Due to the manner in which our brains have adapted to context there has emerged a dichotomy-driven dynamic focused
on self-referencing. The generic form of the dichotomy is that of differentiate/integrate, where specialist labels
from neuroscience give us the WHAT/WHERE dichotomy.
LOCAL contexts will relabel the elements of the core dichotomy and of particular notice here are the labels of
metaphysical/dialectical.
The basic focus of metaphysics has been on the isolation of aspects of reality and the precise identification of
all aspects of what has been isolated OTHER THAN linkage to 'everything else'. As such the focus is on the discrete
and on idealism, recognition of 'universals' where they operate in any context 'as is'. (and included in this realm
are 'spiritual' elements where we 'transcend' the current to exploit imagination in interpretations)
The basic focus of dialectics has been on recognition of the dynamic aspects of reality and so focuses more on
the space 'inbetween' and 'within' what metaphysics has isolated.
The characteristics of the labels 'metaphysics' and 'dialectics' are isomorphic to those of 'differentiating' and
'integrating' respectively.
The differentiating/integrating dichotomy is an asymmetric form reflects the differentiating as emergent from the
integrating and so, by association, the metaphysical from the dialectical.
When we zoom-in on 'small world network' research to come across the aristocrat/egalitarian dichotomy, it too is
asymmetric and reflecting the
differentiate(aristocrat)/integrate(egalitarian) dynamic with the aristocratic emergent from the egalitarian.
Exposure to the passage of time alone will make these dichotomies 'self-reference' and so bring out a dimension
of qualities that interacts with reality in parallel, where LOCAL context can then sort the qualities into their
best-fit/worst-fit order.
Other associated dichotomies include that of bandwidth/time and its association with that of NOW/PAST-FUTURE. These
dichotomies reflect properties in information processing by the neurology and come with consequences expressed
in the metaphysics/dialectics dichotomy. These consequences are where, due to increase in energy to increase bandwidth
to understand something 'now' so we focus attention, 'isolate' what we want to review and in doing so change our
experience of subjective time - time is converted from a thermodynamic nature to a mechanistic nature where the
more energy we put in to analysis so the more time can slow/stop or be interpreted as reversible. These are PHYSIOLOGICAL
processes that can affect PSYCHOLOGICAL understandings and so seed our interpretations of reality where from the
high energy, idealist, notions come a sense of the 'eternal'.
Due to the spectrum of possible categories derived form self-referencing so there are degrees of metaphysics/dialectics
perspectives where the purest of metaphysics associates with the singular and with that the random/miraculous and
so a focus on uniqueness that is incomparable with anything else.
This a metaphysical perspective will elicit discrete perspectives of reality as reflected in such concepts as Shannon's
discrete, and so bit focus, interpretation of Information Theory.
The dialectical perspective will elicit continuum perspectives of reality as reflected in such concepts as Gabor's
continuous, and so holon focus, interpretation of Information Theory.
Reality 'as is' covers the full spectrum of the differentiate/integrate dichotomy but reality 'as interpreted'
is biased to the differentiating since our consciousness is focused more on the particular/singular, and temporally
the 'now'. With technology so we are more precise, more efficient and so more differentiating and that leads into
a realm of individual consciousness and associated perspectives - existentialism dominates in the 'well educated'
collectives as they fragment into individuals all seeking some form of autonomy and so escape from their species-natures
as members of a genetically-determined collective with its focus on linkage and so the dialectical.
Recursing the differentiate/integrate dichotomy gives us a spectrum of POSSIBLE conditions, a set of universals
and so a 'regular network' mapping of our nature as human beings (and by association so the nature of our collectives).
LOCAL context then customises this regular network to elicit small world networks where the universals get 'colouring'
and can also be marginalised or even expunged from local considerations of reality.
We need to be aware of such dynamics, recognising that things are not 'metaphysics vs dialectics' but more so 'metaphysics
and dialectics' with a bias to metaphysical development the more precise our nature becomes, and so a need to be
sensitive to that bias less we ignore the dialectical totally and in doing so fail to acknowledge our links.
The competitive nature of the realm of the singular/particular forces autonomy and so emergent fundamentalism,
be it of the individual, corporation, religion, or nation. That dynamic is historical, it does not come out of
'nothing', it is a clear result of the methodology of self-referencing. In that dynamic is included individual-group
dynamics as covered in the specialist dichotomy of aristocratic/egalitarian and so the association of the aristocratic
with metaphysics and differentiating as is the egalitarian associated with dialectics and integrating.
