Peter,
Fundamental distinctions are purity vs mixing, sameness (the one) vs
difference (the many, particular vs general). All methods of interpretation
that get entangled to create more complex methods and so on.
The 'and so on' leads to BOTH/ANDness where the 'still mind', full of
potentials, is disturbed and seeks equilibrium by oscillations of
'this'/'that' until a 'correct' state emerges, correct to the moment that is
and within the bounds of current knowing. The young mind oscillates a lot as
it acquires 'new' experiences.
The disturbance sets off particularisation processes as we seek to clearly
identify, to shift to EITHER/ORness (oscillations like this help us deal
with paradox as well).
There is no problem with the language, more the problem with knowing how we
process data. Some pointers and refs:
Structures, Statics:
Left hemisphere (in most, genetic diversity allows for variations) -- the
ONE, single context, HIGH bandwidth, SHORT range and so VERY LOCAL, like an
FM radio. EITHER/ORness. Emphasis on the ONE generalises to emphasis on
PURITY and so INTERNAL linkage and so emphasis on discrete, cultural purity,
racial purity, species purity etc etc very fundamentalist. The ONE emphasis
favours clarity (the FM link) and so precision, the point, the dot, the
word, the expression. The over emphasis on the point can 'miss' the
forest... Overall left is occupied with its interpretations of what WAS,
what IS, what WILL BE. IOW an emphasis on IDENTIFICATION. (male mind, child
mind, psychotic mind; all have LOCAL emphasis, favours eternity and SAMENESS
but in doing so leads to INDIVIDUALS that is interpreted OUTSIDE as
DIFFERENCE. Left is linked to mania, schizophrenia etc GENERALISED behaviour
reflected in fundamentalist groups, singleminded, all 'believe' in 'ONE'
either religious or secular. Monadic perspectives)
Right hemisphere -- the MANY, multi context, LOW bandwidth, LONG range and
so more NON-LOCAL, favours AM radio. BOTH/ANDness. Emphasis is on HARMONICS
and the linkage BETWEEN discrete objects, EXTERNAL linkage, and so an
emphasis on MIXING. When you use this side to draw you dont remove the pen
from the paper since 'all is linked'. This side is 'good' at pattern
matching and so a qualitative emphasis rather than qualitative. The emphasis
on precision is limited to approximations and so PROBABILITIES. The over
emphasis on the field can 'miss' the trees... Overall right is occupied with
what COULD HAVE BEEN, what IS NOT, what COULD BE. IOW an emphasis on
RE-IDENTIFICATION. (female mind, parent mind, neurotic mind,
depression/anxiety. Favours begin/end and DIFFERENCE; exageration of
boundaries to bring-out or play-down an aspect. The linkage emphasis in
patterns introduces an external perception of SAMENESS interpretation
despite the DIFFERENCES bias). Di/Tri+-adic perspectives but lacking in
precision other than qualitative that emerges from the pattern matching
abilites. Buddhism biased links etc.
These are all GENERAL biases and are STATIC (see below) and our disciplines
show oscillations, e.g. Quantum Mechanics shows the use of both sides where
the wave formation is 'right' and the collapse is to the 'left'. The same
distinctions emerge in our categorisations of fundamental particles where
fermions are more 'object-like' and bosons more 'wave-like'.
Note that these distinctions actually reflect ONE:MANY processing all the
way down to the neuron level where EXPRESSION is discrete, axon-like, and
the data source, the dendrites, is wave-like, continuous. Soma acts to
transform AM waves into FM pulses.
The particle/wave dichotomy is like left/right but note that lobes within
each hemisphere have the same left/right like patterns (e.g.
temporal(objects)/parietal(relationships)). The MAIN distinction of
left/right is PARTICULAR/GENERAL.
The advantage of language is that it allows us to fold-up a local context
and take it with us, thus we can tell stories etc and dont need to be in the
particular context to aid in telling the story, the words can do that for us
through resonance with personal experiences. This shows the PRECISION of
language, and that includes non-verbal (an element missing on the net :-)),
and the aid of language in travelling, nomads etc and so an emphasis on
self-containment, a property of the left. Thus the left is BOTH raw and
refined, the RIGHT is used for transformations through its exageration
abilities, but then these are often illusions :-) (left is more delusional).
