If we apply the Differentiate/Integrate dichotomy again to the previous four categories (DD, DI, ID, II), and so another level of recursion, we move from four categories to eight, I will abbreviate the terms using D and I and noting that each derivation is made WITHIN the context set by the previous:
DDD - pure differentiation, D to D to D : whole by triple differentiation (WHOLE, BLEND)
DDI - D to D to I : whole by double differentiation, then integrate
DID - D to I to D : whole by oscillation starting with differentiate (PARTS, BOUND)
DII - D to I to I : whole by differentiation, then double integrate
IDD - I to D to D : whole by integrate, then double differentiate
IDI - I to D to I : whole by oscillation starting with integrate (PARTS, BOUND)
IID - I to I to D : whole by double integration, then differentiate
III - pure integration, I to I to I : whole by triple integration (WHOLE, BLEND)
There are four new qualities here that need identification. The first pair is that made-up of DDI and IID. From a categorical perspective the quality represented here is a quality that lies in-between that of WHOLENESS and PARTNESS, but it is also a quality that has its roots more in WHOLENESS than PARTNESS (i.e. the two initial terms derived from the whole - e.g. DDi and IId).
The first clue that springs to mind is the fact that the concept of OBJECTS is reflected in the notions of WHOLES and PARTS and as such we are now focused on the space INBETWEEN the objects, this space is the space occupied by 'pure' relationships. The relationship of PARTS to WHOLE is, by definition, a STATIC relationship in that the parts-to-whole relationship is invariant, is eternal, for the 'whole' to retain that identification of being a 'whole'; particular parts may 'move around', but the general bias is to a static identification. Thus we allocate the definition of "STATIC RELATIONSHIPS" to the DDI and IID qualities. As we shall see this categorisations works extremely well. In identifying a term other than the phrase 'static relationships', a term that reflects a 'feel' of static relationships, we use the term 'Bonding'.
The other two new categories are those of DII and IDD. Since a STATIC relationship is invariant what is left is relationships over time, dynamic relationships. The term used to reflect this feel for relationships over a time period is 'Binding' (as in a contract etc)
Thus we have eight generic qualities derived from recursion of the basic brain processes of integration and differentiation:
DDD - pure differentiation, D to D to D : whole by triple differentiation (WHOLE, BLEND)
DDI - D to D to I : whole by double differentiation, then integrate (STATIC, BOND)
DID - D to I to D : whole by oscillation starting with differentiate (PARTS, BOUND)
DII - D to I to I : whole by differentiation, then double integrate (DYNAMIC, BIND)
IDD - I to D to D : whole by integrate, then double differentiate (DYNAMIC, BIND)
IDI - I to D to I : whole by oscillation starting with integrate (PARTS, BOUND)
IID - I to I to D : whole by double integration, then differentiate (STATIC, BOND)
III - pure integration, I to I to I : whole by triple integration (WHOLE, BLEND)
These qualities reflect four 'universals' - wholes, parts, statics, dynamics - which we qualify using the same
dichotomy we used to derive them - differentiate/integrate, thus we have wholeness through differentiation, wholeness
through integration, as well as a sense of 'wholeness' derived from the perspectives of parts, as well as perspectives
rooted in the use of the concepts of static relationships and dynamic relationships.
What is implied here is that the eight qualities represent methods based on differentiation/integration that can elicit a sense of 'meaning' and so of COMPLETENESS, akin to the 'pure' wholeness of DDD and III.
Working from a general perspective, these eight qualities reflect (a) different aspects with which to view the whole and (b) autonomous units that are therefore wholes themselves.
This being the case, since the basic methodology of the brain is that of differentiate/integrate, and the development of a species member reflects combinations of nature (genetics) and nurture (environment), so the above set of qualities can not only serve as the building blocks for our maps of reality but also as identifiers of all the different ways each member of the species can perceive reality, both 'in here' as well as 'out there', and as such how particular individuals can PREFER to interpret reality based on their combinations of nature and nurture.
Before we go any further, we need to flesh-out the characteristics of the above eight qualities a little more. To do this I will introduce another label change, for reason best given later. For all Ds we replace them with '1' and for all Is we replace them with '0'. The 1/0 dichotomy, when applied recursively, correlates with the Normal Distribution curve as reflected in the below diagram:
Thus DDD becomes 111 and III becomes 000. The following descriptions are vague but intentionally so, reflecting the general focus of these universal categories:
The main focus here is on identification of the 'purest' level; the drive is for 'dot' precision and as such the identification of something for 'ever', for eternity, assertion of a 'universal'. This strong, high energy focus, means a narrowing of focus to the exclusion of all else such that the overall perspective is very precise but also very local. The intensity of this focus means a single context perspective that is very clear and very detailed.
There are consequences for this level of precision and they stem from the physiological consequences of high focus of attention upon 'something'. These consequences are that, since the Universe, as expressed in the concept of the 'everyday', is a dynamic universe, so to identify something 'precisely' requires that we stabilise it, we 'stop' the universe to identify this 'pure' something.
