Hi,
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk
> [mailto:owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk]On Behalf Of PzEph
> Sent: Thursday, 7 December 2000 8:47
> To: moq_discuss@moq.org
> Subject: Re: MD the particular, the general, EITHER/OR, BOTH/AND
>
>
> ELEPHANT TO CHRIS RE CHRIS TO ELEPHANT:
>
> CHRIS WROTE:
> > Overall the emphasis is on discrete/particular/known/NAMED vs
> > continuous/general/unknown/unnamed. The former takes on the label of
> > "objects" and the latter of "relationships" this because there is a
> > transformation process going on where "relationships" can be summed to
> > create an "object" but CONTEXT will identify the 'hardness' of
> that object.
> > (there is also the reverse process)
>
> ELEPHANT:
> I am really on your side here, in thinking that this is where all the
> interesting issues lie. But i just don't think we can associate
> them neatly
> the way you do, writing down all the left sides of some disperate
> dichotomies in one block, and the right sides in another.
It is obvious from these remarks that you have not bothered to make any
attempt to go through my website material for if you had you would have
discovered that I talk of biases and the use of recursion in processing
these dichotomies. What that means is that the elements of the dichotomy are
applied to themselves and so become entangled. This leads to the MIXING of
the elements as we zoom-in to analyse things. IOW we see a dichotomy, a very
EITHER/OR concept turning into a continuum.
There are many
> *different* problems here which need to be sorted out on their merits, and
> your broad brush approach just isn't going to help us do that.
It is not broad, it is flexible to become VERY detailed and so PRECISE. Read
more please.
I really
> agree with you: the questions of discreteness and particularity are very
> closely connected: but they are still not the same question. I
> would argue
> that the existence of particular requires the creative application of
> discreteness onto the continuous flux. But look, this is
> something I would
> want to *argue*, not something I could simply establish by
> putting the words
> together, separated by a '/'.
Your have not read the details. Have a read of the articles as well as the
links within them on the www.eisa.net.au/~lofting page, especially the
comments on dichotomisation as an abstract sense
(www.eisa.net.au/~lofting/dicho.html and dicho2.html etc)
Similarly, like you, and against
> Wittgenstein, I think that naming *is* an important move in the language
> game. But this is a *difficult* complex matter, and we can go wrong so
> easily without noticing it if we don't pay clear attention to where we are
> and exactly what we are saying. A *classic* case in point is your use of
> "relationships" as a coverall for "continuous/general/unknown/unnamed".
> this simply won't do.
It isnt. These were examples of terms that elicit a more right brained
perspective. TO be specific BOTH sides (!) deal with BOTH concepts but they
also have biases. For example, severe anterior damage to the LEFT frontal
lobes will eventually lead to the expression of depression. Severe anterior
damage to the RIGHT frontal lobes will eventually lead to the expression of
mania. How come? 'normally' the LEFT is more associated with mania and the
RIGHT with depression.
But look closely -- Our MINDS are manifest in the oscillations of
left/right, the summing of their particulars gives us MIND. If one of these
elements is damaged then the OTHER hemisphere's 'normal' mode will start to
dominate all behaviour. Thus a RIGHT damage will lead to the LEFT taking on
the workload and in doing so the NATURAL biases of the LEFT will emerge in
this process. Same for a LEFT damage where the RIGHT takes over and in doing
so we start to see RIGHT side characteristics as well.
This is all general speak of course. Zoom-in to EITHER hemisphere and you
will find LOBES. These LOBES have the same general formats and names -- left
temporal, right temporal; left parietal, right parietal. BUT these
distinctions identify areas that have the SAME relationship as does the
general one emphasised above, thus, like the left hemisphere in GENERAL, so
the temporal lobes of BOTH hemispheres have OBJECT biases except that the
UNKNOWN will elicit more RIGHT lobe behaviours. Like the right hemisphere in
GENERAL, so the parietal lobes of BOTH hemispheres have RELATIONAL biases,
in particular object-to-context analysis that can help to identify the
object more precisely -- looking at HARMONICS to refine the identification
(or to intentionally muddle the identification).
Zoom-in to any LOBE and you will find 'interdigitations', LEFTRIGHTLEFTRIGHT
mappings that create the SAME patterns at the neural column/network level as
we see in the general hemispheres level.
If you find my writing difficult and are not prepared to read it a number of
times for it all to sink in then at least get into some of the references I
supplied. You may find this path of value. :-) Do NOT expect to read my
material and understand immediately since the material does go against the
grain in some areas :-)
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