented. OUR individual reality is LOCAL, differentiated. The reality of the universe is NON LOCAL, integrated, and contains within it our species nature, a nature we share with other neuron-dependent species with a focus on stimulus/response. (7)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. As such our sense of awareness is but a PART of our WHOLE being. BUT, being 'derived' from complex neurocognitive dynamics so consciousness has room to develop its own 'wholeness' - the everyday of the species, a hybrid everyday made-up of the everyday of the universe entangled with our idealisations."
The Above points take us into such territory as the derivation of, the conscious seeking of , 'truth'.
(A version of this section originally sent as an email to a General Semantics list)
From work in the neurosciences, zoology, and cognitive sciences there seems to be a definite path of development for the notion of 'truth' where its roots seem to be in territorial mapping, on IS-ness as in 'mine mine mine not-mine'. IOW 'truth' seems to have its roots in the concept of, the feeling of, ownership, and from a collective perspective of 'kin' ('one of us' and so accepted rather than rejected - acceptance seeming to be a 'fundamental' emotion - see the page on IDM and Emotions). The development path of the feeling of 'truth'/'correctness' etc., seems to be completed in the left hemisphere of the human brain where the feeling associated with a 'truth' is linked to such abstractions as syntax processing and so 'correct/incorrect'. The territorial focus is reflected in the linkage processes (mapping using waypointing and vectoring) of the hippocampus and associated 'painting' of the link as positive (mine) and negative (not-mine) by the amygdala. These in turn seem to stem from our more primitive brain areas ('reptilian') which in turn link down to the level of the neuron and so all neuron-dependent lifeforms would seem to have a sense of ‘truth’! (ALL is used as in the properties and methods of the neuron, its basic communications processing of input (axonic), output(dendritic), and their mediation (synchronisation processes, feedback loops etc), are known and so common to all neuron-dependent lifeforms) The overall focus is on 'dot' aka 'point' precision, a trait of our brain processes that deal with discreteness and the A of A / NOT-A. (we even express negation through its positive assertion (as in the intense focus of "NO!") and in doing so can distort our perceptions, our categorisations such that the expression of something being NOT TRUE is done in an intense, positive, truthful manner. For example see the page on persona categories) We can derive three categories of 'truth' - individual, cultural, and those of the species that we can label as 'universal' in that the sense of 'truth' is rooted in the properties and methods of our species' derivation of meaning (at least, the roots of truth seem to be more in the properties and methods of the neuron, abstracted to a high degree in our species) As such, 'absolute' truth stems from the species level where that level sets the bounds for all perceptions and as such is 'universal'. It is usually our left hemisphere that focuses on deriving universals with its focus on single context processing - the more precise you need to be in a dynamic universe so the more you need to recruit universal constants to 'pin down' that precision, that 'point' that one needs to be stable 'forever'. This gets into the labeling process where once something is labeled it can be hard to re-label - also touches on the 'first impressions' process. BUT also note that the left hemisphere focus is PARTS oriented, it deals with the LOCAL as compared to the NON-LOCAL. In other words the links made to a 'universal' context does not necessarily mean that what is identified is 'universal' but more so what is identified is 'universal' WITHIN the bounds of what we are focused upon - in other words the 'universe of discourse'. Here we move into the realm of specialisations where the feeling of 'truth' is associated with the specialisation through the developed lexicon that comes with, is derived from, that specialisation. Knowledge development is reflected in the exaggerations of data from the everyday of the universe and the categorising, labeling, of that data. This too focuses on specialisations as we 'go for details'. BUT there is also a distortion present where the apparent 'universal' nature of some knowledge stems from the distortion of time, where the high energy focus of energy in the form of our attention system causes a physiological event where time is converted from its thermodynamic nature to a more mechanistic nature that allows for it to be slowed down, stopped, and even considered reversible! This moves us into the experience of the sensation of the 'eternal' and from that comes the concept of 'eternal truths' aka universal truths -- well, sort of, in that the presentation of eternal truths comes with an aire that at times seems to 'transcend' the Universe! In other words a consequence of our physiology, stemming from our focus of attention to identify 'something' clearly, creates an ideal form that is asserted as if real rather than ideal. This gets into the understanding that our self and others-awareness seems to be rooted in a sense of the particular, of personal identity, and as such is to us the source of 'wholes' etc whereas our species sense of 'wholes' is rooted in the realm of the general. Paradox is a consequence of this confusion of individual wholes perspective vs species wholes perspective where the reduction from general species to particular species but also to personal 'universal' is missed such that part perspectives are deemed 'whole' such that apparent paradox can emerge. E.g the assertion “There is no absolute truth” is a universal statement, and so ‘wholes’ oriented, but comes from a parts perspective. If we focus on Logic, as in both analytical and dialectical, we notice that the law of identity, A = A, stems from the analytical and comes with the ‘requirement’ that A is “PURE” in form. The realm of the analytical is the realm of exaggerations to the degree of removing dynamics, time is impoverished and even ignored - the focus is on the sense of the ‘eternal’. As such the PURE quality of A can be that of the categories of ‘pure’ or ‘mixed’ but the law says you must have pure=pure or mixed=mixed. When we move to the realm of the dialectical, A != A, and so keep time as a factor, so we cannot have pure=pure nor mixed=mixed, we always have pure->mixed, mixed->pure, IOW pure BECOMING mixed, mixed BECOMING pure. IOW the notion of ‘pure’ or ‘mixed’ is but a moment in time, a phase transition point. Remove time, remove ‘becoming’, and all you have are these phase transition points, the ‘absolutes’ of the realm of the analytical (also note the discrete perspective that emerges from this removal) From these distinctions we can identify two forms of negation - analytical negation and dialectical negation. Analytical negation is replacements oriented, it is absolute where X negates Y by destroying it, total replacement - A VS NOT-A, A XOR B. Within the same box of the analytical we have analytical affirmation - A == B, A ‘is the same as’ B. Dialectical negation, on the other hand, reflects transitions and transformations, cyclic and morphic changes, that allow for X to negate Y but through replacement that can absorb Y WITHIN X. Within the same box of the dialectical we have dialectical affirmation - A =!= B, A ‘is similar to’ B. As such the dialectical perspective is evolutionary (negation allows for integration) whereas the analytical perspective is revolutionary (negation is totalist, replacement oriented, differentiating) and from the IDM material we can identify the revolutionary as an exaggeration of the evolutionary, analytical is an exaggeration of the dialectical through the impoverishment of thermodynamic time to being mechanistic and so stoppable and so ignorable - fine for developing LOCAL perspectives but a problem when trying to focus on the NON-LOCAL. (As a maturing culture, so the instant gratification of revolution can give way to the delayed gratification of evolution) All of this discussion on Logic etc takes us back to the concepts of truth. In the realm of the analytical, its focus on ‘dot’ precision means that my feeling of ‘truth’ is linked to some thing, event, concept etc as A (my feeling) == B. This is LOCALLY useful but also comes with some potential illusions/delusions (e.g. confusing thing with the feeling e.g. the sense of the spiritual, and its association with idealism stems from the realm of the analytical - as does our personal senses of identity, of ‘me-ness’) Dialectical ‘truth’ on the other hand is not as ‘precise’ as analytical truth, it is more ‘field’ oriented and focuses on dynamics rather than statics where the static is ‘fleeting’. As such dialectical truth is closer to the everyday of the Universe and as such is more NON-LOCAL in perspective, more integrating than differentiating but being integrating takes-on a more probabilistic focus in that the base unit of measurement for integration is a PAIR as compared to the unit of measurement for differentation - the ONE. So -- we can say that individual truth is differentiating and can be asserted as ‘absolute’ when compared to Cultural/Species truth that is integrating and can be asserted as ‘relative’. Step out of the box of the individual and you step into the ‘greater’ box of the local collective. Step out of the box of the local collective and you step into the box of the species. WITHIN each box there exists a sense of absolute truth, as there exists the notion of ‘what you see is what you get’ - IOW things are taken literally rather than as metaphors. It is only in the box of the species that universal truths are identifiable as absolutes since we cannot step out of that box - unless we mutate! - but the communication processes at the level of the species is limited to qualities, patterns, stemming from the neurocognitive dynamics of differentiations/integrations, objects/relationships, WHAT/WHERE - the moment you apply labels to these qualities so you move back into the collective/individual boxes. IOW at the species level the ‘dot’ precision, the strong feeling of ‘truth’ experienced at the level of the individual becomes too diffuse to be intensely ‘meaningful’; we are ‘driven’ to specialise truths. However, individual consciousness introduces something of interest in that it (a) asserts whole ‘truths’ from a level that is parts biased from the species perspective and as such can create paradox but (b) has an intensity that allows for ‘transcendence’, for the ‘sudden’ moment of enlightenment, the ‘ah-HA’ experience within the lifetime of the individual rather than collective/species - IOW evolution can be sped up through revolutions where the revolutions are now in the form of ideas. Of particular interest is in the impassioned ideas - those of ‘IS-ness’ in that the faith, the blind faith, in these ideas acts to ‘force’ their expression - we ‘spread the word’ - and as such take-on a charismatic, catching, focus that is deemed ‘THE truth’ for the initial periods following the introduction of the idea. The longer ‘THE truth’ is held to be so the longer the idea is retained and so becomes integrated with the individual/collectives. It is this level of integration, linked to the dialectical and the consideration of time as well as our species nature, where ‘absolute’ truths eventually end-up, they become ‘instinctive’, ‘obvious’. This realm of the integrating is also the realm of habits and instincts such that fundamentalism does NOT end-up as ‘absolute’ truths despite the attempts by religions etc to force it to be so (the limit seems to be at the collective level rather than species - reflecting the time period required to make a truth ‘universal’ for the species ;-) - thus psychosis (the absolute truth of one’s “own little world”) seems limited to individuals and a possible extension into a local collective.) If we convert ‘truth’ to ‘facts’ so all facts fall within the bounds of the species but cannot be expressed clearly at that level - we need specialisation, we need ‘IS-ness’ to communicate, categories, compute and as such the precision, the ‘dot’ precision of ‘IS-ness’ is required. The brain, when reasoning, works from a general to a particular perspective and within the particular uses precise probabilities prior to assertion - “Cerebral Cortex, Vol. 11, No. 10, 954-965, October 2001 © 2001 Oxford University Press New Evidence for Distinct Right and Left Brain Systems for Deductive versus Probabilistic Reasoning Lawrence M. Parsons and Daniel Osherson1 University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, San Antonio, TX and 1 Rice University, Houston, TX, USA Lawrence M. Parsons, Director, Cognitive Neuroscience Program, Division of Behavioral and Cognitive Sciences, Directorate for Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230, USA. Deductive and probabilistic reasoning are central to cognition but the functional neuroanatomy underlying them is poorly understood. The present study contrasted these two kinds of reasoning via positron emission tomography. Relying on changes in instruction and psychological ‘set’, deductive versus probabilistic reasoning was induced using identical stimuli. The stimuli were arguments in propositional calculus not readily solved via mental diagrams. Probabilistic reasoning activated mostly left brain areas whereas deductive activated mostly right. Deduction activated areas near right brain homologues of left language areas in middle temporal lobe, inferior frontal cortex and basal ganglia, as well as right amygdala, but not spatial–visual areas. Right hemisphere activations in the deduction task cannot be explained by spill-over from overtaxed, left language areas. Probabilistic reasoning was mostly associated with left hemispheric areas in inferior frontal, posterior cingulate, parahippocampal, medial temporal, and superior and medial prefrontal cortices. The foregoing regions are implicated in recalling and evaluating a range of world knowledge, operations required during probabilistic thought. The findings confirm that deduction and induction are distinct processes, consistent with psychological theories enforcing their partial separation. The results also suggest that, except for statement decoding, deduction is largely independent of language, and that some forms of logical thinking are non-diagrammatic.” ALSO SEE: “Oaksford, M., and Chater, N., (2001) "The probabilistic approach to human reasoning" IN Trends in Cognitive Sciences Vol 5. No8 August 2001: 349-357 (published PRIOR to the above) From the intro: "In a standard reasoning task, performance is compared with the inferences people should make according to logic, so a judgement can be made on the rationality of people's reasoning. It has been found that people make large and systematic (i.e. non-random) errors, which suggests that humans might be irrational. However, the probabilistic approach argues against this interpretation" (p349)” Of special note is the statement that : “The results also suggest that, except for statement decoding, deduction is largely independent of language, and that some forms of logical thinking are non-diagrammatic.” This touches on the IDM perspective of there being a ‘language’ of the neurocognitive processes pre the specialisation processes, a species ‘language’ we share with all other neuron-dependent lifeforms and existing prior to, and determining the specialised expression of, human language a la spoken/written words. For all species there exists a hard-coded hypothesis about reality, a set of ‘universal’ truths, in the form of the set of hard-coded instincts that, being elements of a hypothesis, are used for deduction and so a developing ‘partness’ perspective over the root ‘wholeness’ perspective; we cannot ‘replace’ instincts, but we can re-configure them to a degree where their absoluteness (context sensitivity is at the species level) is made more context-sensitive through local interactions. As we have developed so we have recruited this hypothesis creation process from its genetic, species level, focus to that of making personal as well as collective hypotheses - and so different categories of ‘truths’. The above identified probabilities perspective operates within the bounds of high precision focus (left hemisphere thinking where we work out of the particular as compared to right hemisphere bias favouring general to particular - combine the two perspectives and you get ‘us’) is reflected in our most precise of tools - Quantum Mechanics where ‘IS-ness’ is the collapse of the wave equation (a set of probabilities) upon confirmation of a measurement, but Science is focused on generals, on algorithms and formulas, and as such does not get involved with ‘blind faith’ in that a probabilities perspective requires negation to function. In blind faith there is just ‘certainty’ and that is ‘not scientific’ even if the passion can move mountains. We see here a tie of the feeling of absolute truth to blind faith and so a strongly LOCAL focus that through the actions of consciousness can be made ‘universal’, BUT the ‘final’ declaration of a truth as fundamental only seems to be ‘complete’ when the ‘truth’ becomes encoded in our instincts (not habits) and as such becomes unconscious and so ‘beyond question’, integrated into our species nature (a process that takes time). So -- the confusion re absolute truths is in that they cannot be asserted since to assert them brings them ‘into question’ as the assertion is either of blind faith (and so ‘unacceptable’) or of an A/NOT-A format and so allowing for their negation to be considered. This is all ‘consciousness’ stuff and as such not real but ideal.
