Language of the Vague- Chris Lofting

I Ching & the Language of the Vague

TABLE OF CONTENTS The Language of the Vague............................................................................................................................1

TABLE OF CONTENTS............................................................................................................................... 2

1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 4

1.1. Overview ................................................................................................................................................ 4

1.2. The I Ching (Book of Changes) ............................................................................................................. 4

1.3. Fundamentals of Dichotomies ............................................................................................................... 6

The Normal, or Gaussian, Distribution vs The POWER LAW......................................................................6

1.4. Recursion ............................................................................................................................................... 8

1.5. Context Linkage ................................................................................................................................... 10

1.6. Generic Relationships .......................................................................................................................... 11

1.7. Generic Qualities ................................................................................................................................. 13

2. Bandwidth VS Time .................................................................................................................................. 16

2.1. Some Basics on Information Processing ............................................................................................. 16

2.2. Bandwidth and Time – Perspectives on Evolution Theories ............................................................... 19

2.3. Consciousness as a Mutation ............................................................................................................... 20

3. Data from Neurosciences & Cognitive Science ........................................................................................ 26

3.1. Some Basic Properties and Methods of Brain Function ...................................................................... 26

4. Small World Networks, Cause and Effect and The Inevitable .................................................................. 33

4.1. Historical MATERIALISM: An indicator of 'fact'? ............................................................................ 33

4.2. The LOCAL version ............................................................................................................................ 37

4.3. Replacement vs Coexistence ............................................................................................................... 38

4.4. Enantiodromia ...................................................................................................................................... 38

4.5. Methodological Individualism ............................................................................................................. 39

5. Realm of the Vague vs the Crisp ............................................................................................................... 42

5.1. Modelling the Vague – Purity .............................................................................................................. 44

5.2. Vague vs Crisp; Logic of Relationships .............................................................................................. 44

6. Yin-to-Yang & NEGENTROPY: A Universal Flow ............................................................................... 47

7. Issues of Uncertainty ................................................................................................................................. 49

8. Mind from Brain - A Consequence of our Species' Adaptations to Paradox Processing? ........................ 52

8.1. Basics ................................................................................................................................................... 52

9. Persona Representations Using the MBTI® and I Ching .......................................................................... 58

10. Entanglement ........................................................................................................................................... 61

10.1. In general ........................................................................................................................................... 61

10.2. Interpretations : I Ching and Quantum Mechanic ............................................................................. 63

10.2.1. Invarience of Trigram Qualities .................................................................................................. 68


10.3. Interpretations : I Ching Yin/Yang as Waves ................................................................................... 69

11. Entanglement II ....................................................................................................................................... 72

12. The Emotional I Ching ............................................................................................................................ 76

12.1. Basics ................................................................................................................................................. 76

12.2. Representations .................................................................................................................................. 77

12.3. Deeper Issues - Projection, Transference, Counter-Transference, and Mirror Neurons ................... 79

12.4. A Feature of Transference - the 'how' of a random emotion ............................................................. 82

References & Further Reading..................................................................................................................... 85

References & Further Reading..................................................................................................................... 85

12.5. Neurosciences/Psychology/Sociology-biased References and Further Reading ............................... 85

12.6. I Ching & MBTI/NLP References & Further Reading List .............................................................. 90

12.6.1. MBTI references: ........................................................................................................................ 96

12.7. QM etc refs - Physics Maps ............................................................................................................... 96


1. INTRODUCTION

1.1. OVERVIEW

This text is about the generation of a metaphor for describing reality where the metaphor is the I Ching, the Book of Changes, an ancient Chinese text covering divination that became a foundation text for Chinese philosophy. The text covers what the I Ching represents as meaning derived from the dynamics of human neurology.

Given the metaphor of the I Ching, the text covers the properties and methods of all metaphors in that they all come out of the neurology and so, despite their unique expressions, these metaphors are all isomorphic, same forms, where the sameness manifests the ONE set of universals we use to seed all meaning - universals derived from the neurology and the dynamics of self-referencing (aka recursion).

We can trace the dynamics of the neurology back to a fundamental property of the universe, the 'chaos game'. This 'game' is where the containment of noise will generate order through self-referencing. (Google the 'chaos game' or see such texts as chapter 6 of:

Peitgen, Jurgens, & Saupe (2004) "Chaos and Fractals : New Frontiers of Science (2nd Edition)" Springer

The essential point here is that this game works at all levels of reality and so makes self-referencing ubiquitous in reality - and that includes imagined reality. Furthermore, all sensory systems are containers of noise, as is the brain a container as it takes in sensory perspectives.

With the chaos game also comes the dynamics of networks where the POSSIBLE product of self-referencing, when exposed to local context, and so the 'random', will elicit the customisation of the possible into the actual where local context can amplify, damp, or even remove 'universal' categories to create 'small world networks'. These dynamics bring out issues of entanglements of categories as covered in later chapters in this text.

1.2. THE I CHING (BOOK OF CHANGES)The I Ching, or Book of Changes, is a text dominated by a focus on process, on sequence. The methodology involved in creating the symbolisms of the I Ching is not just focused on process but on the processing around, within, between, archetypal, and so universal, structures. The following material is about those structures - how the method of derivation, the use of recursion of yin/yang (or more generically, the recursion of A/NOT-A), and so of self-referencing, extracts definite forms that serve as universals in describing processes. To describe a dynamic you need statics, objects, to make the point - even if these objects are products of relationships, they are universal products of universal relationships. In the context of the concept of "Small World Networks" so the universal form of the I Ching is a static, regular, form where all is linked together. When exposed to the 'randomness' of reality so that exposure sets up the nature/nurture dichotomy out of which emerges the 'middle' position of a "Small World Network" - derived from ad hoc links to 'fit' the dynamics of the local context:


The 'traditional' I Chings, all of the different interpretations/translations, come out of the middle position or right position in the above diagram. If we treat these as 'transparent', so stacking all of these local maps, one atop the other, will start to bring out the universal patterns, the potentials that are actualised in different contexts.

Our brains reflect this dynamic where the genetics is the nature and exposure to reality, nurture, skews development to fit the local context. This dynamic operates at all scales such that neural networks reflect 'small world networks' as do our social collectives. As such, all spontaneous generations of order from the containment of noise will have their 'natural forms' customised to fit into the local context.

In the formation of the genetic level, the 'complete' whole with all of its links, the method of deriving structures from yin/yang reflects the extracting of parts from a whole. In the brain this is done through recursion and the use of the XOR operator (exclusive OR). This operator allows us to extract objects out of complex patterns (and so allows us at time to 'err' in that process and end up with a sensory paradox). In the I Ching we move from the single dichotomy of yin/yang to complex forms of 2-line, 3-line, 6-line, and 12-line representations (digrams, trigrams, hexagrams, dodecagrams). The main focus here will be on the structures of hexagrams, with some reference to trigrams and dodecagrams.

The brain dynamics referenced above focuses on extracting from a complex pattern (an integrates 'whole', a focus on linking and so EQV-ness) the parts that make up that pattern. In the I Ching this dynamic of XOR/EQV will bring out 64 hexagrams of the I Ching - all ordered into a sequence of structures where the sequence is called the 'binary' sequence.

This sequence of 64 hexagrams is made-up of eight octets, where each octet is made up of eight hexagrams all with the same trigram as base. The WHOLE sequence of hexagrams has a STRUCTURAL focus that reflects TWO forms of interpretations regarding the nature of these structures and their relationship to all of the others.

The nature of the yin/yang dichotomy allows us to map to that dichotomy, and all of the structures derived from the recursion of that dichotomy, ANY dichotomies but in TWO forms - symmetric vs asymmetric.

A symmetric dichotomy is where the elements of the dichotomy are at the general nature, the same. For example, if we want to map the IQ or EQ of 'people' so the context is of 'all people' and we want to extract the spread of the expression of IQ or EQ. This process will give us a Gaussian, or 'normal', distribution curve. The generic qualities of the dichotomy are thus of like natures - differentiating/differentiating or


integrating/integrating. The symmetry is in an aspect, e.g. positive/negative, and so the elements appear as 'opposites' where we are trying to categorise DIFFERENCES FROM SAMENESS.

An asymmetric dichotomy is where the elements of the dichotomy are at the general nature, different - where this difference is in exaggerations of one element from the other - e.g. the dichotomy of ACTUAL/POTENTIAL. Recursion applied to this type of dichotomy will create a SPECTRUM (and so a focus on power laws) of categories and as such span levels of a hierarchy, from general-to-particular, potential-to-actual, crisp-from-vague, precise-from-approximate, hot-from-cold (as such we are not at a single level of analysis - hot/cold reflects a hierarchy of temperature differences and so spanning energy levels). With these sorts of dichotomies the focus is on identifying, categorising, SAMENESS ACROSS DIFFERENCES. The core focus is on the elements that generically reflect association of differentiating/integrating elements in the dichotomy.

Symmetric dichotomies focus on analysis WITHIN a level, a single context. Asymmetric dichotomies focus on analysis BETWEEN levels and so cover multiple contexts. The abstract nature of yin/yang, also representable in 'bit' (BInary Digit) form as 0/1, allows for the I Ching to reflect both forms of dichotomies and the nature of recursion ensures that these different types of dichotomies are linked together as fundamental to the structure of the I Ching.

Due to the nature of these two forms of dichotomies, when applied recursively, the binary sequence is interpretable as a 'mirrored' system of STRUCTURAL opposites as well as STRUCTURAL complements. Due to the self-referencing, so each octet reflects the properties and methods of the WHOLE sequence - this is called 'fractal' behaviour where we see the same patterns reflected at different scales. To continue, first let us flesh out finer details on dichotomies and recursion (self-referencing).

1.3. FUNDAMENTALS OF DICHOTOMIES

dichotomy /, n. (pl. -ies)

1 a a division into two classes, parts, etc., esp. of things that are opposed or entirely different. b a sharp or paradoxical contrast.

2 Bot. & Zool. repeated bifurcation.

dichotomic / adj.

dichotomize v. (also -ise).

dichotomous adj.

[modern Latin dichotomia from Greek dikhotomia, from dikho- ‘apart’ + -tomy]

When we zoom-in to analyse the basic natures of the elements of a dichotomy, we come across TWO distinct forms of dichotomy. One form reflects a relationship between the elements of the dichotomy that is manifest as a ‘gaussian distribution’. The other form reflects a relationship between the elements of the dichotomy that is manifest as a ‘power law’.

THE NORMAL, OR GAUSSIAN, DISTRIBUTION VS THE POWER LAW

The mathematician Carl Gauss is credited with the 'discovery' of this distribution. As the story goes, Gauss became aware of the firing of some observers by the Astronomer Royal in England due to their failure in being precise in logging the precise times of astronomical events so important for the creation of tables used for navigation etc. Gauss reasoned that the problem stemmed from individuals having different reaction times and as such some will be too slow, others too quick.


The Gaussian distribution reflects these differences in precision where the average is the 'true' value of the observation. Thus the higher the level of precision so the closer we are to the 'peak', the average, in measurement and so plotting all of this leads to the emergence of the familar 'bell-shaped' curve.

This averaging process reflects oscillations across the extremes out of which we derive a 'precise' value. It also reflects differences in reaction times associated with metabolic rates such that we can derive persona types etc from how energy is expended/conserved in individuals as well as species.

These differences in rate can affect time estimations to a degree where a 0.005 degree difference in core temperature (as compared to the species 'average') can translate to an experienced subjective time distortion of 5 seconds per minute. The other factor is mass such that a baby can experience a higher distortion in subjective time experience than an adult even though both have the same core temperature (and so the severe time distortions experienced by children!). Combinations of genetics and nurture can vary these distortions and that includes differences in fitness such that a fit person whose rate is reflected in heart rate of 60 beats per minute, optimisation has taken place due to the fiteness, can have the same reaction times as someone with the average 72 beats per minute.

Overall, the more intense the energy, excluding need for body maintenence in unusual circumstances (e.g. being at the North Pole, being unfit, overweight etc), so the more time distortion where you can, for example, acquire more information in an hour at 72bpm than you can in an hour of 60bpm.

The recursion of ANY dichotomy, where the elements are ‘equal’ in energy expressions (as in +1/-1), can in fact create the Guassian distribution in that the original dichotomy represents the 'extremes' that through recursion get pushed out to the peripheries as more refined distinction emerge from the 'middle' of the dichotomy.

The power law dichotomy reflects more differences in energy levels – we span different levels where one is more ‘energy expending’ than the other. It is this sort of dichotomy that is expressed in such concepts as ‘Small World Networks’. As such it appears to run orthogonal to a Gaussian dichotomy; it runs from the ‘least efficient’ to the ‘over efficient’ rather than give us a ‘middle range’ as the Normal Distribution Curve does.

To give concrete examples of the differences between Guassian dichotomies and Power Law dichotomies, lets consider the two popular soft drinks of “Pepsi-Cola” (Pepsi) and “Coca-cola” (Coke).

The dichotomy of Pepsi/Coke, as a ‘gaussian distribution’ reflects the charting of those who like or dislike one or the other. This charting gives the ‘normal distribution’ curve – the other name for the ‘gaussian distribution’. Thus the two elements of the dichotomy have an equal but opposite number of associations to each where 50% of the population ‘like’ Pepsi or don’t care, and 50% ‘like’ coke, or don’t care, when given the choice. Thus the bulge in the middle of the chart reflects this focus of if Coke is not around, drink Pepsi and visa versa.

The success of Pepsi and Coke overall, the ease in recognising their name and the preferred choice of one or the other compared to other colas, makes these two drinks ‘Universals’ and as such reflections of a power law at work. This law, as a dichotomy, means that the focus is on PepsiORCoke/The_Rest where ‘The_Rest’ is all other colas that lack the recognition power of PepsiORCoke and as such there is a distortion in value, in ‘energy’, distribution to the elements of the dichotomy.

Thus we see in these two forms of dichotomy differences in the value of each element, expressed as in the Figure 1 below.


Figure 1 - Dichotomy as a Gaussian distribution vs. Power Law

In the I Ching the generic nature of the terms ‘yin’ and ‘yang’ allow for BOTH types of dichotomies to be represented. We can refine concepts to dichotomies of competition (opposites) and dichotomies of cooperation (the elements are linked rather than ‘cut’ apart). These dichotomies, when applied to themselves, reflect the properties of recursion.

1.4. RECURSION

recursion / n. Math. & Linguistics

1 the application or use of a recursive procedure or definition.

2 a recursive definition.

recursive / adj.

1 characterized by recurrence or repetition.

2 a Math. & Linguistics relating to or involving the repeated application of a rule, definition, or procedure to successive results. b Computing relating to or involving a program or routine, a part of which requires the application of the whole.

The derivation of the trigrams and hexagrams of the I Ching is made through the application of recursion to the yin/yang dichotomy, where the term ‘recursion’ represents the process of self-referencing in that we


take the original dichotomy and apply it to each element. This will give us the following where A = yang and ~A = yin:

Figure 2 - Recursion of a Dichotomy

As summarised in the diagram, the use of recursion takes the level 1 dichotomy and from that derives all levels to level 6. In the I Ching so level 3 is the level of trigrams, level 6 the level of hexagrams. If we extend to level 12 we have the level of dodecagrams.

From analysis of brain dynamics, the base dichotomy, the template of dichotomies, is that of differentiating/integrating – thus the qualities of yang map to those of differentiating as the qualities of yin map to those of integrating:

"differentiate v.1 distinguish, discriminate, contradistinguish, separate, contrast, oppose, set off or apart, tell apart: They must learn how to differentiate one species from another.2 modify, specialize, change, alter, transform, transmute, convert, adapt, adjust: All organisms possess the power to differentiate special organs to meet special needs.

integrate v. combine, unite, blend, bring or put together, assemble, merge, amalgamate, join, knit, mesh, consolidate, coalesce, fuse; US desegregate: We must integrate all the parts into a coherent whole. Several cultures have been well integrated into our community." Oxford Dictionary.

Thus the two cells of level 1 contain these qualities as ‘hard coded’ in our brains and recursion serves to give us finer and finer distinctions based on mixing these qualities (when we move to a higher level of qualitative expressions so these cells map to ANY dichotomy – for example the fight/flight dichotomy of emotions maps to level 1 where fight is differentiating, flight integrating and from recursion comes all of the basic emotions (see more below)).


From a qualitative perspective, each level of recursion reflects a finer and finer mapping of the qualitative differences between the elements of the level 1 dichotomy such that at level 3 we have a range of eight qualities reflecting these differences and so usable as sources of analogy in describing reality. At level 6 we have 64 of these qualities.

Thus, as qualities, each cell in figure 1 reflects a particular quality, aka a feeling or emotion that is a source of meaning when linked to a particular state in a context.

1.5. CONTEXT LINKAGE

What the brain shows us is that the qualities reflected in the cells in Figure 2 are hard coded into us, they form part of our species nature and as such serve as a source of generic meaning where interactions with reality allow us to ‘paint’ reality with these qualities and so then use the painting to communicate qualities with others.

With the development of consciousness, this ‘painting’ took on a new level of precision in communications in that it allows us to take a level of qualities and link those qualities to a particular context and create labels for those qualities that reflect that particular linkage. Thus words serve as markers of the hard coded qualities associated with particular contexts. More so, the structure of words, their nature as ‘nouns’ (differentiating) or ‘verbs’ (integrating) forms the foundations of refined communications where this structure is mapped to the invariant qualities given in Figure 2.

What is shown here is that we are dealing with hierarchy where qualities map to structures that map to ‘sounds’ derived from linking structure to context; we move from the general to the particular, from what is to be expressed to its expression in a particular form (sound, image etc) Thus our communications is based on context ‘pushing’ and eliciting a quality that is communicated through encoding the quality into a sound/image etc that is transmitted to elicit resonance of that quality in another/others. (see Figure 3below)

Note that in working with the concept of consciousness, the use of the term ‘context’ includes reference to mind states and so a focus upon ‘in here’ as well as ‘out there’. Furthermore, with the increase in labelling all contexts and their content so we refine the communications of qualities in general, a pool of expressions develops for a generic quality where that pool can start to differentiate the general to a degree where particulars form that appear to take-on a life of their own – using the I Ching as an example, the generic quality of ‘yangness’ gets differentiated into 32 hexagrams reflecting particular aspects of yangness to a degree where each hexagram ‘feels’ unique, a whole, rather than a part of a greater whole, and as such can form a foundation of interpreting reality – we can ‘see’ reality through hexagram 14 for example and use ONLY that perspective to interact with reality.


Quality

Structuring

Expression

Quality

Structuring

Expression

context

resonance resonance

Figure 3 - Hierarchy of Communications

At the level of the I Ching, rather than use words we use patterns of lines to create hexagrams representing the qualities in each cell at level 6 of Figure 2. These hexagrams then become linkable to ANY context in that they represent the range of qualities we ALL use as members of our species. It is this sameness that allows for the hexagrams of the I Ching to reflect ‘the Universe’.

1.6. GENERIC RELATIONSHIPS

Working with the basic ‘binary tree’ of Figure 2, since each level reflects the range of qualities from A to ~A, from yang to yin, and each level is in fact made of PAIRS of qualities, each pair reflecting the A/~A nature of a generic quality defined in the level above, so reading the row of qualities in a level gives us multiple levels of meanings, ever increasing the more we apply recursion.

Thus, at level 2 in Figure 2, we have four qualities made up of two pairs, each pair derived from a more generic quality defined in the previous level (the arrows in Figure 2 serve to show the development of cells from their ‘ancestor’.)

At level 3 in Figure 2 we have extended the four qualities into eight but also retain linkage to the ones in the previous level (in the I Ching these qualities at level 3 are represented by the trigrams). As such, level 3 reflects both the A and ~A cells of level 1 differentiated into four qualities each. As such, each level is in fact level 1 expressed in finer details.

If we focus on any level, the most left quality is the pure ‘A’ expression and the most right quality is the pure ‘~A’ expression, but the other qualities can be interpreted as:

(a) LOCAL pairs reflecting A/~A qualities, thus the pure A quality is paired such that the other element of the pair reflects more ~A qualities when compared to the A quality. This pair is derived from a more generic quality in the previous level and as such reflect that quality more finely differentiated by bringing out it’s A/~A qualities. For example, in the I Ching hexagrams 02 (000000) and 23 (000001) reflect the differentiating and integrating qualities of the more general quality from the previous level – 00000. Thus these local pairs reflect differentiating WITHIN a quality.

(b) GLOBAL pairs reflecting the overall A/~A qualities, a focus on BETWEEN qualities, thus pure A is paired with its opposite, pure ~A as is each quality in the sequence of qualities. Thus, working from level 3, symbolising each quality as a mix of yin/yang where yin = 0 and yang = 1 we have:

111, 110, 101, 100, 011, 010, 001, 000


With this sequence we have the GLOBAL relationships of opposites as:

111 to 000, 110, to 001, 101 to 010, and 100 to 011

The LOCAL relationships are:

111 to 110, 101 to 100, 011 to 010, 001 to 000

The OVERALL relationships here itemised are those of the ‘opposites’ of yin and yang, reflected in their purest forms as the extremes of 111 and 000 such that we have:

111 is to 000 as 111 is to 000

110 is to 001 as 111 is to 000

101 is to 010 as 111 is to 000

100 is to 011 as 111 is to 000

and locally the same relationships:

111 is to 110 as 111 is to 000

101 is to 100 as 111 is to 000

011 is to 010 as 111 is to 000

001 is to 000 as 111 is to 000

But we also have pairs of pairs as in:

(111,110),(101,100) is to (011,010),(001,000) as 111 is to 000

These relationships are properties derived from the method of recursion and since they are templates so they apply to ANY dichotomy in the form of the WORDS of the elements that we slot into the two cells of level 1.

What this means is that rather than slotting in ‘yin’ and ‘yang’, we can slot in, when using the I Ching, whole hexagrams where the focus is on a particular context reflected in the relationship of hexagram A to hexagram B.

Thus, if we slot in hexagram 1 and 2 (111111 and 000000) the focus is on the expression of ‘oppositions’, of differentiating VS integrating, across the order of hexagrams at level 6. (or trigrams of level 3). The overall focus is on the recursion of QUALITY not line patterns, not on the symbols but on what they represent.

Thus if we slot in hexagrams 23 and 43 then the focus is on ‘pruning’ vs ‘seeding’ and the order of 64 hexagrams serves as a source of analogies describing the range of the pruning/seeding qualities.

Each process of deriving level 6 will REORDER the 64 hexagrams (or 8 trigrams or 4096 dodecagrams depending on the degree of resolution you want to work with) into a sequence of relationships that reflect the GENERAL quality under consideration.

For example, in the sequence we call the ‘traditional’ sequence, where the obvious pairing of hexagrams gives away the fact that the sequence was derived from recursion, the qualities ‘inserted’ into the cells of level 1 where those represented by hexagrams 01 and 64 respectively.

Thus we see in the ordering of qualities a developing ’logic of relationships’ as in A is to B as Y is to Z, but the question is how do we derive such orderings of the ‘traditional’ sequence when there are few clues in structure to guide us (it is easy in deriving the binary sequence in that the structure and qualities are tightly bound)? (the clue in the traditional ordering re use of recursion was the pairing and so allowing us to work backwards from level 6 to level 1 where all that was left were hexagrams 01 and 64.)


1.7. GENERIC QUALITIES

In the derivation of meaning from the differentiate/integrate dichotomy applied recursively, each cell generated in the recursion takes on a particular quality.

We identify these qualities as composite form made up from the basics of blend, bond, bound, and bind – here are the terms defined in the Oxford Dictionary:

blend // v. & n.

v. (poet. past and past part. blent)

1 tr. a mix (esp. sorts of tea, spirits, tobacco, etc.) together to produce a desired flavour etc. b produce by this method (blended whisky).

2 intr. form a harmonious compound; become one.

3 a tr. & intr. (often foll. by with) mingle or be mingled (truth blended with lies; blends well with the locals). b tr. (often foll. by in, with) mix thoroughly.

4 intr. (esp. of colours): a pass imperceptibly into each other. b go well together; harmonize.

n.

1 a a mixture, esp. of various sorts of tea, spirits, tobacco, fibres, etc. b a combination (of different abstract or personal qualities).

2 a portmanteau word.

[Middle English probably from Old Norse blanda ‘mix’]

bond // n. & v.

n.

1 a a thing that ties another down or together. b (usu. in pl.) a thing restraining bodily freedom (broke his bonds).

2 (often in pl.) a a uniting force (sisterly bond). b a restraint; a responsibility (bonds of duty).

3 a binding engagement; an agreement (his word is his bond).

4 Commerce a a certificate issued by a government or a public company promising to repay borrowed money at a fixed rate of interest at a specified time; a debenture. b an insurance policy held by a travel agent, tour operator, airline, etc., which protects travellers' holidays and money from the company's bankruptcy.

5 adhesiveness.

6 Law a deed by which a person is bound to make payment to another.

7 Chem. a linkage between atoms in a chemical compound.

8 Building the laying of bricks in one of various patterns in a wall in order to ensure strength (English bond; Flemish bond).

v.

1 tr. a lay (bricks) overlapping. b bind together (resin with fibres, etc.).

2 intr. adhere; hold together.

3 tr. connect with a bond.

4 tr. place (goods) in bond.

5 a intr. become emotionally attached. b tr. link by an emotional or psychological bond.

in bond (of goods) stored in a bonded warehouse until the importer pays the duty owing (see bonded).


[Middle English variant of band1]

bound // n. & v.

n. (usu. in pl.)

1 a limitation; a restriction (beyond the bounds of possibility).

2 a border of a territory; a boundary.

v.tr.

1 (esp. in passive; foll. by by) set bounds to; limit (views bounded by prejudice).

2 be the boundary of.

out of bounds

1 outside the part of a school etc. in which one is allowed to be.

2 beyond what is acceptable; forbidden.

[Middle English via Anglo-French bounde, Old French bodne, bonde, etc., from medieval Latin bodina, earlier butina, of unknown origin]

bind // v. & n.

v. (past and past part. bound //) (see also bounden).

1 tr. (often foll. by to, on, together) tie or fasten tightly.

2 tr. a restrain; put in bonds. b (as -bound adj.) constricted, obstructed (snowbound).

3 tr. esp. Cookery cause (ingredients) to cohere using another ingredient.

4 tr. fasten or hold together as a single mass.

5 tr. compel; impose an obligation or duty on.

6 tr. a edge (fabric etc.) with braid etc. b fix together and fasten (the pages of a book) in a cover.

7 tr. constipate.

8 tr. ratify (a bargain, agreement, etc.).

9 tr. (in passive) be required by an obligation or duty (am bound to answer).

10 tr. (often foll. by up) a put a bandage or other covering round. b fix together with something put round (bound her hair).

11 tr. indenture as an apprentice.

12 intr. (of snow etc.) cohere, stick.

13 intr. be prevented from moving freely.

14 intr. Brit. slang complain.

n.

1 colloq. a nuisance; a restriction.

Contemplating these different associations to the terms, we find that we can make the generic associations of:

Blending – issues dealing with a sense of wholeness

Bonding – issues dealing with a sense of sharing space with another/others (static relationships)

Bounding – issues dealing with a sense of partness


Binding – issues dealing with a sense of sharing time with another/others (dynamic relationships)

We add to these four universals a qualifying, context-determined, dichotomy in the form of contract/expand, negative/positive, implicit/explicit such that at level 3 in Figure 2 we have eight qualities listed. Recursion ensures that by the time we get to level 6 so these eight are reflected WITHIN each element of the eight, giving us sixty-four qualities. Before discussing details of these sixty-four we will cover some general aspects of human information processing.


2. BANDWIDTH VS TIME

2.1. SOME BASICS ON INFORMATION PROCESSING

bandwidth / n.

the range of frequencies within a given band (see band n. 4a).

band / n

4 a a range of frequencies or wavelengths in a spectrum (esp. of radio frequencies). b a range of values within a series.

There appears to be a dimension of precision operating in our brains such that our mindless species-nature, a nature that interacts immediately, holistically, with reality through instincts derived over time, shows a lack of precision when compared to our consciousness-nature, a nature that interacts partially through taking a 'moment', laying out the content, manipulating it, and re-transmitting it as a 'moment' but in an intense, high energy, form (the spoken word for example!)

This dynamic reflects the issues in information processing re bandwidth and time where vague methods of data acquisition OVER TIME can achieve what is possible with maximum bandwidth applied 'immediately'. In other words, there is a level of perception that is 'vague' WHEN COMPARED to what we experience with high bandwidth and so 'precise' perceptions, precise interactions, with reality.

(we see this in Astronomy where to get images of galaxies etc we expose a photographic plate OVER TIME to get the images where current bandwidth is limited and so cannot acquire an image ‘immediately’)

In the brain the 'high bandwidth' experience is Frequency Modulation (FM, pulses where these are spatial frequencies) oriented, discrete, fine detail, VERY clear but also VERY local - short range - but then it is focused on NOW; there is at the physiological level a distinct distortion of subjective time experience, time can seem to slow, stop, and so be interpreted as 'mechanical' rather than thermodynamic. – in other words maximum bandwidth wipes out 'time' concepts, knowledge acquisition is immediate, is now.

This ability to EXAGERATE information, to focus attention and acquire information immediately reflects the opposite of species-nature where information that becomes symbolised and habituated is acquired over generations - 'mindless' or 'blind' processing; our consciousness, on the other hand, is high precision focused and so long time spans are 'meaningless' and out of our consciousness or more so there is a window of 'vagueness' open which can be used to 'intuite' over time, to 'soak in' meaning that we suddenly 'connect the dots' to give us insight. This is like the difference between parts of our eye where we have the fovea, high detail, vs the parafovea, vague edge detections etc - the adaptations of our brains to light processing reflects the differences in methods of processing information such that some situations require 'vague', diffuse, forms of perceptions in that they are part of the WHOLE of perception and can elicit, over time, precision acquired with high bandwidth but to a degree.

