After reading through the following texts from an IDM perspective:
Marx, K., ([1859]) Dobb,M.(ed)(1970)"A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy" International
Publishers
Fidlon David, (trans) - Various(1968)"Historical Materialism : Basic Problems" Progress Publishers, Moscow
Cohen, G.A. (1978)"Karl Marx's Theory of History" PUP
Elster, J., (1985)"Making Sense of Marx [part 2:theory of history]" CUP
Gladwell, M., (2000)"The Tipping Point" Little Brown
Buchanan, M., (2002)"Small World" Phoenix
Wolff, J.,(2002)"Why Read Marx Today?" OUP
Popper, K., (2002)"The Povery of Historicism" Routledge
Barabasi, A-L (2002)"Linked : The New Science of Networks" Perseus
Strogatz, S., (2003)"Sync" Allen Lane
Watts, J.D., (1999)"Small Worlds" Princeton
Watts, J.D., (2003)"Six Degrees" Heinemann
Ball, P., (2004)"Critical Mass : How one thing leads to another"Heinemann
There seems to be some 'value' emerging re Marx's perspective on history and social development where his perspective
focuses on the inevitability of social dynamics regardless of chance events, accidents, and local contingencies.
(BTW - for a 'refresh' on Marx without the intense expression, Wolff's text is very readable)
Popper's focus on Historical Materialism, as covered in the mentioned text but also in his "The Open Society
and its Enemies - Vol. 2: Hegel and Marx" RKP focused on such elements as that of chance in that chance would
neutralise any such predictable developments. However, in the recent work on social networks, based on creating
models and letting them 'run' on computer systems, and then comparing the results with reality, two distinct categories
of social networks have emerged together with a distinct dynamic that shows one developing and then tranforming
into the other REGARDLESS of chance/accidents/local contingencies.
To firstly cover some IDM ground, a 'fundamental' of reality that has emerged from the IDM focus, a focus on the
methods used to derive and communicate 'meaning' from the species-level perspective, has been on clear patterns
at all scales of information processing of differentiating and integrating. The dynamic across the elements of
this dichotomy reflect recursion, self-referencing, from which qualities are derived to communicate high detail
meaning and at the same time development pathways are also identified in the flow of 'energy', the initial exaggerations
(differentiating from the 'whole') followed by the balancing-out of those exaggerations (integrating back into
the 'whole').
As identified in other writings, IDM identifies a basic dynamic of differentiate/integrate at the neuron level
that serves as a GENERAL template for dichotomisation at the consciousness level such that we can extract the more
context-sensitive concepts for precise communications such as:
exploit/protect
revolution/evolution
transcend/transform
part/whole
exaggerate/balance
asymmetry/symmetry
EACH of these dichotomies will be found to reflect the properties and methods of differentiating (left column)
and integrating (right column) but as biases. Thus integration is more BETWEEN on the right (the realm of integration)
and WITHIN on the left (the realm of differentiation). Thus SEMANTICS is more 'right' (general). and so a more
'field' perspective, but is expressed in a highly concentrated form as SYNTAX on the 'left' (particular) (and so
a more 'pointed' perspective).
Furthermore, we find that such terms as 'exploit/protect' seem to emerge from a dynamic in the RIGHT element that
has led to an exaggeration to the space of the left that has then become 'positive' in general to become a useful
tool in development. Thus the goal of protection is on learning 'good habits' to allow for integration with the
immediate context. Exaggerations in that process are when the ultimate form of protection is required - the need
to totally escape the context, to break free - to change the context either by flight or by fight. It is this 'ultimate'
form of protection, an exaggerated form, that seems to have evolved into the notion of personal freedom and of
exploitation - we dont escape from a context, we can now choose and, if need be, change a context to 'fit' our
needs. (In IDM this leads into the concept of the "Transcendence function").
The differences in PRECISION in these dichotomies introduce asymetries when we *compare* left with right such that
from a feeling sense, our consciousness will be attracted to the left more than the right due to the intensity
of, the definite assertion of, 'truth' felt, (or a definite negation to fight against) an intensity dampened by
the seemingly 'approximations' feel, the intuitive feel, of the right.