A question arises as to how the differentiation/integration dichotomy has become so dominating in our thinking, or for that matter in any thinking sourced in the activity of neurons. The root differentiating/integrating dichotomy is the template used for our abstractions, such abstractions as: asymmetry/symmetry fermions/bosons far-from-equilibrium/equilibrium exaggerated/balanced short term (local)/long term (non-local) mRNA/DNA protein/mRNA concentrated/distributed precise(explicit)/approximate(implicit) static/dynamic analytical/dialectical A = A / A != A mechanistic time/thermodynamic time 'changeless' / changing (perculating, flux etc) binary/unary positive-negative/neutral A XOR B (sym)/ A AND B (sym) A IMP B (asym) / A AND B (sym) left brain/right brain temporal lobe/parietal lobe anterior temporal/posterior temporal etc etc (note the examples of levels - mRNA is to DNA what protein is to mRNA etc etc) male-female/Androgyny male/female T'ai Chi/Wu Chi {the differentiated WHOLE - the VOID (implicit integrated whole)} Yin-Yang/T'ai Chi {harmonics of the WHOLE - the WHOLE} Yang/Yin LOCAL/NON-LOCAL particular/general.
Dirac-Fermi Statistics / Bose-Einstein Statistics
Overall, the conscious precision of the left side elements comes from the high energy focus reflecting exaggerations, distillations, concentrations, from the right element. Also note here the presence of hierarchy in that what is on the left becomes the source of more derivation and so moves to the right out of which we then derive a 'new' left. How has this dynamic developed?
A possible answer to this question arises in the field of Physics and in particular the area dedicated to the understanding of fundamental particles. In this area there are two categories within which all particles are defined - the category of 'Fermions' and the category of 'Bosons'.
Firstly we note that IDM focuses on differentiations/integrations. Secondly we note that the properties and methods of the elements of the differentiate/integrate dichotomy are reflected in the properties and methods of the dichotomy of fermions (differentiating)/bosons (integrating). The main focus here is on the 'point' nature of fermions, there focus on DIFFERENCE and so on being UNIQUE and repelling all other fermions, and so biased to differentiating, as compared to the 'field' nature of bosons, their focus on SAMENESS, and so a lack of uniqueness and being attracting to other bosons and so biased to integrating. In the realm of Particle Physics, if we reduce the environment temperature down ever closer to absolute zero Kelvin, (a) bosons will form condensates (allow for superpositions, many bosons share the one state and appear as if 'one') and (b) fermions form PAIRS that 'magically' transform their category into 'bosons' etc (Recall the precision issue of differentiate/integrate where the unit value of differentiate is to one, whereas the unit value of integrate is to a pair; also note the association to such dichotomies as asymmetry/symmetry, far-from-equilibrium/equilibrium, neg-entropic/entropic [for us] etc etc) Thus it seems that the 'root' of the universe is bosonic (entropy gets into this as well) and that means symmetry and that means integration. That also means that light is the fundamental (photons = bosons) and as such we develop out of realism/materialism perspectives BUT since our neurology has made a huge adaptation to vision so light will dominate our sense of 'absolute' - even in relativity light is related to an absolute and space and time are relative such that our neurology, our instruments, our experiments etc can FORCE this 'bosonic' perspective!
The point here is that, if we follow evolution, then the development of information processing stems from the adaptation to the basic properties and methods of the universe and they are determined at the fundamental level of fermion/boson interactions. In other words our neurology reflects the adaptation to this fundamental dichotomy.
But, given the adaptation issue to vision and so light, and so bosons, our neurology contains a bias that could 'skew' our interpretations of idealism/realism, idealist/materialist etc but also note that in idealism the focus is on the over-exaggeration of 'light' and as such a reflection of the development processes (as in the exaggeration of the root, pour in energy and the boson pairs become differentiated unto units - fermions etc and so 'object' perspectives develop - same patterns at the level of brain/mind) As such, since our thinking seems to be rooted in dichotomisations, so it does not really matter about clearly identifying the source of it all in that either 'fermions/bosons' or 'mRNA/DNA' or 'axons/dendrites' or 'differentiations/integrations' the properties and methods of recursion of the dichotomies elicit the same patterns used for deriving 'meaning'. As such we naturally categorise such that, as identified previously, A is an exaggeration of, and a particularisation/discretisation of, B as in: A / B differentiate/integrate fermion/boson mRNA/DNA FM-axon/AM-dendrite left-hemisphere/right-hemisphere ideal/real (as interpreted/as is) pure/mixed precise/approximate (to *US*, to the universe we are over-precise and so get bogged-down in duality issues etc) etc etc this gets into our being OVER-precise (ideal) in thinking such that we dont fall back into a real state once we have completed an idealisation - we idealise ourselves and that transcends our species nature, makes us more 'individualistic' and that can cause 'issues' if we are not aware of these processes. This then gets us into the 'everyday of the species' vs the 'everyday of the universe'. The ATTRACTION of A is to 'light', to 'stick out', to 'differentiate', to be, or to be attracted to, the charismatic etc - high energy focus; EXPEND energy to 'lift' to 'transcend' etc. The 'need' for B is to conserve energy - transcendence is through the context rather than being the context. As covered in the dimension of precision section, ALL of these perspectives can develop perpendicular to the dimension such that an individual/collective can develop from an 'A' perspective or a 'B' perspective or from a position in-between, BUT whatever the position, zoom-in and out will pop the same A/B patterns.
If you the reader feel 'unease' with some of this, here is an extract of an email of mine re this issue of what seems to be a linking of intelligence to fermions and bosons!:
"> >Is Mr. Lofting correct when he asserts intelligence at the < fermions/bosons > particle level ? >
(1) I DONT. Your missing the point re categorisations. ALL of our labels link to the ONE set of generic qualities we, as a neuron-dependent species, use to derive meaning. This one set is initially derived from the 'passive' recursion by our physiology of a dichotomy made-up of the elements of differentiation and integration - abstracted into the notions of objects and relationships. Our sensory systems seem to be the 'root' cause of this focus on recursion through their 'encapturing' data at random and 'allowing' that data to bounce around within the bounds of the sense. What this will do will create a Sierpinksi-like gasket or pattern out of which meaning is derived. Since our sensory systems reflect 'specialised' neurons (where dendrites are in the form of rods and cones for the eye etc) so meaning comes out of the neuron. (2) ALL members of our species (and to less-refined degrees all neuron-dependent lifeforms) use this set of generic qualities to derive meaning. Local nuances can elicit 'novel' forms of these qualities but in general we use the one set. (3) The process of analysing, of mapping, reality is a process where we link the set of generic qualities with a specific context and from that link derive a discipline/specialisation etc through the creation of a language that reflects the link of the generic qualities to elements of that specific context. (4) Physics is one such discipline/specialisation. Mathematics is another. The MBTI is another. The I Ching is another. Particle Physics is another etc etc etc (5) All of the labels we use to identify differences within a specialisation are labels tied to the set of generic qualities used by the species to derive meaning. (6) IOW all of the labels are not 'the thing' but representatives of the qualities we associate. IOW the ONE generic quality of 'wholeness' is applied an infinite number of times within a discipline with each application eliciting a unique label that allows us to communicate differences of 'wholes'. As such an 'electron' is a term used to describe the integrating of a number of sensory-derived patterns (be they first hand or through some instrument) that identify some unique properties of a 'whole' (the electron) that we can compare to another 'whole' we have labeled a 'photon'. (7) Since all we can know is determined by the method used to derive that knowing so all fundamentals in ANY discipline will be reducible to a dichotomy reflecting the characteristics of differentiation and integration (since the recursion of that dichotomy is the basic method for deriving meaning at the lowest level of brain processing some awareness) (8) For example, in particle physics the properties and methods of the categories of 'fermions' and 'bosons' are those defined by the categories of 'differentiations' and 'integrations' (see the IDM page - http://pages.prodigy.net/lofting/id.html ) - as laid-out in my previous email as: > > (a) a focus on the differentiating bias for the category > of 'fermions' > > (b) the binary nature of the category of 'fermions' - and > that includes the exclusion principle reflected logically > in the expression of A XOR B (excluded middle stuff, Pauli > Exclusion Principle, discrete expressions, point particle > etc focus on asymmetry) > > (c) the LOCAL focus of 'fermions', their object nature. > > (d) the transition of a fermion categorisation to a boson > categorisation via the pairing of fermions (as > n 'electron/positron' pair = energy discharge > in the form of light etc (and so a boson)) > > (e) a focus on the integrating bias for the category of > 'bosons' > > (f) the unary nature of the category of 'bosons' - > the formation of condensates (Bose-Einstein Condensate) > and so a focus on integration and symmetry. > > (g) the cooling down process reflected in increased > 'integration'. The cooling up process reflected in > increased 'differentiations' in the form of pairs prior > to formation of individuals. > > (h) Overall the requirement for different statistical methods > in analysis of fermions (Dirac-Fermi Statistics) and bosons > (Bose-Einstein Statistics) [A XOR B - left brained precision > vs A AND B - right brained precision : mind is the oscillation > across these areas. Also note that in logic the A XOR B > 'side' reflects more the A IMP B perspective and that goes > along with the second-level recursion where we find a vector > format emerging and so asymmetry].. all of this gets into such > concepts as the EPR 'paradox' that would seem to require > different statistics depending on whether you are mapping > at the slits or at the photographic plate that scores the > hits etc... but then this also gets into the 'we are too > precise' perspective where reality is non-local but since we > operate out of the local it is all a bit of a problem for > us! ;-) > > All of the above properties and methods reflect the asymmetry in > differentiations/integrations and as such are reflected in all > dichotomies we end-up using to identify reality and as such > reflects the dynamics of 'thinking'. (recall from IDM the focus > on differences in precision where differentiations is to the > unit, integrations is to the PAIR. Furthermore, the ability of > bosons to form superpositions allow for encoding of multiple > 'variations' of a boson in the one space and context determines > the particular expression. For the fermions, their 'demand' for > difference focuses on their 'independence', their universal > expression and so forced lack of dependence on context for > identification. This all maps to the physiological processes > we see at work in paradox processing - > > < http://pages.prodigy.net/lofting/paradox.html > ). (9) We are not talking 'things' here, we are talking 'categories', labels of, instances of, the same class where the properties and methods of the class are derived from recursion of differentiation/integration. It is like 'inheritance' where each specialisation comes into being with a 'basic' set of properties and methods that then get refined to operate within the context of the specialisation. ALL expression is 'coloured' by the basic elements inherited. (10) What we call 'fermions' and 'bosons' are patterns detected by our instruments that have unique-enough characteristics as to be labeled as falling under the category of 'fermion' or 'boson'. Furthermore, the dynamic of the relationships between fermions and bosons is the same (isomorphic) to those between the concepts of differentiation (fermionic) and integration (bosonic). (11) As we move up through cell development etc so we find that the properties and methods of our categories of mRNA/DNA reflect the same properties and methods as differentiation (mRNA) and integration (DNA). (12) Change levels of analysis and these same findings now apply to differentiation (protein) and integration (mRNA). (13) Move into the neuron and we find this pattern dominates - differentiations/discreteness/FM-bias (axonic), integrations/continuum/AM-bias (dendritic) with the dynamics in the 'middle' in the form of synchronisation processes applied at the soma and so pre cell firing allowing for a group to 'fire' as if one. (14) Move to the hemispheres of the limbic system and on to those of the neocortex and you find the same general biases in expression, differentiations (precise identification) vs integrations (approximate identifications) etc etc (15) SO, EITHER (a) all of our maps are determined by the neuron such that all we can see is what 'it' can see - differentiations (axonic) and integrations (dendritic) and so WITHIN the context of 'particle physics' we see 'fermions and bosons' that are the labels applied to the properties of differentiations and integrations applied within the specific context.... ... OR (b) our adaptations to nature are such that we have adapted to the basic properties and methods of the universe as determined by the interactions of fermions and bosons such that increased neural complexity allows for consciousness to recruit those interactions as source of 'meaning'. IOW intelligence is not necessarily at the literal fermion/boson level but has emerged 'higher up' to USE fermion/boson dynamics to derive meaning (and so our maps are very good in mapping the universe - or so we think ;-)) (16) The ROOT of meaning is *at least* at the neuron level and is possibly traceable to the interactions of the basic building blocks of our universe. The neuron reflects an adaptation to the environment and its proliferation across so many species etc suggests a very ancient 'beginning' (e.g .fish have the 'objects and relationships' perspective and we mammals stemmed from them a *long* time ago.) (17) How can we determine the 'begin' point? If the focus is on the neuron then the integrating side of ANY basic dichotomy will contain 'instincts', pre-determined expressions depending on context to set them off. IOW bosons will appear to have this property. If they DONT then the focus is on fermion/boson dynamics as being abstracted and recruited - we can trace our beginnings to the beginning of the universe itself rather than the beginning of neurons. (18) Pragmatically, it does not matter - all we do know is that IDM can identify the basic properties and methods of meaning and with that we can move into the encoding of those basics into AI systems to a degree where it allows for those systems to develop within themselves."
