IDM and Emotions

(Copyright © 2002-2006 C.J. Lofting)

Abstract

In the analysing of meaning, with the intent of capturing the properties and methods of meaning in our species, emotion plays a fundamental part such that for the development of advanced AI systems we need to clearly identify the roots of emotion and their use in meaning derivation.

Table of Content

• Introduction
• Neurological Sources : The Amygdala
• Categories of Emotions
• Generic Dynamics of Emotions
• Refinements of Categories
• Refinements of Dynamics
• References & Selected Further Reading

Introduction

The IDM (Integrate, Differentiate, Meaning) model of brain function identifies meaning for the mindless brain as deriving from the recursion of the basic distinctions of differentiate/integrate and from this general process we derive more refined distinctions unique to our species. This derivation process can start-off 'passive' in that:

(a) Our brain has a natural oscillation.

(b) The timings in the oscillation, or more so any anomolies in timing, can allow for distinct differences in the processing of data thus affecting mental expressions in general. In other words too much accumulated time being 'over/in' the left hemisphere will lead to different mental expressions than being 'over/in' the right hemisphere (e.g. see Pettigrew & Miller (1998), Miller et al (2000), Pettigrew & Carter (2002)). For a more philosophical/anthropological perspective see Bateson (1984)).

(c) The generic differences in data processing in (b) seem to be reflected in the qualities derivable from the generic neurocognitive processes of differentiation and integration, processes identifiable with the generic expressions of the brain from left/right hemispheres down to the 'simple' neuron.

(d) Focusing of attention on anything forces the initial moment of categorisation (for novel data) to be 'painted' by the properties of either differentiation or integration or some composite of.

(e) The accumulation of these moments of categorisation over time reflects the PASSIVE RECURSION of the differentiate/integrate dichotomy in that the initial focusing of attention sets a context within which further distinctions are made (see Table 1); we see the use of self-referencing emerge 'instinctively'.

(f) The passive recursion allows for the development of a set of universal qualities, categories, that we use as the generic roots for deriving meaning.

(g) There is a distortion in the differentiate/integrate dichotomy in that there are issues of precision where differentiation reduces to the 'one' [1] whereas integration is reducible only to 'two' [2] or some ratio [e.g. PHI - 1:1.618]. These distortions appear in our 'maps' of reality and that includes the interpretations, and mis-interpretations, of the 'polarities' we identify in emotions.

Thus the focusing of attention acts to isolate 'something' and the method of development of generic qualities we use for meaning, to 'colour' that something, gives us the following, where in the below table the development path of the recursion moves from the generic quality of whole to ever increasing finer distinctions, thus each row can be considered a time frame, here as T0 to T3, and the number of elements in each row are members of the ever-increasing set of qualities we can use:

At T3 we have a very generic set of eight qualities usable to describe 'something'. We can go further or stop and use what we have. Memory allows us to 'save' the categories and continue later if need be. These generic qualities are derived from the perspective of the species and as such are unconscious at the level of the everyday expressions of individual/collectives where we use highly specific words.

Thus the process of differentiation allows for identification of 'something' from all else, as does the process of integration where the identification is more implicit, resulting from the integration of 'things' into a pattern that identifies (or re-identifies) 'something'. The recursion allows for finer distinctions that can also serve as unique perspectives allowing for, by example, a perspective that derives meaning from the analysis of parts as compared to an alternative perspective that derives meaning from the analysis of dynamic relationships etc. The generic distinctions of 'wholes' and 'parts' etc can be converted to synonymous terms reflecting more of a very generic sense of feeling:

These generic terms, blend, bond, bound, bind, will be fully defined later in this page but in general the above qualities are unconscious and serve as the set of universals we share as a species with which to derive general meaning that is localised through linking the general qualities with a local context out of which we can develop a lexicon used to communicate. The added benefit is the ability to exaggerate communications, to modulate,. and so derive what we call emotions. It is these generic feelings that enable us to make analogies so easily across seemingly very different disciplines etc. and so allow us to communicate even when we do not understand each other's spoken/written word.

Neurological Sources : The Amygdala

A fundamental requirement in the identification of meaning for our species is that of a clear identification of the 'universal response' system - the emotions. The IDM model focuses on the use of the recursion of dichotomies by the neurocognitive processes to derive a set of qualities the brain uses to relate to reality. In most neuron-based species the basic dichotomy concerned with emotion is associated with the concepts of FIGHT and FLIGHT, concepts encoded into the structure of the amygdala of the brain and strongly associated with 'painting' experiences. In the past, neuroscience research has focused on the 'negative' aspects of the amygdala's derivation of/processing of emotion (e.g. see such papers as (Holahan & White 2002)) but more recent work shows that the amygdala maps BOTH negative and positive emotions (for positive links see Hamann SB, Ely TD, Hoffman JM, Kilts CD. (2002), Hamann S & Mao H. (2002), as well as Baxter MG & Murray EA. (2002), and Hamann, S.(2001), such that the IDM perspective, that is not as specific as 'fight/flight' but more generic as in 'advance/retreat', 'expand/contract', has grounding in modern neuroscience research).

The crossing of sensory systems, manifest in extremes in the form of synesthesia, is strongly manifest in emotions where a negative tonal signal can cause one to 'see red'. As identified previously, the main 'organ' of emotive control seems to be the amygdala, part of the limbic system. The amygdala has extensive connections to the visual cortex as well as the auditory cortex. The amygdala also has powerful control of the hypothalamus, a major hormone control system (Doty 1989).

Furthermore, there is the amygdala's association with the temporal lobes, the apparent highest levels of visualization memory, manifesting neurons firing to face stimuli (Doty 1989), and linking to emotional 'tags' by the amygdala. Whatsmore, for emotion to be expressed in a raw state requires little context whereas finer expression requires finer contextual background within one time frame and we see in the hemispheres of the neocortext the distinction of single context vs multi context processing. Thus single-context emotion is 'raw', total, fundamentalist and so child-like compared to the refined expressions possible in multi-context expressions and these are linked to harmonics rather than the single context of the tonic, although feedback processes allow for refinement such that a hierarchy of expressions can develop.

