Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id TAA07676 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Sat, 1 Jul 2000 19:50:15 +0100 From: "Chris Lofting" <ddiamond@ozemail.com.au> To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> Subject: RE: Cons and Facades - Welcome to My Nightmare Part 2.A Date: Sun, 2 Jul 2000 05:04:35 +1000 Message-ID: <LPBBICPHCJJBPJGHGMCIKEBICHAA.ddiamond@ozemail.com.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <LPBBICPHCJJBPJGHGMCICEBCCHAA.ddiamond@ozemail.com.au> Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
I finished part 1.B with some outline on what is to come, namely that
dichotomisations is a 'hard-wired' process and is fundamental to our methods
of interpretation, re-interpretation, and transmission of information. To
continue...
I think 1.A and 1.B are enough to demonstrate that there is a strong use of
dichotomisation as we try to map both 'out there' as well as 'in here' and
all 'in-between'.
The 1:many structure of our neocortex (as well as limbic system etc but not
as well defined) points to our using this structure in the gathering and
dissemination of data with the 1 being static, serving as an 'anchor' and
the many being dynamic allowing us to focus on the particular (where the
many is reduced to a 1) and/or the general; thus I can hold the text
constant and change the context or hold the context constant and change the
text.
The above being the case, to refine our analysis of this method we need to
zoom-in on any noticable properties of 1:many data processing.
Firstly we note that in forming a dichotomy of ANY type (1:1, 1:many,
many:1, many:many) the initial method utilises the concept of opposition
(e.g. vision_data/audition_data) in that the elements within the dichotomy
are interpreted as being unique, independent of each other, and opposite in
form. The dichotomy is thus symbolised in the form of A/~A. The ~A is more
often given a name, thus positive/NOT positive is re-interpreted as
positive/negative.
However, what we also note at this basic level of dichotomisation is that
things in reality are not necessarly so white/black; we come across
distinctions where we easily note that a 'better' picture emerges from the
middle of the rigid EITHER/OR nature of A/~A. This 'better' picture emerges
when, in analysis of the distinction we note that 'things are not that
black/white. From a vision perspective this is like discovering the
harmonics that 'fit' inbetween white-black i.e. colour.
(note that there is a subtle levels issue here in that white is all light
and black is no light. Shift to colour and you change levels to a
cooperative process that EXCLUDES black. We will see that this 'simple'
distinction has some interesting consequences in interpretation of abstract
concepts.)
At the point of determining that 'there is more to this than A/~A' we
actually apply the original dichotomy to itself in that we:
(a) refine the distinctions of A and ~A by removing those parts that do not
seem to fall into the EITHER/OR determination, and
(b) create two new distinctions that 'sit in-between' the A and ~A showing
BIASES rather than absolutes.
We can symbolise these mappings thus:
A+A
A+~A
~A+A
~A+~A
The first symbol asserts a context (which is often missing in the original
distinctions as in A/~A is always made within a 'universe of discourse').
The second symbol (+) emphasises linkage and the third symbol manifest a
particular; that particular functions within the context.
These four states manifest
(a) the distinction of an object, and more specifically a whole (AA)
(b) the distinction of the opposite of (a) (~A~A)
(c) the distinction of an object and its opposite (A+~A as well as ~A + A)
IF we zoom-in to either of (c) these distinctions can be RE-indentified as a
whole and NOT whole and further refinements allow us to make the mappings
where NOT whole is re-identified as parts.
(This process of re-identification manifests the 'many' element in any
1:many dichotomy)
At this point, the distinction of Parts is 'nebulous' in that it contains
objects as well as processes:
(a) those wholes at a different scale that are interpreted as in a
relationship to the whole; thus we have objects within a whole that are
objects in their own right but at a different scale.
(b) properties that have no substance in that we describe *relational*
processes. There are two fundamental forms, static relationships and dynamic
relationships.
Static relationships act to
(a) describe collections of parts (objects) that when seen as a group form
some sort of relationship to the whole that is invariant.
(b) describe invariant relationships of the whole to other wholes and as
such invariant relationships of a whole to its context. This is 'the same'
as (a) in that in (a) context is internal in the form of the whole to which
the parts are being compared.
Dynamic relationships act to
(a)describe collections of parts that when seen as a group form a
relationship to the whole that varies with time (zoom-in on the group and
you can re-interpret the group as manifesting dynamic relationships between
the parts etc etc)
(b) describe dynamic relationships of the whole to other wholes and as such
describe dynamic relationships of a whole to is context. In general the same
as (a).
These sorts of patterns emerge when we apply the second level results
(whole+parts) to itself where the distinctions of statics and dynamics
emerge as the only possible interpretations since wholes and parts (objects)
are already defined, we have *cut-off* the objects that are parts and so the
whole+parts covers all objects. In relationships we are talking linkage in
some way where the emphasis shifts to the spaces in-between the objects,
whether whole or parts.
Symbolically we get the following 8 states:
(a) AAA
(b) AA~A
(c) A~AA
(d) A~A~A
(e) ~AAA
(f) ~AA~A
(g) ~A~AA
(h) ~A~A~A
From an interpretive aspect, (b) reflects a 'pure' form of A with a touch of
~A. Since (c) is a repeat of the 'parts' distinction but from an objects
basis, so (b) reflects a relational process between parts and whole that is
unchanging; static relationships. (d) is the refinement of the relational
distinctions in that it symbolises dynamic relationships where seemingly
independent forms are seen, over time, to have some sort of 'contract'
between them such that one does X and the other does something complementary
(that includes copying X's behaviour).
