Hi Glenn,
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk
> [mailto:owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk]On Behalf Of
> gmbbradford@netscape.net
> Sent: Sunday, 3 December 2000 6:42
> To: moq_discuss@moq.org
> Subject: Re: MD the particular, the general, EITHER/OR, BOTH/AND
>
>
> Hi Chris,
>
> CHRIS
> In the context of establishing any particular, e.g. MOQ, I think the
> following may be of interest, in particular the method of BOTH/AND to
> EITHER/OR conversions....
>
> CHRIS
> (1) There is enough evidence around to validate the conjecture
> that in the
> human brain, and in the brains of other lifeforms, the
> distinction is made
> of the particular and the general and from this emerges the concepts of
> objects and relationships.
>
> GLENN
> Perhaps, but let's not forget the temporal aspects here. The concepts
> derived by the brain concerning the 'what' and the 'where' probably do
> not happen concurrently, but in a hierarchical/temporal process whereby
> the 'left' provides inputs to the 'right' to solve the binding problem.
> I have a little trouble believing that the general part of the brain has
> much to say about X at least in the early going (on the order of
> the first
> few nanoseconds) of perception processing.
>
Sure - if you read my earlier emails they mention that the initial
identification is a 50/50 call for something novel. Feedback in the form of
personal, cultural memories can influence the identification (and so cause
us to experience delusions/illusions). Usually the 'left' does the syntax
and if it cannot identify clearly then it calls in secondary processing
(right bias) which analyses context to try and get a 'fix' on a *possible*
meaning.
Usually the right handles unknowns, text-to-context relationships (grammars
etc), metaphors and all questions dealing with what is BEHIND something that
we can identify and so give a clear identification. This part also acts in
causing interference as we intentionally 'muddle' communications by
exagerating or playing-down aspects etc.
We use such behavioural patterns as inductive, abductive, deductive
analysis. Induction is more to novelty where there is no existing personal
or cultural hypothesis present.
Abduction (particular-to-general) and deduction (general-to-particular) come
to the fore when we either BELIEVE there is already a map, we just need to
find where a particular fits in, or we KNOW the map already and DEDUCE from
that.
Thus abduction holds the particular constant and flips through contexts to
find a 'fit'. Deduction holds the general constant and flips through
particulars to get the 'fit'.
Induction moves from particular-to-general but without any pre-stored
context in mind. Summing of data leads to the generation of a hypothesis and
the next experiences will (a) recall the hypothesis and/or (b) apply the
abductive/deductive dichotomy to 'refine' identifications by linking
particular with a general (or more so particular text with particular
context).
> (2) The process of particularisation emphasises EITHER/OR
> processing and the
> clear, precise, identification of X forces the concept of ~X, where X is
> 'the one' and ~X is 'everything else' aka 'the many'.
>
> So this is the fundamental bifurcation. We're assuming that the
> 'particular' brain module also identifies ~X as it did X. How does the
> brain get a "clear, precise identification" of any object? Do you think
> it's from a direct experience with DQ?
>
I do not think at basic levels there is 'clear' and so explicit
identification of ~X to start with; feedback processes make its implicit
presence into an explicit format, a known. The 'pure' singlemindedness of
lifeforms driven by genes and no feedback show fearlessness, they are all
'positive', pure 'push' and so no awareness of consequences of actions (as a
child reaches from the candle flame...) -- to have that awareness of
consequence means explicit awareness of NOT and that seems to come later in
development. There is thus a singlemindedness, single context, in actions
other than strong adaptions to dangers - e.g. chicks that 'duck' when the
shadow of a hawk is passed over them. This is a genetic response, pure
stimulus/response and so still reflects the singlemindedness, the 'duck'
lacks discernment, it is 'total' as are all unrefined gene behaviours.