From an information theory perspective, the left focus is on immediate identification through maximising bandwidth
as compared to a use of time to compensate for lack of bandwidth on the right. Thus there is a dimension of precision
present with 'red' (Amplutude Modulation bias) at the right end, and 'blue' (Frequency Modulation bias) at the
left end. We see this in the relationship of energy usage in focusing attention upon something to the distortions
of subjective time to a degree where the NOW focus of attention impoverishes time experience to it being treated
mechanistically rather than thermodynamically; thus the realm of the 'analytical' is more 'left' and the dialectical
more 'right'.
This dimension of precision expressed at the level of consciousness, of MIND, reflects the dimension present at
the level of the single neuron - axon is FM bias, dendrities are AM bias. The conversion of analogue (AM) to digital
(FM) reflects the taking of an instinct as a whole and converting the experience into parts linked together over
time. IOW we witness 'self-similarity' in the neurology with the presences of a power law that maps TEXT/CONTEXT
relationships as 'universals' (left) and 'locals' (right).
From these GENERALS develops a particular in the form of hierarchy such that as we zoom-in for details so what
was a PART (differentiating, precise) at one level becomes a WHOLE (integrating, approximate) at the next - this
zig-zag pattern reflects the movement from general to particular (in the above reflected as both right-to-left
and also top-to-bottom with the latter 'zig-zagging'. BUT focus on the right-to-left pattern and derive a diemension
from that pattern and we in fact will find 'interdigitations' of the elements of the dichotomy and so 'zig-zag'!)
We can capture the zig-zag using logic terms:
XOR / EQV
IMP / XOR
The EQV states and the XOR states are symmetric, the IMP state is asymmetric, thus the general-to-particular, OVERALL
is a dynamic from symmetry to asymmetry, from EQV to IMP (IMP = implied and is asymmetric when compared to XOR
even though XOR aids in reflecting the differentiating focus in the brain, the A/NOT-A of high details processing)
or using Chinese terms:
differentiate(particular) / integrate(general)
-------------------------
T'ai Chi / Wu Chi (general, whole, implicit, the MANY, approximate, un-nameable)
YingEQVYang / T'ai Chi
YinXORYang / YinEQVYang
YinIMPYang / YinXORYang
Yang / Yin (particular, parts, explicit, the ONE, the precise, the named)
simply put we are dealing with the point vs the field.
How does all of this relate, in particular, to Historical Materialism?
The work in analysis of systems/networks dynamics (as covered in the other texts listed above) has come up with
two basic models, the aristocratic model vs the egalitarian model. This work has been strongly focused on mathematical
models and their correlation with networks of today, be it social in form or the properties and methods of the
Internet. With this categorisation has emerged a dynamic of aristocractic 'emergence' followed by egalitarian -
regardless of chance events.
When we map the generic properties and methods of these networks they map directly onto the differentiating/integrating
dichotomy and as such validate the points made in IDM re the differentiate/integrate dynamics reflected in the
"Transformation function" and the "Transcendence function".
BUT, Marx and his followers (Lenin etc) tried to make the point that, from their perspective, capitalism (from
our perspective an 'aristocratic' network) would be REPLACED by socialism/communism (from our perspective an 'egalitarian'
network). IDM identifies a possible error here, in that the overall dynamic of exploit/protect is built-in to the
system, transcending and transforming are 'fundamentals' (see the 'lite' essay on this)
This dynamic elicits a mediation industry with the aim to BALANCE the exaggerations. This act of balancing is reflected
in the emergence from the expression of 'unbridled capitalism' of:
(a) socialism as a balancing agent, a protector against the excessive exploitation of labour.
(b) conservationism as a balancing agent, a protector agaist the excessive exploitation of natural resources.
(c) interventionism as a balancing agent, a protector against the excessive exploitation of exploitation - protection
achieved through such forms as interest rate management.
Thus there is no way for capitalism to be 'replaced', at best it is 'neutralised' in that the moment socialism/conservationism/interventionism
go 'beyond' the position of acting to neutralise so they turn into their 'enemy' in that they change from agents
of balance to agents of exploitation and as such become wolves in sheeps clothing.
