E,
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk
> [mailto:owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk]On Behalf Of PzEph
> Sent: Sunday, 10 December 2000 10:28
> To: moq_discuss@moq.org
> Subject: Re: MD the particular, the general, EITHER/OR, BOTH/AND
>
>
> PUZZLED ELEPHANT TO CHRIS:
>
> Yes, we are getting somewhere. But as to my puzzlement...
>
>
> CHRIS WROTE:
> > An EITHER/OR, and so an object perspective, favours discreteness and the
> > particular in that the process of distinction making reflects
> the process of
> > taking from the set [of?] all possible expressions one
> particular expression.
>
> ELEPHANT:
> As I've said before, I agree about there being a link between
> propositional
> knowing and the engendering of discreteness. There is something profound
> about our relationship with language to talk about here. However, a
> discussion of this in terms of set theory will somewhat miss the point, I
> suspect. A good example of this is your touching beleif that
> there is such
> a thing as the set of all possible expressions.
>
Ummm..you misinterpret! -- I spoke of an 'object perspective' and that will
give you a boundary and within that boundary is the set of all possible
expressions for that PARTICULAR object perspective. All object perspectives
are LOCAL and I was talking LOCAL, you seem to be trying to jump ahead, to
abstract from local to non-local. Slow down :-)
<snip -- deleted section based on misinterpretation)
> Still, interesting as your error here is, it still doesn't help
> me escape my
> puzzlement about your association of the continuous and the general e.t.c.
> Perhaps we will get on to that.
>
the error is sort of yours, I made none other than assuming that my
paragraph was clear enough.. :-)
>
> CHRIS WROTE:
> > The set of all possible expressions includes (a) the particular
> object under
> > consideration and (b) the notion of that object's negation.
>
> ELEPHANT:
> Sorry to be "VERY PRECISE", but objects are not negated, propositions are.
> Again, the connection between judgements and objects is something
> I'm hoping
> we can discuss - not just assume in passing.
>
I think you should look at the neurology more. ANY THING, real or imagined
is associated with a set of harmonics that includes that thing's negation. A
piece of music with a key and set of harmonics includes a set of 'no-nos' as
part of the 'rules', the grammar of music and that will include all keys
other than the particular one used and one of those is the 'opposite'.
identifying an object includes a state of identifying when it is NOT present
as well as a state of seeing an object's 'opposite'.
> CHRIS WROTE:
> > IOW the set of all possible expressions contains BOTH A and ~A. This is
> > identifiable as a BOTH/AND state and from a LOCAL perspective
> cannot exist
> > 'at the same time'.
>
> ELEPHANT:
> Sorry, but "at the same time" *is* just what we mean by "local
> perspective":
> there is no local perspective *towards* "at the same time". That
> an object
> cannot be both F and ~F at the same time is something universally true.
Yes and no :-) It is our method of analysis that cannot cope with this in
that the F/~F exists as a set of potentials within the set of possible
expressions within a mode of interpretation. For example, in the human brain
we can interpret data as EITHER object OR relationship OR a MIX of both. We
do this in that the hemispheres of the brain, in general, operate according
to different processes such that at any one moment BOTH can be active and so
cause a paradox. We resolve this by oscillating in that you brain is always
oscillating between left and right frames of reference such that static
BOTH/AND states are converted to DYNAMIC EITHER/OR states. We can then label
these states (e.g. the concept of a PART requires (a) the concept of an
object and (b) the concept of that object having a relationship to a
'greater' object (aka the whole).)
This seperate functionality of hemispheres causing a paradox was seen in the
original work on cutting the corpus callosum of people to stop epilepsy. One
person described how both 'halves' of her body physically fought each other
in the process of selecting clothes to wear! (A vs ~A) When the sides are
joined by the corpus callosum so feedback helps to sort out these sorts of
problems and there is a definite bias in sharing of tasks.
>From the perception side consider the Necker Cube oscillations etc where a
complex line drawing is particularised into an oscillation of cube-A,
cube-B, cube-A etc IOW the complex line drawing manifest a STATIC BOTH/AND
state with all lines linked together (continuity) which our brain tries to
clearly identify and in doing so has to oscillate. This SAME process is
detectable in the auditory system where a complex sound (BOTH/AND) is
converted to a linear format of consonants, one changing into the other in
the same 'jump' style we find in the Necker cubes.
Here is some text from another email I just sent out that covers this area.
You might find the refs of interest since G Spencer-Brown's "Laws of Form"
deal with qualitative processes etc:
--- .... If we work arse-about, from an analysis of DYNAMICS, then we note that the brain works through oscillations (left-right-left-right, there are no threes in this other than those that EMERGE from the process and so are derived..) Our thinking processes involve taking the static BOTH/AND characteristics of left brain and right brain being expressed at the same time and resolving these statics into dynamic EITHER/OR states (which reflect 1:many relationships abstracted to the concept of A/~A). We identify things, etc, we particularise (and so seek EITHER/OR expressions) by working from a set of potentials (aka the excluded middle we find in logic, what COULD be) that exist in BOTH/ANDness and extracting one of those potentials, acualising it (what IS or is interpreted as IS).Mental experiences are derived from biases in the oscillations where over time X we accumulate and so 'spend' more time in the 'right brain' than in the 'left brain'. These oscillation processes and their affect on mental states is well documented. From a philosophical/anthropological emphasis see Gregory Bateson's "Mind and Nature" especially the last section discussing form and process. From a more recent neurological perspective see the work of Prof Jack Pedigrew at the University of Queensland and his research into bi-polar disorders and hemispheric switching:
http://www.uq.edu.au/nuq/jack/jack.html
G Spencer-Brown's "Laws of Form" describes Spencer-Brown's indicative calculus and the use of imaginary boolean values, required to describe oscillations processes. (Spencer-Brown makes the point that "In ordinary algebra, complex values are accepted as a matter of course, and the more advanced techniques would be impossible without them. In Boolean algebra (and thus, for example, in all our reasoning processes) we disallow them" (p xiii "Laws of Form" 1972,1979 Dutton))
These concepts where extended by L H Kauffman and F J Varela in 1980 (see "Form Dynamics" IN Journal of Social Biological Structures 1980 3, 171-206)
See also such websites as http://www.xenodochy.org/formal/ etc.
- 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 - 16:00:54 BST