At the level of the neurocognitive processes of the brain this 'stopping' is in fact achieved due to the reciprocal relationship of high energy expenditure and subjective time experience - the more energy you put in to focusing, the more time seems to 'stop' or at least become impoverished, removed from its tight link with thermodynamics and so its irreversibility, to a concept that is mechanistic in perspective - time is reversible and as such more scalar than vector (these terms are described in more detail below).
From this 'stopping' of time can emerge the notion of, the feeling of, the 'eternal' and as such can emerge concepts identified as 'Archetypal' in that the precision picks up patterns that are repeated in identification of things and these are exaggerated (another property of the perspective) and formed into ideals.
This high energy focus acts to distort what is under analysis to enable a precise mapping of all aspects such that aspects can be over-exaggerated to bring out a point and in doing so the over-exaggerated aspect STAYS over exaggerated - it can form into a caricature and the use of stereotyping in communications.
Overall, the D3 perspective is idealist and as such reflects an idealist as well as idealism in general in that the idealist attempts to differentiate by asserting their own context as THE context over all others and in doing so will recruit others (be it people or tools) to aid in REPLACEMENT of other contexts with their own and so 'transcending'.
The main focus here is in the final step, that of integration post the double differentiation. Thus there is an aire of idealism present but at the final level there is a 'pulling back', reflected in the integration element. This category has been tied above to the concept of static relationships and the feeling of 'bonding'. This reflects (!) an aire of not going all the way, not becoming the 'whole' of the D3 but more so a REPRESENTATION and as such a REFLECTION. Thus the focus is more that of linking (and so the relationships element) WITHIN the intensity of the high energy differentiations of D3; a bond maintains the unique identity of those elements that are bonded and as such is a representation of the intent of the elements - a marriage license etc represents the true 'blend' of both parties, they seek to share the same space but it is NOT the marriage itself. A piece of art, a painting etc is a representation of 'something' and the artist the bringer-together of the original expression and its expression in artistic form. This process emphasises the REFLECTIVE emphasis in the D2I category, but of major notice is that the reflection is OUTWARDS, emphasised in the strong differentiation bias, the need to 'stick out', to be noticed from without.
The main focus here is on the concept of a border, a sense of containment but the differentiation aspect indicates the border is being pushed outwards; differentiation is always pushing things AWAY to reveal, to expose. The border is the integration process that separates the two differentiation processes. Thus the differentiate to integrate reflects making identifications to then link them together and from that process make further identifications. This 'oscillation' process reflects the development of a 'path' where we go no further until all that has past is integrated and then we use that to go on. We can abstract the concept of 'path' to that of a 'guide' or 'sense of direction' and abstract that into the concept of a map or an ideology. The focus on 'revelation' (differentiate) combined with 'consolidation' (integrate) favours a 'step by step' process in development and as such a degree of dependency on the 'map' to guide us. The overall focus on expanding, on pushing the border outwards reflects the notion of, the emotion of, acceptance in the form of ingesting.
The main focus here is on the double integration post the initial differentiation. Unlike the step-by-step of the DID the focus here is on identifications to link them into something used to link everything where the phrase 'integrate to integrate' suggests local integrations to then be used for general integration. This reflects a perspective that is more than just map-making, this is more paradigm making, a focus on a universal 'map' rather than a local 'map'. In the above derivation of this category the link was made to dynamic relationships and the concept of binding. These associations reflect an aire of 'change' and so of the 'new' or 'different' emerging from the DI2 category and as such this category, within the set of four expressing initial differentiations as fundamental, reflects the changing bias as compared to the sense of the unchanging, the 'eternal', in the D3 category.
Overall, the binding focus is on binding/sowing things together that, if need be, can be unsowed to be used again in a different format; there is a rich dynamic of linking differences to 'see what you get'. This relationship focus ensures the parts retain their identity and also can be separated with no 'loss' - whereas in bonding, static relationships, any separation CAN cause 'loss' of some form.
The main focus here is on the double differentiation post the initial integration. Thus we pull things together with the intent to then differentiate to differentiate. This form of grouping allows us to cultivate and refine where the second differentiation focuses on assertion of a particular within that which we originally integrated to differentiate.
The main focus here is on the boundary condition, the oscillation of I and D etc. The integration process followed by differentition reflects a bounding of 'something', we group to allow for differentiation and so allow for integration; we group to emphasise a perspective, a clearly defined value set that in turn allows us to integrate. This boundary here serves to protect, to keep things out and as such reflects the notion, the emotion, of rejection.
The main focus here is on the double integration pre the final differentiation. The focus here is on the identification of QUALITY through the use of discernment where the gathering to gather to then differentiate reflects the use of 'this from that' processes to be used to differentiate, to identify differences in expression.
The main focus here is the intense integration. What is noticeable is that this category has characteristics which, when compared to those of 111, reflect a more general and more balanced perspective, even though we are dealing with a 'pure' form. The balanced perspective comes with the emphasis that in pure integration the focus is ALWAYS on at least a PAIR where the unit of measure is a pair that is interpreted as if 'one'. This has consequences in interpretations - we will discuss these later - but for the influence of the above on deriving emotions see "IDM and Emotions".