From these dynamics we can detect a degree of predictablity re social development but over considerable time
spans and as such development dependent on CONTEXT to be achieved, the 'right conditions' are required such that
any premature act can set back development rather then set it forwards. This means the individual can recognise
these patterns but never live them out at the scale of collective development (there is the notion of (a) understanding
the outcomes and (b) focusing on building the technology now rather than later and so speed up things if need be
but different contexts can fight that 'idealism', the changes have to be 'natural' as in the context supports the
changes - an engineering ratio is needed - 2 parts context to 1 part text ;-)
The dynamic of aristocratic/egalitarian is expressed in such developments as the 1600s dynamic of the British Aristocracy
giving way to Parliment and so, in context, a more egalitarian format (even if the parliment was of made-up of
capitalists, landowners etc - THAT 'aristocracy' later made 'egalitarian' through one-person, one-vote etc and
no restrictions other than citizenship, these processes are still going on today and will continue as long as we
focus on individuals survival vs species survival). Of special note here is that the aristocracy wre not erradicated,
was not 'replaced' but more so neutralised and over the long term continues to coexist with others.
Of note is the development and collapse dynamic is relative such that overall the whole development is increasingly
'aristocratic' in that more and more universals are created. That said, there is also the scope for choice in development
based on having experienced a collapse so one prefers to stay where they are rather than go through the 'boom/bust'
ride again. This leads to stratification:
The revolutions, be it of the USA fight for independence etc shows the dynamic in that the emergence of the office
of "President" has shifted from a 'republican' perspective to a more 'imperial' perspective and that
followed by a demand for 'closer scrutiny of Executive powers etc - as happened in ancient Rome, as happened in
France, Russia, Germany etc etc etc
The error of Marx et al is in their sense of precision, where that sense encourages a focus on 'universals' but
only as expressions of high energy and as such an aristocratic perspective!
The assertions of replacement of X by Y FORCES a mindset that is competitive overall and so idealist. ANY idealist
perspective will consider solutions to problems being 'replacement' solutions. This appears to be instinctive for
any focus on being competitive in thought. Turn down the energy and the focus changes from competitive to cooperative
and so a focus on , an acceptance of, coexistence over erradication comes to mind first.
The demise of so-called 'marxist' cooperatives (USSR etc - but they reflected more idealist perspectives and actions
of opportunists etc) reflects more their downfall on trying to be competitive rather than cooperative; cooperative
perspectives will fail if they try to compete with the gurus of competition - capitalists - and at the same time
try to maintain an overall cooperative 'frame of mind'.
The historic development of lifeforms is flexible but still 'fixed' as such and so, as the 'small world' models
show, the conditions in the context of capitalism must be 'right' before any form of cooperative focus can develop
(as in the development of the agents of balance, FIRST came socialism, then, after some time and as a reaction
to market crash, government interventionism, and then, MUCH later (and something Marx did not seem to cover), conservationism.
- these agents of balance have emerged not overnight but over hundreds of years but 'sped up' by capitalism in
recent times - true 'conservation' programs emerged post WW2, from the 50s onwards, and the politics is only 'recent'
in its position of being noticable and in positions of power (greens in germany, australia, usa etc))
In fact, the current state of capitalism, forced along by the development of such technology as the internet, reflects
a more opportune position for a development of a more cooperative perspective to emerge than has been possible
in the past; but a perspective that emerges naturally, willingly, without too much 'fight' (I dont imagine the
recent (1980s+) "peoples" revolutions in Russia, Phillipines, Georgia, East Germany etc as being as 'cooperative'
as they have been if they had been started 100 years ago - the influence of democracy (egalitarianism) upon aristocracy
(party loyalities, elitism etc) is reflected in all of these processes but so also is the recognition of, within
an overall political focus on democracy, economics in the form of capitalism encouraging 'aristocratic' dynamics
in the focus on the only form of success is universal as in 'stardom' etc.)
Thus the dynamic is always a mix. Integration exists in the realm of differentiation as an agent of integrity,
of personal (or corporate) 'knowing' of being 'right', 'perfect'. Differentiation exists in the realm of integration
as a node to connect to, despite all the dynamics of the 'space inbetween the dots', there *are* 'dots', there
is SOME identity whereas in the realm of differentiations there can be too much. This reflects on the balance position
as the 'best' position in that it is the most flexible dynamically, potentially - and so 'lite' excursions left
or right are permissable but not recommended 'long term' - and THAT goes against our more reactive species-nature
where mindless evolution can wipe us out anytime if not careful.