Thus if our metabolism is not fast enough we can develop cretinism - too slow to 'link the dots' - if too high, our metabolism can elicit psychosis. In other words there are two limits present, one on bandwidth (Too much elicits psychosis, mania etc, too many dots at once for consciousness to deal with) and one on time (too slow elicits cretinism, never enough time to 'link the dots')

The 'low pass filter' in our brains is Amplitude Modulation (AM, waves) oriented, it is more 'holistic' as such, a continuum focus (wave amplitudes rather than pulses) long range but 'fuzzy' in immediate perception as compared to what is possible in FM. Implicit here is that this filter can acquire information but over time and so data 'emerges', as the wave-interference pattern 'emerges' in EPR experiments of Quantum Mechanics.


Thus experiments such as EPR etc reflect these TWO modes of information gathering, the immediate of the 'dot' or the delayed of the 'field' ;-) (This is also reflected in standard paradox processing but in reverse - in EPR it is dots to field, in the necker cube etc it is field to dots)

Since consciousness seems to span from the 'red' end (AM) to the 'blue' end (FM) in energy expressions so different PARTS of consciousness are expressed depending on context (and even nature). Thus 'slow thinkers' can acquire as much information as 'fast thinkers' and as such show 'intuitive' skills not presented in the 'fast thinkers' - their world can be interpreted from the fast-thinker realm as 'vague' and yet demonstrate an equal ability to flourish in society. Those that the high energy, intense, 'pointed' thinkers labels 'air heads' can in fact show a superior skill in intuitive, pattern-matching, processing.

Thus we see here a dimension of precision in measurement skills, high bandwidth vs high time usage but with limits - too high and we go nuts, too low and we are just 'not there'.

What is noticeable is that our consciousness, or more so the consciousness preferred in our current culture, seems to focus more on high bandwidth and as such excludes consideration of high time as a method (or considers it a waste of time when we can build high bandwidth technology!) however the high bandwidth focus is high energy and so is an EXAGGERATION of our 'species-nature' and as such is 'not normal' - it is excessive and as such can be blinding or too loud to reveal subtle patterns of meaning in reality that need to be soaked in rather than blasted in. Our consciousness prides itself on being 'quick' but in doing so neglects a wide area of information that cannot be acquired using 'quick' methods.

Our understanding at the moment, due to our high bandwidth focus (and so behaviour that reflects moths attracted to the light! ;-)) is in need of understanding more than just the A/NOT-A focus. Firstly we need to understand that the dichotomy of literal/figurative reflects the FM/AM relationship – in other words we are dealing with issues of precision, and so denotations (the word, the particular, culturally, dictionary-defined meaning) vs. connotations; signifier vs. signified.

Denotation/signifier is FM but LOCAL. Connotation gets into harmonics processing and as such is AM/signified. Thus the FM side reflects an exaggeration from the pool of connotations possible, a pool that is AM oriented, long range but low bandwidth, fuzzy until a context draws out a particular. The single context of FM in the brain reflects the 'as interpreted' nature of that part of our brain as compared to the 'as is' nature of other parts (noting in passing that our species-nature is less precise than our consciousness-nature and that relationship can cause paradox).

Thus the FM focus acts like a reference beam in holograms where it is needed to decode data, to extract particulars, sets of connotations encapsulated in a word, from the general. The higher the frequency the more that can be represented BUT the 'loudness', the 'brightness' can be too immediate, too 'now' where some things need to 'emerge' over time (or are not detectable 'now' but over thousands of years - our computer models, where we run thousands of years of development in minutes, are starting to pick these up)

The high definition realm is REALLY clear but (a) is more parts oriented (signifier) and (b) hard to sustain long term (it requires a lot of energy and so can drain resources unless we find some 'infinite' supply of energy!) In nature, from the perspective of our species-nature, the goal is to conserve energy. Consciousness seems to be a 'mutation' and as such is overly dedicated to high-energy expenditure. That is a problem we have to resolve (but given consciousness are in a position to do so)

Given the FM/AM dynamics, we are also aware of a chain of signifier/signified dichotomies such as the word, as speech, is the signifier of the signified, but the written word for our culture is the signifier of the speech, and so the word as signifier becomes the signified etc. (Chinese etc gives a dual channel here)

This gets into the link being through the signified arm of the signifier/signified when moving from the NOW expression (e.g. speech) to the connotative rooted in our brains. These sorts of links reflect recursion. (Thus we can map out the distinctions of literal/figurative and within that of signifier/signified etc - layering the dichotomies)

If we make this abstract where any dichotomy is represented as 1/0 so three loops of recursion applied to one dichotomy gives us:

[1]1/0


[2]11, 10 / 01, 00

[3]111, 110, 101, 100 / 011, 010, 001, 000

(OR we can layer different dichotomies reflecting orthogonal relationships - the main focus is on moving from general-to-particular - our recursion can be translated to reflect geometric forms as we build dimensions from 1 to 2 to 3 to 4 etc in that each row of recursion contains N qualities all of which will try to maximise their expressions, to differentiate (Saussure used the interesting phrase 'negative differentiations' - to express oneself as what the others are NOT), and that can be represented in geometric forms - thus four qualities will create a tetrahedron form of 'meaning space' (as done in taste). In nature these 'ideals' are natural in that they develop from mindless growth dynamics and so are more often distorted. WE have idealised them to a degree some think them to be 'originating' – not necessarily so.)

The above 'dimension' reflects what I call full spectrum thinking. We can go deeper, making finer distinctions from 8 to 64 to 4096 to 16+ million etc but we find that the above 8 serve as good models of different perspectives. The overall development of the dimension reflects hyperbolic development where the WHOLE set of qualities is applied to EACH; the set serves as a source of analogy to refine aspects of a quality and in doing so creates 'new' qualities. Thus N = N^2 rather than the exponential development of N=2^N. (and so our 'dimension' is made-up of PAIRS of values derived recursively – as shown in Figure 2)

EACH of the elements identified in the dimension reflect bandwidths that are usable in analysis of information such that there are issues of precision where to be precise means playing with the bandwidth/time relationships - 000 gives us IMMEDIATE, 'NOW', *approximations* that can be refined over time. Increase bandwidth and the required time is reduced to when we are are the 111 position for IMMEDIATE, NOW, precise details. However, that position has limits from our personal, metabolic-rate influenced, nature. (too high = psychosis, too low = cretinism)

Our solution to this bandwidth problem is where we build our technology to increase the bandwidth further, to a level where, using well developed computer models, we can map-out social development etc ('small world networks') that takes place over decades to tens of thousands of years! (the only issue of course is that we cannot test the model other than over short time periods (as in our lifetimes ;-) - but if it works then it is usable!)

If we focus on the context of using time only (combined with a base metabolic rate!) there may seem to be some 'magic' here where just sitting on your chair will make you as smart as someone totally focusing on something! - not so, there is a major requirement - memory.

Thus the INITIAL distinction of 'something' from all else sets down a context for development and this is where memory comes in to things in that for development of 'something' we need to be able to consider past moments and their feedback on the current moment. The time factor on these 'reflections' can be seconds or decades but the focus is on the abstract notion of a 'moment' as something discrete.

We can define the passage of time in the universe as a sequence of moments and we can label each moment with the number '1'. Thus we have:

1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1....

There is no awareness here of past or future, only 'the moment' (there are issues here in to identify the moment we have to make distinctions and I could represent the sequence as a wave form and so no distinctions but that will ruin what I am focusing upon so bare with me)

If I introduce local feedback, as in the previous moment in some way influences the expression of the current, I can represent this numerically by adding the previous to the current. Doing this I get a basic awareness of sequence and so of a passage of time - the arrow of time -:

1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9....

I have thus increased bandwidth to allow for the consideration process, the benefit being introduction of 'new' information in the form of awareness of 'there is more than just the moment'.

Lets add some more energy in the form of considering the last TWO moments as influencing the current and doing so using the same method of adding 1s. Here we find emerges the first 'interesting' pattern:


1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21,...

This is a Fibonacci pattern. Now we are moving into geometry etc where minimum energy usage has allowed for structural development; this sequence is reflected in spirals, be they of galaxies or of sunflowers. This pattern reflects 'mindless' growth dynamics but we are still at the time end of the dimension and so a reliance on time to develop.

If we keep adding more and more past moments to aid in analysis of, development of, the current moment so we keep creating new sequences, and so new patterns of meaning (Fibonacci gives way to tribonacci etc etc) until we end up with considering ALL past moments. This is high-energy stuff, we have maximised bandwidth to allow for the taking of all of the past to aid in focusing on the development of the current and on into the future. What sort of sequence does this generate? A binary sequence:

1,1,2,4,8,16,32,64,128....

Here the 'spiral' of the Fibonacci sequence is still present but now as a spiralling square! - Reflecting the A/NOT-A focus we find in high bandwidth dynamics. (What is interesting here is the square nature here means we generate a dimension orthogonal to the original 1,2,3,4,5 line ... if you are familiar with waves this development reflects increasing energy in the form of a wave amplitude. Thus the sequence 1,1,1,1 reflects a 'flat line' - a wave with little/no amplitude, as we increase bandwidth so we increase amplitude until it is 'vertical' - this gets into the nature of dichotomies and their reflections of power laws). Also note that the numbers in these sequences reflect the tightness in the spirals, their increasing closeness to the centre of the spiral and so their sense of 'precision'). There is a sense here of the difference sequences representing the 'squaring of the circle' as we move from circle to spiral to square spiral. We can extend this into the concept of the square within the circle extended to the cube/brick within the sphere. What THAT brings out are issues covering rotations and the relationship, for example, of PI with PHI.

Thus, returning to the eight bandwidths, the eight perspectives of reality, on the dimension of precision, EACH comes with its own sense of time and as such that sense can influence perspectives - thus for a collective rooted in the 111 end, the use of maximum bandwidth and so a NOW focus, time is impoverished to allow for the notion of the 'eternal' to emerge and for that notion to be encoded into our maps as if something 'originating' - it isn’t, it is derived. Also with that comes a focus on the analytical but that reflects a distortion of sorts - we cut off time in its 'arrow of time' format.

Knowing this dynamic we can focus on the different patterns associated with each bandwidth on the dimension of precision. We can re-evaluate our experiments etc recognising them as predominatingly 'high bandwidth' and so capable of being too loud, too bright, but do so subtly such that we are not left with the only forms of descriptions etc being overly poetic.

A shift 'right' on the dimension means to develop a degree of discernment, quality over quantity and that can be aided by becoming more aware as to how 'in here' works in the processing of information and so how we can be more 'vague' in our immediate needs and allow time to flesh-out details... that’s if we can stop the 'mania' of needing things 'now' as a universal!

2.2. BANDWIDTH AND TIME – PERSPECTIVES ON EVOLUTION THEORIES

In the context of the Darwinian/Lamarckian models of evolution, the continued presences of this dichotomy reflects the overall nature, the universality, of the qualities of competitive (Darwin) / cooperative (Lamarck)

Lamarck's casual focus was more on relationships BETWEEN species, be they of mammals or trees, and so overall integration. Darwin's focus was a touch more precise, focusing on the dynamics of a particular species (e.g. finches) and so a more 'aristocratic' perspective; more differentiating, more competitive, and so more 'precise' - the replacement factor dominates and so even cooperation as in reproduction is for long term competition, for eradication of others through diluting their presence and so their chances of reproduction.


Thus the aristocratic focus is on replacement, on being 'better', whereas the egalitarian is on coexistence, talent is for a particular context (context sensitive), not all contexts (context universal). We see this difference in some WEST/EAST education issues (Note I am being REALLY general here in making this point!...) where, for example, a group given an essay do to in the WEST will produce essays from each member being all their own work; in the EAST there is more a focus on distribution of labour, the BEST person for a particular part writes that part such that all essays reflect the ONE essay that is a group effort and is, as a whole, 'perfect'.

Thus the WEST can come across as more competitive, EAST more cooperative. The WEST favours precision in the INDIVIDUAL and so 'perfection' is focused on the ONE, the 'top' individual who can do it all and damn the rest! The EAST favours precision summed across all members of the group but due to the differences in style of each person so the whole essay may not have the sense of 'continuity' that comes from one person writing the essay; in other words the EAST essay may be 'correct' but not considered 'perfect' in that consistency in style is given as much importance as the facts contained. The PhD may be 100,000 words of 'truth' but if the punctuation is 'sloppy' and the overall format (page structure etc) 'sloppy' then, sorry, no PhD! (….and then there is the issue of a PhD being given to an individual for individual work, not given to a group!)

Therefore, in the WEST there is a degree of being OVER precise in valuing the ONE and so comparisons of WEST/EAST from a WEST perspective is of the EAST lacking in precision, more prone to making 'approximations'. This is changing these days in that EASTERNERS are going to WESTERN universities to learn their precision skills and WESTERNERS are developing interests in EASTERN social and spiritual perspectives.

Interestingly there IS an issue here that is universal, and that is the issues of precision from a differentiating perspective as compared to an integrating perspective. The unit of measure for differentiating is the ONE, for integrating it is no less than a PAIR SUCH THAT comparing collectives who reflect these differences WILL show issues of precision! BUT the realm of the integrating can be more 'qualitative' in form, showing better talent in being discerning, more socially ept, and more intuitive etc. and so reflecting more ‘emotional intelligence’.

Getting back to Darwin, Darwin's work *really* 'stuck out' and only in recent times has there been questions raised that, from a scientific perspective, introduce different perspectives, different models, and so distribute the energy of Darwinism.

We are not interested in the 'truth' here, that comes out in comparing models with empirical studies, we are interested in the 'natural' emergence of dichotomies in our reflections upon the universe and our selves where that natural emergence says something about us, our style of thinking appears to be rooted in recursion of dichotomies but not of the 'hard core' Aristotle type of 50/50 split, more the focus on bifurcations, the branch from the trunk, the charismatic part, the flower, from the whole, balanced, bush – we see here the differences of Gaussian vs. power-law dichotomies.

Even though there appears to be a dimension of possible expressions, our attention is always drawn to the poles that we then 'exaggerate' but in doing so can blind ourselves and so miss what is behind all of that 'light'. In other words, 'full spectrum thinking' reflects the differentiation and then integration of WEST and EAST, of differentiating and integrating and that is possible by understanding the common element, our species nature and how IT processes information - IOW EAST and WEST reflect SPECIALISATIONS of the species over all where local context biased the use of the set of general qualities used in deriving meaning - the patterns of which are covered in the IDM material.

2.3. CONSCIOUSNESS AS A MUTATION

Consciousness seems to be a 'mutation' and as such is overly dedicated to high-energy expenditure. This appears so when consciousness is compared to the dynamics of our species-nature, where the focus is on integrating with the context through developing instincts etc over generations (and so a low bandwidth/high time relationship). Consciousness seems to have emerged from the development of being able to go past the


whole and into its parts where the immediate response is delayed, considered, and so allowing for refinements to be made, considerations of context to be determined, prior to the response.

Furthermore, the development of consciousness as a mutation brings out its focus on our singular nature and so an agent of randomness; consciousness is what enables us to break history as it does allow us to make/add-to history. As such, our particular and general natures have roots in history, strong dependencies on such. To deal with immediate, more precise dynamics, and so the ability to LOCALLY 'break' an instinct/habit, the development of consciousness was of benefit.

Thus we move from the immediate, the synchronisations of all parts into a whole response, to serial processing and so the development of language and of consciousness (to be aware of being aware demands sequencing. Our holistic species-nature reacts immediately, is PUSHED, and as such there is no reflection etc.)

The precision of consciousness has allowed for high bandwidth processing and so the reduction of depending on time (history) to refine instincts etc - natural selection gives way to conscious selection.

BUT the general lack of understanding energy conservation, vital in a thermodynamic universe, is a cost we are suffering with as our 'childlike' consciousness tries to make the imaginable real.

The development of consciousness goes with the demand to develop instincts/habits to fit contexts where with consciousness we can IMAGINE possible contexts and through exercise set-down basic instincts to deal with those contexts prior to exposure to them.

However, our consciousness lacks understanding of Physics etc etc and as such can imagine anything and so even the physically impossible (as far as we know! ;-)) and in doing so try to create 'impossible' contexts and so create our 'own little worlds' - psychosis is a property of high bandwidth thinking, as is fundamentalism – in other words there are 'down side' aspects of that style of thinking.

Our current condition is a little better in understanding the dynamics of our brains/minds but is in need of refinement, as is the need for a 'species 101' course to aid in understanding species-nature fundamentals - many have no idea and work off taking specialisations literally rather than as metaphors for what the brain deals with - objects and relationships, differentiating and integrating etc.

The dynamic of consciousness-nature against species-nature ensures we will experience paradox in our maps unless we take the time to understand the consequences of that dynamic.

Thus in the development of levels of consciousness, a hierarchy forms, an unfolding occurs. EACH row of recursion is the whole just in finer detail. That said, each row as such serves as a perspective upon reality and we can operate from each position. Adding dimensions gives us 'new insights' that we cannot go back upon - the experience of loss of innocence!

The differentiating means a focus on sticking out and so being noticed. That moves us into the realm of universals, someone/something being a hub and so seemingly full of energy when compared to others (gets into power law patterns).

In the development of collectives the overall bias is to the differentiating (hierarchic, energy expending, charismatic leaderships etc) vs. the integrating (flat, energy conserving)

The charismatic format draws in and develops 'up'; encapsulation takes place and high energy put into what has been encapsulated. To maintain the structure hierarchy is required where the demand is for everyone to know and keep to, their place. LOCAL dynamics is possible (competitive/cooperative exchange WITHIN an overall competitive context and so operations WITHIN a level) but any other form of dynamic is threatening.

'Small world' networks show us a dynamic of 'aristocratic' vs. 'egalitarian' perspectives – in other words the same patterns have come out of that work as out of an abstract analysis on dynamics of dichotomisations and so identifying differentiate/integrate as 'fundamentals' of categorisation as far as we are concerned; context just acts to force the re-labelling of the general differentiate/integrate terms to fit a particular context.


Thus, in the context of ‘small world networks’ (see 4), the aristocratic, the differentiating, seems to 'burst out' of the integrated and establishes a position in advance of the integrated. That position (a) motivates the others to move towards it and (b) slowly diminishes in strength due to the slow erasure of resources.

Thus the egalitarians catch up - revolution turns into evolution - and the aristocrats get taken over but in doing so they swap to a context that is egalitarian as the egalitarians swap context for one that is overly aristocratic - as such the context 'pushes' both parties to become their opposites (or more so REFLECT aspects of their nature that 'fits' the context - thus the egalitarians become corrupt, elitist etc)

The recursion gives us POTENTIAL qualities. Thus a context can be such that an individual has fine detailed development, ACTUALS, in the 111 area, average in 000, some in 010 and 110 and none in the others.

Each moment is a particular and so elicits one of the possibles. Habit can then force the same patterns in thinking all of the time and so lead to other patterns become impoverished.

For example, competitive thinking will consider REPLACEMENT as the 'logical' solution to a problem. Cooperation will not come to mind 'instinctively'. On the other hand, cooperative thinking will consider COEXISTENCE as the 'logical' solution to a problem. It is now Replacement that will not come to mind 'intuitively'.

Collectives can develop biases in their education systems that favour these different styles in thinking and so we can have 'issues' developing when the different styles are not taken into consideration in the interactions of collectives.

From the individual perspective, I can develop a mindset for each of the above eight qualities and so interpret reality from each. Our high bandwidth focus prefers 111 'types' or 011 'types' to the others. That bias skews our thinking such that we do not practice 'full spectrum' thinking nor teach it; we are like moths attracted to the light! ;-) To be fully conscious individuals requires exposure to 'full spectrum' thinking and so the ability to be context sensitive (our high bandwidth thinking focuses on universals and so the ASSERTION of the context rather than adaptation. IOW we become lacking in context sensitivity by asserting our 'universals' to apply in all contexts.)

The overall development of the dimension we use for measurement/categorisations reflects hyperbolic development where the WHOLE set of qualities is applied to EACH; as we zoom-in on those branches so we exaggerate their 'importance' – thus, for example, quantum mechanics issues, issues that are 'small' compared to the everyday activities, get turned into mountains as we increase bandwidth to try and understand things NOW. The issue here is the SPECIALISATION of QM tries to function without reference to neurocognitive dynamics applied to information processing of the species as well as consciousness. Paradox ensues.

If we use the now familiar diagram of aristocratic/egalitarian dynamics:


Figure 4 - Aristocratic/Egalitarian Dynamics

so the terms 'aristocratic' and 'egalitarian' can be replaced by the general term 'differentiating' and 'integrating' respectively and as such reflects all of the dichotomy relationships covered in the IDM material – in other words those dichotomies reflecting this power law pattern will develop along the lines expressed in the diagram.

Thus from the small world research we can see that the original TWO basic types of dichotomies identified in my dichotomy research, the differences in their energy distribution across the elements of the dichotomy as shown in Figure 1 are in fact representing the differences in a Gaussian perspective (equal energy, top pairing in diagram) vs. a power law perspective (bottom pairing in diagram).

The 'drive' to the aristocratic, the universals, perspective, FORCES an ever increasing 'need' to be competitive; differentiating. There is pressure on each individual to become a 'star' or closely associate themselves with one (and so fundamentalist collectives form, charismatic leaders etc) and so be 'self-contained', self-sufficient.

(The physicist Feynman reflected this perspective in his comments of treating everything as waves and the resulting constructive/destructive dynamic elicits reality. This comes across in swarm behaviour where each individual makes local distinctions and from that emerges a pattern of behaviour not tied-down to any particular individual. This making of local distinctions favours a developing hierarchic format overall in that a proactive form can develop where everyone intentionally sticks to their place, intentionally limits their activity to the making of 'local distinctions' for the sake of maintaining overall structure)

With a focus on differentiating, on asserting universals etc, there develops a focus on REPLACEMENT and so a focus on the 'ever better' is reflected in such an economic system as Capitalism - IOW it is 'natural' to be 'extreme' but there is also the balancing, the neutralising, element at work - the focus on egalitarianism (aka integrating, balancing, maintain symmetry etc) that introduces Socialism/Conservationism/Interventionism as agents of balance.

However, since the OVERALL development process follows a path of ever increasing aristocratic development, and so a focus on differentiating, on 'precision', so even the agents of balance take-on aristocratic tones in expression and can become competitive! (For movie stars etc there is the demand to keep re-inventing themselves or else their ‘star’ dies...)

Thus the 'micro' collapses covered in the above diagram of development, Figure 4, sum to an eventual form of implosion, where the distinctions of aristocratic/egalitarian mix, they start to blur, but with an overly aristocratic bias in the context and so there can be total collapse, a 'big one' rather than the incremental types.


HOWEVER, of note are the ever-increasing power law relationships as more and more universals develop. That sort of development reflects the eventual 'linking of the dots' where a phase transition occurs, as in water into ice so I am not sure about what happens here - is there a giant 'transcendence' of some form or a total collapse down to the base line in the development diagram? - the core 'egalitarian' level reflected in our species-nature; we fall back to instincts/habits of the species rather than consciousness (?).

There is the suggestion here that a choice emerges at the points of ‘collapse’, where rather than ‘go on that ride again’, a bifurcation takes place where a development stays within a level, developing in parallel to the base ‘egalitarian’ line in Figure 4 – Stratification develops where a level forms its ‘own little world’ from which to deal with reality:

Figure 5 - Stratification Developing from Aristocratic/Egalitarian Dynamics

Universals development is reflected in language where each word is a universal to some degree - thus the term 'brick' represents every brick that has existed, does exist, will exist - imagined or real; the association to that term are 'many'! Thus the more precise we get, the more 'aristocratic', so the more we focus on labels and with that the more we focus on specialisations which take on the aire of 'universals'. Thus the original 'universal' of Physics loses some of its energy where sub-branches take-on their own 'light', and so Quantum Mechanics is a 'universal' as is Relativity etc - each with their own charismatic leaders and language etc.

This focus on differentiating, on PUSHING OTHERS AWAY so I can assert myself, favours the emotions of anger and sex as dominating the extreme 'aristocratic' realm; replacement is paramount, I don’t think of coexistence as a solution to problems, I think of replacement, of asserting the 'new', of the explicit eradication of all competition. That dynamic reflects the 'local distinctions' process such that movie stars are in competition with each other but overall create an industry that takes on its own dynamic.

We can see that the dynamic of differentiate/integrate is across all species but with our consciousness seems to have been exaggerated.

However - with our becoming AWARE of these patterns, their inevitability of movement from egalitarian to aristocratic to collapse/transcendence to egalitarian etc etc, means we are in a position to speed up or slow down the 'inevitable'. As the small world dynamics appears to show, regardless of chance, accident, local contingencies, the cause-effect relationships stand.

Of real interest to here is that the IDM material, AND SO THE I CHING, identifies all of these patterns as being rooted in RECURSION such that within each is the all - a property of recursion. Thus within an aristocratic context will be found an egalitarian element, a small part 'somewhere' in the context. The IDM material actually IDENTIFIES the overall qualities associated with all of the parts (and so my ability to identify the dominating emotions of the times as anger/sex in that the fight/flight dichotomy reflects


differentiating/integrating dynamics overall (anger – asserts the context. Flight, fear - adapts to context, need to disappear, blend IN rather than stick OUT) and as such can be overlayed with the aristocratic/egalitarian dichotomy to allow for derivation of details by analogy.

The focus therefore on sustaining OUR species over the emergence of our replacement is on education of the properties and methods of our species-nature - we need a 'species 101' course to cover the realm of the vague, the dynamics of the generals that strongly determine expressions and so educate the one source that is capable of 'doing something' - our consciousness.

the dynamic of aristocratic/egalitarian, aka differentiating/integrating, reflects the dynamic of IDEALISM FROM MATERIALISM. The idealism can then 'attract' the others, motivate the others, and so development takes place; revolution is necessary for evolution but that revolution 'instinct' seems to be sourced in breaking free of something already existing - just as our consciousness tries to ignore/break free from our species-nature.


3. DATA FROM NEUROSCIENCES & COGNITIVE SCIENCE

3.1. SOME BASIC PROPERTIES AND METHODS OF BRAIN FUNCTION

Science is an ongoing activity and unlike religion has apparently no 'initial conditions' from which to interpret (as in a Bible etc, but... see more below on this ;-)). My perspective is on what we *do know* about how we process information, our methodology that we share with other neuron-dependent life forms, what can we possibly 'know' as in give us a sense of 'meaning' in the form of something felt.

The focus on neuron-dependent life forms means a focus on our species-nature, our primate nature, and so setting a baseline of a focus on holistic interactions with the environment in the form of instincts and habits. At this level our human brain reflects dynamics shared with much smaller life forms and all rooted in the properties of neurons.

We know that instincts/habits get encoded mostly in the input areas of our neurons (and this appears to apply to all other neuron-dependent life forms). What does that indicate? It indicates energy conservation in that encoding the instincts in these areas allows context to PUSH a life form. It also indicates habituation to sameness, more conserving of energy in that our analysis of the context makes us super-sensitive to difference such that the 'usual context' dynamics is out of awareness, we are on 'autopilot', pushed-along.

There is also present here a focus on difference-to-sameness processing where we create communication through consensus and so symmetric dynamics. This means we focus on the use of emotions and metaphors to communicate and so a dynamic of the asymmetric/symmetric.

OVER TIME instincts/habits develop (e.g. cycles of seasons reflected in coat growth/moulting over months etc) and this reflects the overall focus on INTEGRATING with the context by learning good habits/instincts that allow the life form to cease fighting the context and instead flow with it - 'perfect' adaptation to context, finding one's niche; the nature of our species as primates, and all other species. (This need to integrate is reflected in the recruitment of unused areas in our brain by nearby neurons to increase their bandwidth in dealing with reality - amputations, congenital birth defects in senses etc show this activity of recruitment etc) What we notice here is the development of instincts/habits is a development of GENERALS from PARTICULARS and so instincts/habits can lack precision but become more refined with age/experience.

This long term focus on integrating with the context comes with short term focus on LOCAL dynamics that mean one also needs to break a habit/instinct which is not working; to escape the context where that context includes the surroundings and the habit/instinct responding to those surroundings. This gets into breaking-free of 'autopilot', we notice a difference that will make a big difference to us (as in our death etc) unless we break free and so increase of bandwidth to react NOW to something. Thus our singular nature, our consciousness as formed in the first 24 months or so of life, acts as an agent of mediation to add a 'randomiser' to our set of instincts/habits and so give us choices that allow for breaking habits etc.

Overall the focus from the species-nature level appears to be a focus on PROTECTION. The ultimate form of protection is to escape. For us these seems to have developed beyond its purpose, we can be proactive, we can plan escapes etc and so learn to EXPLOIT contexts, to predict context behaviours and so 'jump ahead', take risks, derive probabilities, and in doing so we can TRANSCEND a context.

With the neurology comes a dynamic that, through our senses, focuses on information in the form of WHAT/WHERE (refined to cover what/who/which, where/when/how, and finally, for us, why). This dichotomy is synonymous with differentiate/integrate and so objects (the thing)/relationships (the space

in-between/within things).

Thus the focus on fitting into a context reflects integration, the focus on swapping one context for another, to escape from one to another, reflects differentiating and with differentiating emerges the notion of choice. The 'escape' focus, reactive, has become a sense of seeking 'freedom', being proactive.