The recursion of the differentiate/integrate dichotomy 'puts' the dialectical not only BETWEEN but also WITHIN
such that within fundamentalist, competitive collectives is often found a cooperative, egalitarian, nature. (and
the reverse where within egalitarian collectives, those cooperative with others, is an aristocratic, competitive
nature (family politics etc)).
Failure to comprehend the dynamics of self-referencing in the context of historical analysis will elicit one-sided
perspectives (and so a 'metaphysical' as compared to 'dialectical' perspective) and this includes "Darwin/NOT-Darwin"
perspectives on evolution.
From the generic level of differentiating/integrating we can analyse the commonest evolution dichotomy, that of
Darwin/Lamarck, and so the nature of the dichotomy alone is a nature focused on
differentiating(Darwin)/Integrating(Lemarck) and self-referencing of that dichotomy will give us the full spectrum
of POSSIBLE evolution states where LOCAL CONTEXT will elicit the 'best fit'.
EACH category derived, DUE TO THE SELF-REFERENCING ALONE, will come with a full spectrum of properties (and so
the metaphysical component) as well as local methodologies (and so a dialectical component) where the details are
determined by the level of recursion where we can continue recursing until we reach a level of no longer capable
of determining 'difference' and so strike the continuum.
If we review the metaphysics/dialectics dichotomy from the self-referencing position identified in IDM so we
can map out the basic psychological dynamics that relate to the categories.
In very basic categories of *particular* temperaments in our species we
have:
Identity seekers
Security seekers
Problem solvers (solution seekers)
Sensation seekers
These categories extend into pairs for each where the categories are represented in the form of 'bit' (0/1) sequences
reflecting behaviours in expressing the elements of the differentiate(1)/integrate(0) dichotomy:
Identity seekers:
000
001
The first 'bit' is representative of the general context and here it is '0'
that in association with the metaphysics/dialectics dichotomy represents the dialectical. Thus the core context
in which identity seeking operates is a context of perpetual change (dialectical) or 'flux', as a social dynamic
'perculates'.
The sequence '000' is readable as "I integrate in general so I can integrate to then integrate in particular"
- this reflects a dynamic of pattern matching where one draws-in aspects of the context to determine identity;
one is forever changing to 'fit in' with the current state of the context.
Overall is a need to 'fit in' to the context and so be protected by that context.
The sequence '001' is readable as "I integrate in general to integrate such that I can differentiate in particular"
This sequence reflects a touch of discernment in establishing identity where the final differentiation shows some
'self-assertion' of the identity drawn-in from the context. This is reflective of using personal experience to
'refine' the given 'rules'.
The overall focus of identity seeking is on filtration - 'rules' are derived from the outside (000) or then 'refined'
on the inside (001) prior to expression. These rules are in the form of social dynamics that change in that they
reflect 'fads' etc but also reflect local context social 'rules'
operating over the long term. This can include sets of rules derived from religious or secular texts and that includes
the interpretations - there is no personal 'interpretation' as such; they too are supplied. However the 001 state
allows for personal discernment, quality control of whether to use a particular (but not re-interpret a particular)
The perpetual dialectical context reflects the issues in trying to assert identity (as compared to a metaphysical
context - see later).
Security Seekers:
010
011
Here the context is still dialectical but there is a beginning of more differentiating 'controls' in the context.
Thus in both sub-categories the second 'bit' is of differentiating and so an increase in issues of control.
010 reads "I integrate in general to then differentiate so I can integrate in particular" There is a
focus here on forming a 'boundary' of 'us' vs 'them'.
011 increases the regulator nature where it reads as "I integrate in general to then differentiate so I can
differentiate in particular"
Solution Seekers:
100
101
Here we note the context has changed from a dialectical one to a metaphysical one and so a more 'fixed', discrete
focus. The emphasis is on finding algorithms/formulas and making of maps etc. all to aid in dealing with reality.
Most of 'traditional' Science comes out of this area.
100 reads "I differentiate in general to then integrate so I can integrate in particular" Note the focus
of a metaphysics context within which operates a strong dialectical element. There is a focus here on ideas development,
'new paradigms' etc based on analysis of linkages WITHIN a focus on generating a particular paradigm.
