"Between the idea
And the reality
Between the motion
And the act
Falls the shadow"
- 'The Hollow Men' T.S.Eliot

I.D.M.

(Integration, Differentiation, and Meaning)

an introduction to the roots of language

Copyright © 2000-2008 C. J. Lofting

Table of Content

Introduction

Basic Categories

The Template of Meaning

Summary

Shifting Gears

Introduction

IDM is about the derivation of meaning given the basic dynamics of category, classifications, and concept creation by our neurological, cognitive, and emotional faculties. More so it is about the qualitative representation of that meaning where "Anything that can be represented can be represented (in principle) as a string of binary digits via an isomorphic mapping, ... The process is similar to producing a string that is rather like the record of an extended game of twenty questions, with 1s conventionally representing affirmation and 0s representing negation. A successful series of guesses produces a truth table row that represents the original thing." (http://www.kli.ac.at/theorylab/jdc/information/information.html) In IDM we identify core qualities represented as 'bit' patterns (orderings of 0/1) serving as sources of meaning across the species, in GENERAL where the set of meanings are derived from mediation dynamics.

Essential to the dynamics of meaning derivation is the creation of, or recognition of, difference and the mentioned bit patterns bring out those differences. Thus the making of distinctions, the determination of, the mapping of, differences to samenesses serves as the foundation for all meaning, and this focus on distinction-making is manifest in our brains through self-referencing. We can map out the categories of mediation (.pdf file) and so seeds for representation and so cover the emergence of analogy at the psychic level from the basics of pattern matching at the neural level..

Self-referencing, also known as recursion, utilises (a) a generic dichotomy, (b) our attention system, and (c) the passage of time, to generate the set of basic, universal, categories mentioned previously. The attention system focuses and so encapsulates 'something'. The generic dichotomy is any specialist form that is synonymous with the WHAT/WHERE, aka differentiating/integrating. This dichotomy is fundamental in that it reflects the information processing dynamic of our brains and is a dichotomy of mediation - a property of all asymmetric dichotomies (these are in fact compressed forms of TRIchotomies)

Overall this dynamic covers the translation of differences and the asymmetric to sameness and the symmetric, where it is the realm of the symmetric that allows us to communicate through consensus. This realm of the symmetric is also the realm of instincts/habits and so generals that act to filter experiences. Thus the use of instincts/habits act to generalise an experience but in doing so can lose precision in that experience. (this can have an affect on the development of logic in the species - see such works as Matte-Blanco's "The Unconscious as Infinite Sets":

Ignacio Matte Blanco, The Unconscious as Infinite Sets, Karnac Books, 1998 (originally published 1975)

or such web pages covering his work)

If each moment elicits a 'what' or 'where' perspective, repeated use of that dichotomy means we are applying the dichotomy to itself and in so doing deriving a set of possible categories, one of which will be the 'best fit' in describing the current situation. The focus on the oscillation is on the PRECISION that develops from such an activity where we move from a symmetric perspective to an asymmetric perspective. Thus the MEDIATION focus initially covers the set of POSSIBLE meanings with an aim to reduce that set to bring out an ACTUAL category that can then be linked to the local context through use of a label. At the same time, we find that the DEPTH of category formation can lead to a point where we bring out analogy-making and so the roots of languages where we communicate through analogies (part to part/whole) and metaphors (whole as whole - sameness in pattern but diferent in context etc)

Thus the focus in IDM is on what is POSSIBLE-in-GENERAL given the well-researched faculties we use in our derivation and communication of meaning. Thus what is covered is the form of generic qualities as categories that can be repeatedly used in any context across all scales. As such, IDM derives a template that serves as the foundation of all ontologies where they are analogies/metaphors for what the neurology deals with, is capable of representing, and as such IDM is meta-ontology - the IS-ness of IS-ness. (we note that the noun/verb dichotomy is a specialist dichotomy of differentiating/integrating, aka difference/sameness, aka object/relationships. The asymmetric nature of the dichotomy means that the left element in the dichotomy is an exaggeration, a discretistion of an aspect of the right element - as such we derive objects from relationships, differentiating out of integrating. Zoom-out and we find (a) conversion of difference to sameness and then (b) extraction of difference from sameness - the best example being the development of our unique sense of self from relational dynamics combined with genetics of our species)

IDM addresses the full spectrum of the structure of POSSIBLE thoughts and the use of elements of that spectrum in describing reality - be it real or imagined (where the brain does not recognise the difference) - such that it gives insight into the properties and methods of diverse forms of thinking. This insight allows for comparison of different formats operating in a single context or one format operating across many contexts. This comparative focus allows for the revelation of the sameness across different specialisations and so increased ease in quickly comprehending what specialisations are trying to 'say', to represent. At the same time we allow for the detection of difference from apparent sameness.

This comprehension of specialisations allows for comparison where properties and methods of one specialisation can be used to flesh-out another. For example, in IDM, Mathematics is considered a specialisation and it often used to represent some other specialisation and in doing so allow for predictions etc to be made in that context. This coverage reflects the isomorphism of specialisations and so their nature as sources of analogy/metaphor in that the realm of symmetry works off underlying sameness that is translated into local differences in the form of sets of labels to describe some local context but using a set of universal classification sourced in the neurology. The domination of emotion covers the sameness aspect and the use of specialist metaphors. With symmetry comes interchangability of specialisations in describing reality - and so the ease in which we can substitute some specialisation with a mathematical representation where Mathematics is also a specialist metaphor.

The covering of the full spectrum and so possible expressions of meaning suggests a focus on universals, where these forms lack colour and are dependent on local context to bring them to 'life' -to add the colour and so actualise them. In this process, due to the conditions of the local context, some universals are marginalised and some even expunged from the set of 'meanings' available for use in a local context. In network theory, these local contexts are called 'small world networks' and from a genetics/memetics perspective represent phenotype rather than genotype.