Since the above eight states are in fact symmetric in form through the A/~A
axis, so (e) and (g) also manifest relational concepts where there are two
sets of four:
Within the A description:
Whole (a)
Static Relationships (b)
Parts (c)
Dynamic Relationships (d)
Within the ~A description:
Whole (h)
Static Relationships (g)
Parts (f)
Dynamic Relationships (e)
The 'going-past' of the initial EITHER/OR dichotomy introduces us to the
inclusion of cooperation of the elements of a dichotomy as well as the
consideration of 'what could be' aka potentials.
IN logic the concept of A + ~A is called the excluded middle where for this
form of logic to 'work' there are no 'in-betweens', however the recursive
use of dichotomisations does not have to be 'overnight' and as such we see
emerge within the discipline of logic (over a few centuries :-)), and from
the 'middle' of the excluded middle, such concepts as fuzzy logic where
there are no more EITHER/ORs but a set of probabilites.
The other behaviour we note from 1.A and 1.B is the use of feedback
processes (e.g. amplifications, process of abduction etc) such that the set
of eight states can be used on each other, we can have descriptions that
reflect the 'mixing' of text and context such that we can have a dynamic
relationships context within which operates wholes, and the entanglement of
(d) and (a). (This process of recursive dichotomisation forms the 'basics'
of complexity/chaos in that the OVER supply of feedback leads to 'emergence'
etc)
How could all of this be communicated? The answer to that comes from
considering the above processes (basic EITHER/OR taken to two+ levels of
recursion) in the context of the universal 'responder' in our species --
emotion.
Since the pattern of A/~A applied recursively leads to the ability to
differentiate wholes and parts etc so when applied to the basic dichotomy of
positive_emotions/negative-emotions we should get some sort of emotional
states that 'map' to wholes, parts etc.
But how? I mean how can we link emotions in this way, where do we start? We
start by reflecting on the nature of the method, i.e. dichotomisations, and
in particular what is happening when we go 'past' the initial EITHER/OR with
its emphasis on independence of the elements of the dichotomy.
This movement from first level to second level and beyond requires us to MIX
the basic elements of the dichotomy and then RE-identify to enable a degree
of clarity in distinctions.
Thus the distinctions of wholes, parts, statics, dynamics are linked to
expressions that at a base level reflect the MIXING of the original elements
of the dichotomy and this is applied at all levels.
From a very basic viewpoint, how can I express the different ways of mixing
two elements of a dichotomy?
Firstly we note that the concept of a whole elicits a *feeling* of blending
(or unblending if it is falling apart). The term 'blend' capture the total
intergration of two elements but ALSO captures the 'purity' of each element.
Thus A and ~A are 'pure' but so is their product (in this case, from a
'pure' mathematics perspective, A + ~A = 0.)
With the use of Roget's Thesarus, reflecting on the basic structure of the
parts, statics, dynamics distinctions with a 'mixing' perspective, I came up
with the following:
Word -- feeling
Whole -- BLEND
Parts -- BOUND
Statics -- BOND
Dynamics -- BIND
To these you add the negation (UN-) but note that at a particular level
negation has MANY forms of expression as in UN or in CONTRACTION over
EXPANSION or in RELATIONSHIPS over OBJECTS or DIFFERENCE over SAMENESS etc
etc etc.
Thus the template of 8 basic states allows us to develop a set of feelings
that map to words, words that are mappable to our basic neurological
distinctions re processing information, objects (the whats) and
relationships (the wheres).
Furthermore, the 8 are *basic* and applying them to each other, and the
results of those interactions to each other and so on, so we move from 8
states to 64 states to 4096 states to 16Millions states. IOW for ANY
dichotomy we can create over 16 Million different feelings, each of which
gives us a sense of 'meaning'!
However, the ability to do this requires WHAT (or WHERE) we are analysing as
having enough difference such that we can make these sorts of distinctions
and in most cases, when communicating something at the general level, we do
not need to go so 'deep', 64 or 4096 are 'good enough' to give us a sense of
depth and at a 'casual' level even 8 is 'useful' in that the individual can
fill in the 'deep' parts on their own experiences.
Up to now we have been very abstract in that I have been describing a model
of the method we use as a species to 'map' out there. I have emphasised:
(a) the use of *recursive* dichotomisations.
(b) a bias to 1:many type.
(c) a link of explicit distinctions (objects, relationships) to implicit
distinctions in the form of feelings.
(d) the method is applicable to ANY dichotomy REGARDLESS OF SCALE.
(e) The continued application of the dichotomy recursively shifts focus from
an oppositional perspective to a copperational perspective (regardless of
the 'truth' :-))
From 1.A and 1.B there are some fundamental properties that emerge when we
make the distinctions of oppositional dichotomies (objects bias) and
cooperative dichotomies (relationships bias) where in the latter we note
that they MUST have a awareness of the complement when compared to the
oppositional form of dichotomy that does not require either element to have
any 'awareness' of the other but will be sensitive to the other.
What I will show later is that since all of these patterns, templates etc
are GENERAL, we particularise by the creation of specifics in the form of
metaphors that stand for the general patterns applied within a particular
context.
I shall stop here. I will expand further in 2.B moving from out-of-the-box
to the analysis of patterns in various disciplines, but I think the above is
enough to raise some questions.
Best,
Chris.
------------------
Chris Lofting
websites:
http://www.eisa.net.au/~lofting
http://www.ozemail.com.au/~ddiamond
===============================================================
This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Jul 01 2000 - 19:50:59 BST