We can trace these activities from general brain dynamics e.g. left hemisphere is more differentiating, right is more integrating. Switch focus and posterior brain overall is more integrating, anterior brain overall

(frontal lobes etc) more differentiating etc etc. Zoom-in to either hemisphere and the SAME patterns are revealed, thus left temporal lobe, when compared to left parietal lobe reflects the same patterns as left/right hemispheres, differentiating vs integrating. Zoom-in to each lobe and the same patterns appear in the relationship, for example, of anterior temporal vs posterior temporal.

Overall we see the dynamics of information processing focused on bandwidth/time relationships at all levels of activity.

With the neurology comes a dynamic in the form of our attention system (the 'difference' detector) where we can isolate 'something' from all else and then zoom-in. This process reflects the use of increasing bandwidth to process something - and so we see in the neurology activities of recruitment and synchronisation together with the distribution of labour.

With the neurology, in the form of hormone activities on metabolic rates etc, comes an understanding of the relationship of bandwidth/time in that increase of bandwidth will distort the experience of subjective time to the point where time appears to be 'meaningless', mechanistic and so removed from its thermodynamic nature. This bandwidth increase focuses on the attempt to understand something NOW. (this is very obvious in accidents etc where 'things went so slowly' where our increased metabolism reflects attempts to increase bandwidth and focus everything on NOW and gather as much information as possible. This focus on NOW seems to have bled into our collectives and feeds Science.

The dynamic across the hemispheres, and so reflecting the dynamic across all like-relationships, and so down to the level of axon/dendrites of the neuron, reflects a path of general (right) to particular (left) but also back (general) to front (particular). Feedback can then come in to manage the general - thus feedback loops go back to dendrite areas to encode/recode instincts/habits etc as particulars information go to refine whole models (as we find feedback loops from the frontal lobes to the back of the brain)

See the general layout of hemispheres of the human brain in Figure 7. Given the large scale focus, we can zoom-in to the neuron to detect the same generic patterns in information processing reflected in the dynamics of axon/dendrites:

Figure 6 - Basic Information Processing in the Neuron

The major points to note in the above figure are the associations of Amplitude Modulation to dendrite areas and Frequency Modulation to the axon. These differences reflects differences in PRECISION as in a


wave perspective (AM) vs a ‘pulse’ or discrete perspective. These same relationships are shown to exist in the relation of left hemisphere (FM) to right hemisphere (AM) of the neocortex – as shown in Figure 7

Figure 7 - General Asymmetries in the Neo-Cortex Hemispheres

We can see the dynamic of particular-general operating at the hemisphere levels in such areas as basic deduction/induction/abduction dynamics e.g.

"Cerebral Cortex, Vol. 11, No. 10, 954-965, October 2001


C 2001 Oxford University Press

“New Evidence for Distinct Right and Left Brain Systems for Deductive versus Probabilistic Reasoning” Lawrence M. Parsons and Daniel Osherson1

University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, San Antonio, TX and 1 Rice University, Houston, TX, USA

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

Deductive and probabilistic reasoning are central to cognition but the functional neuroanatomy underlying them is poorly understood. The present study contrasted these two kinds of reasoning via positron emission

tomography. Relying on changes in instruction and psychological 'set', deductive versus probabilistic reasoning was induced using identical stimuli. The stimuli were arguments in propositional calculus not readily solved via mental diagrams. Probabilistic reasoning activated mostly left brain areas whereas deductive activated mostly right. Deduction activated areas near right brain homologues of left language areas in middle temporal lobe, inferior frontal cortex and basal ganglia, as well as right amygdala, but not spatial-visual areas. Right hemisphere activations in the deduction task cannot be explained by spill-over from overtaxed, left language areas.

Probabilistic reasoning was mostly associated with left hemispheric areas in inferior frontal, posterior cingulate, parahippocampal, medial temporal, and superior and medial prefrontal cortices. The foregoing regions are implicated in recalling and evaluating a range of world knowledge, operations required during probabilistic thought. The findings confirm that deduction and induction are distinct processes, consistent with psychological theories enforcing their partial separation. The results also suggest that, except for statement decoding, deduction is largely independent of language, and that some forms of logical thinking are non-diagrammatic.

ALSO SEE:

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

(published PRIOR to the above) From the intro:

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

From these sorts of snippets of neuroscience research we can build, have built, a model of information processing. As such we ARE born with a context, a hypothesis, from which to interpret, but it is not a book, it is the pool of instincts we all share as species members and from which instinctive 'deductions' can be made. (And so Charles Peirce's categories came from unconscious self-referencing, our models reflect us but lack of understanding what has been under the hood has led to 'distortions' in our perceptions - distortions that are close enough at first but get increasingly obvious as distortions the more we go on)

This is all 'species-nature' stuff. It appears that in the process of interacting 'holistically' with the environment there emerged the ability to go PAST the 'whole' and into parts analysis, to be able to draw-out a parts list, a spectrum, of that whole. This is reflected in the bandwidth/time dimension (labelled in


IDM the 'dimension of precision') which allows us to go from the general (hypothesis - here in the form of the pool of instincts) to the particular (local context) and in turn feedback into the general.

A major focus is on the fact that the brain OSCILLATES as it processes information and as such spans general-particular. From other sources we find that timing differences in these oscillations can have major affects on styles of thinking, on expression.

Overall this gives us in general:

(a) A process of encapsulating data (attention system).

(b) A process of basic categorisations (differentiating, local, particulars VS integrating, non-local, generals).

(c) A process of oscillating across these categories with 'colourings' from anomalies/novelties in the timing of the oscillations.

These three processes give us a source of qualities usable to derive meaning in general in that the oscillations combined with attention, and so asserting a 'whole', a single context, and the differentiate/integrate dichotomy, will apply that dichotomy to itself - self-referencing and so recursion. THAT is the GENERAL METHOD of information processing.

From that general comes the refinements in the form of emotions derived from recursion of fight(Differentiating)/flight(integrating) dichotomy.

The set of POSSIBLE qualities defines all we could know in the form of patterns of composite expressions of differentiating/integrating. What we DO know, as individuals, will be a thread made-up of different elements representing actuals derived from the set of possibles. These threads include a basic thread of interpretation that reflects an individual's style of thinking that reflects a persona type (as we find expressed in such typologies and the MBTI or HBDI etc etc - SOCIAL typing processes focused on individuals as PARTS to fit in to some whole - a team etc)

The dichotomy of differentiate/integrate is the general. Particulars form as synonyms such as:

KNOWN/UNKNOWN where labels, which are forms of universals, are KNOWN and reflect LEFT hemisphere biases when compared to processing the UNKNOWN that is in need of labelling or finer details. Our brain will go 'RIGHT hemisphere' to consider relationships to context to aid in the development of a label etc, in making this unknown/approximate known, precise.

Labels, words, are forms of universals and are of the differentiating realm where they sum-up relationships to contexts etc. The more the label is associated with different local contexts so the more it becomes a universal so the more it becomes clearly, constantly, differentiated.

The issue of precision is expressed in the dichotomy of:

DOT/FIELD

In 'small world' network terms we have here a power law where increasing links to the 'dot' make it shine, become 'archetypal' due to the links but it is NOT the field, it is a PART of the field. In the brain this is reflected in the FM bias to the left hemisphere compared to the AM bias of the right.

There is also the dichotomy of:

AS INTERPRETED/AS IS


where the OVER PRECISE nature of our consciousness is reflected in the SINGLE CONTEXT perspective of the left that is VERY CLEAR but also very LOCAL. IOW our differentiating 'side' is a source of interpretations and it will rationalise ad infinitum (as seen when this part of the brain is cut-off from the right, the 'as is' side; the side more in touch with the species-nature dynamics with the context. Note that these 'left/right' properties are reflecting overall differences in dimensions other than left-right etc.)

Other dichotomies with the same roots:

PARTICULAR/GENERAL

EXAGGERATED/BALANCED

XOR/EQV (this comes up in sensory paradox - see http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/pardox.html )

etc

etc

If we zoom-in on something with our attention, we encapsulate that something and start to analyse it. To be precise in that analysis we will, due to the dynamics of the universe, need to 'freeze' that something 'forever'. To do that ‘freezing’, we have to establish links to context-resident universals. The more precision we want, the more 'universals' we need to the degree where we have to label every 'dot' in that context and link it to that something! This gets into issues of holographic mappings, of clarity WITHIN the encapsulation - very precise, very clear, very static! ;-) High bandwidth gives us NOW that we then try to link in a mechanistic manner to a sequence of 'nows'! – a continuum of cause-effect relationships. There is an issue here in the relationship to thermodynamics, to time etc., where the exploitation of high bandwidth 'blinds' us to the whole' story, the full spectrum of that something.

There are some major issues here if one does not know the dynamics. These are reflected in such areas as paradox processing (see chapter on paradox processing) where our consciousness-nature, apparently developed out of our parts perspectives, our ability to stretch a whole over time, to sequence it, can 'create' paradox in that it runs into the dynamics of our species-nature.

AS A SPECIES, all we can know is made up of patterns of differentiating/integrating in that those patterns are derived from the oscillation of differentiating/integrating and so, with the focusing of attention in that oscillation, the application of the dichotomy to itself and so self-referencing, recursion.

There are issues here of precision in that differentiating reduces to ONE whereas integrating cannot go past a PAIR. Thus our dichotomy is not the ideal 1:1 but more 1:2+ - as we increase bandwidth so we approach 1:1 but are still tied to probabilities, uncertainty, due to the overall skewed format.

In our attempts to interpret reality and ourselves, the overall focus has been on EXPRESSION in that the development of consciousness FROM speciesness shows the recruitment and abstraction of the general qualities used to derive meaning to particular contexts. The establishment of those relationships DEMAND the creation of a language to describe that context DIFFERENTLY to other contexts - and so we create specialisations (and that includes individual consciousness - IOW, if allowed we would each create our own language to describe reality).

The dynamics of Science demands labels and a focus on cause-effect with no 'gaps', no 'time' in-between and so the ability to establish a law. The cutting, the labels, increases complexity/chaos in that we create too many borders as we mindlessly cut; we have lost sight of quality for the quantity. To get a better picture needs us to be discerning in our cutting, to even put somethings back together to introduce some stability, and so look behind our methods. In that looking we find the generalisation covered in the IDM material, and so the I Ching, and so all of our specialisations are metaphors (including the I Ching).

The increase in bandwidth to focus on NOW will take the figurative and impoverish it, literalise it; mask and masked become so tightly bound as to appear inseparable, as if 'one'. Equations are taken as if the

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


'thing' rather than as representations of patterns registered on our senses or on their extensions - our technologies.

What we are dealing with in IDM, and so the I Ching, is the source of all languages pre the spoken/written word - we are on the border of species-nature/consciousness-nature; immediate, holistic, interactions with reality vs serial, partial, interactions that we then convert into immediate interactions - we learn to refine our instincts/habits in real-time ;-)

The set of generic qualities, and their dynamic based on understanding of recursion of dichotomies, shows that all specialisations are metaphors for the one generalisation, qualities sources out of WHAT/WHERE processing (aka differentiating/integrating).

Thus, for example, the QM interpretations 'issues' are found to be sourced in not understanding the differences in species-nature perspectives vs consciousness-nature perspectives in processing information, where the experiments have been designed from the consciousness-nature position and as such one level removed from our species-nature's reality that is NON-LOCAL as compared to consciousness-nature that is focused on the LOCAL.

Thus, given the work in neurosciences, EVERYTHING is up for review. Some things, ideas, will continue, some will need to be 'refined' and some expunged from the pool of knowledge of our species.


4. SMALL WORLD NETWORKS, CAUSE AND EFFECT AND THE INEVITABLE

4.1. HISTORICAL MATERIALISM: AN INDICATOR OF 'FACT'?After reading through the following texts from an IDM Perspective:

Marx, K., ([1859]) Dobb,M.(ed)(1970)"A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy" International Publishers

Fidlon David, (trans) - Various(1968)"Historical Materialism : Basic Problems" Progress Publishers, Moscow

Cohen, G.A. (1978)"Karl Marx's Theory of History" PUP

Elster, J., (1985)"Making Sense of Marx [part 2:theory of history]" CUP

Gladwell, M., (2000)"The Tipping Point" Little Brown

Buchanan, M., (2002)"Small World" Phoenix

Wolff, J.,(2002)"Why Read Marx Today?" OUP

Popper, K., (2002)"The Povery of Historicism" Routledge

Barabasi, A-L (2002)"Linked : The New Science of Networks" Perseus

Strogatz, S., (2003)"Sync" Allen Lane

Watts, J.D., (1999) “Small Worlds” PUP

Watts, J.D., (2003)"Six Degrees" Heinemann

There seems to be some 'value' emerging re Marx's perspective on history and social development where his perspective focuses on the inevitability of social dynamics regardless of chance events, accidents, and local contingencies.

(BTW - for a 'refresh' on Marx without the intense expression, Wolff's text is very readable)

Karl Popper's focus on Historical Materialism, as covered in the mentioned text but also in his "The Open Society and its Enemies - Vol. 2: Hegel and Marx" RKP focused on such elements as that of chance in that chance would neutralise any such predictable developments. However, in the recent work on social networks, based on creating models and letting them 'run' on computer systems, and then comparing the results with reality, two distinct categories of social networks have emerged together with a distinct dynamic that shows one developing and then transforming into the other REGARDLESS of chance/accidents/local contingencies.

To firstly cover some IDM ground, a 'fundamental' of reality that has emerged from the IDM focus, a focus on the methods used to derive and communicate 'meaning' from the species-level perspective, has been on clear patterns at all scales of information processing of differentiating and integrating. The dynamic across the elements of this dichotomy reflect recursion, self-referencing, from which qualities are derived to communicate high detail meaning and at the same time development pathways are also identified in the flow of 'energy', the initial exaggerations (differentiating from the 'whole') followed by the balancing-out of those exaggerations (integrating back into the 'whole').

As identified in other writings, IDM identifies a basic dynamic of differentiate/integrate at the neuron level that serves as a GENERAL template for dichotomisation at the consciousness level such that we can extract the more context-sensitive concepts for precise communications such as:

exploit/protectrevolution/evolution


transcend/transformpart/wholeexaggerate/balanceasymmetry/symmetry (aka) difference/sameness

EACH of these dichotomies will be found to reflect the properties and methods of differentiating (left column) and integrating (right column) but as biases. Thus integration is more BETWEEN on the right (the realm of integration) and WITHIN on the left (the realm of differentiation). Thus SEMANTICS is more 'right' (general). and so a more 'field' perspective, but is expressed in a highly concentrated form as SYNTAX on the 'left' (particular) (and so a more 'pointed' perspective).

Furthermore, we find that such terms as 'exploit/protect' seem to emerge from a dynamic in the RIGHT element that has led to an exaggeration to the space of the left that has then become 'positive' in general to become a useful tool in development. Thus the goal of protection is on learning 'good habits' to allow for integration with the immediate context. Exaggerations in that process are when the ultimate form of protection is required – where the need is to totally escape the context, to break free - to change the context either by flight or by fight. It is this 'ultimate' form of protection, an exaggerated form, that seems to have evolved into the notion of personal freedom and of exploitation - we dont escape from a context, we can now choose and, if need be, change a context to 'fit' our needs. (In IDM this leads into the concept of the "Transcendence function").

The differences in PRECISION in these dichotomies introduce asymmetries when we *compare* left with right such that from a feeling sense, our consciousness will be attracted to the left more than the right due to the intensity of, the definite assertion of, 'truth' felt, (or a definite negation to fight against) an intensity dampened by the seemingly 'approximations' feel, the intuitive feel, of the right.

From an information theory perspective, the left focus is on immediate identification through maximising bandwidth as compared to a use of time to compensate for lack of bandwidth on the right. Thus there is a dimension of precision present with 'red' (Amplitude Modulation bias) at the right end, and 'blue' (Frequency Modulation bias) at the left end. We see this in the relationship of energy usage in focusing attention upon something to the distortions of subjective time to a degree where the NOW focus of attention impoverishes time experience to it being treated mechanistically rather than thermodynamically; thus the realm of the 'analytical' is more 'left' and the dialectical more 'right'.

This dimension of precision expressed at the level of consciousness, of MIND, reflects the dimension present at the level of the single neuron - axon is FM bias, dendrities are AM bias. The conversion of analogue (AM) to digital (FM) reflects the taking of an instinct as a whole and converting the experience into parts linked together over time. IOW we witness 'self-similarity' in the neurology with the presences of a power law that maps TEXT/CONTEXT relationships as 'universals' (left) and 'locals' (right).

From these GENERALS develops a particular in the form of hierarchy such that as we zoom-in for details so what was a PART (differentiating, precise) at one level becomes a WHOLE (integrating, approximate) at the next - this zig-zag pattern reflects the movement from general to particular (in the above reflected as both right-to-left and also top-to-bottom with the latter 'zig-zagging'. BUT focus on the right-to-left pattern and derive a dimension from that pattern and we in fact will find 'interdigitation' of the elements of the dichotomy and so 'zig-zag'!)

We can capture the zig-zag using logic terms:

XOR / EQVIMP / XOR

The EQV states and the XOR states are symmetric, the IMP state is asymmetric, thus the general-to-particular, OVERALL is a dynamic from symmetry to asymmetry, from EQV to IMP (IMP = implied and is asymmetric when compared to XOR even though XOR aids in reflecting the differentiating focus in the brain, the A/NOT-A of high details processing)

or using Chinese terms:


differentiate(particular) / integrate(general)-------------------------T'ai Chi / Wu Chi (general, whole, implicit, the MANY, approximate, un-nameable)YingEQVYang / T'ai ChiYinXORYang / YinEQVYangYinIMPYang / YinXORYangYang / Yin (particular, parts, explicit, the ONE, the precise, the named)

simply put we are dealing with the point vs the field.

How does all of this relate, in particular, to Historical Materialism?

The work in analysis of systems/networks dynamics (as covered in the other texts listed above) has come up with two basic models, the aristocratic model vs the egalitarian model. This work has been strongly focused on mathematical models and their correlation with networks of today, be it social in form or the properties and methods of the Internet. With this categorisation has emerged a dynamic of aristocractic 'emergence' followed by egalitarian - regardless of chance events.

When we map the generic properties and methods of these networks they map directly onto the differentiating/integrating dichotomy and as such validate the points made in IDM re the differentiate/integrate dynamics reflected in the "Transformation function" and the "Transcendence function".

BUT, Marx and his followers (Lenin etc) tried to make the point that, from their perspective, capitalism (from our perspective an 'aristocratic' network) would be REPLACED by socialism/communism (from our perspective an 'egalitarian' network). IDM identifies a possible error here, in that the overall dynamic of exploit/protect is built-in to the system, transcending and transforming are 'fundamentals' (see the 'lite' essay http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/ideal.html)

This dynamic elicits a mediation industry with the aim to BALANCE the exaggerations. This act of balancing is reflected in the emergence from the expression of 'unbridled capitalism' of:

socialism as a balancing agent, a protector against the excessive exploitation of labour.

conservationism as a balancing agent, a protector agaist the excessive exploitation of natural resources.

interventionism as a balancing agent, a protector against the excessive exploitation of exploitation - protection achieved through such forms as interest rate management.

Thus there is no way for capitalism to be 'replaced', at best it is 'neutralised' in that the moment socialism/conservationism/interventionism go 'beyond' the position of acting to neutralise so they turn into their 'enemy' in that they change from agents of balance to agents of exploitation and as such become wolves in sheeps clothing.

From these dynamics we can detect a degree of predictability re social development but over considerable time spans and as such development dependent on CONTEXT to be achieved, the 'right conditions' are required such that any premature act can set back development rather then set it forwards. This means the individual can recognise these patterns but never live them out at the scale of collective development (there is the notion of (a) understanding the outcomes and (b) focusing on building the technology now rather than later and so speed up things if need be but different contexts can fight that 'idealism', the changes have to be 'natural' as in the context supports the changes - an engineering ratio is needed - 2 parts context to 1 part text ;-)

The dynamic of aristocratic/egalitarian is expressed in such developments as the 1600s dynamic of the British Aristocracy giving way to Parliament and so, in context, a more egalitarian format (even if the parliment was of made-up of capitalists, landowners etc - THAT 'aristocracy' later made 'egalitarian' through one-person, one-vote etc and no restrictions other than citizenship, these processes are still going on today and will continue as long as we focus on individuals survival vs species survival). Of special note

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


here is that the aristocracy wre not eradicated, was not 'replaced' but more so neutralised and over the long term continues to coexist with others.

Of note is the development and collapse dynamic is relative such that overall the whole development is increasingly 'aristocratic' in that more and more universals are created.

The revolutions, be it of the USA fight for independence etc shows the dynamic in that the emergence of the office of "President" has shifted from a 'republican' perspective to a more 'imperial' perspective and that followed by a demand for 'closer scrutiny of Executive powers etc - as happened in ancient Rome, as happened in France, Russia, Germany etc etc

The error of Marx et al is in their sense of precision, where that sense encourages a focus on 'universals' but only as expressions of high energy and as such an aristocratic perspective!

The assertions of replacement of X by Y FORCES a mindset that is competitive overall and so idealist. ANY idealist perspective will consider solutions to problems being 'replacement' solutions. This appears to be instinctive for any focus on being competitive in thought. Turn down the energy and the focus changes from competitive to cooperative and so a focus on , an acceptance of, coexistence over eradication comes to mind first.

The demise of so-called 'Marxist' cooperatives (USSR etc - but they reflected more idealist perspectives and actions of opportunists etc) reflects more their downfall on trying to be competitive rather than cooperative; cooperative perspectives will fail if they try to compete with the gurus of competition - capitalists - and at the same time try to maintain an overall cooperative 'frame of mind'.

The historic development of life forms is flexible but still 'fixed' as such and so, as the 'small world' models show, the conditions in the context of capitalism must be 'right' before any form of cooperative focus can develop (as in the development of the agents of balance, FIRST came socialism, then, after some time and as a reaction to market crash, government interventionism, and then, MUCH later (and something Marx did not seem to cover), conservationism. - these agents of balance have emerged not overnight but over hundreds of years but 'sped up' by capitalism in recent times - true 'conservation' programs emerged post WW2, from the 50s onwards, and the politics is only 'recent' in its position of being noticeable and in positions of power (greens in Germany, Australia, USA etc))

In fact, the current state of capitalism, forced along by the development of such technology as the internet, reflects a more opportune position for a development of a more cooperative perspective to emerge than has been possible in the past; but a perspective that emerges naturally, willingly, without too much 'fight' (I don’t imagine the recent (1980s+) "peoples" revolutions in Russia, Philippines, Georgia, East Germany etc as being as 'cooperative' as they have been if they had been started 100 years ago - the influence of democracy (egalitarianism) upon aristocracy (party loyalties, elitism etc) is reflected in all of these processes but so also is the recognition of, within an overall political focus on democracy, economics in the


form of capitalism encouraging 'aristocratic' dynamics in the focus on the only form of success is universal as in 'stardom' etc.)

Thus the dynamic is always a mix. Integration exists in the realm of differentiation as an agent of integrity, of personal (or corporate) 'knowing' of being 'right', 'perfect'. Differentiation exists in the realm of integration as a node to connect to, despite all the dynamics of the 'space in-between the dots', there *are* 'dots', there is SOME identity whereas in the realm of differentiations there can be too much. This reflects on the balance position as the 'best' position in that it is the most flexible dynamically, potentially - and so 'lite' excursions left or right are permissible but not recommended 'long term' - and THAT goes against our more reactive species-nature where mindless evolution can wipe us out anytime if not careful.

Marx's concept of "Historical Materialism" reflects more his intuitive sense detecting the patterns of meaning determined by our neurology etc and so reflected in social dynamics. As such the content, the details, of the concept as given in the past may be 'idealist' and open to such strong, precise, criticism as that of Popper etc but the concept does appear to have foundations, hard coded, demonstratable, foundations at all scales of information processing but at a 'general' level in time scales. Differentiation and Integration 'rule' but appear to be sourced 'out there' in the mindless dynamics of universe evolution that we, or more so the original 'neuron-dependent' life form, seem to have adapted to and so internalised and then re-externalised as a tool in mapping 'out there' as well as 'in here'.

As a species we need to understand the properties and methods of our styles in thinking and from their harness our consciousness that allows is to use those properties and methods in a manner that is, for all species members, cooperative longterm and if need be, competitive short term.

4.2. THE LOCAL VERSION

The noticeable patterns in networks of aristocratic/egalitarian, and their more local qualitative manifestations in small collectives (power(aristocratic)/flux(egalitarian)) as identified by Ray Bradley and later work of his with Karl Pribram:

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

focus on dynamics that appear to be strongly POLITICAL in form (leadership issues, charisma, 'universality' of the individual etc) and as such reflected in the emergence of two-party systems with additional 'lobbyists' taking-on third part 'influences' OR forming coalitions. Thus Greens go with Labor/Democrats, fundamentalists with Republicans/Conservatives. (there is a dynamic of scandal here as well - conservatives to 'secret' deals of competitive nature (Iran contra, Nixon and Watergate etc) and democrats of a more cooperative nature (Clinton and that cigar, Kennedy and Monroe etc etc))

Thus the dynamics of what Marx was trying to identify over generations is reflected in political behaviours PRE Marx (and so his analysis could have picked up the patterns in 1600 politics in the UK and later politics in France etc) and POST the 'collapse' of Marxist states where two party systems reflect the 'fractal' nature of differentiating/integrating dynamics at the personal and social levels. The failure of the USSR etc was not in a political context but in an economic context and this raises the making of the political/economic distinction. (and so the study of Political Economy!)

Given the observed dynamic of differentiate/integrate, as one turns into the other etc so a pattern emerges across the particular dichotomy of POLITICAL/ECONOMICAL. A political position that is 'aristocratic', a focus on charisma etc, is neutralised by a developing economic system that is rooted in 'egalitarianism' (distribution of wealth and so of power of the 'aristocrats'). At the point of join, the POLITICAL focus switches to egalitarianism and the ECONOMIC focus to aristocratic - money becomes 'king' WITHIN a political system that is democratic and so allows for the emergence of 'agents of balance' that then focus on 'neutralising' the economy (and so the capitalists) rather than the politics - and so the 'uncharismatic' can rule - as long as they have the money!


Thus this dynamic reflects the patterns identified in the abstract IDM concepts and reflect the development path listed above as we 'oscillate' over time. That said, the focus here is on rigid 'differentiate/integrate' dynamics; apply recursion to the dichotomy and out pops a set of qualities, each containing their own local dynamic that overall reflects the universal dynamic but with subtle differences in expression due to the local context.

In the context of POLITICS alone, in Germany for example the current focus is on a labor/green government opposed by a 'christian' opposition party (CDP - conservative). Here in Australia we have a 'right wing' coalition (liberals/nationals) up against labour plus greens plus 'Australian democrats' (whose last election focus was to elect them to 'keep the bastards honest' - in that they had the balance of power in the senate usually dominated 50/50 conservatives/labourites, now split with the greens etc) [note spelling. the concept of labour uses "our", the political party name is LABOR - although I think for our American viewers there is no such distinction ;-)).

The politicians, the government of the day, is considered to be the 'caretaker' of the economy, either in direct governance or in degrees of interventionism (e.g. interest control) and these seem to be reflected in government attitudes where, for example, in the USA an election of a 'right wing' government reads as a slowing in development (conservative) as compared to a democratic government that spends big on social areas and so can 'blow the bank' etc.

The Democratic focus attracts the artistic, the social idealists, and in doing so comes with an aristocratic 'interior' to its egalitarian exterior. - the Labor party here in Australian is riddled with factionalism and so extremes in 'highs and lows' and yet tries to present itself as an integrated, egalitarian-focused, whole.

On the other hand, the high energy focus of 'one leader, one party' etc that comes with republican/conservative rule, comes across as the 'shining light born to rule' attitude of personal idealists, the iron fist where all opposition is crushed behind closed doors (combined with the sense of 'we are born to rule' acting as an agent of integration - gets into the religious aspect of these sorts of parties, the almost child-like focus on 'god' etc serves to integrate even if the overall focus is on differentiating!)

I think you can see the differentiate/integrate dynamics at work here. What Marx picked-up in a focus on society and so long term social dynamics is reflected locally in the four-year election cycles in democracies etc., and as such reflects the 'fractal' nature of differentiating/integrating, where understanding the raw categories derived from differentiating/integrating can aid in refining understanding of the dynamics of specialisations, be they from the perspectives of the self to that of local collectives to the level of the species.

4.3. REPLACEMENT VS COEXISTENCE

We recognise a focus in the aristocratic/power/differentiate realm of replacement of something/someone by something/someone 'better'. When we map in human emotions so this realm is focused on aggression and sexuality (eradication or replication acts to 'defeat' the enemy). we see this in politics overall in that the focus is on rulership etc but LOCALLY (even if they imagine spreading their wings to 'take over the world')

The dynamic of differentiate/integrate allows for the CONTENT to swap places (and so appear as if to 'replace') but the form remains and as such, over the long term, the focus is on coexisting; its differentiating and integrating all the way.

4.4. ENANTIODROMIA

In the dynamics of differentiate/integrate, as expressed in the previous analysis of the dichotomy of POLITICAL/ECONOMICAL, we are witnessing an ancient concept - yin into yang into yin...; enantiodromia - where this concept is identified as a 'fact' of nature and as such reflects the benefit of considering dialectical logic as well as analytical logic in mapping reality - rather than the analytical that favours the competitive (and so denigrates the dialectical) the long term focus is on cooperation and so Logic (capital L) is made-up of analytical & dialectical.