Considering the apparent presence of these emotive hierarchies, it must be pointed out that ANY whole (object) that is built as a hierarchy manifests the concept of harmonics, where the current level is compared to the whole. This is where the subtle nature of emotion is manifest, especially that of refined emotion which, in both tone and vision, is connected with frequency/wavelength, manifest in tone as a harmonic and in vision as colour (visual harmonic).

There is the suggestion that the banding 'rule', seen in the visual cortex, frontal lobes, and other areas of the neo-cortex (see review of Constantine-Paton, & Law (1982)), applies to the known emotive bias of the amygdala, with the prime dichotomy being flight/fight. This would explain the ability to elicit opposing emotional states (e.g. anger/fear) through stimulation of adjacent areas in the amygdala (Gainotti 1989). At the more abstract level of the neocortex, I suggest that each frame is given a bias (flight/neutral/fight) which, because of the harmonic characterstics, adds an emotional contextual 'nuance' to the whole. For example, on a gross context of fight, there may develop more abstract levels with flight markers. This may elicit an overall 'fight stance' but with undertones (harmonics) preparing for flight.

In humans, these nuances are given names that enable the distinguishing of one from the other in written form, thus setting the tone communicated by a written word. In this sense communciation is through resonance where we each have a 'pool' of emotion and the words/symbols act like stones creating 'waves' of meaning. This gives general emotion an objective element in that the blend, bond, bound, bind 'feelings', outlined in Table 2, are common to all of the species. Cultural and personal biases will then add diversity in the form of different interpretations as to what we sense as objects and what we sense as relationships.

In a visual context a rich emotive state can be expressed easily since the full hierarchy is present. In an auditory context there may be limitations due to each time frame manifesting a gross context (not the 'full' whole). For example 'unknown' sounds elicit right-hemisphere instigated analysis as one searchs contexts to determine 'what is that?'. Known sounds, immediately identifiable, elicit left-hemisphere instigated analysis and these are also found in visual processing suggesting that these distinctions are part of the brain rather than particular sensory-biased differences but there are subtle sensory-based biases.

Under extreme conditions this may suggest that emotive states in a single-context environment may be expressed in a somewhat gross manner, whereas rich emotive states can only be achieved through poetry, music, or orratory, although prosody in language (rhythm) seems to be picked-up by the auditory cortex of the context sensitive hemisphere, usually the right.

However, 'known' objects can elicit an 'immediate' meaning and here the single-context of this is beneficial in that all else is 'pushed aside' to make room for 'the one'.

The emergence of meaning over time implies a complexity-biased development process where feedback adds to the current context to 'refine' meaning within which the next word/symbol is placed and so we move from the general meaning to a particular meaning. In this process so the 'full' meaning can be seen to 'emerge' from the ever-increasingly refined context. This process also works in reverse where a set of particulars lead to a general (e.g. process of induction).

Categories of Emotions

In the research into emotions and their categorisation, Robert Plutchik (Plutchik, R., (1994)) has identified four dichotomies reflecting primary emotions.

Here we trace these dichotomies back to their derivation from fight/flight (aka the biases of: push forward/pull back, expand/contract, positive/negative, differentiate/integrate etc). The dichotomies of primary emotions are given by Plutchik as:

anger/fear
joy/sadness
surprise/anticipation
acceptance/disgust (rejection)

Using Plutchik's dichotomies, the root dichotomy that maps directly to the nature of the species is anger/fear, fight/flight.
The process of recursion to the level of identifying eight 'types' of emotions expressed in the form of opposites made-up of four dichotomies is reflected in the use of binary digits, and their recursion to 3 levels, to identify all possible forms. Thus we have:

level 1 : 1 (fight) / 0 (flight)
level 2 : 11, 10 / 01, 00
level 3 : 111, 110, 101, 100 / 011, 010, 001, 000

At level 2 we have four qualities, two of which are 'pure' in form and two of which are 'derived' through the entanglement of the elements of the root dichotomy used at level 1.

Thus 00 = 'pure' flight (we cannot differentiate text from context), 11 = 'pure' fight. 01 = a CONTEXT of flight within which we add a TEXT of fight. 10 = a CONTEXT of fight within which we add a TEXT of flight. This focus on context reflects the brain's emphasis on (a) setting a context and (b) identifying all else within that context. This reflects the 'first impressions' nature in our behaviour where once made, the first impression is very hard to change and as such lasts 'forever' and at best is 'neutralised' but seemingly not forgotten, just 'repressed'.

A cognitive analysis of Plutchik's dichotomies, based on the patterns of meaning derivation identified in IDM, indicates that the 'best fit' for the level 2 categories of 01 and 10 are the concepts of disgust (reject) and acceptance. These are GENERAL terms and as such reflect the distinctions made in IDM of these two categories reflecting combinations of the level 1 elements to a degree where there is a border which is put-up such that 01 pushes things AWAY with the focus on maintaining what is inside the boundary, whereas 10 pushes outwards to PULL IN, to encapsulate, ingest, 'something' to the benefit of development.

As such, disgust reflects the pushing something away to protect 'in here', whereas acceptance extends the boundary to include something.

Thus we have:

level 1: anger / fear
level 2: anger, acceptance / disgust (reject), fear

Here disgust reflects the composite of fear with an element of anger whereas acceptance is anger with an element of fear. (the terms 'fight/flight' and 'anger/fear' are terms that do not do justice to the underlying elements of differentiation/integration. For example, fear can be based on an instinct (gene driven) or on a past experience (habit formed) where the focus is on what could happen if I dont withdraw etc - Disgust as such means I express my 'fear' but hold my ground. However I will retain these terms since they are well used in the literature so the reader needs to just treat them waryly when I use them at these general levels of application - they come into their own at more refined levels. As such, these basics of what Plutchick labels as fear, disgust [rejection], acceptance [ingestion], anger, are identifiable in the very early behaviours of infants, possibly even with a degree of decision-making aspects within the amygdala - see such papers as Kahn et al (2002).

The intense focus in the category of 'anger' reflects the single context perspective and the influence of what IDM identifies as the transcendence function whereby there is an issue regarding replacement of an existing situation with something considered 'better', as compared to the association of fear with more the preservation of an existing situation [associates with IDM transformation function], be it your own life or the life of your clan/species etc. Thus transcendence deals with replacement of context, transformation with the retaining-of, further integration with, the present context.

