In the context of particular/general it is noteworthy that there is a
dynamic process that works both ways -- particulars, local events, through
induction are turned into hypotheses. This process creates a general in that
the hypothesis is there more to handle GENERAL characteristics.
The application of the abduction/deduction dichotomy once you have
established a hypothesis leads to a feedback process that favours the
particular validating a general (abduction -- and this can be illusion) as
well as a general validating a particular (deduction).
There is also a development pattern which suggests that these feedback
processes allow for a particular to emerge from the general, the general is
the source of transformations, thus BOTH/ANDness leads to EITHER/OR just as
EITHER/OR can lead to BOTH/ANDness.
The neurological structuring of the neocortex favours subtle distinctions
that allows for variations on these general themes and such concepts as
synesthesia, common in infants, demonstrates how at the gene level there is
a set of potentials (and so generals) that are particularised based on
feedback from the local context. (see the refs associated with
www.ozemail.com.au/~ddiamond/synth.html )
Aspectual analysis, the identification and summing of harmonics to bring-out
an aspect of 'something' is sourced in the general when compared to the
precision of identifying ' the thing'. Thus a 'dog' is analysed over time,
we pick up *patterns* of behaviour and these become associated with
'dogishness' to a degree where we can abstract them, turn them into a
metaphor and describe a human or some other lifeform as 'dogish'.
In this sense I think you can see how your comment re the general classes of
things are much more recent concepts -- they *are* due to the development
process where conscious experience is seen as the 'start' position where a
'dog' is both a particular (a specific animal identification) as well as a
general (no immediately identifiable traits -- develops over time with
feedback processes).
Chris.
------------------
Chris Lofting
websites:
http://www.eisa.net.au/~lofting
http://www.ozemail.com.au/~ddiamond
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk
> [mailto:owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk]On Behalf Of Peter Lennox
> Sent: Monday, 11 December 2000 10:13
> To: moq_discuss@moq.org
> Subject: MD particular/general
>
>
> from the point of view of the evolution of perception, I'm not sure that
> "the particular" is processed by similar ciruitry to "the
> general", and so I
> don't think the two concepts are closely related. I don't feel that a
> 'particular' is,as it were, chosen from a general class of things. I think
> that, whilst the assumption of the probabilities of 'thingness'
> in the world
> around us is quite primitive, the general classes of things
> (doggishness of
> dog) are much more recent concepts.
> cheers
> Peter Lennox
> Hardwick House
> tel: (0114) 2661509
> e-mail: peter@lennox01.freeserve.co.uk
> or:- ppl100@york.ac.uk
>
>
>
> 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
>
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