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


4.5. METHODOLOGICAL INDIVIDUALISM

I don’t assert idealism or materialism, I don’t assert the analytical or dialectical, I assert all of what we COULD know given the methods the neurology uses to derive meaning and that means, AS POTENTIALS, the idealist, the materialist, the analytical, the dialectical etc etc. IOW the perspective of 'consciousness as originating' etc is part of the toolkit we use as a species to derive meaning and CONTEXT will determine the 'best fit to worst fit' perspectives such that with that toolkit also comes 'consciousness is derived' etc.

IOW what is developing here is a model that we use to interpret reality and heuristics then validates that model but with that development is also emerging properties in the evolution of species and consciousness.

I consider the works of Marx, Hegel, Peirce, Kant, Plato, Aristotle, Heidegger etc etc etc etc as approximations of reality based on their lack of understanding about how their neurology determines the general form of their thinking (Charles Peirce showed some concern in this re his left-handedness in some way influencing his thinking but his knowledge of neurosciences was limited to such discoveries as made by Broca etc). My focus STARTED with the brain not with the ideals; not with the expressions but what could possibly be represented at the level of generic qualities - as a species we all have a sense of 'wholeness' but WHAT we associate that with is determined locally and there is a realm of qualities used at the non-verbal level that have begged analysis (and so I cover the derivation and use of emotions etc).

Given the current research data in neurosciences etc so a model is emerging based on principles of basic information processing that show a set of generic qualities serving as 'universals' that, when associated with a unique context, generates a language to describe that association, and so emerge specialisations, be they full blown disciplines or one's own creations of labels, one's own 'internal' language (and so one's individual consciousness).

Given the current material on neurosciences, cognitive science, and psychology, you could burn every book ever written on thought etc pre 1960s (or even later) and 'start again' and in that starting get a very clear model of what is happening, free of the 'over-educated' perspectives that are out of date within the lifetime of the individual - something not experienced in the past! (IOW one used to got tenure for life, a job in the bank for life, and never needed 're-education'). Times change ;-) - the more research we do so the more we reveal so the more past perspectives need to be updated! Thus what better place to start with then the core of all perspectives, the method used by our brains to derive meaning (in that all meaning is determined by the method used to derive it - thus we develop a model of the GENERAL where all specialisations serve as particular metaphors (and other tropes) for that general)

From my perspective, given an INTENSE study on meaning derivation across Science and Humanities in the West so a gap developed in relation of the material acquired compared to what the brain was doing - the OVERLY idealist, the overly precise, the overly analytical focus in the West, the attraction of the 'light' of clarity, all acquired through high bandwidth focus, was not, is not, the whole story, it is but a PART. The seeking of maximum bandwidth to process information reflects a distortion that acts to influence the perspectives of consciousness re life is always 'maximum bandwidth' - it isnt.

The 'dereliction of duty' in Western thought (the ancient Greeks touched on the dialectic but got drowned out by the 'buzz' of idealism) meant that the ONLY material that existed in the products of our collectives that filled that perceptual gap was the at times idealist perspectives of dialectics; and not just from Western thinking, but also from Eastern thinking (and so we span the species not just the Western branch office!). IOW 'Logic' is the sum of analytical and dialectical, or more so, the analytical appears to be a distortion of, an exaggeration from, the dialectical, where the latter maps to the thermodynamic nature of time but the 'now' focus of the analytical makes time mechanistic and even 'ignorable'. That has issues in our interpretations of reality from a purely analytical perspective, an idealist perspective.

The dynamics of the brain is focused on information processing. That dynamic reflects a fundamental property of that processing, namely the reciprocal relationship of Bandwidth and Time - reflected in the


physiology where an increase in energy, and so a need to increase bandwidth, means a distortion of subjective time experience as we focus attention on something to identify it NOW rather than reduce the bandwidth and soak the information in over time.

Why do this? - consider part of an email of mine focusing on the term "Methodological Individualism" - my post was on the waste of energy in deriving such a concept once you understand what the brain, and so consciousness, is doing:

"[methodological individualism] comes with its complement to form the dichotomy: methodological individualism / methodological collectivism

They are in fact abstract labels for methods in information processing – and map to differentiating (MI) /integrating (MC). The focus is thus on the 'simple' issues of bandwidth vs time where differentiating demands high bandwidth and so exaggerations in energy that distort time experience – we move from 'past-present-future', the arrow of time, the thermodynamic bias, to 'now', or as close to 'now' as we can get. We can still learn an experience with lesser bandwidth but over more time - IOW there is a more integrating focus long term.

Jon Elster writes (in the context of MI):

"...the doctrine that all social phenomena - their structure and change - are in principle explicable in ways that only involve individuals – their properties, their goals, their beliefs, and their actions.

Methodological individualism thus conceived is a form of reductionism. To go from social institutions and aggregate patterns of behaviour to individuals is the same kind of operation as going from cells to molecules.

The rationale for reductionism can briefly be stated as follows. If the goal of science is to *explain by means of laws*, there is a need to reduce the time-span between the explanans and the explanandum - between cause and effect - as much as possible, in order to avoid spurious explanations. The latter arise in two main ways: by the confusion of explanation and correlation and by confusion of explanation and necessitation. The first occurs when there is a third variable that generates both the apparent cause and its apparent effect, the second when the effect is brought about by some other cause that preempts the operation of the cause cited in the law. Both of these risks are reduced when we approach the ideal of a continuous chain of cause and effect, that is when we have reduce the time-lag between explanans and explanandum."

[Elster's] prose goes on and into MC etc but what all of this 'grandiose' prose is trying to explain is the consequences of the simple dynamics of information processing where that dynamic is reflected in the brain in the form of Bandwidth (expend energy)/Time (conserve energy) dynamics.

Science as such is 'inevitable' in that our brains, in the need to predict outcomes, will prefer to pour in energy to cover all aspects and in doing so needs to maximise bandwidth. That process shifts time experience from the dialectical to the analytical where it is impoverished to the level of being "NOW" and as such establishing a 'continuous chain of cause and effect'. The consequence of this 'single context thinking' is to focus on PARTS rather than the WHOLE in that the whole includes the dialectical elements 'cut off' in the drive for precision, for 'now-ness'.

From an IDM perspective, and so an I Ching perspective, we see here the mania of the Transcendence function where the need for immediate gratification becomes an addiction, we transcend to transcend - we get off on the high bandwidth, the 'clarity' in experiences, the 'buzz'. We then include 'refining' the buzz through being more efficient in processing, we look for laws, trends etc and in doing so demand more precision and so more energy. The species-nature is to STOP once a reasonable degree of knowing is achieved and then to use time to 'refine' rather than the drive to refine it all 'now'. Our consciousness-nature, addicted to the buzz, just wants to experience novelty after novelty!

If we work from the third level of recursion of 1/0 (where these represent any dichotomy) we have:

111, 110, 101, 100, 011, 010, 001, 000


Besides this dimension reflecting full spectrum of understanding in general, so EACH of these represents a bandwidth to process data - we can develop 'orthogonal' to the dimension for each quality. EACH will thus have its own set of 'meaningful' patterns, its own sense of time (111 - analytical, NOW/eternal, to 000 - dialectical past/present/future but not differentiated) the meaningful patterns are those described elsewhere (http://pages.prodigy.net/lofting/idm006.html) in that the above is the dimension of precision. IOW high bandwidth, 111, processing is clear, FM-like, immediate, but being LOCAL can exclude properties unique to the other bandwidths on the dimension (it is like the difference of using telescopes to see into the universe vs. using radio telescopes. BOTH will pick up 'obvious' energy patterns but both will also pick up patterns unique to their perspectives.)

Full spectrum thinking considers ALL of the perspectives offered in the set of perspectives available, it recognises that 'idealist' thinking, high bandwidth processing, can be too loud, too bright, to pick up subtleties 'out there' such that we have to step down the bandwidth and use time instead to absorb the data - it is like using peripheral vision over details vision; parafovea over fovea; or the emerging of the 'wave interference pattern' in EPR experiments.

In IDM there is the recognition of resolution differences etc in precision re our bandwidth-hungry consciousness vs our more time-oriented speciesness (where energy is conserved in the 'mindless' stimulus/response realm that allows for selection of instincts etc over lengthy time periods).

Metabolic rates, cultural biases, etc can affect the interpretations of reality by the individual. Without understanding of what is going on at the species level re information processing (Bandwidth/Time relationships) so we wander-off into the use of 'grandiose' terms, and so EXAGGERATED terms, IDEALIST terms, MAXIMUM BANDWIDTH terms to describe the simple.

Those terms then gets encoded socially, as in others having the same education/training etc will use these terms without considering alternatives and as such WASTE energy in doing so; we create specialisations with different languages that in fact say the same things - and it is that fact that allows us to take specialisations and use them as metaphors or sources of analogy to describe other specialisations.

Understanding the simple dynamics of meaning derivation and so information processing allows for, in the long run, conservation of energy in that the maximisation of bandwidth is only for LOCAL, needy events and not something to live by long term (we don’t have the resources!)

The current state of our culture reflects the exaggerated need to 'identify' laws and so a need to be precise and so a need for high energy particle accelerators that can give us the bandwidth to know NOW about the beginnings of the universe vs 'wait a while whilst we get some minor issues of the species organised - such as healthcare, education, raised standards of living’ etc.

Any focus on the evolution of, the nature of, thought will cover FULL SPECTRUM thinking, not just the 'ideal' the high frequency, FM, clarity experienced as reflecting 'truth' etc Furthermore the current research appears to ground consciousness in specieness where our species nature interacts with reality holistically, immediately, through time-derived instincts/habits, and our consciousness seems to stem from the development of parts processing, being able to go past the holistic and into high bandwidth processing of data to 'refine' instincts/habits 'NOW' where 'now' can be within the lifespan of the individual.

Where consciousness goes from that is not my concern in that IDM focuses on the general more than the particular - that said, the general covers all aspects of where consciousness *could* go. - and that general is derived from recursion in brain dynamics as it derives 'meaning'.


5. REALM OF THE VAGUE VS THE CRISPThe realm of the vague is the realm of our species-nature, as in instincts and habits. In the previous diagram, Figure 4, we can replace the term 'egalitarian' with vague and 'aristocratic' with crisp. The dynamic is in the establishment of universals, both local (as in cultural) and global (as in 'true' universals) where the marked 'collapses' reflect local collapse.

In the brain this dynamic is expressed in the establishment and maintaining of particular words, of mapping the KNOWN as compared to the UNKNOWN.

This relationship, from a *metabolic* perspective, introduces the experience of time as something mechanistic and so slowable, stoppable, reversible, ignorable. In the context of information processing, the aristocrat/crisp focuses on NOW (and so emerges the sense of universals as associate with such terms as 'timeless' and 'eternal') as compared to the more thermodynamic nature of time where low bandwidth means use of time to acquire information. Thus in Figure 4 we can replace:

aristocratic / egalitarian

with:

crisp/vague

consciousness/specieness

mechanistic/organic

differentiating/integrating

known/unknown

precise/approximate

particular/general

fermionic/bosonic

competitive/cooperative

specialist/generalist

part/whole (this includes part-as-whole etc : metonymy/metaphor)

to focus on the hierarchy present we have such patterns as:

analyticEQVdialectic/Logic

analyticXORdialectic/analyticEQVdialectic

analytic/dialectic

Thus the same generals take on particular natures:

mechanistic time / organic time (dialectic)

Such that we have:

Law of identity (A=A) / Law of non-identity (A!=A)

where in A=A time is 'ignored' but in A!=A time, or more so the arrow of time, is a 'fundamental' and as such cannot be excluded.

move into the brain and these dichotomies span all axis:

left / right

front / back

surface / core


In other words the relationships of left hemisphere to right is a power law 'small world' as is that of front / back etc

Zoom-in on these and we see the recursion in that the PAIRS are repeated. e,g, the left/right characteristics are expressed in each hemisphere at the level of temporal lobe /parietal lobe. Zoom-in again to anterior-temporal/posterior-temporal etc etc

These dichotomies reflects the power law style of dichotomy.

Using Figure 4, at each point of collapse you can draw-in a line running in parallel with the egalitarian line to reflect those who decide to develop from that position by maintaining that position, they decide not to go off on the 'ride' of highs and lows that will develop from their position. This is shown in Figure 5.

The identification of LOCAL universals will include identification of 'true' universals that transcend the perspectives of different collectives. IOW the collapse markers reflect local collectives that have been 'taken over' in some way (from within or without) and their universals, their icons, have been replaced by those of the 'new order' (this also reflects generation change where each generation develops its own icons etc that can be replaced by future generations)

However, despite all of this 'replacement' focus, the 'true' universals are maintained in that they are useful to any collective. As Science uncovers more and more 'true' universals so OVERALL the development path is along the line of the aristocratic and so increasingly away from the vague. This is an issue in that our consciousness, the source of crispness, is EMBODIED with the vague, aka our speciesness.

The issue from a neurocognitive perspective is that the path of the aristocratic is a path focused upon labelling and so identifying particulars where each label serves as a universal to represent all particulars of 'like' nature - and so the label is a universal in that all references to particulars associate with this one label.

From this dynamic of 'cutting' comes an over focus on differentiating and so an over focus on 'parts' but also on self-containment, precise, and so clear, identification means to PUSH AWAY all others to express identity. This pushing-away ensures an increase in competitive behaviours (and so immediate replacement of others by self) where even cooperation is focused on replacement of others by copies of oneself OVER TIME.

This pushing away is reflected in the brain in the form of a focus on XOR rather than EQV (or to emphasise the asymmetry, IMP rather than EQV) and is the source of paradox processing.

What is of interest however, from a holistic perspective, is that the differentiating into universals means an increase in power law patterns that reflect the eventual phase transition of all particulars into a whole.

At the level of individual consciousness we see here the development of ideas, the sudden sense of A-HA that comes with all of that differentiating where it all comes together into a moment of 'transcendence', of understanding, and so a new level to develop in (at the other end, the hard work can fail and lead to collapse)

What is to happen at the level of group consciousness? We know from swarm behaviour that individuals making local distinctions can elicit a group behaviour not sourced in any one individual, but what of a FOCUSED set, an orchestrated set, of distinctions? Is there a phase shift in consciousness overall? or do we all collapse to the core species-nature level?.. we go back to caves once the resources are used up!? The issue here is do we need to be more discerning in our cutting, can our precision 'kill us' as a species and so we need to draw back, to re-integrate with our species-nature to avoid the 'inevitable'?

From my IDM work, the 'small world' networks have their roots in recursive processes and so the dimensions derived to flesh-out the dimension from one 'end' of a dichotomy to the other 'end' are in fact made up of PAIRS reflecting the core dichotomy expressed in different general contexts.

Each level maps to the power law pattern with 'A' at the 'top' of the power law graph and '~A' at the bottom and the whole level is made-up of PAIRS reflecting this overall A/~A dynamic. Thus each levels of recursion maps to the overall path of development from egalitarian to aristocratic giving finer detail as we recurse further)


Thus WITHIN the realm of the crisp is a perspective upon the realm of the vague that is precise! We just need to find it and I think the focus on recursion elicits patterns that do reflect the vague 'precisely' but also as 'vague' forms (as in the IDM qualities of blend, bond, bound, bind etc) In turn, the specialisation that is the I Ching contains details of the floor plan for ‘small world’ networks and thus is a source of ‘prediction’ of structures and processes, properties and methods, of those networks and so of our brains.

5.1. MODELLING THE VAGUE – PURITY

In the analysis of the 'differentiating' element in a dichotomy, from a social perspective, 'aristocratic' collectives will:

(1) focus on PURITY and in doing so focus on ARCHETYPES and communicate using STEREOTYPES.

(2) focus on the ever improving but only WITHIN the collective. Reflects that focus on precision.

Due to the LOCAL bias in all of this, the issue of purity is GENERAL but to WHAT that perspective is applied is local. In the realm of the egalitarian, the purity is at the level of the species, not individual consciousness.

Thus the general form of 'purity' is will mixed, covering all of the individuals, all of the differences, within the species.

The focusing of attention means that the species-level sense becomes concentrated but also fragmented in its application.

In the IDM analysis of information processing from the neurological level, I associate the 'Transcendence' function with the realm of differentiating. This function reflects the need to 'break out' of the box and so comes with a sense of intense ESCAPE that is converted to a proactive sense of exploitation. As such this transcending realm reflects a degree of innovative creativity as compared to adaptive creativity. In any archetypal perspective it can rot from within, it becomes in need of 'fresh blood'.

With this transcendence function comes the 'bright idea' expression, the 'crucial' difference that makes a difference. From the abstract notions of universals etc comes the notion of phase transition such that we see here the source of 'new' ideas etc derived from high detail analysis, high differentiations, that can lead to a sudden differentiation and from that a transcendence.

Recall from my other posts that this focus on CUTTING means we create borders and it is from border areas that complexity/chaos, and so emergence, develops.

BUT again the focus on the LOCAL such that we can overload ourselves with icons, most of which will be deconstructed with any replacement of the collective, ACCEPT for the truely 'universal' that get reconstructed to be the new regime's icons.

Finally note that the transcendence focus allows one to go off into one's own little world - and so innovative creativity and psychosis share a common ground! - the world we create is all 'in here'.

5.2. VAGUE VS CRISP; LOGIC OF RELATIONSHIPS

When we compare the vague to the 'crisp' the latter operates more at a quantitative level and the former more at the qualitative level. Thus our descriptions of situations from the perspective of the vague are in the form of analogies and rich metaphors, where patterns detected in situations are IMPLICIT of 'something' and descriptions are made in comparison to something else or on behalf of something else.

As precision increases so the mask gets tighter on the masked to a degree where mask and masked are taken as if one, and so the mask is taken literally and we have moved from the qualitative, the implicit, to the quantitative, the explicit (the clearly labelled, the 'universal' in that all agree to the meaning, there is no context-sensitivity involved, or more so the context is universal).


The METHOD used in the brain to derive meanings appears to be based on the recursion of dichotomies to derive a set of qualities useful in generating meaning where we communicate through resonance; we all share a pool of emotions derived from fight/flight and words etc elicit 'ripples' in that pool that represent the meaning; what we FEEL and so what we VALUE.

This recursion process allows us to come up with logic of relationships a la:

X is to Y as A is to B – in other words we are deriving a mapping of analogy creation and analysis and as such moving from the quantitative to the qualitative where our precision will be precise but vague when compared to the quantitative. However, that said, the realm of the qualitative is close to our species-nature, to our 'everyday', intuitive, functioning.

To demonstrate this mapping of relationships, we use the 'template' of the 1/0 dichotomy where 1 = differentiating and 0 = integrating. If we apply recursion to this dichotomy three times we derive the following representations where the ordering of 1s and 0s within each value left-to-right reflects the ordering from general to particular (and, due to the recursion, that ordering is repeated across the whole sequence of values):

[level 1] 0 / 1

[level 2] 00, 01 / 10, 11

[level 3] 000, 001, 010, 011 / 100, 101, 110, 111

Analysis of level 3 shows that the qualities reflect the level 1 relationship where, using the extensions of that relationship so 111 reflects differentiation of 1 and 000 reflects differentiation of 0 - these symbols reflect the maintaining of the core elements of the generalities used at level 1.

Thus we have:

110 is to 001 as 111 is to 000(reflecting 1 is to 0)

101 is to 010 as 111 is to 000

100 is to 011 as 111 is to 000

These are GENERAL relationships. How about particulars? The process of recursion means that the level 1 relationship, of a PAIR, is reflected at all levels such that at level 3 above we are not only seeing a 'sequence' of values but also a sequence made-up of PAIRS. These pairs reflect the PARTICULAR expressions of the level 1 relationships such that we have:

111 is to 110 as 111 is to 000

101 is to 100 as 111 is to 000

011 is to 010 as 111 is to 000

001 is to 000 as 111 is to 000

These relationships reflect differences in qualities. They can be quantified (from a binary number perspective they reflect scalars) but from the position of the vague they are just that, vague, feelings over numbers. Thus 111 to 110 is nowhere near the extremes of 111 to 000 but when asked to compare the natures of 111 and 110 the best analogy is in comparison to the 111 to 000 relationship.

The above seems to limit perspectives to the 111/000 relationship where it serves as the base for the other analogies. BUT using the 'bit' notation (1, 0) so we can derive relationships LOCALLY reflecting analogies made from the base of the other qualities (as in 101 to 010 or 101 to 100 etc etc) How? By applying recursion to each quality and rotating the result.

If I apply recursion to 111 or to 000 I will get the sequence given above at level 3 but the ordering of the bits are rotated, so I end-up with (starting from 111):

given -

111, 110, 101, 100 / 011, 010, 001, 000


through rotation it becomes:

111, 011, 101, 001 / 110, 010, 100, 000

Knowing this I can (a) apply recursion to each element to derive a sequence that I then rotate to give me a mapping of relationships based on the pole elements of the sequence (IOW I am working backwards to derive a sequence akin to that of level 3 above). For example, using 110 as source of recursion:

110, 010, 100, 000, 111, 011, 101, 001

Rotate these to give:

011, 010, 001, 000, 111, 110, 101, 100

Here we have the poles of 011 / 100 and the analogies of:

011 is to 010 as 011 is to 100

001 is to 000 as 011 is to 100

111 is to 110 as 011 is to 100

101 is to 100 as 011 is to 100

These rules apply to the elements of ANY dichotomy to which we have applied recursion.

Furthermore, in moving from general to particular we are in fact reflecting the dynamics of 'small world' networks where the general is more 'egalitarian' and the particular more 'aristocratic' - we develop from a 'flat', symmetric, energy-conserving form to a peaked, hierarchic, energy-expending form.

In turn, the hierarchic can attract/motivate the egalitarian to such a degree that in doing so leads to the 'downfall' of the aristocratic (too many 'copiers' develop and/or energy is finite and so one runs out of resources) through being taken-over by/swamped by the egalitarian. Since the CONTEXT of the aristocratic is overly aristocratic itself so the take-over is short-lived in that the egalitarian will develop aristocratic tendancies (elitism etc - context will 'push buttons' to force adaptation to the context. The aristocratic mean time have swapped contexts and so reflect a developing 'egalitarianism' but in idealist forms!)

We see in this 'small worlds' dynamic the interactions of the differentiate/integrate dichotomy in the relabelled format of revolution/evolution, transcending (aristocratic) vs transforming (egalitarian), the immediate (high bandwidth) vs the delayed (low bandwidth so time focus in development). The overall development is a bit like the motion of a caterpillar in walking - stretch out, pull up the rest; stretch out, pull up the rest. Overall a focus on the dichotomy of pull/push.

If we go back to the basic dynamics of recursion we will find that the PAIRS form into QUARTETS and they in turn into OCTETS and a dynamic emerges within each octet and within each quartet as we have a dynamic in the pairs (one element is differentiating, the other integrating).

All of this abstract material is applicable to analysis of any dichotomy in that our brain's use of dichotomisation sets-down certain 'hard coded' rules - where 'in here' reflects 'out there' and 'out there' reflects dichotomisations and recursions (have a look at the qualities expressed in the categories and associated dynamics of fermions and bosons. - http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/symmetry.html )

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


6. YIN-TO-YANG & NEGENTROPY: A UNIVERSAL FLOW

From the research done on dichotomies in IDM, combined with the research done on collectives (Bradley and Pribram), combined with the research done on 'small world networks', (see 4) we can identify a definite dynamic reflecting change from yin to yang, from general to particular.

This dynamic reflects more that of the line sequences of hexagram 64 than hexagram 63, the latter being the more traditional template for line qualities but as such reflecting a dynamic of particular to general and so not as originating as general to particular.

The IDM material shows that the main dichotomy of collectives analysis, power/flux, reflects the same qualities as found in the main dichotomy of small world networks, aristocratic/egalitarian, and both of these are synonyms for the abstract differentiate/integrate dichotomy used in IDM and expressed in the I Ching as yang/yin.

Given the dynamics identified in small world networks from egalitarian to aristocratic, identified in IDM as a general flow from the more integrating element of a dichotomy to the more differentiating element, we can zoom-in to the binary ordering of the I Ching and identify PAIRS of hexagrams reflecting this dynamic.

As an example, here are the first four pairs starting at the yin, or egalitarian, end of the binary sequence (02, 23, 08, 20, 16, 35, 45, 12):

02 to 23 - general sense of devotion (02) leads to ONE element asserting it is the true faith (23). The attraction of the masses to the one leads to (a) issues emerging of the one being in need of more resources to maintain position and so becomes dependent on the masses. In doing so loses power and becomes 'corrupt', and (b) copycats emerging to compete with the one and so re-distribute the energy, lessen the 'light'.

Over time a situation develops where the masses reach the same level as the one and so yin changes into yang - egalitarians become aristocratic (idealists); in so doing the one surrenders to the many. From the dark/light perspective so the darkness takes over the light (that emerged from the dark), the last expression of structure is torn down.

08 to 20 - general sense of a group leads to ONE element being/becoming the 'attractor', becoming the source of motivation and so a strong sense of 'duty' can emerge where work is required to maintain that position of being admired. This leads to the same overall dynamics as above.

16 to 35 - general sense of planning/enthusing leads to a focus on a PARTICULAR being brought into the 'light'. Same overall dynamics as above.

45 to 12 - general sense of celebrating the faith leads to a focus on defending the faith and so its particular idealisation. Same overall dynamics as above. At this position, but seen from the perspective of the *OCTET*, we are well into the realm of the aristocratic and here the egalitarian element in the hexagram relationships exhibits aristocratic tendencies in the form of the exaggerations in celebrations.

These eight hexagrams, four pairs, also reflect another level where the pairs of 02,23 and 08,20, together with 16,35 and 45,12 reflect the SAME relationships, thus (02,23) is egalitarian to the aristocratic focus of (08,20). (45,12) is egalitarian to the more aristocratic (45,12).

Move up a level and (02,23,08,20) is more egalitarian to the more aristocratic (16,35,45,12).

Move up a level and the whole octet is egalitarian when compared to the next octet in the sequence that is aristocratic.

Zoom-in to EACH hexagram and the same dynamics is present and convertible to a sequence of hexagrams from 'egalitarian' expression to 'aristocratic' expression.


This pattern reflects the same pattern of basic brain function in deriving meaning and such reflects the internalisation of the pattern (neurology adapts to context) as well as its externalisation (formation of cultures beyond just our species-natures).

The overall dynamic reflects the need to be in the 'correct position' to maintain balance in that the egalitarian develops to the border with the aristocratic and no further, else it becomes 'corrupt' in that it loses its raison d'etre, that of neutralising the excesses of the aristocratic. (note the focus on neutralising. The egalitarian is focused on coexistence rather than on replacement such that competitive dynamics is limited to coexisting and so neutralising, never removing)

At the other end, the aristocratic avoids excess by serving to harmonise rather than to 'take over'. These 'preferred states', these middle states, are usually ignored but it is that act of ignoring that encourages revolution and so 'progress', even if progress can at times mean taking a step backwards.

Note that in all of this is an overall focus on moving from yin to yang and so from materialist to idealist. The realm of the aristocratic experiences revolution and old ideals, old universals, are replaced by new ones as the egalitarian becomes aristocratic, but in that cycle some of the universals remain regardless of attempts to remove them; these are 'true' universals and reflect what Science tries to do. This pattern is reflected in the brain in the drive to LABEL everything where a level is a form of 'universal' - IOW we create a hybrid reality of materialism of the universe and the idealism of our consciousness that overall becomes more and more idealist!

Thus each evolution->revolution contains technology etc that moves the whole pattern 'foreward' in that evolution. That said, the 'copies' that can appear in the aristocratic context can act to lead astray some of the 'masses' (e.g. JonesTown, Heaven's Gate, Rwanda, Cambodia etc etc)

EACH hexagram also reflects this overall pattern in that the bottom half reflects the general, the egalitarian CONTEXT, as the top half reflects the aristocratic CONTEXT. Trigrams placed in these contexts can then 'upset' things in being in the wrong place (determined by their base line - and so in need of pushing up or down to be in their 'right' contexts).

Zoom-in to the relationships of lines and the same patterns MUST come out since the overall nature of the dichotomies is rooted in recursion and so self-referencing and so 'fractal' expressions.

Thus, the line positions from general to particular are yin-yang, from particular-to-general they are yang-yin.


7. ISSUES OF UNCERTAINTYWorking from a neurocognitive perspective, our consciousness is but a part of our wholeness where that wholeness includes the unconscious dynamics of our species interactions with the environment - IOW the use of habits/instincts to immediately, holistically, respond to a stimulus.

Our consciousness reflects the surrendering of the immediate, originally genetically-determined, response to a stimulus, and so a GENERAL response, for the sake of refining responses over time and so increase choices in response, we move to stimulus/considered-response where our *habits* allow for immediate responses but with a finer degree of expression.

This movement from the immediate to the delayed, the DECISION to do so, means our experimental design is rooted in this realm of consciousness and excludes the realm of speciesness. Our experiments try to focus on NOW but from a parts perspective, ignoring the holistic perspective - the 'true' NOW.

Our consciousness as such reflects the exaggeration of the 'everyday' nature of our speciesness for the sake of precision gained. BUT, if the focus of that precision is from a consciousness perspective, and that consciousness is one step removed from our speciesness, then we will find 'issues' developing in trying to interpret results in that the data passing through the experiments reflects both our consciousness and our speciesness. (and so the 'surprise' from our 'localist' consciousness when reality is found to be NON-LOCAL - the reality to which our speciesness is attuned over millions of years of evolution)

What is the main difference of speciesness/consciousness? Our consciousness is more precise than our speciesness and as such is more asymmetric, more XOR, than symmetric ie EQV.