When seeing the term "Universals" what can come to mind is some "Platonist" perspective of ideal forms in some 'ideal' universe parallel to ours. In fact what we find in IDM is that the universals are derived from randomness where the universals are artifacts of the encapsulation of noise by sensory systems where that encapsulation elicits 'order' (this is called the "Chaos Game" and covered in many website on the 'net or in such texts as chapter 6 ("The Chaos Game: How Randomness Creates Deterministic Shapes") of:

Peitgen, Jurgens, & Saupe (2004)"Chaos and Fractals : New Frontiers of Science(2nd Edition)" Springer

By copying that order, in the form of neurological processes, so our sensory systems capture patterns that are 'out there' and so allow for resonance of those neural copies with 'out there' and so make our maps increasingly successful in describing reality.

Thus any successful or acceptable specialist interpretation of reality will show the patterns identified in IDM since those patterns 'resonate' best with reality and so are 'well formed' specialisations as we try to zoom-in on a detailed mapping of reality, on assertion of 'IS-ness' even though such assertions are to be taken as metaphors rather than literally. Thus patterns that dont fit too well are either not 'well formed' or else the current context cannot support them or else they have aged and are in need of 'refurbishment' to continue being useful.

The mentioned repetition of categories serves as a source of energy conservation where any DIFFERENCE is in the label created to associate each category with some unique context and so differentiating the category from all other uses in different contexts; and so we have different contexts, different labels, SAME qualities of categories.

As such, we all have a sense of 'wholeness' or 'nouness', as we do of 'relatedness' or 'verbness', but it is local context that determines to what these apply.

Basic Categories

"differentiate v.
1 distinguish, discriminate, contradistinguish, separate, contrast, oppose, set off or apart, tell apart: They must learn how to differentiate one species from another.
2 modify, specialize, change, alter, transform, transmute, convert, adapt, adjust: All organisms possess the power to differentiate special organs to meet special needs.

integrate v. combine, unite, blend, bring or put together, assemble, merge, amalgamate, join, knit, mesh, consolidate, coalesce, fuse; US desegregate: We must integrate all the parts into a coherent whole. Several cultures have been well integrated into our community." Oxford Dictionary.

It is at the neurological level where we find a dynamic across the basic dichotomy of differentiating/integrating. In the neuroscience texts this dichotomy is relabelled into the WHAT/WHERE dichotomy and is manifest in the cerebral cortex as it is manifest in less refined forms in the limbic system, that part of our brain we share with mammals, and even in the Reticular Activating System (RAS), that part of our brain we share in common with reptiles.

As such our sensory systems are specialisations, 'small world networks' that customise information processing and feed it into a more general specialisation - our brains. This customisation that forms small world networks reflects what in biology is called phenotype(actuals)/genotype(potentials).

As such, there is a hierarchy of development in the brain with levels showing degrees of autonomy in their activities and so an overall focus on, need for, synchronisation when expressing meaning as well as an increase in control/regulation of information processing as we move 'up' the neurology.

The control/regulation focus introduces a cybernetics perspective, ultimately focused on the dynamics of our frontal lobes and their imposing of regulation ("reason") on our emotions as they in turn regulate our cognitions for the sake of communications. (Consciousness can act to regulate reason by giving us choices to escape 'false reasoning'. It too is associated with pre-frontal cortex/frontal lobes regions of our brains - the last parts of our brains to develop and reflect internalisations of social 'rules' and combined with genetics give us our sense of personal self. As such, consciousness is to our brain what Darwin's mutation is to evolution - a randomiser stemming from mediation dynamics of life form with context. It is this unique nature of consciousness that allows for development of the species as a whole where the species operates in the deterministic, history-driven, symmetry-dominated nature of the particular/general and out of that comes the ability to break symmetry as well as create symmetry through our singular nature that develops over the first 24 months or so of life. For coverage of such see texts such as:

Kircher & David (2003)"The SELF in Neuroscience and Psychiatry" Cambridge

)

The method of differentiation is a process where the objective is to clearly identify a particular amongst many. The process thus acts to zoom-in upon a 'something', isolate it, and zoom-in further to acquire details where the details themselves become 'somethings'. This process reflects the use of recursion where, as the process concentrates focus on a something, it differentiates within the previously differentiated and so on, and from there identifies the contents of that something until all elements, all parts, of the something have been clearly laid-out and in doing so has that something, as a whole, been identified.

What is important to note is that the 'zoom-in' process reflects INTENT, where a genetically-sourced intention is always to differentiate and/or integrate 'something' and as such there is always a 'reason' for these processes, a reason that need not go beyond the habits of differentiating and integrating; as such we can idly, unconsciously, be differentiating/integrating the everyday and it is a difference that attracts our attention, this attraction reflecting our genetically-driven 'need' to identify, adapt-to, adopt, or to replace.

The methodology of recursion is where, once I make the distinctions of A and NOT-A, something as compared to all else, any attempt to go further in the analysis reflects taking the original distinctions of A/NOT-A and applying the A/NOT-A dichotomy to each element within the dichotomy, thus I zoom-in on the A and try to identify purer aspects of A as well as those aspects that are more NOT-A. This process means I am trying to differentiate all of the parts of what is under analysis, where the differentiation can be at the local level of what is WITHIN something, or at the more general level of relationships BETWEEN somethings, the latter being that I need to differentiate the nodes, the objects, between which there are relationships.