Marx's concept of "Historical Materialism" reflects more his intuitive sense detecting the patterns of
meaning determined by our neurology etc and so reflected in social dynamics. As such the content, the details,
of the concept as given in the past may be 'idealist' and open to such strong, precise, criticism as that of Popper
etc but the concept does appear to have foundations, hard coded, demonstratable, foundations at all scales of information
processing but at a 'general' level in time scales. Differentition and Integration 'rule' but appear to be sourced
'out there' in the mindless dynamics of universe evolution that we, or more so the original 'neuron-dependent'
lifeform, seem to have adapted to and so internalised and then re-externalised as a tool in mapping 'out there'
as well as 'in here'.
As a species we need to understand the properties and methods of our styles in thinking and from their harness
our consciousness that allows is to use those properties and methods in a manner that is, for all species members,
cooperative longterm and if need be, competitive short term.
The noticable patterns in networks of aristocratic/egalitarian, and their more local qualitative manifestions
in small collectives (power(aristocratic)/flux(egalitarian)) as identified by Ray Bradley and later work of his
with Karl Pribram:
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
focus on dynamics that appear to be strongly POLITICAL in form (leadership issues, charisma, 'universality' of
the individual etc) and as such reflected in the emergence of two-party systems with additional 'lobbyists' taking-on
third part 'influences' OR forming coalitions. Thus Greens go with Labor/Democrats, fundamentalists with Republicans/Conservatives.
(there is a dynamic of scandal here as well - conservatives to 'secret' deals of competitive nature (iran contra,
Nixon and wategate etc) and democrats of a more cooperative nature (Clinton and that cigar, Kennedy and Monroe
etc etc))
Thus the dynamics of what Marx was trying to identify over generations is reflected in political behaviours PRE
Marx (and so his analysis could have picked up the patterns in 1600 politics in the UK and later politics in France
etc) and POST the 'collapse' of Marxist states where two party systems reflect the 'fractal' nature of differentiating/integrating
dynamics at the personal and social levels. The failure of the USSR etc was not in a political context but in an
economic context and this raises the making of the political/economic distinction. (and so the study of Political
Economy!)
Given the observed dynamic of differentiate/integrate, as one turns into the other etc so a pattern emerges across
the particular dichotomy of POLITICAL/ECONOMICAL. A political position that is 'aristocratic', a focus on charisma
etc, is neutralised by a developing economic system that is rooted in 'egalitarianism' (distribution of wealth
and so of power of the 'aristocrats'). At the point of join, the POLITICAL focus switches to egalitarianism and
the ECONOMIC focus to aristocratic - money becomes 'king' WITHIN a political system that is democratic and so allows
for the emergence of 'agents of balance' that then focus on 'neutralising' the economy (and so the capitalists)
rather than the politics - and so the 'uncharismatic' can rule - as long as they have the money!
Thus this dynamic reflects the patterns identified in the abstract IDM concepts and reflect the development path listed above as we 'oscillate' over time. That said, the focus here is on rigid 'differentiate/integrate' dynamics; apply recursion to the dichotomy and out pops a set of qualities, each containing their own local dynamic that overall reflects the universal dynamic but with subtle differences in expression due to the local context.
In the context of POLITICS alone, in Germany for example the current focus is on a labor/green government opposed
by a 'christian' opposition party (CDP - conservative). Here in Australia we have a 'right wing' coalition (liberals/nationals)
up against labor plus greens plus 'australian democrats' (whos last election focus was to elect them to 'keep the
bastards honest' - in that they had the balance of power in the senate usually dominated 50/50 conservatives/labourites,
now split with the greens etc) [note spelling. the concept of labour uses "our", the political party
name is LABOR - although I think for our American viewers there is no such distinction ;-)).