In experiments with sensory paradox, we experience in our brains issues developing where initially our speciesness will detect a 'complex pattern', an EQV state where all is integrated, but our overriding consciousness will zoom-in to 'see' a superposition of objects, a superposition 'forbidden' by our XOR nature in details processing, such that the superposition is converted to the presentation of each object over time; the objects appear to 'oscillate' - see examples in the chapter on paradox.

Due to the sense of self-awareness that comes with consciousness, there is the assumption that that awareness is 'immediate' and all originates from it - the focus is on particular to general. This is an illusion in that from the perspective of the whole being there is a development from general to particular first – IOW there is a movement from the EQV state of our speciesness to the XOR state of our consciousness.

Experimental design in the past has focused on the root being at the level of consciousness. This focus reflects the reverse of the above paradox, where we go from EQV to XOR, to a focus on going from XOR to EQV. THE SAME PATTERNS WILL EMERGE as found in paradox processing such that what will now be noticed is the emergence of the EQV pattern in the results of experiment trials on XOR conditions; IOW each 'dot' on the photographic plate in double slit or single slit experiments represents a DIFFERENTIATION of A XOR B (slit-a/slit-b) followed by the slow development over time of a pattern representing INTEGRATION of all of the 'dots' (usually seen on photographic plates, or as 'interference' patterns using interferometers etc)- the EQV state of our being.

The perspective of consciousness is on the original 'cuts', be they two slits or a down converter or two angles of polarisation etc etc - IOW A XOR B; IOW the perspectives of consciousness start one step removed from the EQV state of our speciesness and reality; the perspective of speciesness is on the WHOLE rather than the parts and as such the pattern that emerges on the photographic plate, THAT patterns reflects 'completeness' (EQV); the consciousness pattern (XOR) will reflect 'incompleteness'; IOW dichotomisations in the manner in which we use them, as XOR and as universals, will elicit incompleteness issues.

ALL of the experiments in fact reflect the use of recursion to derive all POSSIBLE expressions in that the statistically analysis is based on summing contexts, thus we have experiments applied to double slits of:

T1 - 0/1


T2 - 0/1

T3 - 0/1

...

...

...

where these are the original trial options (XOR focus) in an experiment for each moment, but the *possible* outcomes when we impose a statistical analysis are:

T1 - 0 / 1

T2 - 00, 01 / 10, 11

T3 - 000, 001, 010, 011 / 100, 101, 110, 111

As I apply more and more trials so I will (1) increase the possibles by powers of 2, and (2) start to fill up the lower possibilities.

The combination of recursion of a dichotomy with a degree of indeterminacy (as in I move from direct detection at the slits to implicit detection in the photographic plate) guarantees a distortion in the data in the form of a 'wave interference' pattern. See diagrams in http://pages.prodigy.net/lofting/bits.html

Our consciousness is the source of the experimental design and for the sake of precision forces an XOR perspective, but that perspective is a PARTS perspective and so when patterns of WHOLES emerge our consciousness, naïve until recent times, interprets the results as some form of 'paradox'. It is and yet it isn’t. The paradox is created by our lack of understanding re consciousness/speciesness interactions and how working only from one perspective will distort data interpretations.

For the page covering consciousness/speciesness dichotomy and EPR/uncertainty see:

http://www.austarmetro.com.au/~lofting/species.html

An understanding of cognition is vital in all attempts to map reality. As George Kelly commented:

"[the] progressing from know to unknown [particular, labelled, to general, unlabelled] is characteristic of logical thought, and it probably accounts for the fact that logical thinking has no often proved itself to be an obstacle to intellectual progress. It is a device for perpetuating the assumptions of the past" Kelly, George "The Psychology of the Unknown" IN Bannister, D., (1977) "New Perspectives in Personal Construct Theory"Academic Press

Recall that the realm of the KNOWN in the brain is the realm of the labelled and so increasingly universal but those universals are LOCAL, applicable to what has been encapsulated for study etc., and so *potentially* 'delusions', only discovered as being so over time.

In my development of IDM I have repeatedly found specialisations with their own 'logic' and the commonality, the general patterns, across all specialisations comes out with a cognitive rather than logical analysis.

Interestingly Kelly was also 'attracted' to dichotomies:

"Our psychological geometry is a geometry of dichotomies rather than the geometry of areas envisioned by the classical logic of concepts, or the geometry of lines envisioned by classical mathematical geometries. Each of our dichotomies has both a differentiating and an integrating function. That is to say it is the generalized form of the differentiating and integrating act by which man intervenes in his world. By such an act he interposes a difference between incidents -- incidents that would otherwise be imperceptible to him because they are infinitely homogeneous. But also, by such an intervening act, he ascribes integrity to


incidents that are otherwise imperceptible because they are infinitesimally fragmented. In this kind of geometrically structured world there are no distances. Each axis of reference represents not a line or continuum, as in analytic geometry, but one, and only one, distinction. However, there are angles. These are represented by contingencies or overlapping frequencies of incidents.

Moreover, these angles of relationship between personal constructs change with the context of incidents to which the constructs are applied. Thus our psychological space is a space without distance, and, as in the case of non-Euclidian geometries, the relationships between directions change with the context." (Kelly, 1969)

If we focus on recursion reflected in the brain's neurocognitive dynamics then, using the level 3 recursion of the template 1/0 dichotomy we have:

111, 110, 101, 100 / 011, 010, 001, 000

Where consciousness seems to work more out of the pair of (111, 110) in that these are closest to being considered 'universals' purely from an energy level perspective - they 'shine'. This dimension of precision, from 000 to 111, reflects the WHOLE of consciousness but we more often EXCLUDE the range from 101 to 000 - the less precise, the increasingly vague - as seen from the NOW perspective of 111,110 style thinking. This 'now' perspective can be blinding, too universal, insensitive to local context, asserting always the universal context and so a push to REPLACE others rather than coexist.

Full spectrum thinking requires (a) the understanding of all qualities mapped to the particular level of recursion being used to interpret reality and (b) the understanding of our speciesness, the properties and methods of a less precise perspective but where it is THAT perspective that interacts with the everyday of the species.

Our precision, as a 'high bandwidth' species, has been stunning but lacks completeness simply due to the failure in understanding the full range of interpretations of reality. Until recent times the barrier in understanding 'now' was in the time required to acquire 'low bandwidth' data. The possible solution to the problem is in the use of computer systems that allow us to compress thousands of years of development patterns into a few minutes/hours. Of course we cannot experience these patterns since 'in reality' they take hundreds, thousands, million of years and as such our predictions based on this data will still appear to be 'approximate' ;-) - that said, the recursive nature overall means that within the 'now' will be patterns reflecting these long term patterns, but I think the longer the time period so the deeper the recursion required to discover these patterns.

Overall, the focus on the 'dimension of precision' is to move towards the 111,110 end as we attempt to label everything in our drive for precision, to identify it all NOW. BUT that focus is 'childlike' in that it leads to a focus on archetypes (and so not the 'real') and the use of stereotyping to communicate! - we lose 'nuances', we lose 'quality' for the sake of increases in predictability; the quantitative. Specialists will prefer this perspective but our speciesness overall is general and it is that element of our being we have to be conscious of in our exaggerations of consciousness in that consciousness can become 'out of touch' with species reality and our planet in general.

In the next section we focus on the identification of patterns of behaviour in the Brain concerned with the processing of sensory paradoxes (in particular visual and auditory) we can identify patterns in the Mind that reflect the abstraction and universal application of these paradox-processing Brain behaviours. This identification, besides indicating the emergence of Mind from Brain, shows us the always-implicit nature of reality where complex patterns can only be expressed to our senses in simplistic forms due to the nature of the Brain and its adaptation to local conditions. In turn, these local Brain processes involved in paradox and abstracted to the level of Mind, seem to have led to the emergence of logic and reason and serve as the foundations of our maps of reality


8. MIND FROM BRAIN - A CONSEQUENCE OF OUR SPECIES' ADAPTATIONS TO PARADOX PROCESSING?

8.1. BASICS

(1) The emphasis in this chapter is on the realisation that dialectical and analytical logics seem to be hard-coded into the species and that the dialectical perspective reflects the mind's way of dealing with complex mental states that indicate apparent contradictions such that to resolve these 'contradictions' the mind recruits the brain's way of dealing with sensory paradox. The consequence of this recruitment by the mind of a brain function is the demonstration that all complex states are irreducible to simple descriptions reflecting EITHER/OR distinctions and all of these complex states are described through the use of oscillations between the major distinctions that make-up the complexity. As such, reality is always implied.

(2)There are some preliminaries to consider:

(2.1) The neuron is capable of instigating transformation in that the encoding of instincts/habits in the dendrities of the neuron reflect the encoding of filters in the main input area of the neuron. The synchronisation of neuron-firings allows for a collection of neurons to behave as if one neuron, and so one large-scale filter and so an ease in the expression of a habit. These filters, emersed in a sea of hormones (neurochemistry etc), can be changed based on seasonal changes (circadian/diurnal rhythms etc) as well as onetime lifetime changes in the individual (e.g. puberty). The resulting transformations do not necessarily change the core elements of the individual, they just change the facades used in interacting with the environment. In other words the core elements, the sameness across a species, are maintained.

(2.2) The neuron, when combined with other neurons, is capable of pattern transcendence where the processes involved in synchronisation of neural firings allow for variations in timing, either intentional or 'at random' such that the perception and/or expression of patterns can be re-organised and so elicit 'novel' behaviours that can elicit a change in perspectives of the individual; a sense of 'enlightenment' is achievable even though this could be perceived as illusion/delusion when examined from the context of the collective within which the individual operates. Thus a transformation can also lead to a transcendence.

(2.3) The ability to transcend identifies the possible source for the emergence of mind from brain. This emergence, being a transcendence, identifies the mind as a high-level processor of information that is abstract when compared to the more concrete, mindless, information processing of the brain. As such the brain continues with instinctive day-to-day processing and the mind can work seemingly 'independently' dealing with abstractions or if necessary mediate some 'out of context' brain experience.

(2.4) Mind and brain use the same methods of information processing but function at different levels. In other words, behaviours of the mindless brain are recruited and used in the processing of abstract, more universal, data such that behind the expressions of mind we can identify the root expression in the brain, although there may be complex patterns of mind that cannot be explicitly identified in the brain (see below).

(3) As an example of 2.4, neurocognitively, if I present one part of the brain with a complex line drawing, that is exactly what is perceived but it is so general as to be uninterpretable other than as a 'complex line drawing'. When I present the same drawing to another part, a part concerned with 'dot' precision and so concerned with extracting details from a 'field', the attempts to identify particulars can become 'confused' when the complex line drawing is made-up of lines such that it creates a perception of TWO objects occupying the same space; for example the Necker Cube diagram and other visual paradoxes - I here present some images showing this:


(4)

Since these images 'break' the rule of the excluded middle, where A and ~A (~ = NOT) cannot exist in the same space/time, the brain compensates by taking the static image and making it dynamic by oscillating between the two 'simple' images that make-up the complex whole and so retaining the excluded middle 'rule'. This of course creates an 'illusion' where the oscillation is NOT representative of reality but an attempt to interpret complex reality within the bounds set by the nature of our species. This 'approximation' of reality reflects a transition from an analytic, dot, approach to a more dialectic, field approach (timing is used to resolve the issue and so a sense of history - we oscillate on the A/~A distinctions).


(5) This same sort of compensation is present when I introduce a complex sound, where the 'particulars' biased brain will interpret the sound as a sequence of consonant sounds, jumping from one to the other (the jump emphasising the discreteness of that part of the brain doing the analysis and so still reflects the A/~A oscillations.) Given the visual as well as auditory processing skills of the brain, we can identify a generalisation where complex patterns, if containing more than one possible interpretation, are presented in a format of A/~A/A/~A ad infinitum.

(6) In the realm of social interactions, If I say to you 'there is no X' and you say to me 'there is X', our minds will recruit the concrete methods of the brain to deal with these assertions. This particular set of assertions 'says' that A and ~A are being forced to occupy the same space. This is the root of paradox and as shown our brain deals with paradoxes by utilising a method where it oscillates across A and ~A. This concrete, brain process, reflected in such oscillations as shown in the images linked above, is abstracted to mind where we are driven to argue and/or use a dialectical process as the mind attempts to 'deal' with the problem either by eventually reducing it to EITHER A OR ~A, [we recruit deductive logic, formal logic] or by transcending it to some 'new' expression (reflects the dialectic process of thesis-anti-thesis-synthesis); in other words argumentation is a natural property of the species reflecting the abstraction of brain processes 'into' mind (where we argue with ourselves) and out into the collective.

(7) Note that in the A/~A oscillations the brain will just keep mindlessly oscillating and there is no distinction of other minds; the moment a contradiction is detected, either in here or 'out there' and that includes my mind vs your mind, the dialectical processes are instinctively brought out to 'deal' with the problem; in other words ANY detection of the possible negation of one's particular perspective, brain-local or mind-universal, is instinctively fought against since the presence of the negation implies an A + ~A paradox which swings the mindless brain into action enforcing 'oscillations'.

(9) BOTH deductive logic, aka analytical logic, and dialectical logic are apparent mind abstractions of brain processes where in the brain there is a dimension made-up of states of precision, field (dialectic) to dot (analytic) and so a search for details will extract something from the field and pass it to the more 'dot' precise analytical. IOW BOTH methods of analysis can be identified as being 'hard coded' in the human brain and abstracted where the observed oscillations of the dialectical process reflects attempts to deal with complex expressions that cannot be broken down to a single state by the analytical 'side'. This oscillation reflects the lack of precision of the dialectic when compared to the analytic but also the inability of the analytic to deal 'rationally' with some complex states of reality. In the above examples, the complex line drawings reflect the analytical logic expression of A EQV B. We can derive the dialectical from through rotation, turn the A EQV B on its head to give A NOT-EQV B which converted to A XOR B. This exclusive or is reflected in the oscillations we see in these 'paradoxes'. (sew the logic page for differences of analytical and dialectical)

(10) At the mind level this oscillation introduces the perception of the irreducibility of some complex mental states (as in the perceived irreducibility of Charles Peirce's concept of Thirdness - one of Peirce's categories (and for that matter the perceived irreducibility of all triads)) where these states, their 'position', 'contain' both A and ~A, for example Peirce's notion of mediation AND of representation (and so A/~A), such that attempts to identify EITHER/OR will fail, just as with the brain's processing of the Necker Cube oscillation, where focus on one element [e.g. mediation] will lead to the 'sudden' switching of focus to the other [representation]. (Analytic logic requires excluded middle to be empty to ensure the discrete identification. Reality is not so 'easy')

(11) This oscillation can occur over seconds, over hours, over days etc where reflection on the position will lead to oscillations in determining the 'true' nature of the position. For complex mental states this is inescapable since the mind is recruiting local brain processes to deal with non-local concepts (akin to the notion of superpositions) and the price of this is that the behaviour of the brain will influence the mind. As a result we can identify 'complex' states by the oscillations that occur - this is extendable into all disciplines and can span centuries of discourse as the context influences the oscillations over generations; reflections on a complex state MUST lead to oscillations in thinking. (There is ONE 'sense' that seems capable of immediate experience of very complex states - emotions - however even here we do recognise oscillations when dealing with some complex emotional states that have not yet been resolved either to A or NOT A or


else trancended to a 'new' experience)

(12) As a further possible example of mind recruiting and abstracting brain we can identify the exclusion principle identified above, a property of brain sourcable to sensory systems, being expressed as a property of complex interpretations of reality, in particular the Pauli Exclusion Principle which basically 'says' no two 'dots' (in this context - electrons and other 'fermions') can share the same 'space'.

(13) Another possible example is in the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle where the attempts to drill down to 'perfect' dot precision shows us where the analytical processes come from, the river that is reality and so the time-dependent universe of begin-end rather than the time-suspending universe of the eternal 'now' so necessary for analytical logic; in other words attempts to be 'precise' about reality reflect complex patterns rather than the simplistic patterns of analytic thinking.

(14) A further example of the concrete being recruited to describe the abstract is where in the realm of mediation the brain creates a habit/symbol of the event, all very 'concrete' stuff but when abstracted to the level of MIND some interesting notions emerge. In particular is the notion of wave/particle duality in that, at the concrete level, the combination of an oscillation across A/~A together with a degree of indeterminacy on perception, will introduce distortions such that the pattern that emerges from the process reflects 'wave interference' patterns rather than without indeterminacy where we get normal distribution curves.

(15) This brain-level process has been recruited by mind to describe 'out there'. In fact the structure of the experiments performed 'out there' are identical to the brain processes described above, where we take A/~A and oscillate - e.g. in quantum mechanics and the EPR paradox, left slit/right slit combined with a lack in observational precision - we do not look directly at the slits but rather an impression device some distance away.

(16) The indeterminacy reflects the transition from a unit approach (the 'dot', the single electron, photon etc) to a statistical approach. In a statistical approach, being statistical, the basic unit of measurement is the PAIR and as such we cannot identify 'sequence' order within the pair, only between pairs. This perspective is similar to the one of the complex line drawing where as we shift from a focus on a dot to a field focus, dots, so there are perceptual changes and resulting 'distortions' if we still try to perceive from a 'dot' perspective.

(17) It is this indeterminacy, the distortion, that allows for the emergence of wave interference patterns, IOW the method of the brain used to mediate/represent A/~A processes has been recruited by the mind without acknowledgement of that fact, and is presented as if a direct reflection of 'out there' rather than as an abstract representation of how 'in here' processes A/~A distinctions combined with indeterminacy.

(18) All maps of reality, no matter how abstract and seemingly 'objective', stem from the functions of mind that has recruited and generalised the more concrete functions of brain; and so the patterns of the brain are recruited by the mind and re-labelled in the process of abstraction. This sharing of the same space, mind and brain entangled 'in here', will lead to perceptions that, without validation, can lead to illusions/delusions regarding reality and our place in it.

(19) That said, the transcendence factor, a factor that even allows for multiple personalities in the one brain (which express themselves in oscillations), can also serve as a source for mental expressions not directly locatable in the brain and these in turn can become the 'concrete' elements of mind. However, as we find with computers, the expression of the software is still dependent on the precision of the hardware and the use of binary representations, the A and NOT A as well as the dynamics of the 'middle'.

(20) These dependencies are identifiable in the brain where we see the workings of both analytical approaches (dot biases, mechanistic, reversibles, time is 'eternal') as well as dialectical approaches (field biases, thermodynamic, irreversible, time is 'begin-end'). The implications are that the dot perspective has emerged from the field perspectives as a result of seeking precise details on sensations and in doing so has developed a world of its own where time is reversible etc., and so thermodynamics 'ignored'.


(21) The analytical does allow us to 'refine' the field - but this 'dot' process, besides being a source of transcendence, contains illusions/delusions and we need to identify these to enable the continued development of the species and in particular we need to focus on dialectical processes/logics to enable further transcendences as well as transformations.

(22) What is clear is that the brain/mind studies point to the particular emerging from the general prior to the formal assertion of the particular. The formal identification of the category of 'is-ness' manifests the thought processes extracting a dot from a field, a very dynamic field, and as the field 'bubbles along' the dot we have copied-out is held constant to enable formal naming, analysis etc.

(23) This act of particularisation makes us 'freeze' the dot, we remove dynamics, to aid in analysis. IOW we ignore time factors, time becomes something 'eternal' for the period of formal identification of the dot; by ignoring time we ignore dynamics to get a clear image of the dot.

(24) The field is dynamic, a boiling sea of potentials. The particular dot acts as a stimulus (a WHOLE but a static, particular quality) that the brain responds to with 'mindless' action. Zoom-in for finer distinctions and we find ourselves in the realm of the dynamics, closer and closer to the field. There we find we need to, are forced to, shift to dialectic perspectives to deal with the oscillations that appear when we attempt to make distinctions within a context (in 'is-ness' there is no background, just the 'being' of the quality without judgement and so an actual as well as a potential! IOW the oscillations of the field are now in the quality and so it oscillates across actuality-potentiality - it reflects field behaviours WITHIN)

(25) 'New'ness thus comes in two forms, as a change in facade but retention of the core (and so as an adaptation) - this reflects transformation - or as a change in the core (and so an innovation) - this reflects transcendence. The brain easily transforms, the mind easily transcends (and IS a transcendence from brain).

(26) The retention of core, and so transformation, reflects genetics where there is no 'new' knowledge, just context-sensitive expressions of existing knowledge, the facade changes. On the other hand, the change of core, and so transcendence, reflects a 'new' species, genetic mutation, intentional 'change' that becomes Bateson's 'difference that makes a difference'. Overall, the transformations maintain core sameness, appear different. The transcendence breaks core sameness without immediate recognition of change in appearance.

(27) The success in evolution of the mindless brain in utilising dot precision in dealing with the everyday has led to the possibility at the mind level of developing whole disciplines founded on analytical logic where time is reversible without consequence etc etc etc This 'playpen' is fine until you head deeper into reality and come across the field...

(28) The particular part of the brain biased to 'dot' precision also happens to be associated with delusional behaviour etc. (the dialectical 'side' is more prone to depression, the analytic 'side' more prone to mania, fundamentalism, psychosis rather than neurosis - the psychosis seems to stem from timing problems). 'We' are, by implication, the sum of both ;-)

(29) Note one very important distinction - that of identification. The more 'analytic' part of the brain is more 'dot' precise and so more focused on clear, eternal identification. This property of MIND seems to stem from this area of the BRAIN which suspends/distorts time elements to enable it to be precise, or more so limiting time to a sense of the 'eternal'; abstraction of this concept gives mind a sense of 'being'. We can see the differences in mind/brain through consideration of the differences in an emotional assessment of a situation (and so rooted in genetics) vs an assessment derived from consciousness. BOTH systems make assessments but consciousness is more refined, more focused on details and so able to contradict the assessments of emotion. Since consciousness is developed post birth, but emotions pre birth (rooted in genetics) so there is a sharp distinction between basic brain dynamics vs consciousness dynamics where aspects of the latter develop post birth and from social relationships.

(30) The complementary distinction is that of RE-identification and this includes begin-end time considerations. Since this realm is that of the dialectical and Peircean thirdness so the brain-based


uncertainty of thirdness is reflected in the MIND experiencing depression - a sense of loss of identity...those damn oscillations! implication is that a developed mind, a complex mind, or more so a relational biased mind will experience depression more! Is it just coincidence that in the typologies like the MBTI etc the dialectical perspective is more associated with identity and security seeking?

(31) In summary, we can identify brain behaviours, forever working locally, that are reflected in mind behaviours, expressed at a more abstract, universal, level but as such still apparently 'free' of the brain. However, closer examination of these mind behaviours, in particular the expression of analytical and dialectical logic, seem to indicate the stemming of these abstractions from the brain's way of dealing with sensory paradox and as such identification of this pattern suggests mind emerges from brain.


9. PERSONA REPRESENTATIONS USING THE MBTI® AND I CHING

In the previous chapters I have focused on what comes out of recursion of dichotomies, or more so in particular the template dichotomy of differentiate/integrate. By this I mean that all dichotomies of use will be found to contain labels reflecting the elements of the template dichotomy applied to a particular context. Thus, for example, we will find in gender issues the dichotomy of male/female. Analysis of the generic qualities of 'male' and 'female' will be found to correlate with the qualities of differentiating (males) and integrating (females). Deeper analysis is through applying the dichotomy to itself and out will pop a normal distribution curve.

In the particular context regarding Charles Peirce's semiotics and complexity I focus upon the four previously defined 'universal' qualities:

BLEND

BOND

BOUND

BOUND

And describe them thus:

The QUALITIES of 'representation' reflect a state of BONDING in that what is created shares space with what they represent but are not what they represent. From a sign perspective, these representations go through the 'sign' dynamic of, given time, moving from iconic forms through indicative forms to symbols and so in then in need of refurbishment to restore their iconic form - IOW we have to deal with 'aging' of an icon etc. Also note that since the representations share space with what they represent, so the iconic form can make us confuse map, the metaphor, with territory, the thing.

The QUALITIES of 'mediation' reflect a state of BINDING in that we integrate s and r and the 'space in between', the relational space, into a representation. As a BOND share SPACE so a BIND shares TIME in that I can 'disentangle' the elements of a BIND without really losing anything but to disentangle a BOND, due to the entanglement of the elements, I can leave behind 'residue' of the relationships – the representations are 'forever' and as such difficult to change later on (as we find for example in the use of the labels of 'positive' and 'negative' terminals in batteries etc)

The QUALITIES of 'Stimulus' reflect a state of BLENDING in that we are dealing with a WHOLE.

The QUALITIES of 'Response' reflect a state of BOUNDING in that we are dealing with degrees of PARTIALITY as in selecting one qualitity over others to 'paint' the whole with meaning and in doing do particularise. The pool of qualities we use stems from genetic coding of basic qualities (as in a senseof 'wholeness') and what has been derived from thirdness dynamics.

When we analyse the dynamics of the brain, it appears to oscillate across differentiating and integrating and from that oscillation develops qualities we use in meaning derivation. The BASIC set of meanings is whole, static relationships, parts, dynamic relationships, that can be re-labelled to reflect feelings as:- feeling of blending, bonding, bounding, and binding.

If we take the dichotomy of differentiate/integrate and apply it recursively we can derive qualities thus:

(level 0) a sense of WHOLE - a BLEND

(level 1) a sense of whole by differentiation (D) – BLEND a sense of whole by integration (I) - BLEND

thus our first level of categorisation is:

D-Blend : I-Blend

apply recursion and we have:


D-Blend^2 : D-Blend + I-Blend : I-Blend + D-Blend : I-Blend^2

The middle terms can be relabelled to reflect a state of bounding, of two 'parts', a distinct difference between the two qualities with a subtle bias to one over the other in controlling the context. Thus we have:

D-Blend, D-Bound : I-Bound, I-Blend

The next level of recursion gives us TWO new terms - Binding (sharing time) and Bonding (sharing space). These terms reflects RELATIONSHIPS rather than OBJECTS and as such focus on the space inbetween or the space within an object but not the object itself. Thus we now have eight generic qualities

(now written down the page):

I-Blend (seek, be whole through integration, devotion to another/others, draw in, contract, blend in)

I-Bond (share space with others/another 'in here', within)

I-Bound (integrate 'us' from 'them' - moral dichotomy of good/bad, right/wrong)

I-Bind (share time with another/others - cultivate, refine, paradigms [reproduce])

D-Bind (share time with another/others - assert new paradigms [produce])

D-Bound (differentiate 'us' from 'them' - factual dichotomy of true/false, include/exclude)

D-Bond (share space with another/others 'out there', between)

D-Blend (seek, be whole through differentiation, devotion to self, push out, expand, stick out)

These qualities have been derived from recursion of differentiate/integrate and when we focus our attention on SPECIALISATIONS we find that these qualities 'shine through' the particular descriptions, the labels, of basic elements, basic categories, of those specialisations.

Thus analysis of generic 'natures' of personas in the MBTI, HBDI, and Keirsey Temperament typologies give us the following *generic* associations

(using MBTI/Keirsey terms):

I-Blend - XNFP/Advocates

I-Bond - XNFJ/Mentors

I-Bound - XSFJ/Conservators

I-Bind - XSTJ/Monitors

D-Bind - XNTP/Engineers

D-Bound - XNTJ/Organisers

D-Bond - XSFP/Players

D-Blend - XSTP/Operators

Interestingly we can also map these generic qualities to the recursion of the fight/flight dichotomy, the core of emotions - this gives us qualities reflecting particular emotive issues:

I-Blend - fear develops devotion (integrate with context to protect) (XNFP/Advocates)

I-Bond - sadness/grief develops discernment (quality control emerges) (XNFJ/Mentors)

I-Bound - rejection/disgust (XSFJ/Conservators)

I-Bind - anticipation (initally of wrong doing, develops into correcting the wrong, cultivating) (XSTJ/Monitors)

D-Bind - surprise ('new' ideas etc) XNTP/Engineers

D-Bound - acceptance ('in the gang', promotion of an ideology etc) XNTJ/Organisers


D-Bond - love (sex - replacement by replication, cooperative, seductive) XSFP/Players

D-Blend - anger (replacement by erradication, competitive, develops 'respect') XSTP/Operators

If we keep applying recursion then the whole set of eight categories will be found to exist WITHIN EACH of these eight - recursion allows for the whole to be encoded in all parts.

To add some spice, move to the realm of the types, the qualities, we find in the numbers we use and we have:

BLEND - whole numbers

BOUND - part numbers (rationals)

BOND - static relationships (irrational numbers - ideals, share space, forming)

BIND - dynamic relationships (imaginary numbers, markers of cyclic/morphic change - time related)

Shift focus to representations (where reals are whole+part+static, complex are real+imaginary) and we have:

Real numbers (a,1) - 1 [blend]

Complex numbers (a,b) - 2 [bond]

Quaternions ((a,b),(a,b)) - 4 [bound]

Octonions (((a,b),(a,b)),((a,b),(a,b))) - 8 [bind]

The (a,b) reflect the use of pairs of real numbers to represent these composite forms. Futhermore they also represent the shift from symmetric perspectives to asymmetric perspectives as we focus more and ,more on precision where the translation of difference to sameness shifts us closer and closer to the border of difference/sameness and so to highly specialist processes. (the etymology here covers development from symmetric perspectives and so symmetric laws of numbers to the break down of such laws as we become more precise and so more asymmetric)

What we are seeing here is the ONE set of generic qualities sourced at the level of our unconscious species-nature being recruited and abstracted through relabelling to reflect those qualities applied to a specialist context. As such ALL specialisations are metaphors for the generalisation, the qualities derived from the'mindless' recursion of differentiate/integrate.