I hope the above has clearly emphasised what IDM is about and its possible source for development - where the mindless can lead to the mindful. Of additional note is the concept of Androgyny in that in IDM analysis there is a focus on maleXORfemale vs maleANDfemale, with the latter focusing on androgyny. In the categorisations of differentiations and integrations, XOR FROM AND so the properties of androgen are reflected in the realm of integration, of 'bosons', etc etc where the differentiated ('fermions') the MALE OR FEMALE emerge from the integrated. The differentiated as such 'demands' a clear identification in a local context and so from the unary comes the binary. See this summary of the depth of this metaphor in ancient myths.
The following links all relate to the realm of IDM's integration and 'bosonic' perspectives in categorisations, they touch on/deal with the unary as compared to the binary of differentations and as such reflect the unary's maleANDfemale as compared to the binary's maleXORfemale. Thus the basic differentiate/integrate process, when developed in mind, leads to these sorts of expressions, of symbolisms 'trying' to capture the underlying dynamics of the brain etc: http://parallel.park.uga.edu/~mkozusko/634/hermo.html some qabalah/cabala/kabala... roots: http://joannes.richter.bei.t-online.de/Texte/kabba_E.htm the Ouroboros - http://www.spirasolaris.ca/sbb4f.html http://meltingpot.fortunecity.com/kuwait/557/ouroboros.html http://www2.comco.ne.jp/~euxenite/glossary/ouroboros.html 'lucifer' as androgyne - http://home.arcor.de/moonlight-shadowcastle/understanding.htm the metaphor here sets up the 'opposite' of binary-unary etc etc - this is also the realm of gerunds - the I Ching can be categorised as 'the book of ings' with its focus on change (transforming/transcending) - and so dialectics. What is interesting in the above link is that 'light' is the indicator of energy and so 'exaggeration' - asymmetry as compared to the symmetry of 'balance'. As such there is a link of 'the devil' to over-exaggeration, to seduction, persuasion etc etc and as such to charismatics in general that act to 'distort' and so attempt to break symmetry. http://courses.albion.edu/eng337/sandroyny.htm I think there is enough in the above links to give one a perspective on the influence of the realm of the unary in the context of the differences in expression that have evolved as our species develops its 'dimension of precision' as identified in this IDM material. Of special note is that as we move more into the unary so the notion of 'androgyny'will disappear since in the realm of the unary we can lose sight of 'distinctions'.
In the previous sections we have often referred to the notion of, the concept of, the sense of, the 'eternal'. Where does this sense come from? In the process of pouring energy into an identification of 'something' we will also isolate that 'something' as part of our process of seeking clear identification. There are some subtle properties of our physiology that go with this process and the main one is the distortion of subjective time experience - as we pour in more energy, as we increase our metabolic rates and break and make neural connections to process, to gain fine details of, the 'something' so our awareness of time will become impoverished, it will shift from its thermodynamic roots (the arrow of time) to something that seems stoppable and even reversible. These are all illusions that are useful in trying to take something in our dynamic universe and treat it statically, as some sort of object that we label 'forevermore', as something that we see 'clearly'.
To summarise this physiology, in humans there is a window for information processing and it is determined by metabolic rates - too high and you take in too much and can become psychotic. Too low and you cannot link the dots and so are categorised as a cretan. Within the window, increase in attention for details etc increases metabolic processes allowing for an increasingly clearer picture BUT with this process comes a distortion in the form of subjective time experience. the time distortion is related to core temperatures and is about 5 seconds per 0.0005 degree change in temperature. This maps to about a burn rate of 1.2J/Kg/s where the mass of the individual has a general affect on processing - thus children have 'high' burn rates, absorb a lot of information, and suffer extreme time distortions in that their 'average' burn rate, linked to heart rate etc, is 60-72 beats per minute but for their size that is 'extreme' when compared to the average adult. Other factors include affects of hormones on rates, the fitness of the individual (60bpm person can process as much as a 70bpm person where the 60bpm person is fitter and so more efficient in processing) The time distortion is useful in that in a thermodynamic universe we need to 'stop' things to get a clear picture of 'something'. This 'stopping' of time allows for good detail but also causes us to impoverish the concept of time - time is shifted from being linked to thermodynamics to being something mechanistic and so slowable, stoppable, and even reversible. - useful delusions a times but also can cause problems in our interpretations of reality where lack of information about how we process information has allowed us to confuse properties of the method with properties of reality. A human will, through habit production, refine the energy processing, driven by a need to conserve energy overall such that, once habituated, a behaviour is made efficient through energy conservation. Once a memory has been encoded it seems that it cannot be erased. It can be 'neutralised' by being drowned-out by other memories but all is integrated such that a specific context can cause a long-lost memory to return. The creation of habits and efficient processing means that in old age, as neurons die, so routine behaviour is retained despite the losses. Overall, the 'rest state' of the human allows for living off habits. Focus attention and a human is 'sped up' to deal with the data - we are biased to exaggerate to allow us to learn. A cretan lives off instincts that are 'pre coded', energy conserving processes and as such allow for survival despite not being able to 'link the dots' in real-time processing of information allowing for new habit creation. The top end limit is shown in such experiences as 'flashbulb' memories, as happens in such moments as sept 11, 2001 or the JFK assassination, or in a car accident etc where time seems to 'stop' or 'slow down'. This is due to the high energy rate due to the 'shock' of the moment - heart rates go overboard. These sorts of events are never forgotten, easily recalled regardless of context - they are 'universal' memories. Now try and imagine being exposed to this sort of process all of the time. big problem. maddening problem. Thyroid disorders get into this. The lesser types of memories are called 'state specific' memories and require the human to be in the same state as when the memory was recorded - thus infant memories become hard to recall due to the changes in metabolic rate to mass ratios as the infant develops. Interestingly, increases in temperature as due to fever etc can elicit 'infantile' behaviour. Thus there is a 'base' level of energy which rules our world of stimulus/response, of habits and instincts. Our species has the ability to focus attention over the long term and so 'transcend' the base state and build a very detailed knowledge base - base that each generation tries to re-label such that we over-exaggerate, get caught in the loop of expending energy rather than conserving it. As stated previously, these time distortions are strong in children or in intense situations, e.g. fever or in high metabolic rate events such as accidents where things 'go so slowly'. The distortion in time can be 5 seconds a minute or more that over an hour or a day can add-up. Furthermore, with these sorts of experiences can come an awareness of the 'timeless', the sense of the 'eternal'. This sensing, if reflected upon and documented without realising its source, can lead to some novel interpretations about reality, not realising that the experience is DERIVED from physiological processes and as such is not necessarily something of the Universe but IS necessarily a property of our species, a property that has paid a major part in the development of the species' sense of the 'spiritual'.
As mentioned earlier, in our species, and other species for that matter, there appear to be two fundamental instincts sourced in the need for species PROTECTION. They are:
In particular, the 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. Thus the dominating influence of the transcendence function allows for a developing sense of the 'spiritual', more so when we combine exaggerated feelings of the above instincts with the sense of the 'eternal'. Thus lack of understanding about our neurocognitive processes can lead to an 'idealist' perspective and it is this sense of the eternal, and the idealist perspective, that separates the 'everyday of the Species' from the 'everyday of the Universe' in that the hybrid species-everyday is strongly 'mind-made' and as such contains a sense of the spiritual that is very much a part of the species regardless of issues in the species of the source of the spiritual. As such, all religions etc are more so METAPHORS for attempts to describe this 'sense of the eternal' combined with the above protection instincts and a lack of understanding of our species nature - a lack that is only now being delt-with (for IDM the source of the spiritual is in the species). For an example of the consequences of not understanding our neurocognitive processes and the derivation of a rich world of angels and demons etc see the page on angels.