The politicians, the goverment of the day, is considered to be the 'caretaker' of the economy, either in direct
governance or in degrees of interventionism (e.g. interest control) and these seem to be reflected in government
attitudes where, for example, in the USA an election of a 'right wing' government reads as a slowing in development
(conservative) as compared to a democratic government that spends big on social areas and so can 'blow the bank'
etc.
The Democratic focus attracts the artistic, the social idealists, and in doing so comes with an aristocratic 'interior'
to its egalitarian exterior. - the Labor party here in Australian is riddled with factionalism and so extremes
in 'highs and lows' and yet tries to present itself as an integrated, egalitarian-focused, whole.
On the other hand, the high energy focus of 'one leader, one party' etc that comes with republican/conservative
rule, comes across as the 'shining light born to rule' attitude of personal idealists, the iron fist where all
opposition is crushed behind closed doors (combined with the sense of 'we are born to rule' acting as an agent
of integration - gets into the religious aspect of these sorts of parties, the almost child-like focus on 'god'
etc serves to integrate even if the overall focus is on differentiating!)
I think you can see the differentiate/integrate dynamics at work here. What Marx picked-up in a focus on society
and so long term social dynamics is reflected locally in the four-year election cycles in democracies etc., and
as such reflects the 'fractal' nature of differentiating/integrating, where understanding the raw categories derived
from differentiating/integrating can aid in refining understanding of the dynamics of specialisations, be they
from the perspectives of the self to that of local collectives to the level of the species.
We recognise a focus in the aristocratic/power/diffentiate realm of replacement of something/someone by something/someone
'better'. When we map in human emotions so this realm is focused on aggression and sexuality (erradication or replication
acts to 'defeat' the enemy). we see this in politics overall in that the focus is on rulership etc but LOCALLY
(even if they imagine spreading their wings to 'take over the world')
The dynamic of differentiate/integrate allows for the CONTENT to swap places (and so appear as if to 'replace')
but the form remains and as such, over the long term, the focus is on coexisting; its differentiating and integrating
all the way.
In the dynamics of differentiate/integrate, as expressed in the previous analysis of the dichotomy of POLITICAL/ECONOMICAL, we are witnessing an ancient concept - yin into yang into yin...; enantiodromia - where this concept is identified as a 'fact' of nature and as such reflects the benefit of considering dialectical logic as well as analytical logic in mapping reality - rather than the analytical that favours the competitive (and so denigrates the dialectical) the long term focus is on cooperation and so Logic (capital L) is made-up of analytical&dialectical.
I don’t assert idealism or materialism, I don’t assert the analytical or dialectical, I assert all of what we COULD know given the methods the neurology uses to derive meaning and that means, AS POTENTIALS, the idealist, the materialist, the analytical, the dialectical etc etc. IOW the perspective of 'consciousness as originating' etc is part of the toolkit we use as a species to derive meaning and CONTEXT will determine the 'best fit to worst fit' perspectives such that with that toolkit also comes 'consciousness is derived' etc.
IOW what is developing here is a model that we use to interpret reality and heuristics then validates that model but with that development is also emerging properties in the evolution of species and consciousness.
I consider the works of Marx, Hegel, Peirce, Kant, Plato, Aristotle, Heidegger etc etc etc etc as approximations of reality based on their lack of understanding about how their neurology determines the general form of their thinking (Charles Peirce showed some concern in this re his left-handedness in some way influencing his thinking but his knowledge of neurosciences was limited to such discoveries as made by Broca etc). My focus STARTED with the brain not with the ideals; not with the expressions but what could possibly be represented at the level of generic qualities - as a species we all have a sense of 'wholeness' but WHAT we associate that with is determined locally and there is a realm of qualities used at the non-verbal level that have begged analysis (and so I cover the derivation and use of emotions etc).
Given the current research data in neurosciences etc so a model is emerging based on principles of basic information processing that show a set of generic qualities serving as 'universals' that, when associated with a unique context, generates a language to describe that association, and so emerge specialisations, be they full blown disciplines or one's own creations of labels, one's own 'internal' language (and so one's individual consciousness).