This suggests that NOT is encoded at the gene level but as a member of a set
of harmonics, of possibles. For example, in studies on the brain processing
negation it emerged that the observed hemisphere switch, from a left
hemisphere and so proactive single context frame of mind 'looking' for a YES
to a request, to the right hemisphere, suggested abduction being used where
the NO answer to the request elicits the scanning of past contexts which
could be introduced to 'swing' the answer e.g. "but last year at the old
house you said ok.." and so on.
These other contexts require right hemisphere processing as we scan the many
to find a one.
If you reflect on the development of an idea, once it springs to mind so we
work our way through it and that includes eventually considering its
negative elements. Others can do this or else they distrust it to start
with, again from a feedback influence (that can become habit and be
generalised so that ALL new ideas etc are treated negatively).
> (3) The process of generalisation forces the inclusion of
> BOTH/AND concepts
> where within the general are both concepts of a particular as well as its
> opposite and due to the 'illogic' of these appearing 'at the same time'
> forces the general to emphasis probabilites, what COULD be rather
> than what
> IS.
>
> GLENN
> An interesting idea. The tension causing the 'illogic' is responsible not
> only for the statistical slant of the mind but perhaps more importantly
> the gross driving force behind creativity, the search for universal laws
> and the general loopiness characteristic of people (some more than
> others).
>
:-) sure. The illogic is only resolved through dynamic processes since the
static level that favours the ONE cannot deal with it. See above comments on
especially abduction where the dynamics includes scanning contexts to get a
'fit'; this scanning can lead to a discovery of something 'new', unusual and
so act creatively -- this is innovative creativity. Adaptive creativity
holds the context constant and flips through texts or a text is 'rotated'
etc in the given context to detect a variation on the theme.
> CHRIS
> (4) The brain demonstrates its inability to explicitly process BOTH/AND
> states in that it converts BOTH/ANDness into EITHER/OR oscillations. The
> distinction here is that the states are qualitatively identical
> in precision
> such that we cannot identify them in the same 'space' through a ranged
> difference emphasis; the states are rigid opposites. This includes a
> temporal emphasis that forces time to have a begin/end when expressed
> (EITHER/OR) but allows for a superposition to exist (BOTH/AND) outside of
> the explicit expression.
>
> GLENN
> You're postulating here that the conversion to oscillations gives us our
> subjective sense of time's arrow, and that a requirement for this
> sense is a
> digital expression, not a wave/analog one.
Yes. This gives us a methodology applicable at all levels of time
measurement etc
> This could also explain why
> a person under the influence of LSD experiences a subjective
> sense of time
> dilation. Perhaps the drug suppresses conversion to EITHER/OR
> oscillations
> and the subject is left in a state of temporal superposition.
>
Possible. LSD is linked to psychedelics and so more right brained events in
that sensory harmonics are exagerated, highs and lows, and there is a
concept of 'linking with others' involved as well as a sensory acceptability
of difference. There is more of a 'many' emphasis, a relational emphasis.
Here you can have a *relationship* with god etc
Psychotropics on the other hand (cocaine etc) are more left brained in that
linkage is with the 'self', the ONE and the emphasis is on SAMENESS;the all
powerful 'one'. Introduce difference to the context and the individual
becomes paranoid etc Here you ARE god etc (the 'one')
The relational biases within the brain favour the space in-between objects
and as such the linkage emphasis would have an affect on time experiences in
that it contains the begin-end emphasis but lacks the 'dots'.
On the otherhand, the psychotropic side gives an emphasis on the ONE and so
the archetypal, the PURE. Here time is eternal, reversible etc.
> CHRIS
> (5) There seems to be an emphasis where the particulars-biased
> part of the
> brain favours objects and quantitative precision, and so the
> KNOWN, whereas
> the generals-biased part of the brain favours relational concepts -- the
> space in-between objects - and a more qualitative precision that includes
> negation -- aka the UNKNOWN. These distinctions favour the
> categorisation of
> objects and the known with text/foreground/positive, and the
> categorisation
> of relationships and the unknown with
> context/background/negative. (even a
> positive relationship is a form of constraint).