In the IDM model there is a focus on linkage, linked to the basic concept of integration. The model identifies TWO integration processes, one BETWEEN things and the other WITHIN a thing. (note that IDM claims that the exaggeration process of differentiating gives us a sense of the 'eternal', the timeless, other than an impoverished, mechanistic perspective that is more a reflection of sequencing WITHIN something.) - note in what follows that these distinctions of between vs within were not delt with, the experiment seemed to force a 'between' focus. What is noteworthy is that the experiments were on the experience of time as in measurement of durations (and so requiring a coordinates perspective), not on the source of the biological clocks we have in our brains (limbic system areas). What is also noteworthy is the focus on dopamine, an aminergic-based transmitter that I have linked before to a focus on integration but more so on WITHIN (gets into the feelings of total, exaggerated, faith in oneself, total focus, that comes with amphetamines etc) - the serototin bias seems to associate more with the BETWEEN in the form of feelings towards OTHERS as compared to feelings towards SELF (the experiment below was more focused on the quantitative than the IDM focus on meaning and so the more qualitative) (dopamine is also involved with the cerrebellum which deals with movements etc) Note that the exaggeration of amphetamines, speed, for 'normal' people is in the speeding-up and as such a sense of over-powerful. For an ADD/ADHDer this 'integration' can be a feeling of being 'normal'. As such speeding-up should introduce an issue of time distortion and the sense of power in the form of a sense of being 'eternal'. Since in IDM we recognise differentiations and integrations are functions across the system BUT with biases such that the focus on something, a single context emphasis, favours a differentiation (an object) with integration issues WITHIN that differentiation. The more general we get so the more we move into a realm that favours a focus on integrations in that differentiations are IMPLIED - a summing of coordinates of objects etc. and so a more BETWEEN bias emerges. The issue therefore is more on the brain's focus on integration of ANYTHING and that includes 'time' as it does 'sequence' etc where time as a thermodynamic concept (irreversible) is different to time as a mechanistic concept (reversible). In the brain the parietal lobe is strongly associated with relational issues and as such has a bias to coordinates processing . Note that the comments on left side parietal damage did not reflect a time problem but other work does indicate the left to relate to issues re precision etc and so we get into the time-as-thermodynamic and so definite begin-end as compared to time-as-mechanistic and so an OBJECT bias etc etc. As such the time issue may be too 'complex' a question in that the brain has no knowledge of the concept other than being reduced to 'objects and relationships', differentiations and integrations - mind (as in brain in 'universal' mode) knows 'time', basic brain does not in that all it knows is that it is an 'integration' issue or a 'differentiation' issue) Here is the 'recent' (Nov 2001) paper of interest (cant get into Nature Neuroscience so here is a report - http://unisci.com/stories/20011/0227013.htm) where this focus on coordinates is demonstrated: Brain Areas Critical To Human Time Sense Identified Timing is everything. It comes into play when making split second decisions, such as knowing when to stop at a red light, catch a ball or modulate rhythm when playing the piano. Now researchers at the Medical College of Wisconsin in Milwaukee and Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Albuquerque have identified areas in the brain responsible for perceiving the passage of time in order to carry out critical everyday functions. Their study is the first to demonstrate that the basal ganglia located deep within the base of the brain, and the parietal lobe located on the surface of the right side of the brain, are critical areas for this time-keeping system. Their results are published in the current issue of Nature Neuroscience. Importantly, the study calls into question a long-standing and widely held belief in the scientific community that the cerebellum is the critical structure involved in time perception. "We are excited that our findings can also have application to better understand some neurological disorders," says Stephen M. Rao, Ph.D., professor of neurology at the Medical College and principal investigator. "By identifying the area in the brain responsible for governing our sense of time, scientists can now study defective time perception, which has been observed in patients with Parkinson's disease and Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), two maladies commonly thought to have abnormal function within the basal ganglia." Making accurate decisions regarding the duration of brief intervals of time from 300 milliseconds to 10 seconds is critical to most aspects of human behavior. Contemporary theories of short interval timing assume the existence of a timekeeper system within the brain, yet identifying these brain systems has been elusive and controversial. Using a novel functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) technique that tracks second-by-second changes in brain activity, investigators identified regions within the brain that are critical for this timekeeping system. Seventeen healthy, young men and women volunteers were imaged while being asked to perceive the duration of time between the presentations of two consecutive tones. One second later, two more tones were presented and subjects were asked to make a judgment as to whether the duration between the tones was shorter or longer than the first two tones. To make sure that the brain systems associated with time perception were clearly identified, two control tasks were given which involved listening to tones or estimating their pitch, but not making judgments about their duration. Using this fast imaging technique, the investigators were able to isolate only those areas of the brain activated during presentation of the first two tones -- when subjects are only perceiving and attending to time. Their results conclusively demonstrated that timekeeping functions are governed by the basal ganglia and the right parietal cortex. Investigators have long suspected, based on indirect evidence, that the basal ganglia might be involved in time perception. The basal ganglia have nerve cells that primarily contain the neurotransmitter, dopamine. Patients with Parkinson's disease have an abnormal reduction in dopamine within the basal ganglia and commonly experience problems with time perception. These difficulties partially improve when patients are administered a drug that increases dopamine levels in the brain. Defective time perception has also been observed in patients with Huntington's disease and Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), two disorders commonly thought to have abnormal function within the basal ganglia. Animal studies have also demonstrated the importance of dopamine in timekeeping. Medical College researchers at Froedtert Hospital, a major teaching affiliate of the Medical College, are currently using this new neuroimaging procedure to better understand how the brain enables dopamine replacement drugs and methylphenidate (Ritalin) to normalize time perception in individuals with Parkinson's disease and ADHD, respectively. An additional study, in collaboration with investigators at the University of Iowa, will examine time perception in the early stages of Huntington's disease, prior to the development of the characteristic movement disorder. The critical role of the parietal lobes in timekeeping was first suggested by coauthor Deborah L. Harrington, Ph.D., research scientist, Veterans Affairs Medical Center and associate research professor of neurology and psychology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM. She and her colleagues reported that stroke patients with damage to the parietal cortex on the right but not the left side of the brain experienced impaired time perception. Patients for the study have been drawn from Froedtert Hospital and the VA Medical Center in Milwaukee. Additionally, the researchers are studying adult ADHD patients who have been seen since childhood at the Medical College. Coauthor of the study with Drs. Rao and Harrington is Andrew R. Mayer, M.S., graduate student, department of neurology, Medical College of Wisconsin. The study was supported by grants from the National Institute of Mental Health and the W.M. Keck Foundation to the Medical College, and the Department of Veterans Affairs and National Foundation for Functional Brain Imaging to the Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Albuquerque. - By Toranj Marphetia The abstract: Nat Neurosci 2001 Mar;4(3):317-23 The evolution of brain activation during temporal processing. Rao SM, Mayer AR, Harrington DL. Department of Neurology, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53226, USA. Timing is crucial to many aspects of human performance. To better understand its neural underpinnings, we used event-related fMRI to examine the time course of activation associated with different components of a time perception task. We distinguished systems associated with encoding time intervals from those related to comparing intervals and implementing a response. Activation in the basal ganglia occurred early, and was uniquely associated with encoding time intervals, whereas cerebellar activation unfolded late, suggesting an involvement in processes other than explicit timing. Early cortical activation associated with encoding of time intervals was observed in the right inferior parietal cortex and bilateral premotor cortex, implicating these systems in attention and temporary maintenance of intervals. Late activation in the right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex emerged during comparison of time intervals. Our results illustrate a dynamic network of cortical-subcortical activation associated with different components of temporal information processing.
From the analysis of two seeming extremes - Western Political Economics and Chinese Medicine - we can identify a cycle of behaviour that is manifest in all disciplines and has a fractal-like nature in that it is applicable at all scales of analysis. It serves to filter the focus of octets in IDM, each octet reflecting 'pure forms' free of temporal content, down to sets of five. This filtering is from the phases in the cycle. They are:
(1) Production (general output of material, be it physical things or ideas etc) (2) Distribution (general distribution of products, structure, packaging etc) (3) Filtration (rules of accepting/rejecting prior to involvement in actual exchange etc [mediation]/QA) (4) Exchange (local distribution, cooperative as well as competative exchange - focus on replacement) (5) Consumption (includes socialisation through education, living the 'party line' etc) Karl Marx expounded on these greatly in his three volumes of Capital as well as his three volumes on Surplus Value (Collectively considered as volume IV or Capital). Of note here is that Marx comes up with two basic circuits of flow: (1) C -> M -> C Where a commodity (C) is exchanged for money (M) that is then exchanged for a commodity. This is a traditional, balancing, and so maintaining of integration process. The M was introduced to allow one to hold off on a direct commodity for commodity exchange, to transfer the value into money that can be used later to get a commodity of the same value. Overall, things remain balanced and any exploitation is done through the exploitation of money. (2) M -> C -> M' Here we have turned the above circuit 'on its head' where now we use money to buy commodities that we then sell for (a) our original outlay PLUS (b) a little bit 'extra' - here is the source of the concept of 'Surplus Value'. In other words this circuit shifts the focus of exploitation from money to the exploitation of commodities - aka labour and raw materials.
In the context of the I Ching and Ancient China, the yin/yang perspective is extended into the realm of dynamics through what is called 'Five-Phase Theory'. This theory reflects a dynamic of energy 'flow', Qi (or Ch'i), and is dominant in Chinese Medicine and shown through the specialisation of Acupuncture. The overall focus in Chinese Medicine is in the maintaining of the balance of 'Qi' in the body, to maintain 'harmony'. The C-M-C circuit reflects the flow of Qi between nodes. The M-C-M' circuit reflects the recruitment of Qi to make more Qi, and so the process of exploitation and transcendence over the more traditional focus on integration, transformation where all we do is shapeshift rather than also transcend. The properties and methods of the dynamics of Qi and the dynamics of Money/Capital reflect an overall set of properties and methods within the species' method of deriving meaning, of processing 'value'. Thus the Chinese extension of yin/yang into five-phase is also reflected in the socioeconomic extension of supply/demand into five socioeconomic phases. The difference seems to be in that Acupuncture aims to 'keep things moving' by defusing exaggerations and so maintaining balance and ensuring 'flow' whereas Capitalism favours accumulating 'Qi' at certain points to use it as leverage to 'make' more Qi, or more so to exaggerate, to form an asymmetry out of the symmetry. As such Capitalism can be 'unhealthy' if not managed correctly! What we note in the intentional exploitation to make money is the reaction to this process in that the excessive exploitation of labour (people) and means of production (the planet's raw materials) has led to something Marx did NOT pick up on - interventionism. Interventionism comes in the form of (a) Socialism to aid in mediating the exploitation of labour, and (b) Conservationism to aid in mediating the exploitation of raw materials, and as such reflects the Acupuncturist's needles. (and so in modern, more developed, times, we find most countries have a political party that is 'capitalist' and often TWO respondent parties, a socialist party ('Labour' or 'Democrat' parties (e.g. Labour in the UK, SPD in Germany, Democrats in the USA)), and a conservationist party (the "Greens" in UK,Germany, Australia etc etc - Ralph Nader's party in the last US elections, showing the distinct differences between Socialist focus vs Conservationist focus where the latter took votes off the Democrats since the Democrats are more focused on labour than resources) In Chinese medicine, in Acupuncture this 'mediation' is in the form of the use of needles 'in the right places'. (The Marxist-Leninist focus on capitalism turning into socialism etc reflects the intuitive understanding of the mediation of capitalism, of exaggerations, but a failure to understand that you cannot 'remove' or 'replace' capitalism, just 'moderate' it to a degree where it can look 'socialist' - but then modern capitalism IS socialist when compared to the unbridled capitalism of the 1850s - the times that Marx wrote about. Furthermore, Marxist_Leninist philosophy focuses on the abolition of 'exploitation' - again something 'impossible' since it is a behaviour built-in to all species as a method of survival!). In BOTH Chinese five-phase and in the analysis of the flow of capital we find identical, GENERIC patterns that are not properties of Chinese Medicine nore Capitalist Economics but properties of the species' determination and use of 'value' and as such stem from IDM processes at the level of general dynamics that is then applied within specialisations. By understanding these 'universal' properties and methods of dynamics so we can start to see the possibilities in the use of such metaphors as the I Ching to 'describe' reality, not just in describing the static forms of trigrams and hexagrams but also their dialectical properties that 'feed' both the maintaining of balance (transformations) as well as the ability to 'transcend'. As such, just as there are two forms of economics - balancing vs transcending - so there are two forms of five-phase where rather than maintain 'balance' all of the time, there may be LOCAL situations where some exaggeration is needed to 'transcend' something. The issue is to avoid getting too 'addicted' to transcendence. (drug use reflects this where the use of cocaine/speed acts to exaggerate the sense of self, as does the use of ecstacy act to exaggerate social contact/wellbeing) What is required is a mapping of the generic processes from the level of 'differentiations and integrations' and this stems from the IDM work where the similarity in dynamics of 'Qi' management 'in the body' vs money/capital 'management' between bodies reflects the ability to treat social interactions as organic in form and as such move from managing/predicting body states to managing/predicting socioeconomic states. (For more on five-phase work see the general page of five phase as well as the summary of five-phase described through the I Ching)
In our extending of the categories we showed how through hyperbolic development we can jump very quickly from 8 to 4096 categories and beyond. These jumps also come with qualitative changes in expression such that the category of 000 as a base quality takes on 'refined' elements when in the form of a derived quality. Thus in the analogy of 000-000, the second 000 has a more refined quality than the first 000 and when the analogy is converted into a 'pure' quality in the form of 000000 the range of possible expressions of this quality given different contexts is identified by deriving the 'quality vector', aka the tensor concept, for the symbol.
The 'dimension of precision' identified in IDM allows for the analysis of trust issues. The focus is on the dimension of total trust in another/others to total trust in oneself. The total trust in others is reflected in an openness to the local context as a source of aiding in asserting identity, social interactions allow for conservation of energy that is slowly diminished as trust in others lessens to be transformed into an increasing trust in oneself and as such the focus on integrating with the context is changed to a 'need' to take-over the context, to assert one's own as a replacement of all others. This increasingly 'single context' perspective can lead to conflict in that as the focus becomes increasingly single context so it can act to alienate others. The fact that the increase in energy can also lead to a 'transcendence' is beside the point in that that transcendence could be total war and as such a transcendence not necessarily 'of value'.
We can see IDM trust issue through the 'eyes' of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator in the form of the categorisation of temperaments, four in number. These temperaments, when mapped to interactions with context reflect the following distributions:
The concept of 'trust in others', or more so focus on linkage to the context and so a dependency on others, is reflected in the NF & SJ types (IDM II and ID). the concept of 'trust in self', and so a focus on self-containment where dependency is on one's own context, is reflected more in the NT & SP types (IDM DI and DD).