Dynamics:
The above of course is STATIC, mind comes out of DYNAMICS and that is
reflects in OSCILLATIONS of left/right/left/right etc with the accumulated
time spent in one hemisphere allowing for the characteristics of that
hemisphere to generally dominate thought patterns (e.g. depression/anxiety
and too much RH :-)). See for example
http://www.uq.edu.au/nuq/jack/jack.html
in particular the hemisphere work.
These dynamic processes reflect a 'still' mind acting like a pool where
something is 'thrown in' and wave oscillations take place to re-establish
equilibrium (where the disturbance is 'far from equilibrium'). For us these
waves are waves of emotion that are used to encode, decode meaning and store
that data as POTENTIALS which are converted back to ACTUALS to be used given
a particular context. You can also use the holographic model where the pool
is a storage of interference patterns (harmonics etc - all right brained.
Also associates with DNA where the gene, the whole, is spread throughout the
DNA, diffuse, and the whole is then 'recalled' and transfered to RNA,
concentrated, contiguous, and that becomes EXPRESSION (left bias, SINGLE
context).
Out of all oscillations come 'forms', particular meanings 'coloured' with
left/right biases etc. That is how all disciplines have developed.
Reflecting on left/right and archetypal patterns, cellular automata reflect
rigid EITHER/OR dynamics with simple rules applied. Thus is very 'left' in
operation due to the emphasis on discreteness. Recent work in this area,
using an emphasis on 'purity' shows the emergence of archetypal forms, in a
particular case the baryon octet! Thus out of the dynamics of the 'discrete'
left come archetypal forms, which correlates with the general 'ONENESS' of
the left. For Professor Isaacson's paper See
http://www.eisa.net.au/~lofting/stegan.html
If you are not sure what this means then consider:
In the context of Professor Isaacson's work (Above link), there is an
emphasis on 'purity' IOW only sequences of 111 or 000 are acceptable, any
'mixing' (101 or 110 etc) is removed/ignored etc etc When you apply this
'rule' out pops 'archetypal' forms, self-contained patterns.
It so happens that the EITHER/OR part of our brain is linked to
fundamentalist, archetypal thinking and this EITHER/ORness is reflected in
'purity' processes as above. (archetypal concepts favour reproduction that
is asexual or androgyne, fractal-like :-))
There is something 'fundamental' going on dealing with the border of twos
with threes where out of the middle of a dichotomy (twos) emerges patterns
upon patterns.
This points to the world of pure mathematics where applied to itself leads
to the emergence of 'ideal' forms.
In the I Ching, if I apply a 'tri' rule I can convert 64 hexagrams (2^6)
into 27 symbols (3^3).
EVERY PAIR of yin/yang in a hexagram are converted to the following:
two yin = yin
two yang = yang
one yin/yang = X
Note the X reflects MIXING, the other TWO reflect PURITY. Also note the
subtle *distortion* where the X contains not ONE distinction but TWO but X
is TREATED AS IF ONE.
This 'rule' gives us THREE distinctions; we are converting a binary based
representation to a trinary based one.(With a subtle in-built distortion.
like a visual blurring, fuzzyness of the undifferentiated :-))
This transformation of twos biased representations into threes bias
representations leads to 8 of the hexagrams being 'pure' such that 8 of the
27 symbols 'map' to 8 hexagrams, 1:1. All of the other symbols encode groups
of hexagrams, there is no 1:1 but 1:many. (the pure hexagrams reflect the
grouping of only yin or yang pairs, there is no X.)
All of the 8 hexagrams are 'pure' in the context of the applied rule, same
result we get from Professor Isaacson applying the same general rule, purity
only, all else is rejected and that leaves you with eight 'points' of
interest, invarient forms.
This can lead to the suggestion that 'deep' reflection, which acts as a
recursive process, can lead to the mental discovery of archetypal forms
regardless of their reality.
Are these forms a result of the process, reflecting 'us' and the METHOD of
analysis or (!) are these reflecting fundamental patterns in the universe?