In general, for all members of the species, the WHAT/WHERE dichotomy of our brain focuses on (a) differentiation of some 'thing', and so focus on discreteness, on an 'object', and (b) integration of many 'things' (at least two) and so a focus on continuum, on relationships within and between 'things'. From this cognitive level we can move into category/concept formation by deriving basic categories abstracted from differentiating/integrating. These are:

A sense of wholeness.
A sense of partness.
A sense of static relatedness (sharing space with another/others).
A sense of dynamic relatedness (sharing time with another/others).

We can extend these categories through use of a qualifier derived from the differentiating/integrating dichotomy to give us:
Wholness through differentiation.
Wholeness through integration.
Partness through differentiation.
Partness through integration.
Static relatedness through differentiation.
Static relatedness through integration.
Dynamic relatedness through differentiation.
Dynamic relatedness through integration.

We can 'ground' these categories in the form of feelings that bring out the qualities:

Wholeness - sense of BLENDING
Partness - sense of BOUNDING
Static relatedness - sense of BONDING
Dynamic relatedness - sense of BINDING

Compound forms of these basic categories are derived where we focus on text/context relationships, thus we can have the category of "differentiated wholeness in a context of integrated dynamics" - or relabelled to use the contract/expand dichotomy and the qualities as expansive blending in a context of contractive binding.

The methodology used in deriving these categories is in the form of self-referencing the WHAT/WHERE, aka Differentiating/Integrating, aka WHOLE-as-differentiation/WHOLE-as-integration dichotomy to give us, after three loops, the above set of categories in the order of:

Contractive Blending
Contractive Bonding
Contractive Bounding
Contractive Binding
Expansive Binding
Expansive Bounding
Expansive Bonding
Expansive Blending

A cognitive analysis of the properties of differentiating as compared to integrating (or their relabelling into expansive/contractive) shows that there are issues of precision with the differentiating aka expanding nature being more precise, more 'point' oriented, when compared to the integrating aka contracting nature that is more 'field' oriented in that integration requires AT LEAST two points to be 'integrating'. Thus the precision of integrating covers the two points as compared to differentiating that can focus on one point. What this difference demonstrates is that the WHAT/WHERE, aka Differentiating/Integratring dichotomy is ASYMMETRIC and as such, when made to self-reference, will elicit patterns associated with spectrum formation and so power laws.

A Symmetric dichotomy is where the elements of the dichotomy are structurally the same, it is their intrinsic values that differ. These sorts of dichotomies, when made to self-reference, elicit patterns associated with the Normal Distribution Curve (NDC - also known as a Gaussian Distribution). Symmetric perspectives lack the precision of the asymmetric but conserve energy through that focus on approximations. Thus it is LOCAL context that elicits high energy expenditure and so the non-local reflects a focus on conservation and maintaining equilibrium over the long term.

The Template

The following tables cover the generic form identified by IDM in the derivation of classifiers for labelling to communicate meaning.

When we include the expansion/contraction dichotomy, we get the
full template:

"Feeling" format where we derive the four Bs of blending, bonding, bounding, and binding:

In principle this template is extendable through further self-referencing and forming composite classifications. Once we have set out this template we find that we can populate it with the fundamental characteristics of various dichotomy-derived disciplines. For example, the categorisation of the main types of numbers used in Mathematics placed over the template:

Blending - focus on whole numbers (where this category still reflects differentiate/integrate in the form of prime vs composite numbers)

Bounding - focus on rational numbers (harmonics)

Bonding - focus on irrational numbers (sharing of space with another/others, invariance)

Binding - focus on imaginary numbers (sharing of time with another/others - morphic/cyclic change)

Real numbers are made up of wholes, rationals, and irrationals. Complex are made up of Reals and Imaginary.

The development of cardinality reflects a grounding in the symmetric and with that grounding comes symmetric 'laws' (associative, commutative, distributative). With the development of ordinality (AFTER cardinality and in tune with the development of hippocampus activities focused upon sequencing) comes a focus on vectors - we add to scalars a sense of 'direction'.

Thus the development of finer and finer levels of precision shift a focus from the symmetric to the asymmetric. We see this in the classification of numbers from real into complex, complex into quarternions, quarternions into octonions.

The conjugate requirement of complex numbers mean they reduce to sets of real 'pairs' thus:

Real - (a,1)

Complex - (a,b)

Quaternion - ((a,b),(a,b))

Octonion - (((a,b),(a,b)),((a,b),(a,b)))

On the other hand, we find the same generic qualities come out when we focus on the fight/flight dichotomy and its self-referencing to bring out the categories of human emotions

We can see the link with the Chaos Game through a focus on the Binomial Theorem and Pascal's Triangle that itself reflects the Sierpinski gasket that we find generated by the game. As such, our containment of 'noise', be it as a sense or the data of the senses contained by the brain, elicits a template for order generation and exploitation of such for derivation and communication of meaning.

The IDM template serves as the foundation for all meaning in the form of making analogies, metaphors, allegories that serve as representatives of the above categories. Its representing of the qualities of numbers used in Mathematics means that all specialisations using Mathematics are, by association, of the same structure as the core template, they are 'isomorphic' to the template through their ability to be mathematised.

Its representing of emotions means that, by association, anything that has emotional representation is isomorphic to the template as well.

Previous work founded in dichotomisation formally goes back to Kerry's "Personal Construct Psychology" and a more ancient form is sourced 3000 years ago in the methodology of creating representations of reality through self-referencing the yin/yang dichotomy.