When we analyse the distribution of these persona categories across a collective, here we use the data on the USA, we find a distortion in the above diagram:
When we analyse the basic characteristics of the dimension, the above comments on trust reflect a common difference between the more social, more energy conserving vs the more energy expending in that the 'trust in another/others' reflects the recruitment of others to enable assertion of one's identity - e.g. parents living through the successes of their children, individuals living through the successes of their sports club, country, faith. The focus on 'living through' acts to aid in assertion of one's identity as compared to the more 'trust in self' individuals who live their life through themselves - their charisma acts to determine the path to take (and as such these types become leaders through which others gain their identity)
The feedback processes involved in the processing of data allow us to represent our processing of stimuli and our choices in response such:
a = stimulus
b = response
c = new representations
f() = mediation function
f(a,b) = c
Thus if a stimulus elicits a response that fails, or if there is no specific response that maps to the stimulus, and so we use a general instinct that is 'out of context', then mediation takes over in the form of analysis of the relationship of stimulus/response that can lead to the creation of representations in the form of (1) a symbol of the stimulus, and (2) a habit as a response. These representations allow for the symbol to elicit the response to the same degree as the original stimulus, thus the symbol feeds into the 'a' variable and the habit into the 'b' variable of the mediation function and we can repeatedly refine the representations of c through the use of that function. As such we can abstract the original stimulus and the instinctive response into more refined distinctions applicable at a universal level but also create 'idealist' perspectives, sets of possibilities & probabilities, some of which are fantasies when we do not include basic laws of the universe as part of the mediation process (or when we distort these laws where exaggeration is a property of the mediation function and so allows us to distort such concepts as time, converting the thermodynamic to something mechanical and so stoppable/reversible)
We can identify here the operations of differentiation and integration where the mediation functions allows us to zoom-in, to make finer differentiations, that we then use to integrate stimulus with response and so create a habit that becomes unconscious and conserving of energy. The dynamics of the mediation function reflect the ability to derive from oscillations 'meaning' (see the page on paradox processing as a source of meaning) - this dynamic focuses attention on the Transcendence function as the source of new insights, paradigms etc. where repetition feeds the Transformation function and so the formation of long-term associations etc - habits.
In the analysis of the structure of our categories IDM has identified a duality in the form of the more archetypal from the typal where the archetypal stems from the high energy focus of exaggeration of sensations and the category of those exaggerations. The focus is on 'purity' and its maintenance and this includes exaggerating the isolation perspective that comes with the high energy focus on 'something' such that identity is achieved through assertion of the boundary - a perspective of 'us' vs 'them' develops. (thus in Physics the focus is on electrons or photons etc that within each category are 'all the same' in essence; as are species members.)
This realm of the archetypal is also the realm of ontology creations where the 'purity' in describing being, in describing IS-ness, leads to very refined, very precise, 'maps', but can become sterile. The relief from sterility is in the acquiring of 'fresh blood' and so the surrender of the sense of the pure and the immortal for the mortal but also diverse; ontologies need to be placed into reality to achieve anything - and that includes their own demise where it is found that they dont 'fit' in that we shift from an exaggerated mechanistic perspective to the 'true' nature of the Universe - the thermodynamic perspective.
In the use of recursion to derive categories, so the initial process, reflecting the intense differentiations we use to identify, will define structures, pure expressions, and as such a focus on the archetypal and so 'light' vs 'dark'; the white and the black, the EITHER/OR. Secondary processes reflect the transition from archetypal to typal where the dichotomy of 'light/dark' transforms into the diversity permissible in 'male/female'; the realm of colours, of harmonics that allow for mixing. These differences in perspectives, the shift from static to include dynamic, from objects to include relationships, reflect that mentioned previously in the distinctions of the 'Everyday of the Universe' - archetypal, light vs dark - and the distinction of the 'Everyday of the Species' that includes the development of the typal and the human sense of the 'spiritual'.
'Real' meaning for most is in the form of a clear, precise, explicit, expression. But that is not our nature. In the realm of habits/instincts you are always working with approximations (and so able to fit a general instinct into a specific context and then refine it). 'Real' meaning is ideal meaning - object oriented, discrete. Recall the consequences of applying energy to analysis of 'something' - you will actually distort the time element and as such move from a thermodynamic perspective to a mechanistic perspective such that 'real' meaning is a distortion, a useful one at the level of the particular in that it allows for us to gain some leverage by understanding the details of this local 'something' BUT in the eyes of the 'big picture' (as in the 'everyday' of the universe), if you maintain this distortion and generalise it, it can lead to problems in interpretations in that you can be, will be, over-precise and so miss the forest from the trees. Consider the EPR paradox in Quantum mechanics - through IDM we can show that the properties of this experiment, the patterns derived, stem from the method used 'free' of any context, I can create the 'wave interference' pattern etc using pen and paper through combining recursion of a dichotomy with indeterminacy in that we move from a differentiating perspective - sensors flush to the slits etc - to an integrating perspective, the photographic plate etc. That act forces a change in perspectives from a unit level of precision to a PAIR level of precision and so from local to non-local. IF you are not aware of this shift, a shift identified in IDM, and so focus attention of 'what you see is what you get', you take what you see literally, then you will have problems in interpretations from the level of the universal. (the EPR experiment BTW reflects the consequences of being too precise where reality is the realm of AS IS and so INTERGRATED (non-local) but is interpreted as if differentiated (local). Reality is the state vector, a realm of potentials, and context determines expressions of particulars - one context gives you 'waves', another gives you 'particles' and, as IDM shows, there is a realm of variations on these themes.)
TO summarise, to get the idea of 'wave/particle' duality you just need to get the idea of recursion of a dichotomy given some indeterminacy. It is CONTEXT that determines the perception of wave OR particle such that, in the EPR experiments, the structure of these experiments is based on (a) forming a dichotomy (as in left slit/right slit (double slit experiment) or half-closed/full-closed (single slit experiments e.g. Airy patterns) or 0/90 degrees (polariser experiments)) and (b) changing the CONTEXT as in 'point of view' Thus having two slits and putting detectors flush to each slit will give you A OR B in your results - a very precise reading where the measurement is in single units. Introduce a photographic plate just behind the slits and you move from a differentiating perspective (A XOR B) to an integrating perspective (A AND B). In the realm of integration the unit of measure is no longer a single particle, it is now a PAIR. This has consequences re interpretations etc., mostly so in that we see that the 'duality' is at all scales for any dichotomy we like to make - we can derive the 'wave interference' patterns using pen and paper based on listing all of the possible A/B patterns over X number of trials and then introducing 'indeterminacy' for each trial (as in no detection of WHICH slit, only an IMPLICATION based on looking at the photographic plate etc). The set of POTENTIAL states for an experiment is 2n where n = number of trials. Thus for 6 trials there are 64 possible states reflected in a string of values such as LLRRLR (L = left slit, R= right slit). We can sort these in order from LLLLLL to RRRRRR. When we introduce indeterminacy, since we are working now with PAIRS so we have pairs of: LL LR RL RR Due to the pair nature we cannot determine the ORDER in each pair and so we introduce a distortion in that: LL is reduced to L RR is reduced to R LR is reduced to X RL is reduced to X and such results as LLRRLR become LRX. With our original 64 states these are reduced to 19 where the reduction is in the form of superpositions (and so 'waves') for the X states. When you map out all of the possible results over 6 trials you get a pattern of 'wave interference'. See the diagrams on the bits page. (Also see links on sensory perspectives affecting our map making and in particular the concept of the state vector.) In the above 'experiment' the more trials you have the bolder becomes the pattern. This is regardless of working with dichotomies in 'reality' or in theory, regardless of 'actual' waves or probability waves; the process of recursion combined with some form of indeterminacy guarantees 'wave interference' patterns regardless of scale (and so 'self-similarity' rules) Note that any statistical perspective sets a context of INTEGRATION as the base and that means a unit of measure no less than a PAIR and so all interpretations will be skewed to 'pairness'. ANY form of 'pairness' moves the perspective from a 'fermionic' perspective to a 'bosonic' perspective and so we enter the realm of superpositions etc. When you go that extra distance, to differentiate, so you will get your particles where the detectors are 'flush' to the slits etc (and so a more 'fermion' perspective) The normal or guassian distribution curve is the 'standard' form for statistical models and reflects the use of recursion of a dichotomy where the energy distribution of the QM dichotomy is skewed and the normal distribution curve is made-up of mapping the dichotomy as it is applied recursively add-in indeterminacy and the normal distribution curve is 'distorted' to reflect 'wave interference' patterns. All of this comes down to the METHODOLOGY used to derive meaning - all meaning is determined by the method used to derive it and so the meaning is expressed in all of the possible patterns derived by the method and the wave-interference pattern is one of those patterns possible when using recursion of a dichotomy. Since recursion seems to be a 'fundamental' for our neurocognitive processes in deriving meaning (as identifed previously, the recursion has its roots in a passive form ) so 'wave/particle' duality is 'natural' as a product of our manner of interpretations. All our experiments do is REPEAT what our minds do with the addition of extending the range of our senses but in no way changing the METHODS. As such QM is an invention of ours. No matter how 'abstract' you want to be, all disciplines serve as metaphors for what the brain deals with - objects and relationships (as covered in the IDM material). QM is a discipline used in a highly specialised area that has developed with little understanding by the users of the nature of our being and as such can disappear into gagaland at times - the initiating physicists knew nothing about how we as a species function 'in here' and how our methods can introduce patterns that we associate with 'out there' rather than understanding them as side-effects of 'in here'. That said, our adaptations to our environment favours 'internalisation' of useful properties and methods and that includes the use of dichotomisations (rooted at the level of fundamental particles a la fermions/bosons) such that the success of our maps are due to their reflection of 'out there' but in our terms. We are too precise in our analysis - we move into a parts perspective and, due to our individual consciousness believe that perspective to be a wholes perspective and so we experience paradox at the local level.
The focus on general-to-particular development is a focus on an in-built hypothesis system, namely the instincts of the species. At the level of collectives and of the individual we rely more on the development of habits in real-time, within the lifetime of the individual/collective, and as such move from particular-to-general. We can identify three methodologies that cover these processes, Induction, Abduction, & Deduction.
Induction reflects the basic process of generalisations in the form of identifying local events that seem to share something in common and from that awareness we derive a hypothesis which we can then validate through deduction. There is a 'leap of faith' element in induction that is reflected in genetics where adaptations to a context are in the form of a gene developing and being 'thrust' into a context and if it survives - great. As such there is no assumption of an existing hypothesis, an existing filter, through which we can relate to the context and so adapt quickly.
There is a form of induction called Mathematical Induction that is a dominating feature of Mathematics and deals simply with defining a value N and inferring from there N + 1. The point to note with induction is its natural sense of the linear, of a sequence of events that go to assert 'something'. This is also a property of spoken language where we choose particular words and then link the words elicit a meaning and as such this sequencing is a property of particular-to-general development.
Abduction has its roots in the work of the American philosopher Charles Peirce . Abduction comes in two fundamental forms, reactive abduction and proactive abduction.
Reactive abduction is where we recognise a particular pattern as the manifestation of characteristics of a general pattern/law/principle/hypothesis. For example, seeing something fall to the ground can elicit the conscious recognition of the principles of gravity at work; we know what is behind the observed process.
Proactive abduction is where we notice what appears to be a particular (local) pattern and try to place that pattern in the 'correct' context, we seek a general pattern that incorporates the particular where initially nothing comes to mind other than the assumption that there may be meaning here.
In proactive abduction we actively place the particular in various existing or imagined contexts to try and get a 'match', to establish clear explicit meaning to the local pattern that has elicited in us an implicit sense of there being meaning in the pattern; we assume there is something behind the pattern. As such, proactive abduction emerges strongly in intellectually well developed cultures where we are encouraged to 'not rewrite the bible' - see if there are any existing hypotheses covering the particular pattern before you create a new one.
Deduction comes in two forms - instinctive and derived. Instinctive deduction is where we are driven by our habits, thus there is present a species-level hypothesis about reality in the form of 'rules' hard-coded in the species over millions of years. Derived deduction is where we create habits, be they minor, as in how one hold's a cup, or major, in the form of onotologies about the Universe, ontologies we use as filters to interpret the Universe ,and deduce from these filters.
What is noteworthy about abduction and deduction is that they BOTH ASSUME MEANING. For deduction we move from a given general, in the form of a hypothesis/principle/law etc, to a particular and this process adds to, or reduces, value in the general.
For abduction we move from a particular to a general and in doing so also validate the general (in the case of proactive abduction we can validate an illusion over a long period of time where, once the illusion has been asserted as 'meaningful' so it becomes part of the deduction/reactive abduction pool of contexts).
The fundamental difference between abduction/deduction and induction is that induction does not assume meaning to exist, there is no initial distinction until the inductive process moves from the particular to the general where the general is the formation of an hypothesis/law/principle. There is an subtle 'error' here in that there IS meaning, in the form of our species-level hypothesis/model/theory of reality that we call 'instincts'. But since this is hidden in our unconscious so it is often ignored as being an example of a 'hard coded' theory system.
Peirce tries to explain the processes of induction/abduction/deduction in his group of signs all placed within a firstness context - Qualisign, SinSign, LegiSign - where firstness is the state of initial focus of attention on a quality. Thus a Qualisign is a pure quality as a potential, a SinSign is an indicator, and a LegiSign is a symbol of a law. We can see these expressed in such trichotomies as Aesthetics (beautiful/ugly), Ethics (right/wrong), Logic (true/false) noting that this trichotomy is in fact applied at the indicative position (called secondness) where we 'colour' the quality of firstness with meaning.