In the context of the development of the emotions, so the root fight/flight is reflected in reptiles where we include the lack of distinction of 'family' etc. (if you stay around you may be eaten!) Thus, for example, what we have identified as 'acceptance' is a term more applicable at later levels where here, at level 2, the concept is more on 'ingestion'. The abstraction of that process, in level 3, allows for 'ingestion' to be refined into acceptance of 'others' etc. in a mammal perspective, the movement along the dimension from fear to anger reflects the movement from a position in a hierachy of being 'rejected', the 'runt' of the litter, to being approved of (as in alpha male/female dominated collectives etc).

Given our level 2 mapping of generic emotions we need to identify the 'slots' into which we can place Plutchik's remaining dichotomies of:

joy/sadness
surprise/anticipation

The IDM mappings indicate the following generic expressions for level 3:

anger, anger+accept, acceptence, accept+anger / disgust+fear, disgust, fear+disgust, fear

(the above order differences reflect differences in context+text relationships).

Behaviourally, we can identify a negative/positive thread here in that 'anger' and 'acceptance' have an aire of being 'positive' in one's perspective as compared to a more negative property of fear/disgust. This being the case, the concept represented by Plutchik as 'joy' belongs to the anger/accept side of things but in expression, as in energy used, belongs more to the anger+accept 'end' of things and when associated with this generic category reflects the close relationship of aggression and pleasure (sex) [reptilian sex can be extremely aggressive, as can some mammal forms of sex. All of these seem to indicate the shared space of 'anger' and 'joy' rather than they being fundamentally 'poles apart']

This association of joy with anger means, due to the polar relationships of the dichotomies, that the concept represented by Plutchik as 'sadness' belongs to the category derived from fear. Thus our initial level 3 format is:

anger, joy, acceptance, X, X, disgust, sadness, fear

The surprise/anticipation dichotomy slots into the positions labelled above as X, but which is which? The overall distinction in the levels is that of fear/anger synonymous with contract/expand, integrate/differentiate but also recall the aire of 'what could be' associated with fear, there is a sense of being motivated by an aire of awareness of consequences more so than we find with anger, UNLESS there is no escape where we SUDDENLY turn and fight.

Thus our level 3 set of emotions is formed into:

anger, joy, acceptance, surprise, anticipation, disgust, sadness, fear

This derivation process in table form is:

Thus sadness stems from fear as anticipation stems from disgust. Surprise stems from acceptance as joy stems from anger. These are all general terms tied to emotions but IDM uses even more generic terms sourced in generic neurocognitive processes that are more reflective of the generic nature of expressions in that the emotions we identify today have been DERIVED from 'baser' forms. Thus the universal response system of emotions is also tied to a more encompassing set of categories that reflect general perspectives used to be proactive as well as reactive and these perspectives, declared in Table 2, are here defined as:

contractive blending - includes Plutchik's fear (it is like escape through curling up into a ball, or 'dissapearing' by playing dead or freezing, in the latter where natural colourings etc can allow one to 'blend in' with the local context and so not be seen - the overall focus is on total integration and the use of context to aid by determining expression. In IMD the link is to the concept of Transformation reflected in such concepts as 'shape shifting' as a defence mechanism. At the level of collectives etc this 'contractive blending' gets us into the concept of security in numbers, drawing someone/something 'in' through which one asserts one's identity. The main focus is the recruitment of the context to 'hide' as well as assert identity through someoneelse/somethingelse - thus concepts such as 'devotion to someone/something' and so 'trust in OTHERS' can be derived from the basic emotion of fear)

contractive bonding - includes Plutchik's sadness (For Plutchik this gets into issues of death, of grief, of qualitative distinctions. In IDM, for the more generic term of 'contractive bonding' there is a focus on sharing space with someone/something but maintaining one's sense of identity. There is a relationship to the representation of fear but not fear itself. Bonding as a whole reflects SYMBOLISM - e.g. a marriage certificate reflects the 'blending' of male/female but is not that blend, it is a representation of that blend. A 'de facto' relationship is more 'bond' than 'blend' in that both parties retain their own sense of identity and as such are not 'one'. Sadness is also a representation in the form of being sad about something compared to being fearful of something. Both blend and bond deal with sharing of space but bond not as 'intense', not as total, as blend))

contractive bounding - includes Plutchik's disgust (the boundary focus to protect 'inside', rejection of others. Basic rejection at the level of the individual can lead to the collective/species level where values are protected and others rejected. From this realm and the next emerges such concepts as morality/ethics where 'good/bad' determinations are made from within the boundary, keeping the bad 'outside' . There is an overall sense of 'security seeking')

contractive binding - includes Plutchik's anticipation (relationships over time, management, umpires, auditors etc thus an intial experience of disgust and so rejection leads to the development of a sense of anticipation of rejection and so a sense of 'monitoring' as well as a need for cultivation develops in that through anticipation of 'troubles' one can nip them in the bud but at the same time this 'negative' perspective can be used to cultivate)

expansive binding - includes Plutchik's surprise (relationships with time, 'new' paradigms, enlightening experiences, sudden assertions of 'something'. This whole area of 'expansive' concepts comes with an aire of 'transcendence', reflected in the totalist attributes of expansive blending, see below)

expansive bounding - includes Plutchik's acceptance (formation of ideologies, sense of direction, of belonging, ingest. The boundary here reflects more a Science perspective in that the focus is on organising, mapping, planning such that the maps contain what is 'true' vs 'false' and this and the previous category [expansive binding] focus more on 'true' or 'false' rather than 'good' or 'bad' - they seem to form the roots of rationality and problem solving)

expansive bonding - includes Plutchik's joy (self-reflection, reflection of others who see themselves in 'you', performer-audience, reproduction. The link of aggression and reproduction is well demonstrated in society but assumed to be 'opposites'. IDM identifies their common root. The repeated recursion we use to analyse anything will allow for us to interpret love/hate, joy/anger as opposites and so flesh-out elements within the pairing but the ROOT of love/hate, joy/anger is more in the very generic notion of 'singlemindedness' that comes with expansive blending and its 'pairing' derivative (the integration bias) in expansive blending))

expansive blending - includes Plutchik's anger (total faith in oneself, singlemindedness, intense, destroying/creating focus - total differentiation in the form of replacing the existing context with one's own - something seemingly 'better')