To summarise the dynamics:

In our species, and for that matter in all species using neurons to form brains to process information, there is a natural process where the brain oscillates such that at any particular moment the brain is in an A/NOT-A mode of operation or 'frame of mind' but the expression of the NOT-A can be done in an 'A' manner. To stick to the dichotomy of differentiate/integrate, at any one moment in time the bias in the brain's general perspective is to be focusing on differentiate OR integrate. Thus at any moment where our attention is drawn, the acting of drawing attention isolates 'something' and thus sets a context, a 'universe of discourse', within which analysis is made (mediation dynamics try to extract from mediating dichotomy some clear identification). This focus may recruit sub-modules of the brain, sensory neuron networks, motor neuron networks, association (inter)neuron networks, lobes within hemispheres, 'sub-brains' (limbic system, RAS etc) and these can be in different modes of operation, differentiating, integrating, or a mix of both, but in GENERAL, whatever is being analysed as a whole, will be done so in a differentiating or integrating manner and be categorised, in general, as being an expression of differentiating or integrating.

The differentiate/integrate oscillation process (pdf file), when interpreted as what is POSSIBLE at any one moment, leaves us with initially TWO general choices, differentiation or integration. Thus at M0 (moment 0), when something new attracts our attention, we can have two choices from which to make an initial categorisation of what has attracted our attention, and one of which we will select or just 'be in' at that moment. If we continue our focus on 'something' and pass from M0 to M1 (moment 1) our set of POSSIBLE choices has in fact jumped from two to four in that the M0 set of choices serves as a context within which we make the M1 set of choices. The combination of these possible choices means that at M1 we have choices of qualities that are useable to describe the something as stemming from the processes of:

(1) M1 - Differentiate WITHIN the context of differentiate set at M0. This reflects 'pure' differentiation and as such a focus on the 'dot', the 'thing', an object unique from all others, but there is also an aire of the final object being WITHIN another, the second differentiation is made within that of the first such that we see a development path from general to particular.

(2) M1 - Integrate WITHIN the context of differentiate set at M0. This reflects firstly differentiating to then integrate. This reflects identifying all of the 'parts' and then integrating them into a 'whole' - the focus is on 'this WITH that' but the integration done WITHIN that which was originally differentiated.

(3) M1 - Differentiate WITHIN the context of integrate set at M0. This reflects firstly integrating to then differentiate. This reflects a form of grouping and then differentiating the group(s) from others/each other; - the focus is on 'this FROM that', as with pure differentiation, but with a group emphasis, as reflected in the root distinction at M0 of integrate.

(4) M1 - Integrate WITHIN the context of integrate set at M0. This reflects pure integration and as such a focus on an identification based on uniting everything and from that we can imply a 'whole' (to assert a whole, to explicitly identify it requires an act of differentiation). There is a focus here on recruitment of context to establish identity, as compared to (1) where the focus is more on assertion of self and so of context.

As we maintain our focus on 'something', combined with the choice of differentiate/integrate at each moment, due to the simple passage of TIME we are in fact using passive recursion from which to derive a single quality we can associate with whatever it is we are analysing. The passivity is in that we are not intentionally using recursion, we are just focused and oscillating in our choices of differentiate/integrate, it is the passage of time that forces the recursion to appear. (an exercise here is in the juxtapositioning of any two words from the dictionary and 'reflecting' on that association, if there is any 'meaning'. If there is no initial meaning, no instant recognition (e.g. white flour), the continued focus will shift reflection from the face-value of the words to what is behind them, their associations to other words. The passive reflection will allow things to 'pop' into the mind. This process reflects the passive recursion going on as you analyse and so derive a set of possible meanings from which to choose one (or two etc) )

Our memory systems allow us to 'paint' something we have focused upon as, say, reflecting a quality derived from 'integrate within differentiate', and store that categorisation such that we can recall it and reflect some more later. This means that the categorisations can take place over milliseconds or centuries but each categorisation, each 'something', be it from reflections on the Universe to reflections on knitting or an instant response to something (based on the moment + memories), will use the SAME general method of category formation.

Using recursion, once a category level has been reached within a specific context, so you do not have to repeat the recursion - the memory systems recall where you left-off the last time such that you can use the stored categories or reflect some more and add more. Thus the M0-M1 moments mentioned above can 'start' where a past analysis left-off and as such we can use more refined categories than the original four identified above that are used more for 'new' sensations, unknowns rather than knowns (there is an issue here regarding the concept of 'first impressions' which are often hard to change. More on this later)

Besides deriving new sets of categories, or more so new elements of the one set of generic categories, the use of analogy and metaphor allows us to recruit a successful set of categories, previously derived from the generic set and associated with a different perspective/discipline, and use that set to describe the 'new' perspective/discipline. This recruitment and abstraction process is due to the fact that all of the perspectives, all with seemingly 'different' labels and so 'unique', are in fact metaphors for the brain's differentiation/integration processing that is the common ground for all disciplines in general - this reflects the concept of isomorphism where the different disciplines are in fact the one discipline with elements having their name changed (e.g. as in from 'object' to 'car' etc)

The only way to capture the many aspects of a generic meaning of a category is to bind the category to a context where this binding is in the form of a word or symbol that takes the general 'differentiation/integration' elements of the category and ties them, integrates them, with the context through the use of a word. For example, we all, as species members, have a sense of 'wholeness' but there are an infinite number of ways to describe/associate the sense of 'wholeness' with 'out there'. Furthermore, 'in here' allows us to differentiate GENERAL senses of 'wholeness', I can have a whole that is sourced from continued differentiation, I zoom-in to the level of a 'dot' and that 'dot' can be interpreted as a 'whole', a unique form. On the other hand I can link an infinite number of dots to give me an increasing sense of wholeness, derived here by integration (but in doing so only allowing an implicit sense of 'wholeness', see more on this later).

The process of integration is a process where the objective is to link and sum relationships between things and as such establish a sense of 'wholeness'. This process functions WITHIN a whole as I sum relationships, as well as BETWEEN 'wholes' such as integration of semi-autonomous modules within the individual to enable the full expression of the individual.