Charles Saunders Peirce's Matrix of Basic Signs
Firstness as Text
Secondness as Text
Thirdness as Text
Firstness as Context :
QUALISIGN
SINSIGN
LEGISIGN
Secondness as Context :
ICON
INDICES
SYMBOL
Thirdness as Context :
RHEME
DICENT
ARGUMENT
Induction thus reflects the (a) pure experience of a local followed by (b) description of one local using another as analogy and (c) the realisation of a general principle/laws behind all of these locals e.g. the experience and analysis of red, blue, green etc leads to the development of an hypothesis about principles/laws of colour. This hypothesis then becomes the context for validation; we no longer see colour 'as is' but falling within a context that sets meaning.
In the move to secondness, where a 'meaningful' context is assumed to implicitly or explicitly exist, so the unilateral movement (particular to general) found in firstness becomes bilateral (abduction - particular to general, deduction - general to particular), this process emphasises the use of dichotomisations in analysis. The group of signs Peirce related to a context of secondness is Icon, Indices, Symbol. There is a development path here in that an icon, a sign that reflects what it represents, e.g. a picture of the queen of England on a stamp, can be transformed over time to being a symbol - e.g. as the queen ages so the representation on the stamp no longer reflects the queen 'as is'. Refurbishment can restore the iconic emphasis - we make a 'new' picture that reflects the aged queen 'as is'.
In the context of primary and secondary thinking processes (discussed elsewhere on this website), the abduction/deduction loop is an example of secondary processing where relational considerations takeover from the initial identification process (that has succeeded in reactive abduction and initially failed in proactive abduction other than the primary identification of the pattern); abduction/deduction either explicitly or implicitly assume a general context within which local distinctions are made and as such are resistant to random processes where there is nothing 'behind' an observed pattern (see article on markov chains).
Classical Science was more firstness oriented where observation was paramount and we did not move past the identification process. Modern Science, with its emphasis on refutability (in principle) and so a recognition of negation combined with an attraction to discover what is BEHIND what has been identified, favours secondness/thirdness as fundamental to establishing 'meaning'; firstness, at the base level, takes an experience 'as is' and does not initially make any assumptions re meaning etc. This does not allow for refutability, something that can only happen when you have moved into secondness/thirdness processing.
We can see the recognition of this in Karl Popper's approach to Science where refutability is paramount in 'doing' Science.
Abduction can be seen as reflecting inductive processes but within a context, either existing or ASSUMED TO EXIST. We can identify creativity processes at work here in that as we attempt to link a local pattern to a general (and so include negation in our analysis) so the placing of that pattern in real or imagined contexts can lead to 'innovations' in that an unexpected link is made.
Adaptive creativity is where, given a context, we vary the local pattern and so allow for variations on a theme. In this sense we hold the context as invariant and vary the text (local pattern) as compared to the innovative creative process of making the text (local pattern) invariant and vary the context.
What is noteworthy from the IDM perspective is that the levels of development, the working from no filter to developing a hypothesis reflects the recursion process where the initial particular, the conscious awareness of 'something' reflects the 'whole' which we then 'cut' through identifying differentiation/integration biases that, if unsuccessful in identification we apply recursively to derive additional qualities we can use in the identification process. Abduction ASSUMES someone has already done this and so we scan existing sets of qualities to fid a 'fit'.
IDM is itself a hypothesis and so a filter which we use to DEDUCE 'facts' about reality. Peirce's concepts of firstness, secondness, thirdness reflect the F(A,B) = C equation thus:
A = firstness (stimulus)
B = secondness (response)
F() = thirdness as mediation
C = thirdness as representation (formation of a symbol and a habit)
Abduction/Deduction emerge from B post mediation processes which include recognition of the historic development of the collective, an intellectual context. The Mediation function this has two perspectives - (1) the analysis of a NEW stimulus and so derivation of a customised response and symbolisation (2) the RE-analyse of the existing symbolism and habits and their refinement or bifurcation to allow for a variation on the original theme.
In IDM we have the following mappings:
A = BLEND (IS as a potential - stimulus)
B = BOUND (IS/IS-NOT assertions - response)
F() = BIND (linking A and B into a formal way if B does not 'fit' A or there is no formal response to A)
C = BOND (representations and as such share the same space as the original but are not the original)
The process of recursion applied from general to particular, when performed on the D/I dichotomy, leads to a set of qualities being defined for each level of recursion. After three recursions we have eight qualities, as previously presented.
These qualities are SCALARS in that these qualities are measurements of magnitude, as you would measure temperature or temperament. As such the qualities derived form a scalar FIELD in that each quality fills a position within the whole set and as such occupies a POINT and all points sum to be the scalar field.
The process of recursion from general to particular reflects the process of differentiation, where we zoom-in on the points in a field, but each SET of points, and so a field, still reflects the original context of the general and as such the expressions of the qualities are general. Note that the variations in expressions of each scalar reflect differences in point-to-point relationships and as such a scalar field.
To zoom-in further, to identify the core elements of a particular quality require us to apply differentiation to each of these general qualities, the derived scalar values. This process, of differentiating a scalar, leads to the emergence of a vector.
A vector describes not only the magnitude of a quality but also a direction (all in the universe is dynamic, even if appearing 'still'). By deriving a vector for each of the scalars we introduce the concept of a vector field which describes such concepts as electric fields where, when measured, each point in that field, will show expression as a strength (magnitude) as well as a direction; as such a vector reflects a SEQUENCING, an ordering, of values and so reflects a linking process and as such integration within differentiation.
Thus, unlike a scalar that just expresses a particular quality amongst a set of general qualities, a vector can represent the development processes WITHIN the particular quality. The subtle difference here is that the set of scalar values can be used to represent temperatures and as such can be formed into a thermometer and as such a form of 'vector'. But this formation allows for reversibility in that I can go from 1 to 2 to 1.5 to 0.9 etc etc A vector starts to gets us into the irreversible but allows for the repeatable and as such the identification of cyclic patterns as well as morphic patterns; transitions, transformations, transcendences (although phase transitions reflect more the elements of the reversible, e.g. ice-water-steam-water-ice-water)
In most areas of Science you can work with scalars and vectors but in this development of a basic model of categorisations we have to include the concept of tensors where the collecting of vectors (all one dimensional in form but can contain n-dimensions as components), leads to the emergence of a tensor where we deal with the transformation of vectors.
We have in fact been describing tensors all along, in that a tensor is something that has degrees of expression and we have just covered two of them in that a tensor of degree 0 is another way of saying a scalar; a tensor of degree 1 is another way of saying a vector. To get a 'real' tensor we move beyond vectors to tensors of degree n where n is greater than, or equal to, 2.
A tensor applies, like the scalars and vectors, to a point and a tensor field is a field of points ( a continuum of points) all with their own corresponding tensors. A tensor field will reflect, for example, stress on a point/points in the field and there are such concepts as the strain tensor, the inertia tensor, the conductivity tensor etc. (as such a tensor FIELD represents more a tensor with functions as values).
These tensors are all 'hyperdimenstional' objects but note that a tensor is an expression of QUALITATIVE DIFFERENCES in the expression of a point GIVEN A CONTEXT, in other words we are dealing with responses to stimuli; more so the response/sequence-of-responses comes with a string of POSSIBLE values (properties) intrinsic to the point. For example, a 'pure' point, surrounded by other points, and so a context, will express itself in different ways (be 'deformed') due to the influences of the context. As such, tensors being 'hyperdimensional' objects can be, to a degree, FELT rather than SEEN. Since the focus is more on qualitative expression, there is an element of differentiation within integration. Thus we have:
General-to-particular -> scalars (differentiate) -> vectors (integrate) -> tensors (differentiate)->new configuration (integrate). The FIELD perspectives reflect integrations across these singular concepts.
The tensor concept does not just reflect physical processes, e.g. a force applied to a car at a specific point changing the response of the car (as such context pushing the car) The concept applies at the mental level where a 'force', be it a command or a request can cause a change in the response of an individual/collective/species.
All scalars, vectors, and tensors are representable in the form of Matrices (order 2 tensors are referred-to as matrices, 2 dimensions) where a scalar is a single value, a vector is in the form of a matrix column or row (single dimension), and a 3 dimensional tensor has nine vector columns (3 x 3 ,matrix - 3 dimensions for rotation concepts) and so on. There are different forms of representations (indices format etc) and they are of no concern here, what is of concern is the understanding of the concepts of scalars, vectors, and tensors.
The recursive application of the D/I dichotomy comes with some properties we need to identify prior to continuing fleshing-out the categories themselves.
In the development of the set of qualities used to categorise, a subtle difference emerges when we consider the original context within which we categorise. Differentiation, by its nature, focuses on the one whereas integration, by its nature, focuses on at least two (or a ratio of some sort other than 1:1). Thus in the path from integration to differentiation we are in fact moving from the general to the particular. As covered in the previous section, when we apply recursion to a general-to-particular development, the qualities derived are all SCALARS - they are expressions of magnitudes where the intense focus on the particular gives us nothing but 'pure' expression.
On the other hand, when the development is from particulars-to-general, from differentiation to integration, the act of linkage that is a property of the method introduces qualities that reflect VECTORS - magnitudes + direction; there is an emphasis on SEQUENCING and as such a focus more on Ordinality as compared to the focus more on Cardinality that comes with the initial scalar perspectives.