Our species-nature is the WHOLE, it interacts with reality using instincts/habits and so 'holistically', immediately, mindless stimulus/response. Our consciousness-nature appears to have emerged from our species-nature with a focus on PARTS and SERIAL processing - it works to take an 'immediate' whole and derive its parts list, its spectrum, layed-out over time to be analysed and manipulated to make a response more 'precise' - we refine our instincts.

The GENERAL patterns of meaning are constants and are shared across all neuron-dependent lifeforms to varying degrees with the most refined in us. Our consciousness then particularises by forming specialisations which come with specialist languages. In this process our consciousness thinks it is the 'whole', it isnt - it is a part when we consider the whole that is consciousness+speciesness.

Thus the ability to find common ground in specialisations reflects the species-level 'common ground' from which all else has developed. To complete our specialisations we need to include in them good understanding of the generalisation for completeness is not possible without inclusion of our species-nature in our maps of reality.


10.ENTANGLEMENT

10.1.IN GENERAL

If we move away from the mechanistic, Cartesian dualism, position common to scientific considerations we have no place to go other than the monadic, organic, position. (there is a triadic position but that covers the realm of mediation and so disappears when mediation is completed; see previous comments regarding Charles Peirce's semiotics. The focus HERE is on essences derived from the unconscious).

This monadic position covers the focus of Leibiz in his "Monadology" as it does Jung's focus on the "Collective Unconscious" or the identified 'entanglement' of the I Ching or that found in Quantum Mechanics. It also covers the generalisation in the neurology of face recognition (and derivation of meaning from facial expressions) as it does the emergence of rich associative memory from exposure to seemingly discrete, rote, learnings.

Overall the sense of 'all is connected' comes out of a context grounded in the symmetry of emotions and creation of metaphors WITHOUT discretisation (or more so the discretisation is a useful illusion)

The best place to start is in focusing on the analogy to the face. The face is the WHOLE. In that face are muscles which, through relaxing or tensing, create constructive/destructive interference patterns that allow for the expression of complex emotions on the face - and so a set of facial expressions where each one is an aspect, a facet, of the whole. As such, due to the finite set of muscles, so all muscles contribute to each expression where the expression represents a response to a stimulus sourced in the context.

We abstract this to a focus on a whole and its aspects/facets. What the 'chaos game' does is take contained noise (and so a 'whole') and derive order from the self-referencing of such. If we take the whole as our 'universe of discourse' then the 'cut' of that whole into a dichotomy of A/NOT-A is more so a recognition of A-ness and NOT-A-ness as aspects of the whole rather than the objectification of A from NOT-A, a true 'cut', discretisation that is useful from a precision point of view but also alienating from an organic point of view.

Note here that the dichotomy becomes asymmetric in that a 'cut' brings out symmetry whereas an 'exaggeration' brings out the asymmetric (a spectrum focus).

If we self-reference the dichotomy of 1/0 - call it our template dichotomy where the 1/0 represents any particular dichotomy such as yang/yin or differentiate/integrate etc., - we get after three iterations:

(1) 1 / 0 (first iteration, very either/or)

(2) 11, 10 / 01, 00 (second)

(3) 111, 110, 101, 100 / 011, 010, 001, 000 (third)

Each ROW (iteration) is the 'whole' but we can also objectify the identified aspects of the whole into being 'discrete' and so self-contained entities, each aspect is treated as a whole in its own right. This treatment reflects the Cartesian focus and is covered in such models in information theory as Shannon's notion of a 'bit' of information, a 'yes/no' answer and so a sense of the discrete.


On the other hand, if we avoid the 'cut' we focus more upon Gabor's notion of a 'holon' of information (Gabor discovered holograms). In the holon model, each holon is more so an exaggeration, an amplification, and amplitude, of the 'whole' and so all holons are connected at the base level, there is a fundamental grounding in 'connectedness'.

Just as we have the Descarte/Leibniz dichotomy so we have the Shannon/Gabor dichotomy in information theory and BOTH dichotomies cover notions and concepts isomorphic to the differentiating/integrating dichotomy 'hard coded' into our brains.

Thus the 'all is connected' property of the monad is, in principle, demonstratable in the I Ching. But how?

If we self-reference 1/0 to six levels we get 64 aspects of the whole, interpretable from a Cartesian perspective as 64 discrete objects. Thus we get a dimension of categories from 000000 to 111111.

Here the 1 represents yang, the 0 represents yin. So a hexagram, read bottom to top, of six lines of three yin/three yang lines is represented as, for example, 000111.

In the analysis of the methodology of self-referencing, in the context of the I Ching, I noticed a qualitative aspect where 'flipping' the top and bottom lines of a hexagram gives another hexagram that serves as analogy to describe the 'mud' or the infrastructure, the skeletal form, from which the original hexagram developed.

Thus hexagram 000111 (known as hexagram 12) is described as coming out of the 'mud', or has a skeletal form, described by analogy to the generic characteristics of hexagram 100110 (known as hexagram 17).

Hexagram 12 covers neutralising and has foundations in the concept of protecting attacks on one's faith/belief by parrying such and in so doing verifying the belief. In the I Ching this action reflects a refusal to change and so the hexagram is often interpreted negatively as 'standstill'. The fact is it has both positive and negative forms of expression.

Hexagram 17 covers finding a belief, finding someone/something to follow and in its generic form covers the skeletal aspects of 12 where the belief is fleshed out and now defended. (there is also symmetry here in that 12 describes by general analogy the infrastructure of 17).

This 'feature' of flipping line 1 and 6 of a hexagram to bring out an analogy to the skeletal form of that original hexagram turns out to be a property of entanglement where ALL hexagrams of the I Ching can be used to describe EACH hexagram of the I Ching - simply put, any category system derived from self-referencing can describe itself and we can get the I Ching to describe all hexagrams through analogy to the rest - note this is the beginning of a language, what I have labelled "Language of the Vague".

Further analysis shows how it is all done in that there is ONE hexagram in the I Ching that covers this focus on infrastructure and its fleshing-out, we add meat to the skeleton BUT with some quality control applied - the hexagram is hexagram 27 (hungering aka seeking nourishment, the mouth etc etc) The line patterns of 27 are 100001. Note the YANG lines of 1 and 6.


WE find that by using a logic operator called "XOR" (Exclusive OR) we can formally identify the 'infrastructure' of hexagram X by analogy to hexagram Y THROUGH XORing hexagram X with hexagram 27. The process looks like this:

100001 (hex 27)

000111 (hex 12)

------- XOR

100110 (hex 17)

Thus the 27-ness of a hexagram, the description of a hexagram's infrastructure, is described by XORing 27 with that hexagram and the analogy is to the resulting hexagram.

From this it follows that ALL hexagrams contain aspects of ALL of the others and XORing one hexagram with the other brings out the analogy to describe the expression of one hexagram 'through' the others.

See http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/introXOR.html as well as the general paper on entanglement from self-referencing:

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

This is NOT a property of the I Ching, it is a property of the methodology of self-referencing a dichotomy and as such applies to ALL category systems derived from such - and that includes the MBTI etc.

ALL specialisations will contain this 'entanglement' feature, all due to the METHODOLOGY used in deriving categories of meaning. INTERPRETATION at the precise level will focus on extreme differentiations and so 'cuts' and in so doing focus more on expression over essence but this is mechanistic and so misses the holographic properties of the monad (or more so gives us the parts as if wholes and so we confuse parts as if wholes - metonymy at work).

10.2.INTERPRETATIONS : I CHING AND QUANTUM MECHANIC

The methodology of recursion of a dichotomy (and so 'Yin/Yang') guarantees detection of 'wave' patterns etc regardless of scale when we also include indeterminacy. When we operate out of our XOR (Exclusive OR) perspective, ignoring the realm of the integrated, the whole, the holistic, the organic, we will create what appear to be paradoxes - not due to these being part of reality, but due to the ignorance of our onsciousness re its origins and so PARTIAL nature when compared to the HOLISTIC nature of our species - and so our senses and instincts/habits.

IOW our experiments will take on a form ("AS INTERPRETED") one step removed from "AS IS" reality and assume that form to be "AS IS" - those experiments can then elicit 'paradox' due to the failure to recognise the XOR/AND dynamic going on in our heads as part of the PART/WHOLE processing.

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

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


The Quantum Mechanics experiments are of the same form as our brains dealing with sensory paradox, another XOR/AND issue (as covered in paradox.html - the generalisation of that dynamic into our thinking allows us to confuse part/whole dynamics in more abstract models - consider species.html )

Given the recursion of ANY dichotomy to 26 - 64 states - and combine that with indeterminacy as to LOCAL distributions, a probabilities mapping will emerge that is 'wave-like' in expression. (if we use LESS than 26 the pattern is not strong, if we use MORE the pattern does not change, it just gets bolder).

BTW note that the Schrödinger wave equation is a mathematical construct that is a dimension of probabilities of particle X being in state/position Y out of the range of POSSIBLE states - the probabilities mapping reflects the dimension elicited out of recursion of the probabilities - either as 0/1 or as -1/+1. This set of UNIVERSALS is then sorted into 'bestfit/worstfit' ordering and measurement then indicates ONE of these out of the full SET as being 'best fit', but the others are also possible and in being so contribute to the 'whole' measurement.

If you map out the 64 possible states from recursing a dichotomy to 26, and then fold-in indeterminacy in distributions we get a pattern of 27 peaks/troughs. 19 of which are 'superposition' states, 8 are invariant over the transformation (since the recursion is open-ended, IOW we can run the experiments 'forever' so the patterns that are generated just get bolder).

If you review carefully the POSSIBLE events for EACH trial in a double-slit experiment we have:

(t1) L XOR R

(t2) L XOR R

(t3) L XOR R

Etc

Etc

If at each moment a particle goes through EITHER slit A XOR slit B. We can represent these as Yin or Yang to show the patterns of development of hexagrams etc.

If you then add some memory source then the set of POSSIBLE events becomes dependent on previous such that we get:

L XOR R = L / R

L XOR R = LL, LR / RL, RR

L XOR R = LLL, LLR, LRL, LRR / RLL, RLR, RRL, RRR

Etc etc etc

When we add indeterminacy we skew perceptions by trying to stay at one level. We can see this come out with the MINIMUM configuration possible with indeterminacy - a PAIR - we cannot reduce past that.


The moment we move to a PAIR we move from a differentiating position to an integrating position if we insist on keeping the notion of a 'pair' rather than accept that we have lost resolution power such that the 'pair' does not exist.

Lets review the pairs (also in the form of I Ching 'digrams'):

LL (yinyin)

LR (yinyang)

RL (yangyin)

RR (yangyang)

If you read the literature on Quantum Mechanics, the LL and RR position are replaced by L and R with no consideration of ORDER of the elements in the pair. BUT, order becomes an issue with LR vs RL. What the literature indicates is that these orderings are ignored (since they cannot be determined due to the lose in resolution -- this is like doing the marble exercise but only focus on pairs of marbles to ensure 'indeterminacy')

The moment you ignore LR/RL and clump them into a category X, so we have moved resolution from fours into threes. BUT the L and R mappings are considered as 'definite' since mathematics allows for two of the same to be folded into one of the same. SO we have definite L, definite R, INDEFINITE X. (iow we are confusing SAMENESS with DIFFERENCE - we reduce LL and RR to representations of sameness, but try to do the same for LR and RL when they are in fact eternally DIFFERENT - we just cannot detect it. This distortion means we are operating within the realm of BETWEEN-ness, between FOUR or TWO categories that are 'whole' just different in resolution - as such we are focusing on the space 'in between' 1 and 2 AS IF that space is 'whole' when in fact it spans 'in between'.)

This dynamic guarantees 'interference' patterns. To demonstrate, lets first map out the POSSIBLE states: first column is the set of POSSIBLE 64 patterns of LR dynamics (and so the 64 hexagrams of the I Ching ordered from 000000 to 111111; note that the numbers below are NOT the traditional I Ching numbers). Second column is the 'compression' of that pattern into patterns of three symbols, each representing a PAIR in the original, where LL = L, RR = R and RL + LR = X (this being a source of distortion):

(01)LLLLLL - LLL

(02)LLLLLR - LLX

(03)LLLLRL - LLX

(04)LLLLRR - LLR

(05)LLLRLL - LXL

(06)LLLRLR - LXX

(07)LLLRRL - LXX

(08)LLLRRR - LXR

(09)LLRLLL - LXL

(10)LLRLLR - LXX


(11)LLRLRL - LXX

(12)LLRLRR - LXR

(13)LLRRLL - LRL

(14)LLRRLR - LRX

(15)LLRRRL - LRX

(16)LLRRRR - LRR

(17)LRLLLL - XLL

(18)LRLLLR - XLX

(19)LRLLRL - XLX

(20)LRLLRR - XLR

(21)LRLRLL - XXL

(22)LRLRLR - XXX

(23)LRLRRL - XXX

(24)LRLRRR - XXR

(25)LRRLLL - XXL

(26)LRRLLR - XXX

(27)LRRLRL - XXX

(28)LRRLRR - XXR

(29)LRRRLL - XRL

(30)LRRRLR - XRX

(31)LRRRRL - XRX

(32)LRRRRR - XRR

(33)RLLLLL - XLL

(34)RLLLLR - XLX

(35)RLLLRL - XLX

(36)RLLLRR - XLR

(37)RLLRLL - XXL

(38)RLLRLR - XXX

(39)RLLRRL - XXX

(40)RLLRRR - XXR

(41)RLRLLL - XXL

(42)RLRLLR - XXX

(43)RLRLRL - XXX

(44)RLRLRR - XXR

(45)RLRRLL - XRL

(46)RLRRLR - XRX

(47)RLRRRL - XRX


(48)RLRRRR - XRR

(49)RRLLLL - RLL

(50)RRLLLR - RLX

(51)RRLLRL - RLX

(52)RRLLRR - RLR

(53)RRLRLL - RXL

(54)RRLRLR - RXX

(55)RRLRRL - RXX

(56)RRLRRR - RXR

(57)RRRLLL - RXL

(58)RRRLLR - RXX

(59)RRRLRL - RXX

(60)RRRLRR - RXR

(61)RRRRLL - RRL

(62)RRRRLR - RRX

(63)RRRRRL - RRX

(64)RRRRRR - RRR

Reviewing the RIGHT column we find we have lost resolution power such that there are many duplicates. When we move along this column, grouping the duplicates in the area of their duplication we get 27 groups - 8 of which have one member each, reflecting a 'perfect translation', 19 are what can be called 'superpositions', different forms now sharing the space due to the loss in resolution. Graph all of this and we get:

THAT is a wave interference pattern in the SAME form as we get in QM etc etc (we can use double slits, down converters, polarisers etc etc - same method overall in eliciting POSSIBLE distributions)

If we take into consideration the XOR/EQV dynamics of our brains in paradox processing, so the LEFT column reflects XOR and the right column reflects EQV. In such paradox as the Necker cube, the right column is the 'complex line drawing' and the left column the two cubes we detect trying to share the same space. This dynamic is not just limited to vision, it is also present in audition etc. and as such appears to


reflect a fundamental nature of our brains - XOR/EQV dynamics. THAT nature then gets into our experiment designs without awareness of what we are doing, and we end up with 'paradox' where there is none.

ANY experiment set up in this fashion, with a method of storing the results will give us a 'wave interference' pattern in the EQV position DERIVED from the XOR dynamics in the left column.

The point being that as the left column is XOR to the right column's EQV, so each entry in the left column is an EQV in its own right, reflecting the expression of ALL of the other entries in that column.

What this shows us is the implicit wave-ness still present in the seemingly discrete elements in the left column. (the left column can be used to represent the left hemisphere as the right column can be used to represent the right hemisphere - this left/right dichotomy of course applies all the way down the scale of the neurology, form temporal/parietal dynamics in each hemisphere to axon/dendrite dynamics across the whole neurology etc)

Now move to the level of how we CATEGORISE and the XOR/EQV dynamic continues - be it in the MBTI or in human emotions or in the I Ching or in types of numbers in Mathematics. (And so the IDM model of how we derive meaning IN GENERAL)

No matter what level of recursion you are at, the set of elements recursed contribute to the expression of EACH category, and that contribution is extractable using XOR/EQV dynamics - IOW there is a LOT more to categories then just a sequence of 'types' that we then flesh-out ad-hoc, we do in fact have access to a spectrum of qualities for each!

From the abstract level of the L/R dichotomy applied recursively, I can extract the '53-ness' of EACH category in the above list using XOR/EQV processing. By this I mean that due to the entanglement of all qualities so each will reflect all others in some way or another. Thus pattern 53 contributes to the expression of each of the other patterns and we can detect this - the WHOLE that is the XOR column is in fact COMPRESSED into the WHOLE that is the EQV column. Our CONSCIOUSNESS is more associated with XOR dynamics and as such is one step removed from the EQV column that is representative of our integrated species-nature.

The two columns show us the PRECISION issues we experience, where our left-column consciousness is more precise than our right-column speciesness but in that precision thinks it is reality "AS IS" when in fact it is reality "AS INTERPRETED". This bias feeds into our thinking in general about reality and so we can create paradox where there is none. (as such "AS IS" reality is reflected in the photographic plate)

10.2.1.INVARIENCE OF TRIGRAM QUALITIES

If we review the 'wave' pattern diagram above, we note that there are eight 'troughs', each containing, from the I Ching perspective, a single hexagram. These hexagrams represent qualities 'invarient' under change - whereas all of the other positions are 'superpositions', containing 2, 4, or 8 hexagrams.

The eight hexagrams in their order are:


02 - 000000

20 - 000011

62 - 001100

33 - 001111

19 - 110000

61 - 110011

34 - 111100

01 - 111111

If we compress these hexagrams they form into the TRIGRAMS.

000000 becomes 000

000011 becomes 001

001100 becomes 010

001111 becomes 011

110000 becomes 100

110011 becomes 101

111100 becomes 110

111111 becomes 111

In other words we witness in this 'compression' exercise the invarience of the core 'meanings' associated with the trigrams.

10.3.INTERPRETATIONS : I CHING YIN/YANG AS WAVES

To maintain the sense of building-up meaning in a sequence and yet elicit an increasing sense of precision as we move from bottom to top, we can interprete each line position in the I Ching as reflecting a quality expressed in the form of a wave/pulse. Each line doubles the frequency of the previous line's wave such that as we move up the hexagram we are creating meaning through the constructive/destructive interference of the waves as we add them together. The frequencies are:

line 1 (bottom) 2 cycles per second ( and so basic, general, yin/yang determination)

line 2 - 4 cps

line 3 - 8 cps

line 4 - 16 cps

line 5 - 32 cps

line 6 - 64 cps (high precision focus, 64 particulars, yin as hex 02, yang as hex 01 etc etc)


The yin/yang or 0/1 markers are if the yang is 'off' or 'on' and so bringing out actual vs potential states. Also note that as we build, so each line is the EXPRESSION of all that came before it. IOW line 1 with its focus on yin/yang determination is the EXPRESSION of what came before it - T'ai Chi, the undifferentiated whole etc. Line 2 is the EXPRESSION of line 1 etc; line 6 covers the expression of yin/yang from the categories derived at line 5. (and so the PAIRS of hexagrams in line 6 are reflecting such notions as unconditional vs conditional forms of expression - e.g. 02 vs 23)

Given the line position material so these six waves are representing of primary attributes, manifest in those hexagrams where yang is 'on' for only that line. Thus we have:

line 1 - hex 24 - worker/raw (bottom, begin)

line 2 - hex 07 - supervisor

line 3 - hex 15 - local lord

line 4 - hex 16 - minister/adviser

line 5 - hex 08 - ruler/court

line 6 - hex 23 - sage/refined (top, end)

Implicit in this is that all of the other hexagrams are compounds of these basics. Thus hexagram 27 reflects the summing of the qualities of 24 with the qualities of 23. Hex 29, reflects the summing of the qualities of 7 with the qualities of 8, hexagram 62 reflects the summing of 15 and 16, hexagram 30 is the summing of the qualities of lines 1, 3, 4, 6, and so the qualities of 24, 15, 16, and 23. Hex 47 reflects the summing of 2, 4, and 5 and so the summing of the qualities of 07, 16, and 08. (note the pairs of rotations and their numbering re the traditional sequence - lines 1-6 (24,23), 2-5 (07,08), 3-4 (15,16). The 'mirror' nature counters the more sequential nature of line relationships of 1-4, 2-5, 3-6))

Thus hexagram 02 represents the realm of POTENTIALS (000000) just as hex 01 (111111) is the sum of all of these expressions, and so full-on actualisation.

By focusing on wave forms so we retain the sense of (a) six 'main' lines and yet (b) introduce harmonics, chords derived from these basics. It is this notion of waves that allow us to use the XOR operator to extract details from each hexagram in that what is indicated is a topological perspective where all is connected together and LOCAL distortions draw out a particular from that set of all. In that drawing-out so the others are ordered into a format that allows for the identification of their expression THROUGH this particular context.

Thus in recursion, each ROW is a complex wave pattern and each category derived in each row is a particular manifestation of a harmonic out of that pattern. Thus the 64 hexagrams are each 'exaggerations' out of the complex waveform of level 6 (26). The exaggerations mean that WITHIN each hexagram are expressed all of the others as they contribute to that hexagram's expression, the life history of whatever that hexagram represents etc. (and so XOR-ing a hexagram with 24 gives us a desription of how it 'begins', as XOR-ing with 27 gives us its skeletal form)

Note what we have when we introduce gerunds to the hexagrams:

line 1 - hex 24 - beginning, re-beginning (returning)


line 2 - hex 07 - uniforming (impose basic 'sameness')

line 3 - hex 15 - levelling-out (keep words close to facts, avoid exaggerations)

line 4 - hex 16 - foreseeing, planning

line 5 - hex 08 - unifying (passive, unconditional, attraction)

line 6 - hex 23 - pruning

The line 5 position is like bees to a flower and its pollen. The line 6 position is the removing of the 'waste' of this season to prepare for next season - and so this includes the traditional perspective of line 6 being 'beyond' the hexagram - we have moved past it. BUT that pruning action is also an action of particularising, making something conditional, and that applies to all hexagrams with a line 6 yang vs a line 6 yin (unconditional).

Line 1, 2, and 3 cover a generic sense of preparation (and so their expression as a whole in 11 (111000) where the harmonising/balancing (and so mediating) dynamics set the context for the later 'flowering' etc.)

Complex forms allow for such recognition of the combining of "uniforming" and "unifying" are reflected in the hexagram about containment and control - 29.

Then we have such notions as 19, with a mix of beginning/re-beginning and uniformity, focus on sameness, to give us an analogy to a sense of seeking an audience with the 'high'. (a new path focus within which operates a focus on uniformity)

Since hex 8 reflects unconditional attraction, but 20 reflects conditional attraction, so we see in 20 the 'pruning' of 23 associated with 08. (08 + 23 = 20, line 5 + line 6 = lines 5&6)

Note the subtle setting of context appearing to be the first 'yang' line in the order - IOW 08 sets the context of 20, 23 then operates in that context, particularises, conditionalises, and the result in expression is 20.

For 29 so the context setter is 07, not 08.

For 27 so the context setter is 24, not 23.

What is implied in this is the 'rigid' nature of yang-based hexagrams, they all must have a 'start' context, a 'point' - this is not so in the yin-based hexagrams where we have to move up to find the first 'yang' line to set the context of the complex form. As such, in 02 there is no definite 'start' position, it varies, is context-sensitive etc., and so in 23 it is the top line, in 08 the fifth line, in 20 the fifth line, in 16 the fourth line, in 44 the second line etc etc etc etc.

ALL of the hexagrams are interpretable as reflecting these summings of qualities based on summing the qualities associated with the lines. Thus hex 52 reflects the summing of 3 + 6 = levelling out + pruning. etc. and so an association to stopping, blocking, and on into developing a sense of discernment. Thus 52 sums 3 and 6 and in doing so creates a derived form that can develop its 'nature' through being fleshed-out with associations to different contexts expressing the same universal but with local colourings.


11.ENTANGLEMENT II

Given the notion of "Self-reflection" (and so Descartes "I think therefore I am"), from a species perspective there is others-reflection. Mirror neurons bring out mimicry as a social dynamic allowing for integration of a species member into local social dynamics.

Other neuron-dependent life forms have an inbuilt sense of territory that is refined the more up the development ladder we go into a sense of identity that transcends the genetics. In this refinement we see the ring of identity contract to being recognised as 'in here' - even though our more social nature still plays the game of 'mine!'.

For humans, when a child is born it is born an undifferentiated whole such that sensory stimulus will cause the infant to try and turn its full being towards the source of the stimulus; only over the first few months does the infant learn to differentiate auditory from visual sensations and so customise responses and re-integrate what has been differentiated - this dynamic is reflected in examples of synesthesia:

http://members.ozemail.com.au/~ddiamond/synth.html

What we see here is an example of regular-to-small-world network dynamics where potentials of the regular get exaggerated, damped, or expunged through the refinement process as the infant adapts to local context.

The monadic perspective is of the individual being an integrated whole where local contexts elicit the whole responding with some suitable aspect as a response to a stimulus - and so the holistic, the organic, dynamic can lack precision. It is the amplification of aspects that elicit objectification and so dyadic perspectives and the ability to develop refined response to stimuli. From there triadic development is present in the form of consciousness as an agent of mediation to allow for even more refined responses to a stimulus - and so an increase in possible choices for some response, all depending on context.

As Libet's work has shown (Libet (2004) "Mind Time" OUP), the triadic element is temporary in that as we learn a new/complex instinct/habit so there is delay present reflecting the presence of awareness, of monitoring the learning. Once the instinct/habit is completed so the awareness disappears and so the delay disappears and we work of the immediacy of stimulus/response but now with a refined response and so an extension of the original, genetically-determined, instinct.

Within the two years post birth, the infant differentiates and re-integrates sensory information processing and at the same time adapts to local social contexts and, with innate species traits, develops a sense of personal consciousness and so the sense of the singular. This sense of the singular reflects the success of consciousness as mediator to a degree if we cannot find something to mediate, we make something to mediate.

'beneath' the singular is the particular, the specialist member of the general that is the species. The particular-general is grounded in history, both long and medium term. Whereas the singular is grounded in little history and more so is an agent of the random - we have internalised the dynamics of Darwin's mutation as consciousness.

http://members.ozemail.com.au/~ddiamond/synth.html


It is of interest that this dimension of singular-particular-general takes on a form reflected in self-referencing the differentiate/integrate dichotomy where the resulting dimension gives us dynamics at one end and stability at the other and as such reflects the dynamics of viral DNA, one end changing by the hour to adapt to local context, the other end containing genes layed-down thousands/millions of years ago.

If we review the dynamics of neuron-dependent life forms we see a focus on the use of sameness to communicate (use of emotion and metaphor) and a focus on asymmetric means to translate difference to sameness and be increasingly precise about it.

Thus the 'old' parts are symmetric, stable, non-local and the 'new', more unstable, asymmetric, local.

The dyadic/monadic dichotomy is well covered in philosophy with the most commonly presented focus on Descartes/Leibniz but also covered in such perspectives as Ficht/Spinoza and going back to Aristotle/Plato etc etc etc The REASON for this is manifest in our brains in the use of self-referencing the differentiate/integrate dichotomy to derive order from noise. In that process we all form 'small world networks' and so biases to either 'side' of the dichotomy such that some are dyadic, some monadic, some triadic.

The symmetric focus on communications will elicit 'opposites', but the asymmetric brings out 'complements' where the dichotomies reflect one element extending from the other and so is the other with a different label to reflect the amplification aspect.

Thus the dyadic/monadic focus reflects the dual from the monad as the triad comes from the dual but this leads us to a hierarchic format - as such mediation is associated with representation that is associated with stimulus/response. As such the new/complex elicits an increase in energy to 'rise above' the moment to find some symbol/habit to represent the current stimulus/response and to deal with like stimulus in the future.

Once we have a representation so we fall back to 'stimulus/response' but now with a more refined toolset. This is the basics of using consciousness in learning and we include here social dynamics that introduce nuances in behaviour where different contexts can label something as good/bad etc

The QUALITIES that seed the development of communication come out of the dynamics of the neurology, especially that of self-referencing where the basics of differentiating/integrating seed the more refined qualities of wholeness, partness, sharing-of-space, sharing-of-time and these on into linguistic qualities of nouns/verbs that then get relabelled for high precision communications. (we also note the roots of emotion is the self-referencing of the fight/flight dichotomy hard-coded in our brains and THAT dichotomy, used for communications of intent in dealing with context, to replace it or coexist with it or something in between.)

Thus the INSTINCTIVE nature of territory comes with basic feelings associated with territorial mapping that seem to have been refined to cover the focus on syntax in language; as such we can trace a sense of 'mine' or 'correct position' etc from our fish days to our human language usage.

The differences are then in the amplification of that sense of identity as a species member to being a sense of unique identity transcending the genetics.


What is of interest is that in making maps of reality we move to dyadic and triadic positions to gain high precision details we can then re-integrate with our whole being. In this movement to the dyadic/triadic we hit upon the monadic through identification of patterns of relationships that strongly show the 'all is connected' nature of the monad.

The tiny zebra fish makes the same distinctions of 'known' from 'unknown' as we do with our brains BUT we do it with more precision and more encoding of memory and consideration of possible consequences etc. More recent work has replicated the zebra fish findings in bishop fish.