It is from the realm of the 'everyday' that we as individuals/collectives etc extract sensations to analyse and as such the realm of the everyday is a 'balanced' realm of integration/differentiation and being balanced it is 'mindless', a realm of stimulus/response where the focus is on the use of habits/instincts. What is implied here is that further differentiation is applied to this 'balanced' realm and as such the act of differentiation is an act of exaggeration with the purpose of establishing clear identification of sensations and as such an intent to refine the balanced state of the everyday, although at times the intent is to distort the balance in favour of self/collective - this initially reflects a focus on protection in the form of camouflage to distort, to 'fuzz' boundaries, to cause interferences and so blend-in with the context OR to exaggerate and so stick out more than usual as a form of threat or attraction.

The process of exaggeration and the acts of identifying and re-identifying allows for the development of a hybrid 'everyday' made-up of the properties of the Universe as well as the exaggerations of our identifications that then become part of an 'everyday'. As such this hybrid everyday becomes increasingly symbol-containing and reflects attempts to be more and more precise in identifications through exaggerations

The differentiation processes, once complete, will often require re-integration to restore balance. For example, I can strip a car engine into all of its parts and using integration WITHIN the context of stripping the engine create a very refined, very ordered, very clear, parts list of the engine. I will then need to put the engine back together again and in doing so identify relational processes that function within the engine as it is running; e.g. the adjustment of, fine tuning of, distributor cap, tappets etc etc to ensure optimum operation - I usually cannot just put the parts back together and immediately turn the engine on to be used. This process of synchronisation reflects the integration processes required at the level of dynamics WITHIN the context of the engine and it is this synchronisation process that can make an engine 'transcend' its 'normal' operational parameters (to experience this, let your car engine run for 10 months and then get it tuned... or join a racing team and witness the almost continuous focus on tuning to get that extra 'grunt' out of a standard, an 'everyday', car.)

At this level of differentiation, the car engine, although 'complete' and tested, tuned etc., is sterile, it does nothing other than be something nice to look at and admire for its precision in engineering. To experience the full expression of the engine we need to place the engine in a context, inside of a car, aircraft, boat, etc etc and this process reflects the integration of the engine with other modules (chassis, steering, hydraulics etc) such that 'inferior' engineering in the other modules can affect engine performance but that performance, although noticeable, is not located in the engine but in the relationships to the other modules - and so more 'tuning' is required but now at a 'general' level. As such our integration issues have moved from a focus WITHIN a particular to a focus BETWEEN particulars.

This activity of differentiation/integration focuses across different levels, from the particular to the general, and reflects some fundamental properties of the human brain in operation. Thus the differentiation and integration processes described above re the car engine are identical to the process of creating an ontology - a parts list of reality, of 'being' where the ontology can be well formed etc but is sterile until it is put out into the Universe for a 'test drive' and from that has to go through 'tuning' until we get it 'right'.

This test drive results in the gaining of data useful for refining the integration processes of engine and car with the everyday such that the more refined the car so the more integrated it is with the context such that it is easy to use in the context. This process of integration seems to be reflected in our species in the form of instincts and habit formations where a habit reflects a response to a stimulus that is resident in the context such that the context PUSHES the individual's behaviour in that a stimulus from the context can elicit a response that is too quick or too unconscious for the conscious levels of the individual to process. As such, there is a sensitivity to context but it is universal in that it is hard coded as an instinct and as such there is no adjustments possible to vary the habit/instinct.

This 'push' nature is reflected in the discovery of the encoding of instincts and habits in the dendrites of neurons where the dendrites are the 'bush' of input sensors for the neuron and as such, when encoded with habits and instincts, act not only as raw receivers of sensory and feedback data, but also as filters of that data such that a change in weather conditions can set-off hormones that set-off instincts in the form of growing winter coats or molting for summer.

With this encoding of instincts/habits there is a strong focus on energy conservation, optimisation, in that the individual does not need to continually, consciously, monitor the context for changes (this has its downs as well though - uncommon, unseasonable weather conditions can 'fool' the habits into setting-off responses that are too early or too late and a stressful, novel, situation can lead to the expression of an 'out of context' habit/instinct response - compensatory behaviour for an anxiety)

Overall, the habit formation process reflects integration of patterns of behaviour to ensure integration with at least the immediate context and as such reflects a bias to the protection of the individual/species, ensuring quick, instinctive, responses to change. However, there is also allowance for these habits to become tools of proactive behaviour where the 'stimulus/response' to the moment is recruited and abstracted to serve as a stimulus/response for some future event; thus the habits reflect the context and as such allow for 'planning' of behaviours, for pre-empting changing conditions in that context (e.g. predicting the presence of sources of food now available as the ice covering a river starts to melt).

Overall we can call the process of habit formation the Transformation function in that the process allows for changes in expressions (shape shifting) without change to core senses of identity and as such reflects the core sense of identity as we find dominating the discipline of analytical, or formal, logic which is the logic of Mechanics.

What the habit development shows us is the adaptation to sameness and as such the habituation to sameness in the species. As such at the conscious levels of operation we are more attuned to detecting differences which is understandable in the context of a possibly hostile environment and as such can also consciously vary the intensity of a habit/instinct response to a stimulus and as such so a context sensitivity beyond that which has been 'programmed' in habits/instincts.

The detection of differences means the demand for differentiation skills, skills that can 'zoom-in' to identify subtle differences that could mean huge consequences if not noticed quickly. Since the 'habit' process puts an individual on 'auto pilot' so it is advantageous to develop some alternative system for processing the environment and this seems to be done at the neuron level through the process of synchronisations, where this activity is managed at the neuron body that functionally comes AFTER the habit-encoded dendrites. The neuron body controls the firing of the neuron and can have inhibiting/exciting connections to other neurons etc all of which act to synchronise responses.