For IDM the brain is not aware of 'joy' or 'anger' etc in that the basic brain is driven by, developed upon, mindless stimulus/response such that 'joy' and 'anger' etc are terms created at the level of mind (conscious brain, brain function at the level of awareness) that represent the 'mindless' patterns that the brain deals with at the basic level across all brain-dominated species. These mindless patterns have developed from the growth dynamics along the lines of applying recursion to the differentiate/integrate dichotomy where this recursion can be 'passive' through (a) the focusing of attention plus (b) repeated oscillations across the brain that sets-off the recursion of differentiation (more left brained in most, integration is focused WITHIN that which is differentiated) and integrations (more right brained in most, integrations/differentiations are more 'balanced'). What can stem from this 'passive' recursion is the set of qualities given in the table at the beginning of this page.

Generic Dynamics of Emotions

The derivation of meaning at the level of consciousness is achieved through the linking of these species-wide categories with a specific context and from that we derive a lexicon, each word mapping the universal categories listed (or their compound forms, see next section) to a specific relationship with a context. Thus from sameness, the notion of 'wholes' and 'parts' we derive differences, thus 'whole' + context A = 'a car' whereas 'whole' + context B = 'a bird' etc etc.

Another feature of deriving universal categories supposedly functioning in a context is where certain contextual states can cause oscillations within a category, as we find in Physics with the oscillation of the 'particle' or 'wave' identifications, all depending on the context that includes HOW we 'look' at things. In emotions this sort of oscillation is also present, suggesting the oscillation is a fundamental property of our being and reflects one of three possible states:

(a) A true, local, sensory paradox. These are usually visual or auditory with the most known examples being visual - e.g. the Necker Cube etc. (also see examples as links in Paradox )

(b) An error in categorisations where given a set of categories we attempt to filter all input through that set. A lack in differentiation will create circumstances where complex data is forced through the filter such that one or more categories will reflect 'paradox' in that clear determination of the content is not possible and so the category reflects uncertainty. This uncertainty is reflected in oscillations and reference to context-dependencies etc where context determines the 'certain' nature of the category. For example, if I have the notions of static and dynamic then a category in which the notions share the same space will reflect one OR the other given a context. In these circumstances the categories need to be reviewed and expanded (but see (c)) to, for example, differentiate static category from dynamic category. This 'mistake' in category creation reflects 'derived' irreducability. This issue with complex states is also reflected in oscillations of emotions where a complex relationship, still 'ill-defined' or on a 'boundary' of some sort, ends-up in a form of oscillation between close emotions, e.g. joy/anger, love/hate.

(c) A true complex pattern has been identified that is outside of the scope of the sensory systems of the species (and this includes the extention of those senses in the form of technology). In this case, no matter how many categories are created to remove the oscillations the oscillations do not stop. This state reflects 'true' irreducability. It is different to (a) in that (a) is mindless and local whereas here there is possibility of 'something'.

We can represent the notion of oscillations with a graph showing A as the Y-axis and NOT A as the X-axis. A complex pattern, 'reality', is represented by a vector cutting the 2D plane along the diagonal from the origin. Perception is where this vector jumps to map onto the X-axis (and so a NOT-A state is perceived) or the Y-axis (and so an A state is perceived). This graph reflects the roots of abstract perceptions stemming from the visual system's demand for EITHER/OR distinctions as a process of object processing; vision being the most dominant of the senses to which our brain has adapted, recruited, and abstracted.

Paradox comes when the vector oscillates across A and NOT-A but prior to that is the extraction, the unfolding of the A/NOT-A distinctions that are not paradoxical but reflect stimulus-response processes. The complexity of the universe is encoded in the diagonal, the state vector and our species communications system utilises this process of encoding/decoding by step-up/step-down processing - we encode the 'whole' Stimulus/Response event into a complex form just as we decode it from that complex form.

There is the suggestion here of a 'reverse' paradox in that we, as a species, are more precise than the Universe and as such our A/NOT-A distinctions exceed the precision of reality and as such we can be at times TOO precise, thus the paradoxes we identify are products of our over-precise nature.

What is noteworthy in the use of the method of recursion to derive categories for meaning is that the sequence of categories of emotions at any level of derivation, read from left-to-right, do not reflect a smooth path but more so a path made-up of PAIRS, pairs that reflect the overall generic qualities of the initial dichotomy (fight/flight) and as such the path is more 'lumpy' in form and as such oscillations can occur between the elements of each pair, reflecting the possible oscillations between the elements of the root dichotomy - fight/flight. Thus what we call first-level recursion reflects the ordering of scalar values.

Refinements of Categories

The IDM model suggests refinements in these basic emotions is done through the recruitment of the whole set to bring-out finer distinctions in EACH distinction in that these basic emotions are all GENERAL in form. Thus for the concept represented as 'fear' we can refine the concept into 8 categories reflecting the expressions of mixing - this reflects the notion of hyperbolic development rather than exponential development:

Context = FEAR, 000
Expanded into:

Fear+fear = 000000
fear+sadness = 000001
fear+disgust = 000010
fear+anticipation = 000011
fear+surprise = 000100
fear+acceptance = 000101
fear+joy = 000110
fear+anger = 000111

and so on (we move from 8 to 64 using this method. Repeat it to go from 64 to 4096 etc etc reflecting hyperbolic development where N qualities become N²; as compared to exponential growth that is 2^N. The order of the bits is from context to text, general to particular)
This recruitment process reflects the 'staying in the box' perspective where rather than recruit qualities from outside, from other disciplines, we recruit what we have initially as sources of analogies to flesh-out the general categories into more refined forms. Once these analogies have been created they can in fact be turned into 'autonomous' qualities within the set of qualities we are using. Thus 8 analogies describing aspects of expression of, say, fear, (as above), become stand-alone qualities and so we develop hyperbolically oscillating between literal interpretations and metaphoric interpretations.

Of note here is that the fear-anger dimension has been on a negative/positive format and as such reflects the archetypal expressions of darkness/light, flight/fight.