There is also the notion of group behaviours through flocking where each individual makes only local distinctions and these seed a flock behaviour not mappable to any single participant. As such there is scope for a collective to elicit behaviours not recognised by individuals but bringing benefit to that individual such that they repeat their local distinction making and think THAT behaviour elicited the benefit. This gets into all sorts of forms of lucky charms/days/people etc etc where the LOCAL context cannot see the 'big picture' but can sense some positive/negative 'presence'. (and this flocking behaviour can be manifest through a collective of neurons or collectives of collectives of neurons; meaning is possible to elicit in the form of patterns associated with resonating to frequencies and allowing for such to form memories - BUT an essential feature of such is the need for self-referencing, the use of XOR dynamics to allow for setting-down memory processing)

The dualist perspective arises from the monist perspective as does the triadic perspective from the dual. The use of positive/negative feedback acts to refine the monad and so make the individual develop integrated skills that allow for quick adaptation to changing context.

Given the dynamics we witness in neurosciences, biology, physics, chemistry etc etc etc there is no need for any 'god' hypothesis; no need for any focus on consciousness as originating etc etc although we can trace the ROOTS of consciousness back to the beginnings of the universe through the asymmetry of the baryon octet seeding that beginning.

The mediation skills of consciousness, our singular being, do reflect the mediation skills of a virus DNA adapting to context but both in fact reflect the mediation of differentiating and positive/negative feedbacks. The dynamic sets down coding of history and dependence on such for development, as there is dependence to be able to break symmetry, escape history.

Of important notice is the fact of fragmentation that comes with differentiation in that the differentiation creates borders and so lets loose what lives on borders - complexity/chaos dynamics.

With all of this comes being increasingly competitive and so situations that to some are 'good' and to others are 'evil'. That’s life.

BUT the long term dynamic is for a whole to fragment into smaller 'wholes' that develop an increased focus on self-reliance, self-determination. This focus encourages competition and so identification of 'best practice'. With this identification the competition continues but the competitors, although looking different, start to think the same (all of that 'best practice' at work!). Thus we start to get 'clumping' of like-mindedness (aka fundamentalism, both religious and secular). Clumping leads to 'phase transition' dynamics and so the competitive turns to becoming cooperative.


The issue then is on recognising the dynamics and aiding the transition from competitive to cooperative and at the same time keeping the 'quality' competitiveness.

It is THOUGHT that can do this. Consciousness as an agent of mediation needs training to enable us to transcend our 'ape' natures and it is the work from neurosciences etc that is the source of understanding what to train.

Going 'back' to the monad without the details/skills derived from dyadic/triadic perspectives reflects a need to escape, a need to crawl back into the womb. This is unnecessary. We are in a position to REFINE the monad and so transcend our ape nature but in doing so acknowledge it as the source of our being, and ITS source tracable back to the dynamics of the neuron.

Given these 'standard' perspectives on research in neurosciences we enter the realm of speculative science, especially in the context of entanglement.

This gets into issues at the quantum level of the Pauli exclusion principle where you cannot have fermions sharing the same state, and so no 'two in one' but there is nothing about not having one 'thing' in two different places at the same time.

Local context then brings out adaptations to that context and so twin 'differences' but there is also local context seeding mental states that elicit resonance across the twins and so 'transmission' of meanings etc. across twins not aware of each other.

All of this gets into the entanglement we find in symmetric dynamics and so connection between twins in the form of correlation and only correlation (time/distance are meaningless and the genetic correlation is 1:1 with local context differences and so an overall, general, sameness)

See the archives of the quantum-mind list at the University of Arizona for discussions on these sorts of dynamics across identical twins. The overall focus is on issues of purity. The same sort of patterns, correlations, cover old methods in creation of radio crystals, interactions of cancer cells, Sheldrake's morphic field concepts and all versions of EPR experiments. The entanglement dynamic comes out of self-referencing as a property of the containment of noise, and that at all scales.

What is POSSIBLE given the self-referencing is all is linked together, BUT exposure to local context can vary any connections (and so the focus on pure forms - identical twins, cancer cells, inbreeding, precise experiments on self-referencing etc) to give us 'small world networks'. The implication re twins is despite the small worlds of each twin there is 'something' that shares the space of the twins and that is best brought-out when the twins are NOT aware of the other.


12.THE EMOTIONAL I CHING

12.1.BASICS

As a species, in our dealings with the surrounding context ( be that context real or imagined), we have developed a form of communication and that is through the use of emotions. This realm of emotions is immediate, organic, holistic, parallel. At times this realm can be overwhelming to our personal consciousness since contained in that realm are group behaviours - thus a 'paniced' crowd can 'infect' all who come in contact with the crowd's emotional focus - as can sexual love totally dominate the 'rational' thinking of an individual.

In the thousands of years that have passed since the original I Ching came on the scene in ancient China, there has been a concerted effort to try and understand our emotional being and so too our neurological, categorical, conceptual, symbolic and metaphoric being.

A discovery in neurosciences has been that our instincts and habits get encoded in, or close to, the input areas of our neurology. The reason apparently is to conserve energy in a thermodynamic universe. This conservation is in the form of allowing context to 'push' our buttons. Thus as a species we integrate with the context through developing instincts and habits where those instincts and habits will contain an emotional element.

The development of 'good' habits and 'good' instincts will, over time, allow for the 'internalisation' of an emotional map of the context that can be used to pre-empt the behaviour of that context and so we can become more 'proactive' in our emotional dealings and more sensitive to its 'push'.

With instincts and habits containing emotional elements (even the notion of 'correct' or 'incorrect', associated with the realm of syntax processing, are initially sensed as feelings that we then articulate) so there is a tie of our emotional nature and the nature of the context. As we realise in group behaviours, our emotions work off resonance and as such we easily sympathise/empathise with others of our species (and all other life forms that 'contain' emotions) but also resonate with images etc that also elicit emotional resonance (e.g. a beautiful image of nature or the sky at night).

In those 'lower' life forms that use emotions, their social interactions are immediate in that the fight/flight dichotomy, the source of our categories of emotions, is hard-coded into their brains. This is also the case with us but with a subtle modification where our frontal lobes of our brain work as 'executives' and are able to suppress the immediate response of an emotion to a stimulus. In that suppression we utilise delay, we postpone the response, to allow for the gathering of more information or just to 'pull our punches' in some special context (e.g. playing vs fighting - lower neuron-dependent life forms have frontal lobes but not as developed as ours).

We can see these differences in responses as we move 'up' the development chain from reptiles to humans where a snake will put the same energy into a strike regardless of the context. On the other hand, a mammal, and more so our species, has developed the skill to pull punches and so be more context-sensitive.

With the refined development of consciousness in our species, where consciousness appears to act as an agent of mediation, we can interrogate our emotions and identifying them in fine detail. It is our


consciousness that 'says' "something does not feel right" or "I am getting a bad vibe here" etc etc. These 'vibes' reflect the focus of consciousness to serial processing, to particulars, where it can be VERY precise but in so doing it has little or no access to the realm of the parallel, the immediate where emotions dominate behaviours having their roots in our species-nature, our primateness. In other words consciousness needs to break the 'vibe' down, to extract its spectrum, its parts, before it can make any detailed assessment of what is going on.

One of the aspects of context is that its holistic nature can make it difficult to identify some small, particular, element in the context that is causing us to feel 'uncomfortable'. However, due to the holistic nature of our emotions, so that small, particular, element comes with an emotional trigger that elicits 'resonance'. Once we have resonance we can swing our consciousness into action using a generic form of inquiry. This form of inquiry is through asking some general questions about how one feels in regard to the situation. The questions do not focus on emotions explicitly but on questions that will elicit emotion-determined response; in other words one's feelings will 'colour' the answers and so reveal themselves in that colouring. The resonance factor in our feelings allow us to identify a symbol, a representation, of the context that 'best fits' one's feelings derived from the 'push' of that context.

In the I Ching, the symbol, the representation, is a hexagram (or trigram or dodecagram) where the qualities of the hexagram have been developed from our encoding of emotional qualities in the symbol as we create it and write-down that encoding for later generations. The method of creation is through use of qualities derived from the self-referencing of the original 'fight/flight' dichotomy that seeds all of our emotions (see below). Since the I Ching is also derived in the same manner through self-referencing of 'yang/yin', so there is a corellation of emotions and I Ching symbolisms.

This 'emotional' seeding is very generic to start with and covers our basic interactions with any context where we need or demand or desire to either (a) take over the context, replace it with something we consider 'better', or (b) integrate with the context, 'fit in' by adapting to it through 'new' instincts/habits.

The replacement focus comes in two 'flavours' - eradication of existing competition or replication of self to 'drown out' existing competition. From these flavours come the more emotion-specific labels of 'anger' (eradication) and 'sexual love' (replication). Due to the hierarchy involved that comes out of self-referencing so the labels of 'anger' and 'sexual love' refer to generic qualities that become refined through further self-referencing to elicit such notions of 'self-respect', 'singlemindedness', as well as mental equivalents of sexual love where the overall focus on copying/mimicry leads into such areas as the exchanges of charismatic people with their audience/followers etc where that exchange elicits replication of the charismatic persona 'in' the followers (they copy/mimic the 'star' and s replicate the 'star')

12.2.REPRESENTATIONS

If we take the fight/flight dichotomy, change the labels to 1/0 (1 = fight, 0 = flight), and then apply the dichotomy to itself (self-referencing, recursion) we can derive a set of symbols that represent the spectrum of generic emotions after just three loops of the recursion:

fight / flight = 1 / 0

T1) 1 / 0


T2) 11, 10 / 01, 00

T3) 111, 110, 101, 100 / 011, 010, 001, 000

T3 becomes:

111 - anger (refined into singlemindedness, self-respect, competitive exchange)

110 - sexual love (refined into cooperative exchange)

101 - acceptance (refined into promotion of ideologies, 'group' behaviours)

100 - surprise (refined into enlightenment, awareness, new paradigms etc)

011 - anticipation (refined into notions of cultivation)

010 - rejection (refined into a focus on issues of protection)

001 - grief (refined into quality control, discernment)

000- fear (refined into devotion to others, get identity from context)

If we step back a level to T2 we cover the more generic context-related focus on replacement of context (11) or integration with context (00) and positions 'inbetween' (01, 10). If we step forward then the generic qualities become more refined such that within the generic bounds of the original categories come such notions as 'singlemindedness', 'devotion to self', 'devotion to others' etc etc.

If we move back to T1, the properties of the original dichotomy of fight/flight are found to be synonymous with the characteristics of differentiate/integrate and associated with the feedback dichotomy of positive(push away)/negative(pull together). What we have here is a GENERAL dichotomy template of differentiate/integrate and the application of that dichotomy to the immediate surroundings allows for that context to elicit a set of categories used to described that context where the categories are re-labelled to give us a specialist dichotomy (such as 'fight(differentiate, yang)/flight(integrate, yin)')

In the formation of emotional categories they allow for resonance with the same categories present in the environment in that "emotions" is considered as a specialisation for interpretation of reality and so works as a filter to interpret 'all there is'- in other words reality is 'emotional' and as such any moment experienced will elicit some emotional resonance within the individual. However, since emotions are vague, operate out of the realm of the immediate, the organic, their resonance with a context is complex, holistic, and our particulars-oriented consciousness can sense 'something' but often not be able to articulate that 'something' - we get the "I cant put it into words" syndrome.

With the development of consciousness, as well as the creation of such texts as the I Ching that describes 'all there is', we are in a position to interrogate our emotions through the asking of general questions focused on how we feel about a particular situation. In other words the context in which we are involved has an emotional element that is 'transmitted' and received by our unconscious-sourced emotions (emotions having developed pre-words). Anomalies in that reception allow for feelings to whell-up in us to become noticeable by consciousness and we end-up with a generic 'feeling' of being uncomfortable, irritable, or over-joyous 'for no apparent reason'.

Knowing how the brain deals IN GENERAL with novelty so we can ask generic questions focused on communicating with our feelings where those feelings manifest the resonance of our emotions with the


context. The answers to the questions are in the form of yin/yang line combinations that manifest the emotional nature of the particular hexagram that 'best fits' the context and so is 'pushing our buttons' - causing the emotional resonance.

Given the particular hexagram for the context we can flesh-out its details including how it will ideally develop and so take us with it - OR we can either (a) try and replace the context with one of our own making or (b) move on.

Thus, given the 'Emotional I Ching' we have a demonstration of how the I Ching can work without any references to myths, legends, or other 10th century BC perspectives nore the use of random or miraculous methods of hexagram derivation - we are utilising a basic specialisation in our nature that is used in the categorisation of 'out there'. As we have developed from a species to a conscious species so those categories are written-down in books (e.g. the I Ching) and become accessible through the use of consciousness to interrogate our emotions and then look-up the category best-fitting our feelings.

The current set of questions for using the emotional IC are presented where the questions asked are aimed at extracting how you FEEL, and so the emotional elements resonating with the context. Thus the form of the question is asked of the I Ching is more like "What is going on here?" "What is pushing me?", "How is it that I feel as I do given(about) context X" - We do NOT deal with such questions as "does he/she love me?" since our focus is on emotional resonance between you and the external context and such questions as 'does he/he love me?' is more a question focused on one's resonance with one self! (better resolved by asking him/her.) - we are focused on the influence of the surroundings on the individual and so we focus on the implicit, the hidden, the holistic, the organic where these are missed or literally 'out of conscious awareness' but very much 'in' emotional awareness.

More so, we can interpret the Emotional I Ching as more so the I Ching asking questions of you, and so eliciting answers that allow it to come up with a representation of the context that is pushing your buttons.

Once we derive the hexagram so we can use our consciousness to derive more details on what we are dealing with. These details are possible for a hexagram by deriving its full spectrum that manifests all hexagrams expressing their natures through a particular hexagram. We can thus identify the 'correct path' through a hexagram (its 63-ness) or a description of the hexagram's 'generic' form, its infrastructure prior to adding the furnishings (27-ness).

12.3.DEEPER ISSUES - PROJECTION, TRANSFERENCE, COUNTER-TRANSFERENCE, AND MIRROR NEURONS

Mirror neurons allow for mimicry and so, from an emotional focus, the development of empathy. (search using Google to give an extensive coverage)

With that tit-bit lets add the fact that, in the brain, any bias in its oscillations across left-right brains will introduce, over accumulated time, the particular characteristics of the left or right 'side', into the GENERAL emotional expression of behaviour of the individual. Thus a timing issue that favours the 'right' side can lead to a 'depressive' affect dominating general thinking etc.

For this particular research (and associated research refs covering neural degeneration affecting emotional expression etc (change in art colourings etc - see Miller's work) see :

http://www.uq.edu.au/nuq/jack/procroysoc.html

http://www.uq.edu.au/nuq/jack/procroysoc.html

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


So above we have (a) mimicry and so response to a stimulus with a copy of such stimulus - like shaking hands or smiling at someone smiling at you (unless you are neurotic and so don’t trust the smile without reason - IOW any such smile will elicit unconditional distrust and so universal distrust - neurosis at work!) (b) a timing issue that allows for small increments of an emotion working as stimulus to 'suddenly' elicit an emotional response 'in kind' where memory 'links the temporal dots' such that the experience is AS IF a momentary one of intense emotional interaction.

Projection by a person of an imagined or real person onto another due to sameness in look and/or personality will include the dominant emotion associated with the person projected appearing on the face, and especially the eyes, of the projector. This is often unbeknownst to the projector.

However, the projectee can see the emotional expression but need not know of the projection, and so consider the emotion applies to them.

Seeing the emotion can elicit 'censorship' behaviour by consciousness if the emotion is considered 'inappropriate' or no reason is detected and the emotion is ignored. On the other hand, the emotion can also elicit attempts to respond to it.

As mentioned above, there is evidence to show that exposure to some expression of emotion, repeated on a regular basis over time (even if just a smile and 'hello') can lead to the accumulation of that emotion such that emotional resonance is achieved 'instinctively', the smile and hello are incorporated into an emotional 'event' where the presence of projector/projectee elicits the emotional content expressed originally in the smile-hello. - thus if the smile-hello was originally 'one sided', from the projector, eventually the projectee will 'resonate' by usually responding back in the same way (mimicry). This can operate in minutes as it can over months of exposure (or not at all - and this gets into issues of susceptibility - for example, parents/children are susceptible to 'family' emotions that are not registered or are just ignored by those not in a present, strongly involved, family dynamic)

This stimulus-response dynamic works around mimicry and the notion of emotional resonance where, like the skins of drums, if tuned to a particular frequency, exposure to that frequency will elicit resonance without any necessary 'intent' to do so.

In the context of emotions, from an animalistic fight/fight situation, one member of a collective can communicate fight/flight to all others without any of the others seeing what is causing the communication - the resonance sets in and whole herd can turn and run 'instinctively' (and as such can lead to 'blind panic')

The development of consciousness serves to control and so regulate this 'turn and run' or 'turn and fight' instinct through the serialisation of the event in the form of finer, context sensitive, details that contribute to determining the necessity to turn etc - and so a focus on local context sensitivity. (as mammals, in play with our young, and so the local context, we learn to pull our punches etc). This focus gives the emotion some context and so some history. In so doing it 'discharges' the emotion, releasing it from a raw, overwhelming, unconditional experience, to something manageable and 'defused' by local context relationships (memories etc contribute to the overall 'feel' of the emotion in that each link give 'meaning', a local contribution to the 'whole' and so something to link to without being overwhelmed)

Lets consider a more complex emotion than smile-hello; lets consider adoration. This form of emotion is of interest since it is complex enough to DEMAND a history be associated with it - one does not 'adore'


someone 'instinctively' - this is not about lust/love, it is about a cooperative set of interactions over time that elicit the 'stars in the eyes' quality of adoration.

In the context of projection/transference [and counter transference where the emotion is thought at first to be originating in the projectee and so projected back onto the projector] we have:

(1) person A sees person B.

(2) person A notices the look and/or personality of person B reminds them strongly of person C.

(3) the reminding is so strong that whenever person A sees person B they in fact see person C, ignoring, marginalising person B - person B has become the canvas onto which C is projected and no more than that.

(4) The moment person A projects person C, so the dominating emotion associated by A to C will appear on the face of person A, especially in the eyes. Here we focus on the 'adoration look'.

(5) Meanwhile, person B is not a passive observer here, person B will see the emotions on the face of person A but NOT necessarily the projection going on. As such person B can interpret the emotions on the face of A as being applied to them. (In active psychotherapy the projection is expected, in the passive dynamic of everyday interactions the projection can be missed - and it is not a subject covered in 'social dynamics 101' at high school).

(6) In the particular case of adoration, if the adoration is of a daughter for a father or a son for a mother or a brother for a sister, all that is seeable is the 'stars in the eyes' of the projector but no history is supplied. This look can register but be ignored due its unusual form however....

(7) If this 'look' is applied to person B repeatedly casually over time (5 minutes one day, 1 the next, 10 the next etc), where it is registered but with no acknowledgement or seeking of understanding of the 'look' (social dynamics not allowing for such socialisation etc), person B's emotions will, over accumulated time in this state, start to resonate and so actively start to respond to the stimulus; any previous censorship by consciousness is over-ridden and the emotion can suddenly over-whelm.

(8) Thus the particular response here will be in an overwhelming 'adoration' for the original projector by the original projectee 'for no reason', as if it has 'come out of nowhere' - the lack of history about the 'look', about the projection, means the emotion is 'raw' and as such overwhelming.

(9) The adoration can be finer understood if accompanying it comes 'support' emotions of 'nesting' - these emotions are the irritating, intrusive thoughts that pop into mind 'suddenly' with a focus on the care of one's offspring ("did she pack clean underware?" etc etc - this thought suddenly taking over the mind in the middle of some business presentation etc!). As such, person B starts to have these thoughts about person A The presence of such thoughts indicates the adoration is of the father-daughter/mother-son/brother-sister 'type' (overall focus on 'kin') - and with that comes all of the history of that relationship but here it is missing, all person B 'has' is the adoration and no more (but with the presence of 'nesting' so an indicator of what is being delt with in general)

(10) When the 'resonance' takes over it is unconditional, it does not work like the original projection of a 5 minute 'look' every day, it takes over and 'demands' release at any hour, for many hours, of the day. As such the emotion becomes destabilising and a threat to 'everyday' living as it seeks a history so it can be 'discharged'.

(11) The important focus here is on the emotion coming with a need for a history, it is not an 'immediate' emotion such as lust or anger - it as a 'family' emotion, an integrating, socialising emotion that, on its own acts like a 'cancer' in that it has lost its 'place'.

(12) These sorts of emotions, if not 'discharged' (e.g. learning of, and understanding the projection and so getting some history) can gnaw at the psyche and elicit neuroses where anxieties develop of a situation that can turn into character neuroses and go on to influence the life of person B 'for no reason'.


(13) The necessity for history shows it is 'talk' that discharges these events, not drugs, since the talk gives the necessary history that 'diffuses' the intense emotion and so grounds it. As such, the emotion needs a 'story' to go with it (and this gets into issues of 'rewriting' one's history to 'remove' such 'random' emotions by grounding them even if artificially - the ability to project/transfer passively means allowing for 'unpermissioned' emotions to be 'planted' in individuals and we do find this in the every day in the form of music and advertising where the repetition forces 'transference' BUT we are more often consciously aware of what is going on and so apply censorship. The issues come where we cannot or do not think there is a need since all 'looks fine')

(14) In the focus on discharge, drugs can help the physiological affects and effects of the transference but not the mental conditions of the singular nature - unless the memory can be selectively wiped, but I gather this is still in the 'testing/development' phase! ;-)

(15) The essential issue here is that such transferences can be totally unconscious, there is no recollection of any 'look' since consciousness has 'censored' it and so all we have is the emotional 'unconscious' developing this 'festering' emotion that has no perceptible 'reason' and can apply not just to an individual but to a collective or some 'thing' or 'god' etc - the emotion has been 'picked up' like a virus and can turn into a 'cancer' due to its lack of 'place' (as cancer cells lose their sense of 'place' in the body and so express themselves 'universally', context-free)

12.4.A FEATURE OF TRANSFERENCE - THE 'HOW' OF A RANDOM EMOTION

In the context of the above comments etc on projection, transference, counter-transference (and mirror neurons) I have been considering the neurological aspects of the methodology where an emotion is transferred but with no history. As such, a transference can elicit a 'random' emotion that can take-over or severely destabilise consciousness due to the lack of history and our brain's 'demand' for such.

This ability to transfer as such seems to stem as an artefact of the dynamics of memory encoding/recall. In this encoding the amygdala encodes emotional content whereas the hippocampus encodes the date and time stamp (sequencing) and so allows for the generation of, and association of the emotional memory with, a history. (recall from a previous post, the hippocampus can phase-lock with, for example, pre-frontal cortex in the running of a maze. There is also research linking the hippocampus to methods of map-making (waypointing (use of locals) vs vectoring (use of globals))

In the case of 'passive' transference, as one projects someone onto someone else (a look-a-like) the emotions associate with that someone appear on the face of the projector. The projectee detects this emotion but the date-stamp dynamics are NOT communicatable in this form - you need to communicate date/time events through a different mechanism (speech etc)

All the projectee has is (a) an intense emotion and (b) a date-time stamp mapping the emotion to the presence of the projector, and no more. (and this can occur 'unconsciously' to leave an apparent emotion with no history at all and so no 'ground' and so in the form of a universal; the emotion is all 'new' and overwhelming to start with - thus one has to workout by recall the point of emergence of the transference and those in the surrounding context at that time to figure out the possible projector - one can see here the roots of, and so continued existence of, psychoanalysis and other methods of focusing on trying to link a destabilising emotion with some history.

What is implicit here is there are TWO, semi-autonomous, paths of information encoding/decoding with our emotional path being semi-independent of the temporal/rational path (order, sequence, position focus).


Meaning-as-memory is an entanglement of the hippocampus and amygdala interactions that require dis-entanglement to be communicated- I can get the emotions of a memory to appear on my face and so communicate that, but I cannot get the date/time/sequence data to appear on my face - THAT information needs explicit communication through speech, writing etc.

Thus it is possible for a 'look' to communicate the emotional element of a memory but 'free' of its history - the projectee's emotional system will, if the look is consistent and long enough, resonate where this resonance is a property coming out of our social nature and so allowing for an emotion to trigger a behaviour without detection of the stimulus - and so we can get the herd to turn and run through an alarm from one member of the herd.

The consequence of receiving an emotion with no history by the projectee is the 'need' for history for interpretations such that our consciousness, if it cannot detect a history for some emotion associated with the projector, will create one - and here we find the counter-transference process at work where the projectee thinks the emotion is 'theirs', originating in them, and so projects it, transfers it, back onto the projector.

The essential element here is the lack of a date-time stamp, explicit historic details that come with hippocampus dynamics, in that a situation occurs where the transmission of such information is not possible for psychological or sociological or physiological reasons.

The ability of the "Emotional I Ching" material to do what it does is that it communicates using the amygdala 'path' to extract emotional descriptions of a situation. Any temporal/sequence information comes from consciousness/reason regulating the emotion (and so sequencing events etc - a hippocampus activity)

Of note there is that the notion of the 'random' covers something with no history and so no apparent cause. This notion shares space with that of the 'miraculous' such that the differences are in qualitative interpretations.

Refs/Further Reading:

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa017&articleID=0007F06E-B7AE-1522-B7AE83414B7F0182

A Look Tells All

By Siri Schubert

We do it automatically. As soon as we observe another person, we try to read his or her face for signs of happiness, sorrow, anxiety, anger.




Sometimes we are right, sometimes we are wrong, and errors can create some sticky personal situations. Yet Paul Ekman is almost always right. The psychology professor emeritus at the University of California, San Francisco, has spent 40 years studying human facial expressions. He has catalogued more than 10,000 possible combinations of facial muscle movements that reveal what a person is feeling inside. And he has taught himself how to catch the fleeting involuntary changes, called microexpressions, that flit across even the best liar's face, exposing the truth behind what he or she is trying to hide.

Ekman, 72, lives in Oakland, Calif., in a bright and airy house near the bay. As I talked with him there, he studied me, his eyes peering out from under bushy brows as if they were registering each brief facial tic I unknowingly exhibited. Does his talent make him a mind reader? "No," he says candidly. "The most I can do is tell how you are feeling at the moment but not what you are thinking." He is not being modest or coy; he is simply addressing the psychological bottom line behind facial expressions:

"Anxiety always looks like anxiety," he explains, "regardless of whether a person fears that I'm seeing through their lie or that I don't believe them when they're telling the truth."

The professor calls the ever present risk we all take of misreading a person's visage "Othello's error."

© 1996-2006 Scientific American, Inc.


REFERENCES & FURTHER READING

12.5.NEUROSCIENCES/PSYCHOLOGY/SOCIOLOGY-BIASED REFERENCES AND FURTHER READING

Aggleton, J.P.,(1993) "The contribution of the amygdala to normal and abnormal emotional states" pp328-333 Trends in Neurosciences 16 - August 1993

Allsopp, T.E., & Falakelly, J.K., (2000)"Altruistic Cell Suicide and the Specialized Case of the Virus-infected Nervous System" Trends Neurosci. (2000) 23, 284-290

Azari, N.P., Pettigrew, K.D., Pietrini, P., Murphy,D.C., Horwitz,B., and Schapiro, M.B., (1995) "Sex Differences in Patterns of Hemispheric Cerebral Metabolism: A Multiple Regression/Discriminant Analaysis of Positron Emission Tomographic Data" International Journal of Neuroscience, Vol 81 pp 1-20

Baecker, D., (ed) (1999) "Problems of Form" Stanford

Barabasi, A-L (2002)"Linked : The New Science of Networks" Perseus

Baron-Cohen, S., & Harrison, J.E., (1997) "Synaesthesia" Blackwell

Barondes, S.H.,(1999) "Molecules and Mental Illness" Scentific American Library

Benson,D.F.,(1994) "The Neurology of Thinking" OUP

Bernardi,G., Calabresi,P., Mercuri, N.B., (1989) "Neurochemistry of the emotions: Behavioural and Physiological Correlates of Catecholaminergic Systems" IN "Emotions and the Dual Brain"

Bomford, R., (1999) "The Symmetry of God" Free Association Books

Brown, H.D., & Kosslyn, S.M., (1995) "Hemisphere Differences in Visual Object Processing: Structural versus Allocation Theories" IN Davidson & Hugdahl 1995

Buchanan, M., (2002)"Small World" Phoenix

Cacioppo, J.T., Visser, P.S., and Pickett, C. (eds)(2006) "Social Neuroscience : people thinking about thinking people" MITP

Chan,A.S.,Butters,N.,Paulsen,J.S.,Salmon,D.P.,Swenson,M.R.,Maloney,L.T., (1993) "An Assessment of the Semantic Network In Patients with Alzheimers Disease" p254-261 IN Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 5:2 MITP

Changeux, J-P., & Connes, A., (1995) "Conversations on Mind, Matter, and Mathematics" PUP

Cohen, G.A. (1978)"Karl Marx's Theory of History" PUP

Constantine-Paton, M., and Law, M.I.,(1982) "The Development of Maps and Stripes in the Brain" IN "The Workings of the Brain" A.H. Freeman.

Cook, N.,(1986) "The Brain Code" Methuen

Crawford,H.J., Harrison, D.W., Kapelis, L., (1995) "Visual Field Asymmetry in Facial Affect Perception: Moderatring Effects of Hypnosis, Hypnotic Susceptibility Level, Absorption, and Sustained Attentional Abilities" International Journal of Neuroscience Vol 82 pp 11-23

Damasio, A.R.,(1994) "Descartes' Error" Picador

Damasio, A.R., (1999) "The Feeling of What Happens" William Heinmann

Damasio,A.R., Tranel,D., and Damasio,H.C., (1991) "Somatic Markers and the Guidence of Behaviour" IN "Frontal Lobe function and disfunction"

Davidson, R.J., & Hugdahl, K., (Eds) (1995) "Brain Asymmetry" MITP

Davidson, R.J., & Hugdahl, K., (Eds) (2004) "The Asymmetrical Brain " MITP


Dehaene, S., Duhamel, J-R., Hauser, M., & Rozolatti, G., (2005)"From Monkey Brain to Human Brain" MITP

Delis, D.C., (1983) "Contribution of the right hemisphere in the organization of paragraphs" IN CORTEX 19, pp43-50.