Synchronisations allow for a 'holistic' response of a lifeform to a stimulus but also allows for 'errors' in processing where a synchronisation anomaly can introduce a novelty to a habitual response. This novelty could be in the form of an error but also in the form of an innovative act that serves to improve the relationship of individual to context and, through the learning mechanisms, lead to the recruitment and abstraction of this 'novel' behaviour to become integrated as part of the habit. This novelty also includes the possibility of escaping a situation where the habit is not working and as such of 'transcending' a situation. Overall this Transcendence function reflects, using the engine metaphor, the affects on engine behaviour through synchronisation processes - tuning.

What is noticeable about this transcendence function is that it is strongly single context and as such reflects the concept of REPLACEMENT of the existing context either by a lifeform asserting its own context, or else escaping to another, more suitable context; either way the result is the current context is replaced. This replacement process is very different to the transformation function where the focus is more on retaining the existing context and strongly integrating with it.

There is the implication that the synchronisation process functions in a more 'refined' manner at the level of the individual than collective and as such it is the individual that can have 'innovative' insights, the collective having more 'adaptive' insights and as such the synchronisation processes are best identified WITHIN the individual and so fall into the realm of differentiation even though reflecting an overall integrative focus (the novelty after all IS a difference).

The transcendence function reflects properties more associatable with dialectical logic, the logic of Thermodynamics, where, for example, the replacement emphasis reflects dialectical logic's concept of "negation of a negation" where the interaction of a lifeform with context and the replace of the context allows for a 'transcendence' and as such a 'whole new ballgame'. The initial relationship of lifeform to context reflects A vs B and the resulting 'replacement' is C where the degree of replacement can vary from total replacement to partial where in the latter the transcendence recruits elements of the former context to aid in the transcendence. {there are subtle differences here re negation - see comments on Analytical Negation vs Dialectical Negation where the analytical reflects an exaggeration of, a particularisation of, the dialectical)

The dynamics of the brain mean that the transcendence/transformation dichotomy, reflective of differentations/integrations, will 'oscillate' and so express variations on their themes made-up of composites of these basics.

This transcendence function within the differentiation processes allows for variations in the experience in that the function is intense WITHIN the individual or particular collective, and more general within the context of BETWEEN individuals/collectives, collectives/species.

In fact, at the species level there seems to be instincts that 'say':

• EACH sensation is [potentially] meaningful.
• ALL sensations are [potentially] linked together.

These two integration-biased instincts reflect a general protection bias for the species that, if exaggerated, as done in differentiation, can lead to 'novel' identifications of spiritual concepts that seem to 'transcend' the species/collective/individual. This does not mean there ARE such concepts but more so that the delusion/illusion that there are can easily develop, especially if there is no awareness of the properties of the data processing mechanisms in the brain of the species. The source of these 'spiritual' concepts is of course obviously in the integration processing of the species where these spiritual concepts, be it one 'God' or many, act to integrate, serving as attractors, such that the use of the 'spiritual' can serve as a source of motivation and thus be 'uplifting' at times.

Overall we can determine that the spiritual sense originates from the SPECIES and nowhere else where the original, local instincts for protection have been generalised to become useful as tools of exploitation - beliefs can move mountains. This sense of the spiritual comes from the exaggeration processes in pouring-in energy to identify 'something' in detail. That process will force the suspension of time experience (due to the reciprocal relationship of subjective time experience and increased metabolic rate in processing information) and from that suspension comes the notion of, the feeling of, the 'eternal'. This feeling, due to a lack of understanding about what creates it, has become a property of our species nature, the everyday of the Species, and as such differentiates us from the Universe.

For an analysis of how a sense of the spiritual can emerge from a misunderstanding of neurocognitive processes, see in particular the page on identifying the source of such concepts as angels and demons.

To summarise the basic properties of IDM, IDM is not reductionist. Its description IS. IDM reflects the level of meaning derivation from the mindless processing of neurons where what emerges is a basic set of distinctions, of qualities, focused upon differentiations and integrations. An extract from an email of the author to the IDM list explains this:

"The realm of the everyday of the universe is the realm of the everyday of all species - it is the realm of mindless stimulus/response, habits and instincts. The development of the neuron from stimulus/response to stimulus/considered_response begins the process of feedback processing within the lifetime of an individual rather than along the Darwinian time periods that favour 'random' mutations over centuries or local adaptations over decades; where instincts are sourced in the survival of species offspring. At our level we store 'instincts' in the form of books, tapes, videos etc lots of 'how to' manuals and so allow the individual to 'learn' instincts as habits gainable within the lifetime of the individual and at the same time ensure those 'off line' instincts are not dependent on existence of the individual (unless that individual destroys the libraries etc!)

The ability to process information and store it as a memory and use that memory as feedback for future processing takes us from the 'everyday' of the universe to a developing everyday of the species where we have developed leverage in our adaptations to the environment. The DEGREE of value of these memories is covered in the Dimension of Precision concept where those life forms that favour two past context frames as feedback focus on fibonacci patterns as 'meaningful' and so on.

The ability to EXAGGERATE, to differentiate 'this' from all else, the stimuli of the everyday of the universe allows us (and other neuron-dependent lifeforms) to focus on particulars in real-time rather than be run by our instincts. This focus on DETAILS allows us to REFINE our instincts, to learn habits and so 'improve' our position on the planet.

The exaggeration process is done through the isolation of 'something' and through input of energy we idealise this 'something' BUT in the realm of the universe this is an act of REDUCTION. Language REDUCES, is derive from, processing of the senses down to a label and we use the label to communicate and cause resonances in other species-members due to the labels carrying meaning that elicits the patterns of 'differentiations&integrations' we all share as a species and where the association of feeling-to-label (taught in school etc) allows us to memorise (the labels as such are mnemonics).