In categorisation systems we can in fact recognise TWO degrees of categorisation, the archetypal and the typal. The archetypal focuses on the apparent oppositions of dark/light whereas the typal reflects on the COOPERATION of the dark/light which is reflected in the more typal processes rooted in the conversion of the symbolisms of dark/light into the symbolisms of female/male. As such the refined typal emerges from the archetypal that is an exaggeration of the raw typal in that the raw typal reflects the stimulus/response of the everyday out of which has come the emphasis, the exaggeration, of FLIGHT/FIGHT as a necessary dichotomy of adaptation to the environment. The refinement of that flight/flight dichotomy has allowed for the development of the archetypal out of which emerges a 'refined' form of typal, that of our species nature and as such reflective of our species-reality that we create as we develop.

In the context of archetypal-to-typal development, fear gives way to devotion, to total trust in others in that the fear is reduced through following-of/devotion-to another/others, [security in numbers] just as anger gives where to devotion BUT to self, there is total trust in oneself (and so a sense of 'leadership' develops, the 'anger' can be focused, even turned into a game). Thus the above identified dimension of basic emotions is transformed into a dimension of complex relational processes both between individuals as well as within individuals.

Elsewhere I have identified the raw elements of the typal as:

devotion (dual-minded), discernment(self-restraint), control(containment), cultivation(influencial), enlightenment(awarenss), guidance(ideology-setting), self-reflection(intensity), single-minded (self-devotion), thus the above 8 qualities of FEAR represented in the bit pattern of 000 now become 8 qualities of DEVOTION (to others/another):

devotion+devotion = 000000
devotion+discernment = 000001
devotion+control = 000010
devotion+cultivation = 000011
devotion+enlightenment = 000100
devotion+guidance = 000101
devotion+reflection = 000110
devotion+single-mindedness = 000111

Thus we identify 'devotion to others' as stemming from fear (and so associated with negation and 'darkness'), be it from an experience or from genetic diversity that has led to people being born with a 'natural' sense of devotion to others or more so 'security' by sticking together (an integration focus).

In other words, from the basic emphasis on flight/fight we can identify refinements into social behaviours that ensure the development of, and the protection of, the collective/species. These refinements can be further refined such that the development of 'devotion to others' from fear can lead to the development of further categories from bad experiences within the context of 'devotion to others'; and so we see an oscillation in developments across the 'positive/negative' dichotomy where the emerging positive nature resulting from 'devotion to others' develops as a response to the negative nature of fear and this positive nature can itself be exposed to 'fearful' situations and so from the 'positive' nature of 'devotion to others' category can emerge stronger categories dealing with fear.

In the dimension identified above, the dimension from 'devotion to others' to 'devotion to self', we can identify transition points that reflect betrayal by others as well as betrayal of oneself, thus, for example, disgust in others/another can stem from a STRONG betrayal by others/another whereas a WEAK sense of betrayal by others/another only elicits sadness rather than disgust; we can identify here a direct relationship of trust with basic emotions.

All of these basic emotions can be exaggerated further, such that from the single context experiences of joy and anger can develop the highly intense, all-encompassing feelings of Love and Hate.

The recursion process allows us to zoom-in on this Love-Hate distinction and further identify differences in expressions of love/hate using the SAME general form of categorisations based on archetypal perspectives (the destroying Love of Kali) as well as the typal perspectives (the creative actions of Hate).

Refinements of Dynamics

The use of recursion to derive qualities means that all derived qualities are encoded in EACH quality in that they serve as sources of analogy in describing the unique expressions of a general quality given a context. ANY description of 'something' utilising recursion will reflect the SAME general set of qualities we use as a species and as identified in general form in IDM. Thus in emotions, the identification of a general category, e.g. anger, is refined into a set of categories derived from taking the existing general set of categories and making compounds WITHIN a particular category.

What recursion also seems to do is allow for the derivation of a vector within an emotion, identifying the path of 'oscillation' from an emotion's given state into its opposite. This vector can be derived through applying recursion to any of the bit-patterns derived in the previous section. To reduce text, lets just focus on the original eight categories in Table 3, assigning them the bit patterns from 111 (anger) to 000 (fear), covering the range of values derived using recursion.

The process of recursion is reflected in these bit patterns through stepping-through each pattern and flipping the bits in the order of a binary numbering. Thus the inital set of qualities, scalars, expressed in the sequence of:

111, 110, 101, 100, 011, 010, 001, 000

can be fleshed-out into sequences reflecting changes of emotion WITHIN each of the above. This gives us eight sequences:

111, 011, 101, 001, 110, 010, 100, 000 [pure anger to anger-as-fear]

110, 010, 100, 000, 111, 011, 101, 001 [pure joy to joy-as-sadness]

101, 001, 111, 011, 100, 000, 110, 010 [pure acceptance to acceptance-as-rejection (disgust)]

100, 000, 110, 010, 101, 001, 111, 011 [pure surprise to surprise-as-anticipation]

011, 111, 001, 101, 010, 110, 000, 100 [pure anticipation to anticipation-as-surprise]

010, 110, 000, 100, 011, 111, 001, 101 [pure rejection (disgust) to rejection-as-acceptance]

001, 101, 011, 111, 000, 100, 010, 110 [pure sadness to sadness-as-joy]

000, 100, 010, 110, 001, 101, 011, 111 [pure fear to fear-as-anger]

Notice here that the general 1/0 categorisation of the original sequence, reflected in the first bit for the first four being 1 and the second four being 0, has now become particular, very 'tight', also expressed in the first bit of each category where 1/0 now oscillates. What has happened is that the original sequence, derived from what we can call 'first level recursion' is a sequence of scalar values that, when rotated become a vector and focused WITHIN a quality, using the other qualities as sources of analogy in describing change where CONTEXT can act to bring-out particular aspects of a general quality. Thus in these sequences the initial three-bit pattern reflects the 'pure' emotion and the order of the others elements in the sequence reflect exaggerations, extremes in energy, such that the state of basic fear can be exaggerated to the extreme in the form of fear-as-anger.

These vectors are of 'interest' but have properties that at first may seem 'counter-intuitive' until we do one more process. This process is where we derive what is called the 'variations on a theme'.