Dermietzel, R., and Spray,D.C.,(1993) "Gap junctions in the brain: where, what type, how many and why?" pp186-191 Trends in Neursciences 16 - Feb 1993

Deleuze, G., (2004) "Difference and Repetition" Continuum

Devlin, K., (2000) "The Maths Gene" Weidenfeld & Nicolson

Diamond, A.,(1991) "Guidelines for the Study of Brain-Behaviour Relationships During Development" IN "Frontal Lobe Function and Dysfunction."

Dowling, J.E., (1998) "Creating Mind : How the brain works" Norton

Doty, R.W., (1989) "Some anatomical substrates of emotion, and their bihemispheric coordination" IN "Emotions and the Dual Brain" p57-82

Edelman, G.M., & Tononi, G., (2000) "Consciousness : How Matter Becomes Imagination" Allen Lane Penguin Press

Eichenbaum, H., & Otto,T.,(1993) "LTP and memory: can we enhance the connection?" pp63-164 Trends in Neurosciences 16 - May 1993

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

Elster, J., (1985)"Making Sense of Marx [part 2:theory of history]" CUP

Endo,M., Shimizu,A., Nakamura,I., "The Influence of Hangul learning upon laterality Differences in Hangul Word Recognition by Native Japanese Subjects" Brain and Language 14 (1981): pp114-119

Eysenck, H., (1995) "Genius : The natural history of creativity" CUP

Fidlon David, (trans) - Various(1968)"Historical Materialism : Basic Problems" Progress Publishers, Moscow

Fink, B., (1997) "A clinical introduction to Lacanian Psychoanalysis" HUP

Frackowiak, R.S.J. (1994) "Functional mapping of verbal memory and language." pp109-114 Trends in Neurosciences 17 - March 1994

Freeman, W.J., (1999) "How Brains makeup their Minds" Weidenfeld & Nicolson

Freud, S., (1986) "The Essentials of Psycho-Analysis" Penguin

Friberg, L., & Lassen, N.A. (1990) "Language and Cerebral Hemispheres" IN "Brain Work and Mental Activity".

Friston, K.J., & Frackowiak, R.S.J.,(1990) "Imaging Functional Anatomy" IN "Brain work and Mental Activity"

Fuster, J.M., (1995) "Memory in the Cerbral Cortex" MITPress

Gainotti, G., (1989) "Features of Emotional Behaviour Relevant to Neurobiology and the Theories of Emotions" IN "Emotions and the Dual Brain"

Gainotti, G., and Caltagirone, C., (eds) (1989) "Emotions and the Dual Brain" Springer-Verlag

Galaburda, A.M., (1995) "Anatomic Basis of Cerebral Dominance" IN Davidson & Hugdahl 1995

Gazzaniga, M.S., Ivry, R.B., & Mangun, G.R., (1998) "Cognitive Neuroscience : The Biology of the Mind" Norton

Gazzaniga, M.S., (2005)"The Ethical Brain" Dana Press


Glas,A., (ed) (1987) "Individual Differences in Hemispheric Specialization" Plenum Press.

Glimcher, P.W., (2004) "Decisions, Uncertainty, and the Brain : The Science of Neuroeconomics" MITP

Gladwell, M., (2000)"The Tipping Point" Little Brown

Greenfield, S.A., (2000) "The Private Life of the Brain" Allen Lane, The Penguin Press

Goldberg,E., & Costa,C.D., "Hemisphere Differences in the Acquisition and use of Descriptive Systems" Brain and Language 14(1981):pp144-167

Goldman-Rakic, P.S., (1984) "Modular organization of the prefrontal cortex" IN Trends in Neurosciences Nove 1984 pp 419-424

Goldman-Rakic,P.S., and Friedman, H.R., (1991) "The Circuitry of Working Memory Revealed by Anatomical and Metabolic Imagery" IN "Frontal Lobe Function and Disfunction"

Goleman, D., (1995) "Emotional Intelligence" Hutchinsom

Goleman, D., (2006) "Social Intelligence" Hutchinson

Hasselmo, M.E., (1999) "Neuromodulation : acetylcholine and memory consolidation" Trends Cognit. Sci (1999) 3, 351-359

Heilbroner, R.L., (1985) "The Nature and Logic of Capitalism" Norton''

Heilig,M., Koob,R.E., Ekman,R., and Britton,K.T., (1994) "Corticotropin- releasing factor and the neuropeptide Y: role in emotional integration." pp80-84 Trends in Neuroscience

Hellige, J.B., (1995) " Hemispheric Asymmetry for Components of Visual Information Processing" IN Davidson, R.J., & Hugdahl (1995)

Hillis,A.E., & Caramazza,A.,(1995) "Representation of Grammatical Categories of Words in the Brain" Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 7:3

Hobson, J.A., (1999) "Consciousness" Scientific American Library

Hoffman, D.D., (1998) "Visual Intelligence" Norton

Holland. J.H., (1999) "Emergence" OUP

Hugdahl, K.,(1995) "Dichotic Listening: Probing Temporal Lobe Functional Integrity" IN Davidson & Hugdahl (1995)

Hutcheon, B., & Yarom, Y., (2000) "Resonance, oscillation and the intrinsic frequency preferences of neurons" Trends Neurosci. (2000) 23, 216-222

Iadecola,C.,(1993) "Regulation of the cerebral microcirculation during neural activity: is nitric oxide the missing link?" pp206-213 Trends in Neurosciences 16

Ilyenkov, E.V., (1977) "Dialectical Logic" Progress Publishers

Israel, J., (1979) "The Language of Dialectics, the Dialectics of Language" Harvester Press

Ivry, R.B., & Robertson, L.C., (1998) "The Two Sides of Perception" MITP

Jamison,K.R., (1995) "Manic-Depressive Illness and Creativity" IN Scientific American Febuary 1995

Johnson, M.H., (Ed) (1993) "Brain Development and Cognition - A Reader" Blackwell

Jonas, S., (1987) "The Supplementary Motor Region and Speech" IN "The Frontal Lobes Revisited"

Jones, R.S.G.,(1993) "Entorhinal-hippocampal connections: a speculative view of their function" pp58-63 Trends in Neurosciences 16 - Feb 1993

Jung, C., (1968) "Psychology and Alchemy" RKP

Jung, C., () "The Psychology of the Transference" Princeton


Kaczmarek, B.L.J., (1987) "Regulatory Function of the Frontal Lobes: A Neurolinguistic Perspective" IN "The Frontal Lobes Revisited"

Kandel, E.R.,(1979) "Small Systems of Neurons" IN "The Biology of the Brain. From Neurons to Networks" W.H.Freeman

Kent, E.W., (1981) "The Brains of Men and Machines" McGraw Hill (Byte books) page 218

Kelso, S (1995) "Dynamic Patterns" MITP

Klein, R.M., (2000) "Inhibition of Return" Trends Cognit. Sci (2000) 4, 138-146

Kuan, C-Y., et al (2000)" Mechanisms of Programmed Cell Death in the Developing Brain" Trends Neurosci. (2000) 23, 291-297

Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M., (1999) "Philosophy in the Flesh" Basic Books

Lassen,Inguar,Raichle,Friberg (eds) (1990) "Brain Work and Mental Activity" Munksgarrd

Leader, D., (2000) "Freud's Footnotes" Faber and Faber

Lee, J.S., (1991) "Abstracting and Aging" Springer-Verlag

Lennerberg, E.H., () "Towards a Biological Theory of Language Development" p41 IN "Brain Development and Cognition"

Levarie, S., (1980) "Music as a Structural Model" p236-239 IN Journal of Social Biol. Structure. 3

Levin,H.S., Eisenberg,H.M., Benton,A.L., (Eds)(1991) "Frontal Lobe function and disfunction" OUP

Lewis, D.W., & Diamond, M.C., (1995) "The Influence of Gonadal Steroids on the Asymmetry of the Cerebral Cortex" IN Davidson & Hugdahl (1995)

Loewenstein, W.R. (1999) "The Touchstone of Life" Penguin

Lopes de Silva,F.H., and Storm van Leeuwen,W.,(1978) "The Cortical Alpha Rhythm in Dog: The Depth and Surface Profile of Phase" IN (Brazier & Petsche,1978)

Lorcu, M.P.,(1990) "Cross-linguistic study of the Agrammatic Impairment in Verb Inflection" p159 IN "Morphology, Phonology, and Aphasia"

Luhmann, N. (1984) "Social Systems" Stanford University Press

Luhmann, N. (2002)"Theories of Distinction" Stanford

Malach, R., (1994) "Cortical columns as devices for maximizing neuronal diversity." pp101-105 Trends in Neurosciences 17 - March 1994

Marx, K., ([1859]) Dobb,M.(ed)(1970)"A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy" International Publishers

Marx, K., (1976) "Capital Vol 1" Penguin

Marx, K., (1956) "Capital Vol 2" Progress Publishers

Mark, K., (1981) "Capital Vol 3" Penguin

Marx, K., (1973) "Grundrisse" Penguin

Matte-Blanco, I., (1998) "The Unconscious as Infinite Sets ; An Essay in Bi-logic" Karnac

Maziotta et al., (1990) "Topography and motor learning" IN "Brain Work and Mental Activity"

McAdams, S., and Bigand, E., (1993) "Introduction to auditory cognition" IN "Thinking in Sound" pp 1-9

McAdams, S., and Bigand, E., (Eds) (1993) "Thinking in Sound" OUP

Merrell, F., (1997) "Peirce, Signs, and Meaning" UTP

Miller, J-A., (Ed) (1993) "The Seminars of Jacque Lacan, Book III : The Psychoses 1955-1956" Norton


Moscovitch, M., (1992) "Memory and working-with-memory: A complement process model based on modules and central systems." IN Journal of C.N. 4:3 MITP

Munte,T.F., Heinze,H-J., and Mangun, G.,(1993) "Dissociation of Brain Activity Related to Syntactic and Semantic Aspects of Language" IN Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 5:3 p335-344 MITP

Newman, M., Barabasi,A., & Watts, D., (2006)"The Structure and Dynamics of NETWORKS" Princeton UP

Norris, J.P., (1998) "Markov Chains" CUP

Ornstein, R., (1997) "The Right Mind : Making Sense of the Hemispheres" Harcourt & Brace

Oscar-Berman, M., McNamara, P., and Freedman,M.,(1991) "Delayed-Response Tasks: Parallels Between Experimental Ablation Studies and Findings in Patients with Altzheimers"

Pandya,D.N., and Barnes,C.L., (1987) "Architecture and Connections of the Frontal Lobe" IN "The Frontal Lobes Revisited"

Parsons, L. M. & Osherton, D.(2001)"New Evidence for Distinct Right and Left Brain Systems for Deductive versus Probabilistic Reasoning" IN Cerebral Cortex, Vol 11, No 10, 954-965

Paul D.MacLean (1973) "A triune concept of brain and behaviour" Ed T.J.Boag & D.Campbell - University of Toronto Press.

Peirce Edition Project (1992) "The Essential Peirce : Volume 1" IUP

Peirce Edition Project (1998) "The Essential Peirce : Volume 2" IUP

Peitgen, Jurgens, & Saupe (2004) "Chaos and Fractals (2nd edition)" Springer

Perecman, E.,(Ed) (1987) "The Frontal Lobes Revisited" IRBN Press

Perry, E., et al (1999) "Acetylcholine in mind: a neurotransmitter correlate of consciousness?" Trends Neurosci. (1999) 22, 273-280

Petrides, M.,(1991) "Learning Impairments Following Excisions of the Primate Frontal Cortex" IN "Frontal Lobes Function and Dysfunction"

Pockett, S., Banks, W.P., & Gallagher, S. (eds)(2006) "Does Consciousness Cause Behavior?" MITP

Popper, K., (1957)"The Open Society and its Enemies: Hegel and Marx" RKP

Popper, K., (2002)"The Povery of Historicism" Routledge

Posner,M.I., Raichle, M.E., (1994) "Images of Mind" Scientific American Library

Pribram, K.H.,(1987) "The Subdivisions of the Frontal Cortext Revisited" IN "The Frontal Lobes Revisited".

Prigatano,G.P.,(1991) "The Relationship of Frontal Lobe Damage to Diminished Awareness: Studies in Rehabilitation" IN "Frontal Lobe Function and Dysfunction"

Rakic, P., (1993) "Intrinsic and Extrinsic Determinants of Neocortical Parcellation: a Radial Unit Model" IN (p99 Johnson 1993)

Rayner, E., (1995) "Unconscious Logic : an introduction to Matte Blanco's bi-logic and its uses" Brunner-Routledge

Reichert, H.,(1992) "Introduction to Neurobiology" Thieme/Oxford

Rizzolatti, G., (1989) "Reaction Times and Mental States" IN "Emotions and the Dual Brain" p241-245

Riose & Gazzaniga (1979) "Well kept secrets of the Right Hemisphere" IN Neurology 28 pp910-913

Rosen, D., (1996) "The Tao of Jung" Penguin/Arkana

Schwartz, J., (1999) "Casandra's Daughter : A History of Psychoanalysis" Penguin


Sergent, J.,(1995) "Hemispheric Contribution to Face Processing: Patterns of Convergence and Divergence" IN Davidson & Hugdahl (1995)

Shepherd, G.M.,(Ed) (1990)"The Synaptic Organization of the Brain (3Ed)" OUP

Shimamura, A.P., Janowsky, J.S., and Squire, L.R., (1991) "What is the Role of Frontal Lobe Damage in Memory Disorders?" IN "Frontal Lobe Function and Disfunction"

Soderfeldt,B., Ronnberg,J., Risberg,J., "Regional Cerebral Blood Flow in Sign Language Users" Brain and Language 46 (1994):pp59-68

Springer, S.P., & Deutsch, G., (1998) "Left Brain, Right Brain -5th edition" W.H.Freeman

Springer, S.P., & Deutsch, G., (1989) "Left Brain, Right Brain - 3rd edition" W.H.Freeman

Springer,S.P., & Deutsch, G., (1984) "Left Brain, Right Brain - revised edition" W.H.Freeman

Springer,S., & Deutsch,G., (1985) "Left Brain, Right Brain" Freeman.

Starkstein,S.E., and Robinson,R.G.,(1991) "The Role of the Frontal Lobes in Affective Disorder Following Stroke." IN "Frontal Lobe Function and Dysfunction".

Stein, B.E., and Meredith, M.A., (1993) "The Merging of the Senses" MITP

Strogatz, S., (2003)"Sync" Allen Lane

Stuss,D.T., (1991) "Interference Effects on Memory Functions in Postleukotomy patients : An attentual Perspective" IN "Frontal lobe function and disfunction"

Stuss,D.T., and Benson D.F.,(1987) "Control of Cognition and Memory" IN "The Frontal Lobes Revisited"

Tallon-Baudry, C. and Bertrand, O., (1999) "Oscillatory gamma activity in humans and its role in object representation" Trends Cogniti. Sci (1999) 3, 151-161

Tarasti, E., (1994) "A Theory of Musical Semiotics" IUP

Tomaselco, M., (2000) "The item-based nature of children's early syntactic development" Trends Cognit. Sci. (2000) 4, 156-163

Tramo, M.J., Loftus,W.C., Thomas,C.E., Green, R.I., Mott, L.A., Gazzaniga, M.S., (1995) "Surface Area of Human Cerebral Cortex and its Gross Morphological Subdivisions: In Vivo Measurements in Monozygotic Twins Suggerst Differential Hemisphere Effects of Genetic Factors" Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 7:2 pp 292-301

Wagner,H., and Manstead, A.,(eds) (1989) "Handbook of Social Psychophysiology" Wiley

Watts, J.D., (2003)"Six Degrees" Heinemann

Wheeler, J.A., & Zurek, W.H.,(eds) (1983) "Quantum Theory and Measurement" Princeton

Williams, G.P., (2003) "Chaos Theory Tamed" Joseph Henry Press

Wolff, J.,(2002)"Why Read Marx Today?" OUP

Zaidel, D.W., & Edelstyn, N.,(1995) "Hemispheric Semantics: Effects of Pictorial Organization on Patients with Unilateral Brain Damage" International Journal of Neuroscience Vol 82 pp 215-221

12.6.I CHING & MBTI/NLP REFERENCES & FURTHER READING LIST

The following lists various texts that have contributed to my analysis of the I Ching as well as my concept of brain structure and it's manifestation in 'meaningful' literature. Most of the I Ching texts are translations of translations with the exception of those marked with an * at the beginning of the line. (for listings of neurological interest, see the reference list at the end of the "brain" link found at the beginning of the first page)


The mixing template and definitions that I have used are 'mine'. You will not find them explicitly in any of the texts but you will find clues to their existance. (Qualification: Of all the texts that I have read I have not found the grouping definitions. There maybe some chinese texts that contain them or perhaps they were all burnt in the burnings of 200 BC). A 'fuller' analysis of the template is in the dichotomy links as well as in my text - "The Sense of Dichotomy" (email).

Author(s) Title Publishers

My own material:

* Lofting,C.J., (1980)"Space, Time, and Evolution". Unpublished

(This 'opus' was commenced in 1975. The last hard copy was done

in 1984. I doubt if it will ever be published as a single volume due to

it's size! I have now split it up into 13 seperate 'books' covering a

rather wide range of topics. (The I Ching section was one of the twenty six

appendecies!). It basically introduces the Spacetime Continuum Mind concept

and then applies the concept to various areas of study. I suppose the 13

'books' are the explicit manifestation of the implicit concept).

The period to 1994 was more research oriented and thus not much production.

Since then, there has been:

* Lofting,C.J., (1994)"A Piece of Fabric"" Unpublished.

* Lofting,C.J., (1994)"Paths to Refinement: The I Ching" Unpublished.

* Lofting,C.J., (1995)"Process and Change" Unpublished.

* Lofting,C.J., (1996)"The Sense of Dichotomy" Unpublished.

* Lofting,C.J., (1997)"The Logic of the Esoteric"(short paper)Unpublished.

As well as a lot of 'incomplete' papers, all of which have influenced the

current WEB work.

For the I Ching references:

Wilhelm,R., (1983)"I Ching or Book of Changes". RKP:London

* Wilhelm,R., (1983)"Lectures on the I Ching". RKP:London

* Shchutskii,I.K.,(1979)"Researches on the I Ching" Princeton.U.P.

Boardman,W.S. (1984)"The Pocket I Ching" Arcana:London

* Damian-Knight,G.,(1987)"Karma and Destiny in the I Ching"Arcana:London

Reifler,S., (1974)"I Ching: a new interpretation for modern times"


Bantam:NewYork

Blofeld,J., (1976)"I Ching: The Book of Change" Allen & Unwin.

Pattee,R., (1986)"Moving With Change" Arcana:London

Walker,B,G., (1986)"I Ching of the Goddess"

* Wilhelm,H., (1977)"Heaven,Earth, and Man in the Book of Changes"U.

Washington Press

Wei,H., (1987)"The Authentic I-Ching" NPC:Hollywood.

* Schoenholtz,L.,(1975)"New Directions in the I Ching" University Books

Legge,J., (1963(1899))"The I Ching" Dover

Wing,R.L., (1983)"The I Ching Workbook" Aquarian Press

Trosper,B.R., & Leu Gin-Hua (1986)"I Ching: The Illustrated Primer"

KGI:San Jose

* Lee,J.Y., (1975)"The I Ching and Modern Man" University Books

* Govinda,L.A., (1981)"The Inner Structure of the I Ching" Wheelwright

* Liu,D., (1979)"I Ching Numerology" RKP:London

Liu,D., (1975)"I Ching Coin Prediction" RKP:London

Chu,W.K., (1976)"The Astrology of the I Ching" RKP:London

* Schonberger, M., (1976) "The I Ching and the Genetic Code" ASI

Publishers Inc.

* Yan. J.F., (1991) "DNA and the I Ching: The Tao of Life" North

Atlantic Books.

* Hacker, E.(1993) "The I Ching Handbook" Paradigm

Whincup, G.,(1986) "Rediscovering the I Ching" Aquarian

Walker, B.B.,(1993) "The I Ching" Piatkus

Douglas, A.,(1971) "The Oracle of Change" Penguin

Riseman,T.,(1980) "Understanding the I Ching" Aquarian

* Anthony, C.K.,(1981) "The Philosophy of the I Ching" Anthony

(1982) "A Guide to the I Ching" Anthony

Kaser, R.T.,(1994) "I Ching in ten minutes" Avon

* Sherrill,W.A., & Chu,W.K.,(1977) "An anthology of I Ching" RKP

Sherill, W.A.(1980) "The Astrology of I Ching" RKP

* Moore, S.,(1989) "The Trigrams of Han" Aquarian

* Linares, E.,(1982) "A Scientific Approach to the Metaphysics of Astrology"

Seek-It Books

* Tsu, Lao(1963ed) "The Tao Te Ching" Penguin

Powell,N.,(1979) "The Book of Change" Orbis

Young,A.D.,(1993) "Vision and Change" Allen Young Books


Ni,H.C.,(1990)(2nd ed) "The Book of Changes and the Unchanging Truth"

SEBT

Melyan, G.G., & Chu,W.,(1977) "The Pocket I Ching" Yen-Books

Cleary,T., & Ou-i,C.,(1987) "The Buddist I Ching" Shambala

Cleary,T., (1986)"The Taoist I Ching" Shambhala:Boston

* Cleary,T.,(1989) "I Ching Mandalas" Shambala

Cleary,T.,(1990) "The Tao of Organization" Shabala

* Mears,L.,& L.E.,(1976) "Creative Energy: A study of the I Ching" Ohara

* McKenna,T., & McKenna,D.,(1994)"The Invisable Landscape" Harper

* Hook, D.F.,(1973) "The I Ching and You" RKP

* (1975) "The I Ching and Mankind" RKP

* (1980) "The I Ching and it's Associations" RKP:London

* Wilhelm,H.,(1975) "Change" RKP

* Cooper,J.,L.,(1981) "Yin and Yang" Aquarian

Damian-Knight,G.,(1984) "The I Ching and Love" Blandford

Hazel,P.,(1990) "Consulting the Coins" Lothian

Richmond,N.,(1977) "The Language of the Lines" Wildwood House

Siu,R.G.W.,(1968) "The Portable Dragon" MITPress

Pease, M.,(1993) "The Aquarian I Ching" Brotherhood of Life

Jou, T.H.(1984) "The Tao of I Ching" Tai Chi Foundation

Huang,K. & S.(1987) "I Ching" Workman

* Rule, P.A.(1986) "Kung-Tsu or Confucius?" Allan & Unwin

Arcarti,K.,(1994) "I Ching for beginners" Hodder&Stoughton

* Seabrook,M.,(1994)"Twelve Channels of the I Ching" Blandford

Ritsema,R., & Karcher,S.,(1994) "I Ching" Element

(Very useful. Gives all possible associations of the ideograms within

the traditional I Ching, enabling a more refined insight into the I Ching

rather than the usual preference of total acceptance of Wilhelm's text.).

Karcher,S.,(1995) "Elements of the I Ching" Element

* Sterling,M.G.,(1995)"I Ching and Transpersonal Psychology"Samual Weiser

* Walter,K.,(1994)"The Tao of Chaos: DNA & The I Ching" Element

Fu Huisheng (2000) "The Zhou Book of Change" Shandong Friendship Press

Philosophical foundations:


Some of the 'mind stuff' in all this comes from "Space,Time, and

Evolution". Below are some of the references that helped with generating

the model with a bias to Neuro Linguistic Programming (NLP) and it's roots,

since it is concerned with the processes of human map-making. For a more

extensive background, see the dichotomy links, as well as the references

in the other links.

Heller, S., & Steele, T.,(1987) "Monsters and Magical Sticks" Falcon

Press.

Paul D.MacLean (1973) "A triune concept of brain and behaviour"

Ed T.J.Boag & D.Campbell - University of Toronto Press.

Bandler & Grinder (1975) "The Structure of Magic"

Scientific Books.

Bandler & Grinder (1977) "The Structure of Magic Volume II"

Scientific Books.

Bandler & Grinder (1975) "Patterns I - Hypnotic Techniques of M.Erickson"

Meta Publications

Bandler & Grinder (1977) "Patterns II"

Meta Publications

Bandler & Grinder (1979) "Frogs into Princes"

Meta Publications.

Bandler & MacDonald (1988) "An Insider's Guide To Sub-Modalities"

Meta Publications.

Nadel,Haims, & Stempson (1990) "Sixth Sense"

Prentice Hall Press.

Cameron-Bandler & Lebeau (1986) "The Emotional Hostage"

FuturePace.

Dilts (1983) "Applications of NLP"

Meta Publications.

Dilts (1983) "Roots of NLP"

Meta Publications.

Dilts (1990) "Changing Belief Systems with NLP"

Meta Publications.

Dilts.R.,Hallbom,T.,& Smith,S., (1990) "Beliefs: Pathways to Health and

Well-Being" Metamorphous Press.

Dilts (1991) "Tools for Dreamers"


Meta Publications.

Jacobson,S., (1983) "Meta-Cation"

Meta Publications.

Jacobson,S., (1986) "Meta-Cation Volume II"

Meta Publications.

Jacobson,S., (1986) "Meta-Cation Volume III"

Meta Publications.

James,T., & Woodsmall,W., (1988) "Time Line Therapy and the Basis of

Personality"

Meta Publications.

James,T., (1989) "The Secret of Creating Your Future"

Advanced Neuro Dynamics.Hawaii.

Spencer-Brown,G., (1973) "Laws of Form"

Dutton.

Bateson,G., (1972) "Steps to an Ecology of Mind"

Ballentine.

Bateson,G., (1980) "Mind and Nature: a necessary unity"

Bantam.

Bateson,G., & Bateson M., (1987) "Angels Fear"

Rider.

Hall,E.T., (1969) "The Hidden Dimension"

Doubleday Anchor.

Hall,E.T., (1973) "The Silent Language"

Doubleday Anchor.

Hall,E.T., (1977) "Beyond Culture"

Doubleday Anchor.

Hall,E.T., (1984) "The Dance of Life"

Doubleday Anchor.

Hall, L.M, & Bodenhamer, B.G. (1999) "The User's Manual for the Brain" CHP

Herrmann, N., (1990) "The Creative Brain"

Brain Books.

Campbell, J., (1982) " Grammatical Man" Pelican

Campbell, J., (1986) "Winston Churchill's Afternoon Nap" Paladin.

Campbell, J., (1989) "The Improbable Machine" Simon and Schuster.

Pylkkanen, P.,(Ed) (1989) "The Search for Meaning" Crucible

Sringer,S., & Deutsch,G., (1985) "Left Brain, Right Brain" Freeman.

Ornstein, R., (1991) "The Evolution of Consciousness" Touchstone.


Johnson, G., (1991) "In The Palace Of Memory" Grafton.

Waldrop,M.M,(1992) "Complexity" Penguin

Levy,S.,(1993) "Artificial Life" Penguin

Connolly E.,(1979) "Tarot: a new handbook for the apprentice Vol I"

Newcastle Publishing Co.

Frater Achad (??) "Q.B.L. or The Bride's Reception" Pan Fort

Crowley A.,(1987) "The Heart of the Master" Stellar Visions

Regarde, I.,(1970) "A Garden of Pomegranates" Llewellyn Publications

Lancer, B.,(1992) "Place it on the Tree" Tools of the Tree

12.6.1.MBTI REFERENCES:

Keirsey D., (1987) "Portraits of Temperament"

Prometheus Nemisis Book Co.

Keirsey D., and Bates,M., (1984) "Please Understand Me"

Prometheus Nemisis Book Co.

Moss, S., (1989) "Jungian Typology: Myers Briggs and Personality"

Collins Dove.

Moss, S., (Editor) (1989) "Exploring the M.B.T.I."

DMP Publications.

Myers, I.B., & Myers,P.B.,(1980)"Gifts Differing" Davis-Black Publishing

12.7.QM ETC REFS - PHYSICS MAPS

Bohm, D., (1980) "Wholeness and the Implicit Order" RKP

Bohm D., (1985) "Unfolding Meaning" Routledge

Casti, J. L.,(1994) "Complexification" Abacus

d'Espagnat, B.,(1983) "In Search of Reality" Springer-Verlag

Fraassen Van, B.C.,(1991) "Quantum Mechanics : an Empiricist View"

Clarendon

Gribbin, J., (1995) "Schrodinger's Kittens" Weidenfeld & Nicolson

Herbert, N.,(1985) "Quantum Reality" Rider

Peitgen, Jurgens, & Saupe (2004) "Chaos and Fractals" Springer

Hey, T., & Walters, P., (2003) "The New Quantum Universe" Cambridge UP.

Rae, A.,(1986) "Quantum Physics: Illusion or Reality?" Canto

Stapp, J.P., (1993) "Mind, Matter, and Quantum Mechanics" Springer Verlag

Wheeler, J.A. & Zurek W.H.,(eds) (1983)"Quantum theory and measurement"


Princeton

Zajonc, A.,(1993) "Catching the Light : The Entwined History of Light and

Mind" OUP

Language of the Vague- Chris Lofting

Documents

Transcript of Language of the Vague- Chris Lofting