This ability to reduce things to a parts perspective, and label those parts, and use those labels to represent those parts (and so create a map for the territory) has been so successful that we work out of that parts realm as if it is the everyday of the universe - it isnt. It is a continually developing everyday of the species that is a hybrid of the universe + our exaggerations.

The spoken/written word reflects acts of reduction. IDM does not deal with these tokens, it deals with the patterns of differentiations/integrations that come out of the neurocognitive processes and serve as the base level source of all meaning. IOW IDM focuses on the GENERAL. IDM focuses on the SPECIES. IDM focuses on FEELINGS (as abstracted to blend, bond, bound, bind, and as sp re-labeled to the common set of emotions )

The act of reduction is the act of moving from the general, the "AS IS" of the universe, to the particular, the "AS INTERPRETED" of OUR universe. We move from general to particular, as identified in IDM through such concepts as the Dimension of Precision.

This act of reduction requires exaggeration, we must distort the everyday of the universe, our perceptions of it, to derive parts and so reduce past the 'whole' that is the integrated universe - we move from symmetry to asymmetry, from non-local to local. (recall the hierarchy in Chinese philosophy of:

differentiated / integrated =

T'ai Chi / Wu Chi (great extension (archetype) / no extension - general)
Yin-Yang / T'ai Chi (exaggerations of the archetype, harmonics analysis / the archetype)
Yang / Yin (A/NOT-A, high precision focus - particular)

language emerges from yang/yin - it is like words taking on gender. We then apply it to try and describe the 'higher levels' but will fail in that we need to understand the 'language' of T'ai Chi/Wu Chi to 'grok' it all, we move back up from male/female to androgyny and to 'no distinctions' etc IDM aids in doing that.

)


IDM is basically symmetric (or as symmetric as possible given the built-in distortion of differentiations/integrations precision issues - covered in the differences of self-referencing symmetric, anti-symmetric, and asymmetric dichotomies). IDM does not care about the details, it cares about what details are possible given the set of generic feelings, qualities, we use as categories. You can 'specialise' IDM but there is no need since all specialisations reflect IDM and as such do a better job at the local level [see for example the pages on Mathematics, the MBTI, and the I Ching] - IDM does not replace, it serves to integrate such that its use at the local level is as a guide and no more. MY point re Philosophy etc is that all of these disciplines now require consideration of IDM etc in their 'reflections' upon reality.

IDM is not biased to Hegel or Heidegger or Kant or Plato or Spinoza or God or Marx etc etc etc since it reflects all of the particulars, all of these reductions, in the set of generic qualities. The application of IDM perspectives to these specialisations can aid in 'restructuring' of the perspectives of these specialisations but as such IDM does not replace them since its realm is more general.

Being not aware of this reduction process of the species means that, for example, we derive such 'issues' as the EPR paradox etc., we move 'past' the everyday of the universe and try and interpret that position as if the universe.

This ability to reduce, to distill, general everyday data to precise labels is reflected in our focus on purity where that act is an act of REDUCTION (and so the intuitive 'attraction' within the species to alchemy etc. Fundamentalism, and so specialisation, is reductionist, down to the 'answer' being 'God' or 'Darwin' or E=MC2 etc etc)

From that reduction process, where we derive rich language, so we increase our knowledge but in the form of representations, words, not in the form of the 'thing itself'. We more than often lose sight of this and so when 'in' a specialisation so we take things literally. This is fine locally but when you try to apply this to the non-local you will have problems in that you have to step out of the box, to the box of the species, to be able to describe 'clearly' within the realm of the non-local.

That is where IDM comes in in that an understanding of the general qualities, the properties and methods of how the neurons work to derive species-level meaning, is required in that the generic structure of all isolations, all specialisations, is determined by the neuron and so by the general qualities identified by IDM.

Thus, I say that IDM is not reductionist. To describe it IS since we do not have the time to communicate 'objects and relationships' as high precision empathy (or a 'blending' of minds, we cannot share the same space). We have to reduce these feelings etc to labels and use those to elicit a species-level quality linked to a specific context. IDM is linked to habit formations, intuitions etc etc that serve the reduction but as such are not reductionist in that IDM functions from the level of the communication system we use as a species.

Shifting gears

Reflection on the IDM material has suggested that we also move up a level from the abstract, universal, categories, to the specialist expressions by the senses, in particular covering properties/methods of music and so of sound.

In the context of deriving meaning from self-referencing, lets create an abstraction in the form of a dichotomy of 1/0 that we will then self-reference. This self-referencing covers the act of mediating with some context to derive some particular from a set of possible particulars (pdf file). This self-referencing will after, say, three iterations derive eight representations:

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

Each of these represent a quality, be it a hue from mixing the RGB/YMC of colour or a complex sound, a chord from mixing different auditory waves; OR a generic quality free of association with senses and solely associated with the neurology and its oscillations across the differentiate(1)/integrate(0) dichotomy (out of which come the senses of wholeness, partness, static relatedness, dynamic relatedness, and their composites)

If we interpret these representations as a set of all possible hues mixing RGB or YMC so they form a set of qualities usable to communicate 'something', this is also true for audition as it is for basic neurological dynamics. Thus besides the perception of a colour there is also a possible association with a concept derived from some memory linking the colour or chord with a context. Thus the colour, once just an instance, now as a category, becomes a class that is manifest in some instance where it communicates 'something' besides just being a colour derived from light absorption/reflection.

With music we can make the our representations more complex and in doing so still retain a skill in differentiating each note in the chord - something we find very hard to do if we use the hues of colour. These differences in sense bringing out differences in precision between audition and vision but maintain a retained sameness in that through both forms of representations we can communicate what the neurology categories cover - a sense of wholness, of partness, of static relatedness (sharing space), and of dynamic relatedness (sharing of time).