Given the current material on neurosciences, cognitive science, and psychology, you could burn every book ever written on thought etc pre 1960s (or even later) and 'start again' and in that starting get a very clear model of what is happening, free of the 'over-educated' perspectives that are out of date within the lifetime of the individual - something not experienced in the past! (IOW one used to got tenure for life, a job in the bank for life, and never needed 're-education'). Times change ;-) - the more research we do so the more we reveal so the more past perspectives need to be updated! Thus what better place to start with then the core of all perspectives, the method used by our brains to derive meaning (in that all meaning is determined by the method used to derive it - thus we develop a model of the GENERAL where all specialisations serve as particular metaphors (and other tropes) for that general)
From my perspective, given an INTENSE study on meaning derivation across Science and Humanities in the West so a gap developed in relation of the material acquired compared to what the brain was doing - the OVERLY idealist, the overly precise, the overly analytical focus in the West, the attraction of the 'light' of clarity, all acquired through high bandwidth focus, was not, is not, the whole story, it is but a PART. The seeking of maximum bandwidth to process information reflects a distortion that acts to influence the perspectives of consciousness re life is always 'maximum bandwidth' - it isnt.
The 'dereliction of duty' in Western thought (the ancient Greeks touched on the dialectic but got drowned out by the 'buzz' of idealism) meant that the ONLY material that existed in the products of our collectives that filled that perceptual gap was the at times idealist perspectives of dialectics; and not just from Western thinking, but also from Eastern thinking (and so we span the species not just the Western branch office!). IOW 'Logic' is the sum of analytical and dialectical, or more so, the analytical appears to be a distortion of, an exaggeration from, the dialectical, where the latter maps to the thermodynamic nature of time but the 'now' focus of the analytical makes time mechanistic and even 'ignorable'. That has issues in our interpretations of reality from a purely analytical perspective, an idealist perspective.
The dynamics of the brain is focused on information processing. That dynamic reflects a fundamental property of that processing, namely the reciprocal relationship of Bandwidth and Time - reflected in the physiology where an increase in energy, and so a need to increase bandwidth, means a distortion of subjective time experience as we focus attention on something to identify it NOW rather than reduce the bandwidth and soak the information in over time.
Why do this? - consider part of an email of mine focusing on the term "Methodological Individualism" - my post was on the waste of energy in deriving such a concept once you understand what the brain, and so consciousness, is doing:
"[methodological individualism] comes with its complement to form the dichotomy: methodological individualism / methodological collectivism
They are in fact abstract labels for methods in information processing – and map to differentiating (MI) /integrating (MC). The focus is thus on the 'simple' issues of bandwidth vs time where differentiating demands high bandwidth and so exaggerations in energy that distort time experience – we move from 'past-present-future', the arrow of time, the thermodynamic bias, to 'now', or as close to 'now' as we can get. We can still learn an experience with lesser bandwidth but over more time - IOW there is a more integrating focus long term.
Jon Elster writes (in the context of MI):
"...the doctrine that all social phenomena - their structure and change - are in principle explicable in ways that only involve individuals – their properties, their goals, their beliefs, and their actions.
Methodological individualism thus conceived is a form of reductionism. To go from social institutions and aggregate patterns of behaviour to individuals is the same kind of operation as going from cells to molecules.
The rationale for reductionism can briefly be stated as follows. If the goal of science is to *explain by means of laws*, there is a need to reduce the time-span between the explanans and the explanandum - between cause and effect - as much as possible, in order to avoid spurious explanations. The latter arise in two main ways: by the confusion of explanation and correlation and by confusion of explanation and necessitation. The first occurs when there is a third variable that generates both the apparent cause and its apparent effect, the second when the effect is brought about by some other cause that preempts the operation of the cause cited in the law. Both of these risks are reduced when we approach the ideal of a continuous chain of cause and effect, that is when we have reduce the time-lag between explanans and explanandum."
[Elster's] prose goes on and into MC etc but what all of this 'grandiose' prose is trying to explain is the consequences of the simple dynamics of information processing where that dynamic is reflected in the brain in the form of Bandwidth (expend energy)/Time (conserve energy) dynamics.
Science as such is 'inevitable' in that our brains, in the need to predict outcomes, will prefer to pour in energy to cover all aspects and in doing so needs to maximise bandwidth. That process shifts time experience from the dialectical to the analytical where it is impoverished to the level of being "NOW" and as such establishing a 'continuous chain of cause and effect'. The consequence of this 'single context thinking' is to focus on PARTS rather than the WHOLE in that the whole includes the dialectical elements 'cut off' in the drive for precision, for 'now-ness'.