>
> GLENN
> Just a note. The constraint due to "positive relationship" is
> probably not
> strong enough to cause a neuropsychopathology, as negative ones probably
> would.
>
To some degree, but how about drug addictions etc? The positive experience
acts to reinforce the seeking of drugs etc? There is an element of delusion
involved here and that is a property of singlemindedness, positive,
thinking. OTHERS see it as negative...
> <snip>
>
> CHRIS
> (8) These concrete sensory-based processes seem to be abstracted
> into such
> areas as descriptions of emotional states which can manifest
> BOTH/AND forms
> where we combine love and hate into the one space. The inability
> to express
> this state is found when we describe it as being in a love/hate
> relationship, an oscillation, the same process of description used in the
> above sensory-level descriptions.
>
> GLENN
> You should clarify that the EITHER/OR oscillations converted from the
> BOTH/AND states are not on the same level as the fundamental
> dichotomisation of X/~X. It's a cycle, possibly utilizing something like
> feedback or recursion.
>
Good point. I think the dynamics attempts to create the FEELING encoded in
the BOTH/AND state. Thus applying the dichotomy recursively (see my websites
on this -- http://www.eisa.net.au/~lofting/dicho.html ) Since the
particular/general distinction favours the general as full of potentials,
the BOTH/AND, we see here sensory systems biased to particulars, to locals,
to convert BOTH/AND (analog/wave - approximations) into EITHER/OR
(digital/object - precision).
Thus the 'interdigitations' we see in brain structures emphasise the
adaption of our brain to becoming an analog-to-digital converter and back. A
'price' is a reduction in explicit experiencing BOTH/AND states other than
digitising the experience where the oscillations if done quick enough
re-create the emotional experience, thus the X/~X vibrations at level B give
a sense of feeling related to the actual experience at level A. This gets
into Cymatics etc where grains of sand spread over a vibrating surface form
into patterns. Take this from 2D to 3D+ and the grains are
neurons+neurotransmitters and the patterns are in the form of emotions,
waveforms of meanings that are then converted, particularised, into words
that when transmitted to others cause resonance -- shared meaning.
This is all possible when you take the original dichotomy and apply it
recursively where the words that identify wholes, parts, static
relationships, dynamic relationships are combined into complex forms
expressed in feelings that can then be labelled and so on. This reflects
metaphoration etc
> CHRIS
> (9) From the single neuron level we see this conversion from general to
> particular, from BOTH/AND to EITHER/OR, from what COULD be to what IS,
> through the tranformation of data passing through the dendrites (AM bias,
> variable wave amplitudes, continuous) to pulses (FM bias, fixed
> amplitude,
> discrete) passing along the axon.
>
> (10) Change scales and we find neural nets, using
> synchronisation, utilise
> the same methods. Zoom-up to the neocortex and we see the SAME
> patterns in
> the left/right hemispheres of the brain. Drop a level or so and
> we see the
> SAME patterns in the lobes within each hemisphere. Overall there is a
> process of conversion of BOTH/AND into EITHER/OR and the
> generalisation of
> that back into BOTH/AND states.
>
> GLENN
> We not only see this in biology, but also in modern physics, where events
> predicated by quantum effects are expressible in probabilities
> (BOTH/AND) until the wave equation collapses, at which point you
> have (EITHER/OR). So
> maybe you are on to something when you say it applies at different scales
> and levels.
>
> <snip>
>
> CHRIS
> (17) The conversion process, of BOTH/AND to EITHER/OR and back, is a
> property of our brain's structuring, of the brain's bias to
> object/relationship distinctions and the emphasis on
> particular/general --
> properties linked to the attention system.
>
> GLENN
> So how do all these ideas about brain structure tie into the MOQ? From
> where, based on your research and ideas, does quality, value, and
> morality emanate?