Note in my wave diagram (www.ozemail.com.au/~ddiamond/wave.jpg) that when
the 64 are converted to 27 and when placed in order, from 'pure' yin end to
'pure' yang end the number of hexagrams 'encoded' into each of the 27
symbols, when graphed reflect a wave interference pattern,the same sort of
pattern we see in the double slit experiments in quantum mechanics, it too
based on recursive dichotomisations reflected in the EITHER/OR mappings of
EITHER left OR right slit and the resulting wave pattern on the photographic
plate BEHIND the slits. (BTW The A...ZZ mapping is simply for identification
of the symbols, 26 letters to 26 symbols with the 27th getting tagged as ZZ)
When we look at Aristotle's syllogisms we have 256 algabraic combinations
and of these we find only 19 are 'of value', the reduction process lead to
the same pattern emerging where threes (syllogisms) are mixed with twos
(true/false).
So we see a pattern in METHOD:
Applying threes to twos:
I Ching
Quantum mechanics
Aristotle
Professor Isaacson's Cellular Automata.
The patterns reflect distinctions of 'discrete' from 'continuous';
invariance from variance; purity, quality forms, from mixing. (this suggests
that in QM, those areas in the wave interference that have no hits will in
fact have a band of singles...somewhere...:-) ..)
There is something going on here. My emphasis is on the METHOD of analysis
in that the method is a dichotomy that is 1:many, not 1:1. The many is
variable and out of that comes di-chotomy, tri-chotomy, X-otomies. My
exercise with the I Ching shows the wave patterns come out of the METHOD of
analysis and we can abstract that to ANY dichotomous analysis... Note that
the fundamental 8s discussed above are 'repeated' at another level but now
there are TWO fundamental per slot, not ONE; bifurcation at work.
The whole of fundamental physics reflects the METHOD OF ANALYSIS in that
experiments based on dichotomisations MUST GIVE RESULTS CONSISTANT WITH THE
CONCEPT OF DICHOTOMISATION and that includes the wave interference patterns;
the METHOD creates the patterns and the patterns must be interpreted WITHIN
THAT CONTEXT. Many are jumping out of box too quickly, suggesting that
wave/particle duality is 'real'. Not necessarily so :-)
ANY attempt to 'map' reality will always be tied to the set of meanings that
are determined by the method and if you are not aware of how we process data
etc then you will speculate all sorts of things!
Here are some more refs:
Refs:
Springer, S.P., & Deutsch, G., (1998) "Left Brain, Right Brain :
Perspectives from Cognitive Neuroscience (5th Edition)" Freeman,
Ivry, R.B., & Robertson, L.C.,(1998) "The Two Sides of Perception" MITP It
is mostly vision data with particular research by the authors as well as
extensive reviews of other research in this area.Audition is limited to two
chapters).
Hutcheon,B., & Yarom, Y., (2000) "Resonance, oscillation and the intrinsic
frequency preferences of neurons" Trends Neurosci. (2000) 23, 216-222
Tallon-Baudry, C., & Bertrand, O., (1999)"Oscillatory gamma activity in
humans and its role in object representation" Trends Cognit. Sci. (1999) 3,
151-161
Zatorre RJ, Mondor TA, Evans AC "Auditory attention to space and frequency
activates similar cerebral systems." IN Neuroimage 1999 Nov;10(5):544-54.
Pardo PJ, Makela JP, Sams M "Hemispheric differences in processing tone
frequency and amplitude modulations" IN : Neuroreport 1999 Sep
29;10(14):3081-6
Further data covering the whole visual system is in: Hoffman, D.D., (1998)
"Visual Intelligence: How we create what we see" Norton
For additional refs to cover the audition bias see: In general: McAdams, S.,
and Bigand, E., (Eds) (1993) "Thinking in Sound" OUP, and In particular:
Levarie, S., (1980) "Music as a Structural Model" p236-239 IN Journal of
Social Biol. Structure. 3)
Goldman-Rakic, P.S., (1984) "Modular organization of the prefrontal cortex"
IN Trends in Neurosciences Nove 1984 pp 419-424
Grinvald, A., et al (1991)"Optical Imaging of Architecture and Function in
the Living Brain" IN Squire, L.R., et al (Eds)(1991)"Memory :Organisation
and Locus of Change" OUP.)
Stein, B.E., and Meredith, M.A., (1993) "The Merging of the Senses" MITP
Doty, R.W., (1989) "Some anatomical substrates of emotion, and their
bihemispheric coordination" IN "Emotions and the Dual Brain" p57-82
'Lite' reading:
Loewenstein, W.R., (1999) "The Touchstone of Life" Penguin Books.
Holland, J.H., (1999)"Emergence" OUP.
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 - 16:00:58 BST