This property stems from the fact that in recursion of a dichotomy the initial bit, the root distinction, acts to separate the two sides of the dichotomy but as the recursion progresses so the patterns in the derived sequences of qualities are identical on both sides when read left-to-right (or right-to-left) OTHER THAN the first bit. We are no longer dealing with opposition here (aka reflection) but more so with repeatition. For example, in the basic sequence of:

111, 110, 101, 100, 011, 010, 001, 000

if we move the left four 'under' the right four we get:

111, 110, 101, 100

011, 010, 001, 000


The only difference in the two qualities in each column is the first bit. The indication is that these pairs of qualities may show common themes only differentiated by the nature of the first bit. As we shall see this is indeed the case such that their approximations in quality allow for their use in referencing each other. By this I mean that swapping the first four in a sequence with the last four, as in:

111, 110, 101, 100, 011, 010, 001, 000

becoming

011, 010, 001, 000, 111, 110, 101, 100

allows for the qualities in the last sequence to serve as a source of analogy in describing the GENERAL characteristics of the corresponding qualities in the first sequence. The possibility of this is due to the first bit determining the CONTEXT in which all other bits operate and as such 111 and 011 will have more sameness than difference once the initial difference, as manifest in the first bit, has been identified.

This 'variations on a theme' is possible in any of the sequences, be they the results of first or second degree recursions but the use in the second degree recursions introduces some astonishing relationships beyond a one-to-one comparision we can make using first degree recursion.

These relationships stem from the fact that the sequence generated in a second degree recursion is a sequence applicable to ONE quality, a sequence that identifies all of the differences in expression WITHIN a general expression. Thus, as an example, we have been using the quality represented as 111, derived from the first degree recursion to level 3. When we apply second degree recursion we get the sequence of:

111, 011, 101, 001, 110, 010, 100, 000 which we associated with change. BUT if we now focus on variations on a theme we take this change sequence and derive:

110, 010, 100, 000, 111, 011, 101, 001

this is the 'variations on a theme' sequence but focused on WITHIN the quality of 111. What this sequence shows is the QUALITATIVE changes of 111 from its 'rawest' form, derived by analogy to an under-exaggerted 110, to its most refined form 'free' of context, where the analogy is to itself, 111 in the 5th position. When we go 'beyond' this 5th position we link the static with the dynamic, with 'out there', and as such identify the expressions of the quality from the 'least it can do' (analogy to 011) to the 'best it can do' (analogy to an over-exaggerated 001).
W can summarise here by stating that for any 3-bit code there is an 8-step vector. For a 6-bit code there is a 64-step vector, each bit code has a vector with 2^{number-of-bits} steps. This increment reflects resolution of the path. The tensor perspective applies to the 'variations on a theme' perspective identified above and is in the qualitative expressions of each bit/group-of-bits within the basic quality.

To flesh this out further, to develop the awareness that we are not playing with bits but dealing with the fundamental development of emotions through recursion, we need to map-out these "variations on a theme" sequences. I have done that below using combinations of the blend, bond, bound, bind concepts with Plutchiks terms:

Anger [111]: 110, 010, 100, 000, 111, 011, 101, 001

What the sequence identifies is the qualitative development of the notion of 'anger', from its rawest state to its most refined state where we transcend the normal perspective on 'anger' and move into the dynamics of anger, ending with an analogy to an overexaggerated form of 'sadness' that is more an over-exaggerated form of 'contractive bonding' - reflecting a perspective that covers dealing with the blocking of things but also the development of discernment of things; a developing sense of quality and so of qualitative differentiations. Thus 'anger', singlemindedness, is best when used to be discerning in a qualitative way. (Generically there is also a link to the concept of death that is strong in the category associated with 'sadness'.) In these sequences the fifth position reflects the emotion in its purest form, the only analogy is to itself. The sixth position reflects the first degree of transcendence, of going 'beyond' itself. Thus in the above sequence the initial 'transcendence' of anger is identified using 011 as analogy and so reflecting developing anticipation.

From this very basic identification of the development of anger we move to the other sequences:

Joy [110]: 111, 011, 101, 001, 110, 010, 100, 000

This sequence identifies the qualitative development of 'joy', or more the generic concept of 'expanding bonding', from its rawest state reflected in the single-mindedness, the intensity of 'anger' through to the dual mindedness, the devotional properties we find in 'fear'. The main point here is to identify 'fear' as falling into the same category as a devotion, and seeking to 'blend in' with the context or to draw-in the thoughts of someonelse through which to establish identity. The overall emphasis in fear etc is the recruitment of context, either to 'hide', to dissapear in ('fear', 'flight'), or more so to integrate with. Thus 'joy' in its best expression is in the context of integrating with another/others.

Acceptance [101]: 100, 000, 110, 010, 101, 001, 111, 011

This sequence identifies the qualitative development of 'acceptance' from its rawest state reflected in analogy to the generic notion of 'surprise', an initital phase of dealing with the 'new', leading to its acceptance. Acceptance in its 'best' suit is in the form of an exaggeration of anticipation extendable into the concept of cultivation (011).

Surprise [100]: 101, 001, 111, 011, 100, 000, 110, 010

This sequence identifies the qualitative development of 'surprise', or the more generic concept of 'expansive binding'. The rawest state is described by analogy to acceptance or more so an initial sense of a boundary that is crossed. Surprise in its most optimum expression is described by analogy to an overexaggerated state of rejection that includes a sense of security, an initial sense of keeping something 'out'. This dynamic is reflected in the concept of enlightenment where the intense energy to keep something at bay, or an intense struggle to identify 'something' can lead to a 'sudden' revelation that we then need to contain/control.

Anticipation [011]: 010, 110, 000, 100, 011, 111, 001, 101

This sequence identifies the qualitative development of 'anticipation' where the rawest analogy is to a form of disgust/rejection, behaviourally expressed as the rejection of something prior to ingestion rather than immediately following from ingestion. The positive focus here is also that of cultivation and so becoming influencial and so, ultimately, accepting (101).