>
There seems to be two directions involved. One is implicit and leads from
'random' mingleing of forces etc into an expression - we see this at the
macro level in star formation. Thus we move from the many to the one. Once
the one is expressed (a birth) so its energy flows out, back into the many
from which it came. This energy (e.g. an idea) can mingle with others to
create 'new' ideas or variations on themes of old ideas. IOW relational
space is the source of transformations. But in the description presented,
relational space is the 'home' of statics and dynamics and so relational
space is the home of rules and regulations, of identifying what COULD be
from what COULD NOT be as well as determining what is worthless from what is
priceless IOW value/quality determination.
Since genes are 'placed' in an environment, aka a context, and it is the
relationship of gene with context that determines the gene's future so the
process of discernment that we see develop in humans (where the gene is now
an infant) reflects evolutionary feedback processes where the infant with
its gross stimulus/response behaviour learns to develop choices in response
through interacting with context, both local (genes, family) as well as
non-local (cultural, universal).
This is a marked improvement on basic evolution where gene survival is based
on chance alone and an induction emphasis. Higher lifeforms have
internalised a general map of the local and so can be more proactive in
development and survival - they develop CHOICES once they have identified
the correct map to use. This internal map is aka a hypothesis and a such we
use the abduction/induction behaviours.
The structure of the map 'fits' the method of analysis we find in the
neurology, the application of the what/where dichotomy recursively. This
method includes the A-to-D conversion routines. IOW the unconscious
categorisation of objects/relationships leads to patterns of feelings we
identify as 'meanings' not just information (where information is more
Stimulus/Response in form).
These patterns have consequences and as such can be used for predictions and
so making a choice of the many available (usually! :-))
These choices, these acts of discernment, contain within them qualitative
decisions.
Note that all of the above show properties associated with the METHOD of
analysis and as far as I can tell, this method is species wide. In this
method is included a development path that ensures that for ANY concept, the
development of that concept leads inevitibly into questions of 'quality' and
'value' and 'morality'.
These questions are all related with linkage BETWEEN objects as well as
WITHIN AN object.
BETWEEN favours many (at least TWO). WITHIN favours ONE.
This linkage is dependent on feedback to identify value but can also contain
'genetic anomolies' where a particular characteristic, deemed 'of quality'
can be created genetically, thus genetic diversity can help 'bring out' a
quality that is usually only generated through interactions with the
environment.
All of this deal with relational space which is the source of these
concepts. This realm of our consciousness has a fundamental emphasis and
that is that ALL IS MEANINGFUL and tied in to the concept of what is
meaningful and of value are such qualitative terms as 'worthless' and
'priceless' as well as an emphasis on what COULD be (thus worthless can
become priceless and so contains a sense of meaning if only in potential).
However, this is also the world of illusions in that from a species angle,
relational space is SECONDARY to object space in that object space is
PRIMARY through its concern with syntax processing. There are NO
relationships if you have nothing to relate too thus object space is primary
(this gets into mental bifurcations of SELF etc relating to yourself etc)
Secondary processing acts to identify differences, unknowns etc, and
develops choices such that you develop habits and these habits then become
part of object space, stimulus/response. This development of habits includes
the binding of personal and social nuances (from memories) to a behaviour
such that these nuances show 'quality'.
Object space, object thinking, is associated with RANDOMNESS where something
is MEANINGLESS, but a bias to relational space rejects randomness simply
because of the underlying emphasis of 'all is linked together' (Note this is
NOT the same as wholeness -- wholeness is EXPLICT. The best you can do in
relational space is identify an implicit whole but it takes the object brain
to add the boundary that forces a sense of object, of whole! )
I think you can see from the above how understanding brain function can give
you a better perspective on MOQ or any other discipline for that matter.
best,
Chris.
------------------
Chris Lofting
websites:
http://www.eisa.net.au/~lofting
http://www.ozemail.com.au/~ddiamond
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:00:53 BST