An analysis of the manner in which our species seems to derive meaning indicates that we move initially from general to particular, especially when exposed to something new in that we seem to identify that something through analysis of that something with its immediate context, we recruit the local context to aid in identification, and so we move from an approximation to clearly identifying that something. The IDM reflects this movement from general to particular where the particular is the final categorisation of, for example, DDI. The use of dichotomies to derive meaning reflects the use of layering dichotomies, as we layer dimensions in geometry in the form of X, Y, and Z axis where the elements of the dichotomy are 'either side' of the divider, the '/', and as such a dichotomy is representing a number line of -1/+1 and as such reflects the use of X, Y, and Z axis but limited in 'lengths' to 1 either side of the origin (this gets into analysis of the interval of [0,1] in Mathematics which is shown to be 'infinite' - and it is in that recursive dichotomisations of this interval will lead to the emergence of a continuum) In Science we use the concept of 'orthogonality' in our layering of dichotomies such that the Y axis is orthogonal to (at right-angles to) the X axis and both are orthogonal to the Z axis and so on. In other words we attempt to maximise the distance, and so maximise the semantic distance, between the dimensions. WITHIN each dimension the orthogonality is in the form of the elements of the dichotomy being EITHER positive OR negative and the choice of an element is EITHER A OR NOT-A (aka B etc). In geometry this orthogonality allows us to move from a number line (X dimension) to a number plane (adding the Y dimension perpendicular to the X) and onto a number cube/sphere (the Z axis that comes 'out' of the paper, perpendicular to the origin of the Y/X.) Reducing our representations to dichotomies, we realise that the BINARY nature of the dichotomy, the A OR NOT-A, reflects orthogonality expressed qualitatively. As such, we can encode dimensions in the form of dichotomies into BInary digTS, bits, where the value of a digit is either 1 or 0. The layering of dichotomies initially develops out of identifying a qualitative ordering where the initial dichotomy represents the concept of the X axis, the number line as such, and where, due to the dichotomisation and our use of 1/0 rather than +1/-1, will be either a value of 0 or 1. If the initial bit reflects the X axis, then the next bit reflects the Y axis and we move from TWO possible values to FOUR: 00, 01, 10, 11 If we now add a third axis, the Z axis, we now move from four two-bit representations to eight three-bit representations: 000, 001, 010, 011, 100, 101, 110, 111 If we lay these dimensions out together in the order of derivation we get the following pattern: 1st 0/1 dimension : 0 / 1 2nd dimension: 00, 01 / 10, 11 3rd dimension: 000, 001, 010, 011 / 100, 101, 110, 111 This is a binary tree and as such reflects our movement from the general, the EITHER/OR of the 1st dimension, to the particular where at 3 dimensions we have eight possible expressions of 'something', eight QUALITIES we can use to describe 'something'. As actuals, we will follow a thread through this set of potentials to one of the qualities expressed at the 3rd dimension. We see here a relationship of RECURSION to processing of dimensions as well as the notion of emergence in that, at level 3, a FOURTH dichotomy emerges from the recursion process. The recursion is where the original dichotomy of 0/1 is applied to itself - this is called self-referencing. In the above we are applying recursion to a dichotomy and as such each level of recursion reflects the development of exponentiation of powers of 2n, where n = number of levels of recursion from 0 upwards. The 'orthogonality' in all of this is in the form of the ORDER of the dichotomies where the initial bit represents the X axis, the second bit the Y axis, the third bit the Z axis and so on. What is demonstrated here is the emergence of values from the ordering of dichotomies BUT the order is based on qualitative distinctions where the initial 'bit' sets-out a context within which we place the second bit (the Y axis) and this PAIR in turn serve as the context within which we place the third bit (Z axis) and so on. Since the relationships WITHIN each dimension are orthogonal (1 OR 0, A OR NOT-A) so are the relationships BETWEEN dimensions such that at the 3rd dimension we have the SUM of the previous two (XY as 00, 01, 10, or 11) IN RELATION to the third - this reflects the TEXT-CONTEXT, FOREGROUND-BACKGROUND, concepts applicable to this relationship. Thus as we develop along the binary tree, each level reflects a set of qualities, a set of ordered qualities, that can be used to describe 'something' and as such act as a symbol of meaning. In the IDM we use three dichotomies such that we work in three dimensions, represented in bit form as: 1) 0/1 2) 00, 01 / 10, 11 3) 000, 001, 010, 011 / 100, 101, 110, 111 This first level, or first degree, of recursion means that the symbols represent GENERAL qualities, what we call scalars, in that all that we have are magnitudes where we have taken the general, opposing qualities of 0/1 and drawn out of the middle a set of more 'refined' distinctions. If we convert the bit patterns to their decimal representations then we get a list of numbers for 0 to 7 at level 3, 0 to 3 at level 2, 0 to 1 at level 1. We can use the set of scalars both to identify unique expressions but also to represent simple, reversible, measurements of something, for example a temperature gauge from 'low' to 'high', or , as we do with the IDM, a sequence of qualities we associate with expressions of generic categories applicable, for example, to a context of creating typologies - categorising individuals, their 'personas'. These personas are here very general, very universal, in form in that repeated recursion can refine the distinctions but we are still dealing with scalars - archetypal forms where we have not identified the nuances in expressions that can occur when a specific 'type' is placed in a novel context and so out will pop a difference in expression where the context can act to PUSH us. That said, the more charismatic personas will attempt to assert their own context to replace the novel one and so a rich dynamic emerges in text-to-context interactions and their identifications. BUT, how do we identify these 'nuances', these differences in qualitative expression sourced WITHIN a particular archetypal expression? A typology such as the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, the MBTI®, and all other dichotomy-derived disciplines, is a parts-list, an ontology, that we use to interpret reality but specifically the reality of psychological and social interactions. Being an ontology, it serves as THE source of meaning, of IS-ness, and as such ALL MEANING is sourced WITHIN the scope of the discipline. In other words the MBTI describes 'all there is' such that all nuances in descriptions must be made using the set of qualities of the MBTI. Thus, to describe nuances in expression of a particular type I must do so by using analogies to qualities expressed by the other types. How do we do this? It so happens that the use of recursion to derive categories comes with some interesting properties, one of which is that, due to the nature of the process, the WHOLE is encoded in ALL PARTS (and as such we could re-construct the whole from a part - this process reflects the concept of a hologram where the whole is encoded in all parts)) To 'flesh out' the whole encoded in each part we have to use - recursion. It is here that our use of bits to represent qualities becomes useful in that I can apply recursion to a bit pattern by simply moving through the pattern 'flipping' the bits (0 becomes 1, 1 becomes 0) in an order reflecting counting in binary. (and so I flip the bits of the quality in question, e.g. 000, in an order of 1st bit (giving 100), second bit (giving 010), 1st+2nd bit (giving 110), 3rd bit (giving 001), 3rd + 1st (101), 3rd + 2nd (011) 3rd + 2nd + 1st (111)) To retain some degree of ease in expression I will focus on the EIGHT qualities we have at level 3 above, namely: 000, 001, 010, 011 / 100, 101, 110, 111 If I apply 'bit flipping' to each of these qualities I will derive the following sequences (which here form into a matrix): 000, 100, 010, 110, 001, 101, 011, 111 001, 101, 011, 111, 000, 100, 010, 110 010, 110, 000, 100, 011, 111, 001, 101 011, 111, 001, 101, 010, 110, 000, 100 100, 000, 110, 010, 101, 001, 111, 011 101, 001, 111, 011, 100, 000, 110, 010 110, 010, 100, 000, 111, 011, 101, 001 111, 011, 101, 001, 110, 010, 100, 000 The interesting thing about these patterns is that they reflect a concept identified by the ancient Chinese (yin into yang), ancient Greeks (enantiodromia) and Hegel (dialectical logic and the change of A into NOT-A). The emphasis is on these being SEQUENCES, you MUST go through the given steps to get from, say, 000 to 111. We also note that an oscillation is present in the first bit in each sequence showing a tighter degree of integration of 1/0 in the first bit (in the original, first degree recursion the change was 'wide', first four had bit 1 as 0 and then the second four had bit 1 as 1 - we have in fact taken the original sequence and rotated it, turned it 'on its head' - this reflects process moving from particular to general rather than general to particular). This bit flipping process as such reflects the process of change, the steps of change for each quality in the form of identifying the change process through analogy to the other qualities available for use at this level of analysis. Thus the first step in the change of a quality into its opposite, such as 000 into 111, is described by analogy to another quality in the set of those possible, here in the form of 100. This in turn changes to 010 that in turn changes to 110 and so on until we get to 111. The method of recursion used so far derives a sequence of qualities in an order reflecting oppositions, in that if I fold one half of the sequence onto the other their bit patterns reflect oppositions of 1s and 0s, 000 'maps' to 111 as 001 maps to 110 and so on. Examination of the products of recursion show us another property of the method, what we can call "Variations on a Theme". This property stems from the fact that the initial bit, the root distinction, acts to separate the two sides of the dichotomy but as the recursion progresses so the patterns in the derived sequences of qualities are identical on both sides when read left-to-right (or right-to-left) OTHER THAN the first bit. We are no longer dealing with opposition here (aka reflection) but more so with repetition. For example, in the basic sequence of: 000, 001, 010, 011, 100, 101, 110, 111 if we move the left four 'under' the right four we get: 100, 101, 110, 111 000, 001, 010, 011 The only difference in the two qualities in each column is the first bit. The indication is that these pairs of qualities may show common themes only differentiated by the nature of the first bit. As we shall see this is indeed the case such that their approximations in quality allow for their use in referencing each other. By this I mean that swapping the first four in a sequence with the last four, as in: 000, 001, 010, 011, 100, 101, 110, 111 becoming 100, 101, 110, 111, 000, 001, 010, 011 allows for the qualities in the last sequence to serve as a source of analogy in describing the GENERAL characteristics of the corresponding qualities in the first sequence. The possibility of this is due to the first bit determining the CONTEXT in which all other bits operate and as such 000 and 100 will have more sameness than difference once the initial difference, as manifest in the first bit, has been identified. This 'variations on a theme' is possible in any of the sequences, be they the results of first or second degree recursions but the use in the second degree recursions introduces some astonishing relationships beyond a one-to-one comparison we can make using first degree recursion. These relationships stem from the fact that the sequence generated in a second degree recursion is a sequence applicable to ONE quality, a sequence that identifies all of the differences in expression WITHIN a general expression. Thus, as an example, we have been using the quality represented as 000, derived from the first degree recursion to level 3. When we apply second degree recursion we get the sequence of: 000, 100, 010, 110, 001, 101, 011, 111 which we associated with change. BUT if we now focus on variations on a theme we take this change sequence and derive: 001, 101, 011, 111, 000, 100, 010, 110 this is the 'variations on a theme' sequence but focused on WITHIN the quality of 000. What this sequence shows is the QUALITATIVE changes of 000 from its 'rawest' form, derived by analogy to an under-exaggerated 001, to its most refined form 'free' of context, where the analogy is to itself, 000 in the 5th position. When we go 'beyond' this 5th position we link the static with the dynamic, with 'out there', and as such identify the expressions of the quality from the 'least it can do' (analogy to 100) to the 'best it can do' (analogy to an over-exaggerated 110). W can summarise here by stating that for any 3-bit code there is an 8-step vector. For a 6-bit code there is a 64-step vector, each bit code has a vector with 2number-of-bits steps. This increment reflects resolution of the path. The tensor perspective applies to the 'variations on a theme' perspective identified above and is in the qualitative expressions of each bit/group-of-bits within the basic quality.
With the above derivations of additional patterns of meaning using recursion, we are in a position to dramatically extend the eight basic categories defined earlier in this work. This extention starts-off through the use of hyperbolic development where we recruit the eight basic categories and use the set as a source of analogy for describing nuances in expression of each quality (this has been demonstrated above in "Hyperbolic Development - Extending the Categories")
We will here list all of the possible expressions derived from the recruitment process where the 64 expressions are interpreted as SCALARS - expressions of magnitude. I have added the I/D categories where the interpretation is the second operating in the context of the first and that composite format elicits a quality usable to describe something. The focus is in 'refinement' such that "III-III" reflects III expressed in a very refined form:
000000 : III-III
000001 : III-IID
000010 : III-IDI
000011 : III-IDD
000100 : III-DII
000101 : III-DID
000110 : III-DDI
000111 : III-DDD
001000 : IID-III
001001 : IID-IID
001010 : IID-IDI
001100 : IID-DII
001101 : IID-DID
001110 : IID-DDI
001111 : IID-DDD
010000 : IDI-III
010001 : IDI-IID
010010 : IDI-IDI
010011 : IDI-IDD
010100 : IDI-DII
010101 : IDI-DID
010110 : IDI-DDI
010111 : IDI-DDD
011000 : IDD-III
011001 : IDD-IID
011010 : IDD-IDI
011011 : IDD-IDD
011100 : IDD-DII
011101 : IDD-DID
011110 : IDD-DDI
011111 : IDD-DDD
100000 : DII-III
100001 : DII-IID
100010 : DII-IDI
100011 : DII-IDD
100100 : DII-DII
100101 : DII-DID
100110 : DII-DDI
100111 : DII-DDD
101000 : DID-III
101001 : DID-IID
101010 : DID-IDI
101011 : DID-IDD
101100 : DID-DII
101101 : DID-DID
101110 : DID-DDI
101111 : DID-DDD
110000 : DDI-III
110001 : DDI-IID
110010 : DDI-IDI
110011 : DDI-IDD
110100 : DDI-DII
110101 : DDI-DID
110110 : DDI-DDI
110111 : DDI-DDD
111000 : DDD-III
111001 : DDD-IID
111010 : DDD-IDI
111011 : DDD-IDD
111100 : DDD-DII
111101 : DDD-DID
111110 : DDD-DDI
111111 : DDD-DDD
When we choose to extend these categories we move into a realm of 12-digit representations that can be unweildy as in 000000-000000. We can resolve this issue through a little 'trick' in that we can retain the 6-digit representations by extending the possible choices of expression for each of the 6 positions in the representation. Thus the static '1 or 0' becomes dynamic (as in 'more choices') in the form of '1' or '0' or '2' (also interpretable as '1 changing into 0') or '3' (also interpretable as '0 changing into 1'). This process allows us to represent the 12-digit representations as 6-digit representations combined with increased choices of each position. Thus 000000 = 000000-000000 and 000003 = 000000-000001. There are thus 64 possible expressions of '000000' - made-up of cycling through the use of '3' as well as '0'. This allows us to encode 4096 (642) possible representations in 64 just as the same process can allow us to map 64 (82) representations in 8.
We now move on from the scalars to the derivation of vectors in that we take one of the 64 scalar categories and apply recursion WITHIN it. This will give us a list of 64 possible analogies describing the qualitative differences in possible expression from 'beginning' to 'end' for each quality (If we add-in the range from 0-3 so we encode 40962 possible categories).
The 64 symbols derived from the recursion applied to a single category reflect the re-ordering of the scalar sequence to reflect qualitative change and so a sense of the irreversible but also the repeatable; once you are 'in' the sequence there is no going back other than to the beginning to start again. As such each step is a 'transcendence' of the previous and as such reflects a qualitative change that cannot be reversed since the change replaces the previous quality. This is the focus of 'pathwork' or the loss of innocense we all experience in that moving along the path will change you. (Scalars allow for representation of phase transitions that DO allow for immediate reversal - as water changes into steam and back to water. Thus within the quantitative of 98, 99, 100, 101 so there is a qualitative change at the 100 point. A scalar perspective does not recognise this qualitative change since the focus is on expressions of energy THROUGH the concept of 'temperature', not changes in form)
Applying these processes of deriving generic meaning patterns to which we associate specific contexts allows us to uncover patterns in different specific contexts that are reflected across all of the contexts, different labels, same meaning. As an example, lets consider the mapping of the generic elements of IDM onto the specific elements of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator as well as the specific elements of the Chinese I Ching (Book of Changes).