101 reads "I differentiate in general to then integrate so I can differentiate in particular". This particular
sub-category is more associated with map-making, differentiating 'this' from 'that', known/accepted from unknown.
As such it is not as open to 'obscure'
associations as is 100.
Sensation seekers:
110
111
Here we move into an ever increasing metaphysics perspective (transcendence issues etc etc) and so the realm of
the singular. This is competitive (even the cooperative element in 110 is over the long term competitive). The
subjective element means a focus on self, self-actualisation etc and so of charismatic attitudes, of setting one's
own context (and so fundamentalism can emerge where this category is applied to analysis of collectives)
These categories are derived from recursion such that, with continued recursion they are found to contribute to
the expression of each category.
For example 000-110 represents the dynamics of a sensation-seeker category operating in an identity-seeker context.
The INSTITUTION of SCIENCE will express ALL of these at the same time, with a bias to the problem solver set as
the most common 'best fit' to a context but all of the others still operating and sortable into best-fit/worst-fit
order.
If we map-in the aristocratic/egalitarian dichotomy, so problem solving has an aristocratic context within which
operates an egalitarian dynamic (and so Science can be 'isolationist' in behaviour even if presenting an 'egalitarian'
nature)
Note that the SINGULAR is also capable of CHOICE of expression, is more proactive in expression, and so more context-sensitive
but will often favour their own context and so a 'sensation seeking' bias focused on their interpretations of reality,
their unique perspective.
With the development of individual consciousness and so of a sense of 'self'
come issues regarding the unique expressions of the individual as compared to their genetically-determined behaviours
as examples of their particular species-nature.
The differences present between the singular and the particular are differences that determine the range of 'free
will' activities. These differences are brought out strongly in the research of Phenomenology and the reflections
of existentialism as compared to neurological, cognitive, and psychological research into the categorisations of
'types' of personalities (the 'big 5' dichotomies derived from factor analysis or the dichotomies derived by Jung
and Mayers-Briggs in the formation of their temperament 'mapper', the MBTI).
Thus, as work in genetics favour a historical foundation for personal expressions, and so a determination of, a
prediction of, individual behaviour IN GENERAL (and so statistically), so the existentialist view, e.g. that of
Sartre, considers any determinations of one's nature OTHER THAN by one's unique consciousness, to be of "bad
faith" or "self-deception".
There is a metaphysical focus in existentialism and so a focus on 'transcendence', reflected in this issue of 'bad
faith' where one should 'break free' of any determinations other than self-determination.
However, given the research coming out of neurosciences to date, Sartre's perspective (and so that of Heidegger
and existentialism/phenomenology in
general) is false. (Sartre being unaware of current research findings).
The development of a sense of 'self' is a development that follows on from birth; there is little to suggest it
being present prior to or just after birth where the development of the physiology is not complete enough to allow
for such a concept of 'self'. (senses require exposure to environment to differentiate and so contribute to that
sense of 'self' and that includes hybrid sensory development we find in synesthesia that allows for a very unique
perspective of reality)
Thus, prior to the development of self all is genetically-determined.
Exposure to environment leads to the development of a 'small world' network out of the interactions of the regular
network (genetics where all is connected as potentials) and the 'random' environment.
The development of a unique sense of self is detectable through differences in emotional expressions where with
the developing sense of self comes a developing set of self-dependent emotions as compared to those basic emotions
we share with our mammal cousins.
It is this sense of self that manifests the emergence of consciousness from the dealings by the brain with complex
environments where those dealings show 'emergent' dynamics as all of the neurology is activated to deal with complexity
in the environment.
The refinement of this sense of self, through combination of genetically-determined behaviours with pragmatic mediations
by the self (and so self-referencing dynamics as we differentiate, make finer distinctions and so gain in regulation/control
of our selves; thus a strong emphasis on positive/negative feedback dynamics related to the development of personality),
elicits the unique nature of our conscious being.
Since the realm of the singular is unique so it is incomparable and being so includes in its realm the concepts
of the miraculous and the random. Of interest from an existentialist perspective is that presence of the 'random'
in that despite our uniqueness there is more than often a state where we cannot predict what we are going to do/say
next.