Disgust(Reject) [010]: 011, 111, 001, 101, 010, 110, 000, 100

This sequence identifies the qualitiative development of 'rejection' (aka disgust) , or the more generic concept of 'contractive bounding'. The major focus is on a barrier or boundary that differentiates 'outside' from 'inside', 'acceptable' from 'unacceptable'. As such the main focus is on keeping something in or more so protecting something inside from outside. In the sequence the initial analogy is to anticipation of 'something' that can develop, ultimately, to dealing with the experience of something 'new' or 'surprising' (100).

Sadness [001]: 000, 100, 010, 110, 001, 101, 011, 111

This sequence identifies the qualitative development of 'sadness', or the more generic concept of 'contractive bonding'. The major focus is on processing of a blockage of some sort and later the development of a sense of quality, of qualitative distinctions and of self-restraint. The initial analogy is to the category of 'contractive blending' that includes the concept of total fear, total darkness, but also the notions of devotion and trust/faith in another/others. As we pass through the decription of sadness itself (001) we move into the 'transcendental' areas reflecting development in acceptance, cultivation, and anger (Plutchik's 'anger' maps to the generic concept of expansive blending - the focus being on singlemindedness and becoming 'one', being positive, and so a focus upon transcendence and so replacement.)

Fear [000]: 001, 101, 011, 111, 000, 100, 010, 110

This sequence identifies the qualitative development of 'fear', or more so the generic concept of 'contractive blending'. The overall focus here is on using context to aid in asserting identity even if that means 'dissapearing'. e.g. 'freezing' so you blend-in with the context. There is a derived behaviour here in a strongly identity-asserting context of asserting identity through others/another/something, where fear leads to the development of collectives, security in numbers etc. and a such one's identity is reflected through the group identity and so a sense of 'dualmindedness'. Note that the 'raw' analogy of fear is to it being like 'sadness' (001) that develops through the formal description of fear itself and on into the 'transcending' forms as in surprise, containment, and joy (!) (Plutchik's 'joy' maps to the generic categorisation of expansive bonding - the focus of which is on REFLECTION, a property of which is to let others see themselves in you and so leave you alone. This is emphasised in disguise, in blending-in with the local context)

These sequences are very generic in form (and though hyperbolic development can become lengthy!) but reflect the rich set of qualities derived from the 'simple' process of recursion of a dichotomy, in particular that of differentiate/integrate that can lead to the derivation of feelings we can use to communicate. By identifying these patterns we can develop AI versions allowing for the encoding of 'meaning modules' where different sensory data is converted to generic 'objects and relationships' formats allowing for any system, be it human or AI to share meanings.

References & Selected Further Reading

Aggleton, J.P.,(1993) "The contribution of the amygdala to normal and abnormal emotional states" pp328-333 Trends in Neurosciences 16 - August 1993

Allsopp, T.E., & Falakelly, J.K., (2000)"Altruistic Cell Suicide and the Specialized Case of the Virus-infected Nervous System" Trends Neurosci. (2000) 23, 284-290

Anderson AK, Phelps EA. (2002) "Is the human amygdala critical for the subjective experience of emotion? Evidence of intact dispositional affect in patients with amygdala lesions." IN J Cogn Neurosci 2002 Jul 1;14(5):709-20

Azari, N.P., Pettigrew, K.D., Pietrini, P., Murphy,D.C., Horwitz,B., and Schapiro, M.B., (1995) "Sex Differences in Patterns of Hemispheric Cerebral Metabolism: A Multiple Regression/Discriminant Analaysis of Positron Emission Tomographic Data" International Journal of Neuroscience, Vol 81 pp 1-20

Bateson, G. (1984) :Mind and Nature : a necessary unity" Basic Books

Baxter MG, Murray EA. (2002) "The amygdala and reward." Nat Rev Neurosci 2002 Jul;3(7):563-73

Boucsein W, Schaefer F, Sokolov EN, Schroder C, Furedy JJ. (2001) "The color-vision approach to emotional space: cortical evoked potential data." IN Integr Physiol Behav Sci 2001 Apr-Jun;36(2):137-53

Bradley, R.T. (1987) "Charisma and Social Structure : A Study of Love and Power, Wholeness and Transformation" New York : Paragon House

Bradley, R.T., & Pribram, K.(1998) "Communication and Stability in Social Collectives" IN Journal of Social and Evolutionary Systems 21(1):29-81

Canli T, Desmond JE, Zhao Z, Gabrieli JD (2002) "Sex differences in the neural basis of emotional memories." IN Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2002 Aug 6;99(16):10789-94

Constantine-Paton, M., and Law, M.I.,(1982) "The Development of Maps and Stripes in the Brain" IN "The Workings of the Brain" A.H. Freeman

Cook, N.,(1986) "The Brain Code" Methuen

Cunningham MG, Bhattacharyya S, Benes FM. (2002) "Amygdalo-cortical sprouting continues into early adulthood: Implications for the development of normal and abnormal function during adolescence." J Comp Neurol 2002 Nov 11;453(2):116-30

Damasio, A.R.,(1994) "Descartes' Error" Picador

Damasio, A.R., (1999) "The Feeling of What Happens" William Heinmann

Davidson PS, Glisky EL. (2002) "Is flashbulb memory a special instance of source memory? Evidence from older adults." IN Memory 2002 Mar;10(2):99-111

Delis, D.C., (1983) "Contribution of the right hemisphere in the organization of paragraphs" IN CORTEX 19, pp43-50

Doty, R.W., (1989) "Some anatomical substrates of emotion, and their bihemispheric coordination" IN "Emotions and the Dual Brain" p57-82

Gainotti, G., and Caltagirone, C., (eds) (1989) "Emotions and the Dual Brain" Springer-Verlag

Glas,A., (ed) (1987) "Individual Differences in Hemispheric Specialization" Plenum Press

Greenfield, S.A., (2000) "The Private Life of the Brain" Allen Lane, The Penguin Press

Gur RC, Gunning-Dixon F, Bilker WB, Gur RE. (2002) "Sex differences in temporo-limbic and frontal brain volumes of healthy adults." IN Cereb Cortex 2002 Sep;12(9):998-1003

Hamann, S., (2001) "Cognitive and neural mechanisms of emotional memory"IN Trends in Cognitive Sciences Vol 5, No 9, September 2001: 394-399

Hamann SB, Ely TD, Hoffman JM, Kilts CD. (2002) "Ecstasy and agony: activation of the human amygdala in positive and negative emotion" IN Psychol Sci 2002 Mar;13(2):135-41