These basic categories then form composites to allow for more complex representations and we can represent these complex forms by taking our eight representations derived above and applying them to EACH form. This is called hyperbolic development (N^2 rather than exponential form of 2^N) and so we jump from 8 to 64, 64 to 4096, 4096 to 16+million and so on. Initially this application of the set of eight to each element in the set is an application of analogy that is turned into an experience of the literal when the hues/chords formed are experienced in reality. (this also gets into the derivation of the power set of set, each member having meaning) - it is this analogy formation that introduces the emergence of language from basic categories of meaning and covers the HARD CODING of such an analogy mechanism in self-referencing.

To get back to sensory harmonics -thus the chord/hue represented in 000 elicits a set of chords/hues covering representations of:

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

Remove the hyphen to create 000010 etc as complex forms. We can THEN apply the same rule of hyperbolic development to give us 000010000000, 000010000001 etc etc where these bit sequences can represent chords and so summing of sound waves as they can summing of colours, where BOTH summings in fact represent the generic summing of frequencies that elicit the qualitative, emotion-linked, sensation we get from colours or sounds or smells or tastes or touch.

In our neurology these packets of frequencies are responsible for eliciting emotional resonance such that a hue or chord can elicit anger or sexual attraction or fear or grief.

Now lets zoom-in a bit at the level of six bit representations (000000 to 111111).

There are 64 representations we can call symbols where these make-up a sort of lexicon but not of letters forming words, of sensory data forming feelings.

If we focus on music, the bit representations are of waves of different frequencies (notes) that make-up the complex chord. BUT we also have to recognise the influence of context on a chord - where in music the context is set by the key.

Thus our set of 64 representations can vary in expression depending on the context in which they are placed where the dependency elicits a relation of text representation with context representation that requires an 'adjustment' by the text representation to maintain harmony in the fit with the context representation and so present text and context as a harmonised, pleasing 'whole'.

What this means is that a particular aspect of the text representation needs to be expressed in a way such that it appears as if some other representation from the set of all possible representations.

Again a music example, where a chord containing C will need to modify that C to a C# in some contexts. But C# is one of the possible representations and so we have a situation where representation A expressed in a context of representation B will appear to be, is best described as, representation C or more so, representation C serves as analogy in describing the mixing of A as text with a B context.

Now lets zoom-in a bit more. Given a set of all possible representations (here being 64 in number but we can easily increase this to 4096 etc) so each is unique in form and can serve as a representation of text or context but the text will be more 'refined' than the context. By this I mean that bit pattern 101101 as text is more refined than when it serves as context. The bringing something into the foreground does this naturally in that the act of bring is an amplifying act.

With a pattern serving as context so, using the music analogy, a representation can serve like a key and all other representations can operate in that context but only with modification within that key.

What IDM has uncovered in the context of meaning derivation is this:

Given the self-referencing of differentiate/integrate, and the finite set of all possible bit representations at some level, where each representation is of some quality such as that associated with 'beginning' or 'ending' or a sense of 'boundary' etc we can:

(a) represent the quality as a bit pattern.
(b) use XORing to elicit the expression of one bit pattern 'through' or 'in a context of' some other bit pattern by analogy to a third bit pattern.

For example the bit pattern of 100000 can represent 'beginning' and if XORed with, say, the bit pattern of 110101 will give us the expression of 'beginning' when in the context of 110101:

100000 text (sense of 'beginning')
110101 context
------- XOR
010101 expression ('beginning' in the context of pattern 110101 is described by analogy to the generic characteristics of pattern 010101)

Furthermore, given the expression as a bit pattern so the same dynamics are applicable overall. By that I mean that given the above expression representing the 'beginning' pattern of some context, so the 'end' pattern can (a) identify the end of the context ('end' pattern applied to context) as well as (b) identify the end of the beginning of that context, and so on ('end' pattern applied to (XORed with) the above expression pattern (010101)). As such we are dealing with a finite language that allows us to re-use the one set of qualities ad infinitum as long as we keep an ordering of contexts and so a hierarchy of such - but that in itself is represented by a bit pattern! (overall, any self-referencing system can describe itself through using bit representations and XORing)

Due to the self-referencing, this zooming-in on meanings of meanings reflects the infinite regress of self-referencing as manifest when we zoom-in on Mandelbrot's image; but here we are dealing with qualities of meaning and we introduce pragmatics where we stop the zooming as we sense an increasing diminishing of returns. As such, one of the traits of learning is to learn discernment in how far down the rabbit hole we go.

What is also noticable here with the XOR material is that we have in fact hit on the roots of, beginning of, language. As such basic, mindless, self-referencing can, if done enough times, convert categories into a language.

The above dynamic has been identified by IDM to be a property of self-referencing in general and so a property of anything derived from such - in particular the categories and meanings derived in the Chinese "I Ching"

http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/introXOR.html

as well as the categories of personalities derived in the MBTI.

http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/type.html

The more general focus is covered in the page:

http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/properties.html

BUT in all cases the emphasis is on the general and so on collectives. This fact comes about when we recognise that the patterns of, for example, beginning and ending are present in each pattern and as such encodes 'purpose' to a pattern and so determinism - as such we are dealing with a genetic perspective. However, we are also aware of the realm of consciousness and its focus on the mediating and the random - as such a source of variation to the determinism of the identified patterns.

The main point here is that ANY self-referencing will elicit these sorts of patterns of meaning etc and so that applies to, for example, the fermion/boson dichotomy of particle physics or the purine/pyramidine dichotomy of molecular biology (and ITS seeding of the RNA/DNA dichotomy) and the overall focus on wholes, parts, statics, and dynamics and the differentiating/integrating dichotomy.

As such, there is a lot more determinism at work than previously considered and this needs to be mapped out.