This sense of 'freedom' appears to be a property derived from developing an agent of mediation and so an agent
of choice. (This sense of freedom and the unpredictable is also related to the existential use of the term "anguish"
to describe the recognition by consciousness of this perpetual presence of the 'random' at any moment; of note
is that the realm of the singular is also the realm of the psychotic just as it is the realm of the innovatively
creative)
At the level of the neurological, the particular genetically-determined nature, we find the encoding of instincts/habits
into input areas of the neurology allowing for context to PUSH behaviour. However, in that pushing, in that stimulus/response,
there is no escape clause, no way out once the behaviour has started regardless of it being found to be inappropriate
for the context.
The development of an escape clause allows one to back out instinctively (and so escape) and exploit that backing-out
through being able to eventually turn and choose one's path of escape. Neurologically this escape can develop from
synchronisation 'issues' in responding to a stimulus and so getting the response 'incorrect' but different enough
to 'make a difference'.
As such there is a STRONG focus on freedom in existentialism where the roots of that freedom appear to be in 'habit'
breaking behaviours and so escape from regulation, escape from determination, OTHER THAN that which is consciously,
self, determined. In existentialism this 'escape' mechanism as an example of protection becomes exploited and turned
to focus on the seeking of 'freedom', of self-autonomy. This leads into emergence of fundamentalism, charismatic
leaderships that can go against the benefits of the species.
As such there is a price for this lack of understanding of 'instinctive', primate, behaviours where they NEED to
run their course in that our 'freedom' allows for consciousness to interrupt and make things worse than better.
From the species position, the development of consciousness served to aid in the maintenance of our set of instincts/habits
where the mediation dynamic allowed for refinements to be made and so make one's integration with the context 'smooth';
in other words the focus is on a refinement of regulation as compared to full blown consciousness allowing for
a break from regulation, to transcend it.
If we review the basic methodology in processing information it shows a self-referencing focus derived from specialisations
of senses to data and their integration into a general 'meaning' system. As an artefact of this process of encapsulating
and categorising the 'random' has come order in the form of a set of basic categories usable to describe 'all there
is'.
These categories are found to contain both properties and methods, the latter being in the form of 'begin/end'
methods and so an in-built 'purpose'. That purpose is STATISTICALLY determined, it covers the species not the unique
individual but it is present for exploitation in combining singular/particular nature in service to the species
rather than to self.
The existentialist dynamic focuses on both the secular and religious activities in 'transcendence' where such an
activity is not possible - there is no escaping one's biology no matter how hard one tries. As such, this focus
on escape of one's genetic heritage is an act of self-deception, of 'bad faith' and is encouraging of competitive
activities where the more cooperative benefit the species overall.
That said, it is the unique that ensures recognition. An actor who does role A and then role B is achieving optimum
performance if the roles are incomparable, or more so the performances are such. For the moment it is possible
to compare the performances so we move into a statistical, 'science', perspective and so away from the unique and
open to criticism by comparison. It is this sense of unique performance that is reflected in the existentialist
focus on living 'authentically' and is also covered in spiritual activities such as Taoism/Zen etc where each moment
is 'unique'.
The personal benefits of living an 'authentic' life prohibit true contributions to the collective where from the
level of the particular recognition is not seeked, is not considered as one 'serves' the collective
- as a warrior ant does the nest when fighting-off intruders (and it is well known that charismatic types can/will
often lead a collective 'astray' and into harms way for their own sense of glory/benefit)
The exclusive path of existentialism as such is a 'lie' just as is the path of collectivism, of serving the collective
as a particular and so impoverishing the singular. The reality indicates a spectrum of categories all expressed
at the one moment with the local context sorting the categories into 'best-fit/worst-fit' orderings and so a developing
hybrid reality.
The position of the existentialist is in the realm of the singular and focused upon issues of freedom and so dominated
by issues of ethics. The problem is that this position is also the position of the aristocratic and so of a position
containing notions of vanity and so narcissism. That narcissism is 'infectious' to a degree it seeds the formation
of fundamentalist groups, personality cults that are all self-serving as collectives and in so doing impoverishing
of all those outside of that particular collective - the solution is thus to serve the species and so the collective
of all collectives where 'us vs them' is focused on interactions across species, not within the species.
Given that dynamic, so the interactions of singular/particular bring up issues of self-regulation in determining,
balancing, one's singular nature and focus on self-actualisation with one's particular nature in looking out for
the interests of the species. In the latter case, the benefit of the singular is as a 'random variable' interacting
with the particular/general and so allowing for possible 'mutations' of extreme benefit to the species but also
allowing for 'mutations' that become more like infections.