Hamann S, Mao H. (2002) "Positive and negative emotional verbal stimuli elicit activity in the left amygdala." IN Neuroreport 2002 Jan 21;13(1):15-9

Heilig,M., Koob,R.E., Ekman,R., and Britton,K.T., (1994) "Corticotropin- releasing factor and the neuropeptide Y: role in emotional integration." pp80-84 Trends in Neuroscience

Hoffman, D.D., (1998) "Visual Intelligence" Norton

van Honk J, Hermans EJ, d'Alfonso AA, Schutter DJ, van Doornen L, de Haan EH. (2002) "A left-prefrontal lateralized, sympathetic mechanism directs attention towards social threat in humans: evidence from repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation." IN Neurosci Lett 2002 Feb 15;319(2):99-102

Holahan MR, White NM. (2002) "Conditioned memory modulation, freezing, and avoidance as measures of amygdala-mediated conditioned fear." IN Neurobiol Learn Mem 2002 Mar;77(2):250-75

Holland. J.H., (1999) "Emergence" OUP

Hutcheon, B., & Yarom, Y., (2000) "Resonance, oscillation and the intrinsic frequency preferences of neurons" Trends Neurosci. (2000) 23, 216-222

Ivry, R.B., & Robertson, L.C., (1998) "The Two Sides of Perception" MITP

Jamison,K.R., (1995) "Manic-Depressive Illness and Creativity" IN Scientific American Febuary 1995

Kelso, S (1995) "Dynamic Patterns" MITP

Kendler KS, Hettema JM, Butera F, Gardner CO, Prescott CA (2003) "Life event dimensions of loss, humiliation, entrapment, and danger in the prediction of onsets of major depression and generalized anxiety." IN Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2003 Aug;60(8):789-96

Kahn I, Yeshurun Y, Rotshtein P, Fried I, Ben-Bashat D, Hendler T. (2002) "The role of the amygdala in signaling prospective outcome of choice." IN Neuron 2002 Mar 14;33(6):983-94

Levarie, S., (1980) "Music as a Structural Model" p236-239 IN Journal of Social Biol. Structure. 3

Lee GP, Meador KJ, Loring DW, Bradley KP. (2002) "Lateralized changes in autonomic arousal during emotional processing in patients with unilateral temporal lobe seizure onset" IN Int J Neurosci 2002 Jun;112(6):743-57

Liotti M, Mayberg HS.(2001) "The role of functional neuroimaging in the neuropsychology of depression." IN J Clin Exp Neuropsychol 2001 Feb;23(1):121-36

Lofting C.J., (2002) "Integration, Differentiation, & Meaning (IDM)"

Masaoka Y, Homma I. (2002) "The effect of anticipatory anxiety on breathing and metabolism in humans." IN Respir Physiol 2001 Nov 1;128(2):171-7

McAdams, S., and Bigand, E., (Eds) (1993) "Thinking in Sound" OUP

Medina JF, Christopher Repa J, Mauk MD, LeDoux JE. (2002) "Parallels between cerebellum- and amygdala-dependent conditioning." IN Nat Rev Neurosci 2002 Feb;3(2):122-31

Miller SM, Liu GB, Ngo TT, Hooper G, Riek S, Carson RG, Pettigrew JD. (2000) "Interhemispheric switching mediates perceptual rivalry." Curr Biol 2000 Apr 6;10(7):383-92

Moll J, de Oliveira-Souza R, Eslinger PJ, Bramati IE, Mourao-Miranda J, Andreiuolo PA, Pessoa L (2002) "The neural correlates of moral sensitivity: a functional magnetic resonance imaging investigation of basic and moral emotions." IN J Neurosci 2002 Apr 1;22(7):2730-6

Nagae S, Moscovitch M. (2002) "Cerebral hemispheric differences in memory of emotional and non-emotional words in normal individuals." IN Neuropsychologia 2002;40(9):1601-7

Parsons, L. M. & Osherton, D.(2001)"New Evidence for Distinct Right and Left Brain Systems for Deductive versus Probabilistic Reasoning" IN Cerebral Cortex, Vol 11, No 10, 954-965

Pettigrew JD, Miller SM (1998) "A 'sticky' interhemispheric switch in bipolar disorder?" IN Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 1998 Nov 22;265(1411):2141-8

Pettigrew JD, Carter O (2002) "Vision as motivation: interhemispheric oscillation alters perception." IN Adv Exp Med Biol 2002;508:461-9

Plutchik, R., (1994)"The Psychology and Biology of Emotion" HarperCollins

Posner,M.I., Raichle, M.E., (1994) "Images of Mind" Scientific American Library

Ressler KJ, Paschall G, Zhou XL, Davis M. (2002) "Regulation of synaptic plasticity genes during consolidation of fear conditioning." IN J Neurosci 2002 Sep 15;22(18):7892-902

Rizzolatti, G., (1989) "Reaction Times and Mental States" IN "Emotions and the Dual Brain" p241-245

Rosen HJ, Perry RJ, Murphy J, Kramer JH, Mychack P, Schuff N, Weiner M, Levenson RW, Miller BL. (2002) "Emotion comprehension in the temporal variant of frontotemporal dementia." IN Brain 2002 Oct;125(Pt 10):2286-95

Spinella M. (2002) "A relationship between smell identification and empathy." IN Int J Neurosci 2002 Jun;112(6):605-12

Springer, S.P., & Deutsch, G., (1998) "Left Brain, Right Brain -5th edition" W.H.Freeman

Stein, B.E., and Meredith, M.A., (1993) "The Merging of the Senses" MITP

Tallon-Baudry, C. and Bertrand, O., (1999) "Oscillatory gamma activity in humans and its role in object representation" Trends Cogniti. Sci (1999) 3, 151-16

Windmann S, Daum I, Gunturkun O. (2002) "Dissociating prelexical and postlexical processing of affective information in the two hemispheres: effects of the stimulus presentation format." IN Brain Lang 2002 Mar;80(3):269-86

Yamasaki H, LaBar KS, McCarthy G. (2002) "Dissociable prefrontal brain systems for attention and emotion." IN Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2002 Aug 20;99(17):11447-51