The properties and methods of any specialisation will be such that it will 'attract' the likeminded in that we can identify different persona types that 'fit' with different disciplines in that these types 'resonate' with the properties and methods of the discipline. There are, therefore 'natural' MBTI types, 'natural' Mathematics types and so on. The 'natural' processes of recruitment and abstraction we find at the neurocognitive levels also apply at the individual/collectives level and so allow for perspectives to be 'highjacked', usually by charismatics of some sort. Within each specialisation is the full spectrum of our species BUT with skewed elements and as such charismatics can 'take over' a discipline, especially if their 'type' resonates well with the discipline; they work 'smoothly' within the discipline and that is obvious to those who struggle a bit. The charismatics perspective is high energy focus and so zooms-in on 'is-ness' as a source of transcendence. From the neurocognitive levels we can identify two prime functions associated with context: (a) Transformation function - the learning of 'good' habits and the use of those habits and the instincts of the species to integrate with a context. This allows for 'shape-shifting' where core sense of 'self' is retained but quick adaptations to context changes allow for a 'smooth life' in that context by protection of the species. (b) Transcendence function - under extreme conditions it becomes a 'need' to escape a context and so break a habit/instinct. The 'drive' is therefore to escape a context - to replace the existing with something 'better'. This can be as (a) replacing the existing context with one's own (assertion of self) or (b) the escape from this context to another, 'safer' or 'better' (as in exploitable) context. Function (b) seems to be the source of such notions as 'transcendence', of 'alchemy', etc etc. and so of exaggerations in general. At the neuron level we find a focus on synchronisations (and so recruitment of others) to aid in 'transcending' a sensation etc. where these processes allow for the 'breaking' of a habit, causing an 'interruption' that can lead to an error occurring or, hopefully (that 'leap of faith' again) a 'new' experience that allows for the replacement of the context. It is from the transcendence function processes that the focus on hierarchy develops in that the synchronisations function across neural networks and 'up' to left/right brain hemisphere oscillations that affect expression of mental states (e.g. see Pettigrew's work on bipolar disorders ) The development of a 'high energy' specialisation forces the development of thinking that is (a) hierarchic and (b) replacement oriented (and so journeys through 'levels'). This takes us into the realm of control - as demonstrated in the analysis of social collectives by Bradley and Pribram - see their derivation of the control/flux dichotomy to categorise different collectives: Bradley, R.T. (1987) "Charisma and Social Structure : A Study of Love and Power, Wholeness and Transformation" New York : Paragon House Bradley, R.T., & Pribram, K.(1998) "Communication and Stability in Social Collectives" IN Journal of Social and Evolutionary Systems 21(1):29-81 Of note in IDM is that the properties and methods of the control/flux dichotomy are those of the IDM-identified basic dichotomy template of differentiations(control)/integrations(flux). As such, the IDM perspective is that all 'meaningful' dichotomies fall into the same general pattern that is linked to the species' set of basic qualities used for deriving meaning - In other words the words are 'meaningless', it is their resonance with differentiation/integration that elicits a sense of meaning. A such, I can make anything 'meaningful' as long as the properties and methods conform to the basic template of 'objects and relationships' (and so fiction can be made into fact). The hierarchy allows for the re-labeling of brain level sensations such that 'new' languages develop for 'new' disciplines that develop to a degree where their metaphoric nature - their words being metaphors for 'objects&relationships' meanings - are taken literally. Thus the 'mind' emerges from the 'brain' (see examples of this re-labeling in the page on our adaptation to light) and with that comes over-reduction of the 'everyday' and so experiences of 'paradox' that in fact reflect 'out of context' thinking -- and we get into the loop of 'perpetual transcendences' - we get off on the 'buzz' of the 'new' and so lose sight of our species nature.
In persona mappings, as made in such specialist disciplines as the MBTI, there is a fundamental distinction between charismatic personas and non-charismatics, Bradley & Pribram's dichotomy of control(charismatics)/flux(non-charismatics). The role of charismatics in social interactions has been an area of study for some time in Sociology.
I here try to flesh-out the categorisation of charismatics across the Structure of Personality with reference to the IDM material and in particular the interactions possible between the MBTI and the I Ching. This also leads us into the area of charismatic collectives as well as charismatic individuals. In the process of recursion, the process seemingly used by the brain to categorise, each derived row is made-up of PAIRS, reflecting the root characteristics of the elements of the originating dichotomy. In the MBTI this root dichotomy reflects that of the qualities of differentiating vs integrating such that we can overlay categories of the MBTI onto those derived by IDM's recursion of differentiation/integration where the qualities of each position are shared between the MBTI and IDM: IDM Recursion process using 1 = differentiate, 0 = integrate: level 0 - 0 (integrated whole) level 1 - 1 : 0 (we differentiate from the integrated) level 2 - 11, 10 : 01, 00 level 3 - 111, 110, 101, 100 : 011, 010, 001, 000 (the pairing at level 3 is [111, 110] - [101, 100] - [011, 010] - [001, 000] ) Corresponding MBTI-associated qualities symbolised as: level 0 - NF (focus on integration) level 1 - SP : NF (we differentiate from the integrated) level 2 - SP, NT : SJ, NF level 3 - XSTP, XSFP, XNTJ, XNTP : XSTJ, XSFJ, XNFJ, XNFP The focus is not on these formal symbolisations but on the qualities expressed in MBTI texts describing these categories. You will not find in any MBTI text (a) the above chart and (b) the assertion of 'NF' as fundamental. the chart has been derived from analysis of the qualities expressed in each category and their correlation with the IDM qualities rooted in the brain's use of the WHAT/WHERE dichotomy to derive meaning (aka differentiate/integrate, objects/relationships). The 'logic' of the MBTI is rooted in its use of four dichotomies to derive meaning and that is its focus, highly specialised. BUT the IDM work shows that the use of dichotomies is done in a manner that is influenced by unconscious processes that orders things in a manner reflecting recursion as the source of the ordering. This ordering is 'fixed' where the same qualities are used but re-labelled for different disciplines such that these specialisations all seem 'different' - IDM shows that at the generic level they are not, they are all metaphors for what the brain deals with - objects and relationships, differentiations and integrations. The realm of 'charisma' is that of differentiation and so the realm of 'charismatics' is that of those personas focused upon differentiating more than integrating, a focus on high energy expenditure, on 'sticking out', on asserting 'their' context over the existing, rather than a focus on integrating and so focusing more on energy conservation. As such the above level 3 sequence of the MBTI categories reflects charismatics more to the left, non-charismatics to the right. BUT the PAIRING process of the recursion ensures that within the given generic categories are both differentiating and integrating. Thus the XNFJ, part of the integrating side of level 3, is more differentiating in manner than the more integrating XNFP. This pairing is a property of recursion and pops up in all of our specialisations. When we keep applying recursion (and so go beyond the usual 8 to 16 types of the MBTI) so each category of level 3 'contains' expressions described by analogy with each of the level 3 categories - we move from 8 generics to 64 increasingly specifics (8 x 8). If, for example, we zoom-in to the XNFP category, synonymous with the IDM category of 000 ('pure' integration) we can map-out all of the different expressions possible given the categories we have to use where we represent these categories as a category as text (top expression) operating within a category as context (bottom expression): XNFP XNFJ XSFJ XSTJ XNTP XNTJ XSFP XSTP XNFP XNFP XNFP XNFP XNFP XNFP XNFP XNFP This process is called hyperbolic development and seems to be a property of our brain's categorisation toolkit. Since the I Ching is also a reflection of IDM so we can directly map these MBTI categories to those derived in the I Ching by listing all of the hexagrams with Earth as base (pure integration, 000 for IDM, XNFP for the MBTI). I here list these I Ching categories by their traditional numbers as well as their binary representations, bottomline-to-topline (0 = yin, 1 = yang): 02, 23, 08, 20, 16, 35, 45, 12 000000, 000001, 000010, 000011, 000100, 000101, 000110, 000111 Linking MBTI with I Ching and IDM we have: The XNFP/XNFP persona reflects the generic qualities of hexagram 000000 (02) The XNFP/XNFJ persona reflects the generic qualities of hexagram 000001 (23) XNFP/XSFJ reflects the generic qualities of 000010 (08) XNFP/XSTJ reflects the generic qualities of 000011 (20) XNFP/XNTP reflects the generic qualities of 000100 (16) XNFP/XNTJ reflects the generic qualities of 000101 (35) XNFP/XSFP reflects the generic qualities of 000110 (45) XNFP/XSTP reflects the generic qualities of 000111 (12) From the analysis of IDM/IChing etc we can identify the pairings of differentiation/integration from the top line of the hexagrams - yin = an integrating bias, yang = a differentiating bias. For example, hexagram 02 is associated with being a disciple, a follower, a total truster in another/others - a high degree of devotion that focuses upon integrating self with other. hexagram 23, the 'twin' of 02, is associated with pruning and weeding, with removing all of the chaff from the wheat, of stripping the bed (iow the beliefs one rests upon) to their basics, their 'true' expressions. This is an act of devotion as reflected in hex 02 BUT it is also an act of differentiation rather than integration; we seek the 'true faith' to stick out from all of the 'crap', from all of the 'exaggerations' that develop with any faith over time. Note that the recursion process has led 02 (000000) and 23 (000001) to emerge from the same 'space', that of five lines of 'yin' (00000) where we find the root focus on devotion. When we move to the six lines so the generic quality of 00000 will bifurcate, will branch, to reflect (a) differentation operating in a context of generic devotion (example is hex 23) and the other quality will reflect the integrating focus of devotion (example is hex 02). Furthermore, hexagram 23 reflects a more charismatic persona type than hexagram 02, operating WITHIN the general non-charismatic theme of integrating, of blending-in (as determined by reference to the base line, the first line, of the I Ching hexagrams) From the MBTI perspective, a persona of type XNFP/XNFJ would thus show a bias to 'pruning' and 'weeding' in general behaviour when compared to the overly devoted, but less differentiating, persona of the XNFP/XNFP. In an exaggerated form the XNFP/XNFJ type reflects the 'high priest' protecting the 'true faith', continuously 'housekeeping' to maintain that faith. The requirement to do this is best served by a more charismatic persona than by an 'everyday' disciple. (using the Keirsey Temperament Checker labels so XNFP/XNFJ reflects a MENTOR operating in a context of a DISCIPLE/ADVOCATE. The mentor is here the GUIDE, or more so the TEACHER that ensures the faith is always 'right') If we step back up to the eight generic MBTI categories of XNFP etc (level 3) so the set of eight variations possible for each category when we move to 64 categories become potentials for that generic persona type - CONTEXT acts to determine which of the eight 'best fits' the context. Too much focus on 'parts' means that we can create contexts that DEMAND one variation such that over time no other choices in expression become possible - one becomes 'fixed' in one's persona - too specialised. To aid in mapping charismatic categories of the I Ching, IDM, and MBTI, here is a list of I Ching hexagrams sorted into a matrix of 8 x 8 where the first four rows reflect the range of charismatic types across the set of possible categories, most strongly expressed to least expressed (but still charismatic) - and the second four rows reflect the more 'non-charismatic' types, from least (43 - more charismatic than not but overly integrating in form) to most non (02). It is easy to map the hexagrams to MBTI complex personas as used in MBTIPlus (use the diagram above or for 64 hexagram representations see the larger diagram of recursion) 01 14 09 26 10 38 61 41 13 30 37 22 25 21 42 27 44 50 57 18 06 64 59 04 33 56 53 52 12 35 20 23 43 34 05 11 58 54 60 19 49 55 63 36 17 51 03 24 28 32 48 46 47 40 29 07 31 62 39 15 45 16 08 02 Overall, the top 32 focus on differentiations to varying degrees, the bottom 32 focus upon integration to varying degrees - The first 16 hexagrams in the above 64 differentiate within a differentiating context, the second 16 differentiate within an integrating context. The third sixteen integrate within a differentiating context. The fourth sixteen integrate within an integrating context. Thus hexagram 43, that is all yang bar the top line, is integrating overall in that its focus is on seeding, on spreading the word and as such integrating WITHIN a context of differentiating (the base line is yang - in other words THE word over all others that is to be 'robustly' spread). The MBTI persona type is XSTP/XSFP, the Keirsey category would be PLAYERS in a context of OPERATORS. I hope the above has in some way aided in understanding the relationship of the MBTI to IDM and, through IDM, to the I Ching. Related Pages: [paradox processing] [exaggerate-balance] [analytical-dialectical] [physiology expressed in maps] [IDM and Emotions]
Reference Lists etc : [References on Transformation] [References on Transcendence] [NeuroScience Abstracts/Refs] [General Reference/Further Reading List]