From an IDM perspective, and so an I Ching perspective, we see here the mania of the Transcendence function where the need for immediate gratification becomes an addiction, we transcend to transcend - we get off on the high bandwidth, the 'clarity' in experiences, the 'buzz'. We then include 'refining' the buzz through being more efficient in processing, we look for laws, trends etc and in doing so demand more precision and so more energy. The species-nature is to STOP once a reasonable degree of knowing is achieved and then to use time to 'refine' rather than the drive to refine it all 'now'. Our consciousness-nature, addicted to the buzz, just wants to experience novelty after novelty!
If we work from the third level of recursion of 1/0 (where these represent any dichotomy) we have:
111, 110, 101, 100, 011, 010, 001, 000
Besides this dimension reflecting full spectrum of understanding in general, so EACH of these represents a bandwidth to process data - we can develop 'orthogonal' to the dimension for each quality. EACH will thus have its own set of 'meaningful' patterns, its own sense of time (111 - analytical, NOW/eternal, to 000 - dialectical past/present/future but not differentiated) the meaningful patterns are those described elsewhere (http://pages.prodigy.net/lofting/idm006.html) in that the above is the dimension of precision. IOW high bandwidth, 111, processing is clear, FM-like, immediate, but being LOCAL can exclude properties unique to the other bandwidths on the dimension (it is like the difference of using telescopes to see into the universe vs. using radio telescopes. BOTH will pick up 'obvious' energy patterns but both will also pick up patterns unique to their perspectives.)
Full spectrum thinking considers ALL of the perspectives offered in the set of perspectives available, it recognises that 'idealist' thinking, high bandwidth processing, can be too loud, too bright, to pick up subtleties 'out there' such that we have to step down the bandwidth and use time instead to absorb the data - it is like using peripheral vision over details vision; parafovea over fovea; or the emerging of the 'wave interference pattern' in EPR experiments.
In IDM there is the recognition of resolution differences etc in precision re our bandwidth-hungry consciousness vs our more time-oriented speciesness (where energy is conserved in the 'mindless' stimulus/response realm that allows for selection of instincts etc over lengthy time periods).
Metabolic rates, cultural biases, etc can affect the interpretations of reality by the individual. Without understanding of what is going on at the species level re information processing (Bandwidth/Time relationships) so we wander-off into the use of 'grandiose' terms, and so EXAGGERATED terms, IDEALIST terms, MAXIMUM BANDWIDTH terms to describe the simple.
Those terms then gets encoded socially, as in others having the same education/training etc will use these terms without considering alternatives and as such WASTE energy in doing so; we create specialisations with different languages that in fact say the same things - and it is that fact that allows us to take specialisations and use them as metaphors or sources of analogy to describe other specialisations.
Understanding the simple dynamics of meaning derivation and so information processing allows for, in the long run, conservation of energy in that the maximisation of bandwidth is only for LOCAL, needy events and not something to live by long term (we don’t have the resources!)
The current state of our culture reflects the exaggerated need to 'identify' laws and so a need to be precise and so a need for high energy particle accelerators that can give us the bandwidth to know NOW about the beginnings of the universe vs 'wait a while whilst we get some minor issues of the species organised - such as healthcare, education, raised standards of living’ etc.
Any focus on the evolution of, the nature of, thought will cover FULL SPECTRUM thinking, not just the 'ideal' the high frequency, FM, clarity experienced as reflecting 'truth' etc Furthermore the current research appears to ground consciousness in specieness where our species nature interacts with reality holistically, immediately, through time-derived instincts/habits, and our consciousness seems to stem from the development of parts processing, being able to go past the holistic and into high bandwidth processing of data to 'refine' instincts/habits 'NOW' where 'now' can be within the lifespan of the individual.
Where consciousness goes from that is not my concern in that IDM focuses on the general-particular more than the singular - that said, the general covers all aspects of where consciousness *could* go. - and that general is derived from recursion in brain dynamics as it derives 'meaning'.