|
FORMAL (ANALYTICAL) LOGIC (logic of Mechanics) (There is here an impoverished notion of Time, limiting it to a mechanistic concept and so something reversible/stoppable. Allows for the notion of the 'eternal'. This logic dominates 'idealist' thinking which is high precision focused on stability, on 'eternal' identification and the universal, a single context perspective that is deemed 'fundamental' even if possibly delusion/illusion. When generalised, the idealist realm is the source of parts-lists, ontologies, used to interpret reality. These can become 'sterile' and there is a drive to 'transcend', to 'go beyond' and so escape the ontologies, escape the context or assert one's own context) |
DIALECTICAL LOGIC (logic of Thermodynamics) (There is here a thermodynamic notion of Time, where time is NOT reversible but qualitative patterns formed from the process can be repeatable. Allows for the notion of 'cycles'. This logic dominates 'materialist' thinking which is more biased to integration of dynamic processes to imply an identification. There is thus more of a focus on probabilities, of approximations than the 'dot' precision of formal logic; this focus favours 'field' precision and also allows for RE-identifications; the intentional 'blurring' of boundaries to avoid identification. As such there is an aire of 'approximations' and so a lack of precision when idealistically compared to formal logic) |
|
A = A (there is a sense of continuity of A, the unchanging, the pure, precise = precise or approximate = approximate) |
A NOT= A (each moment ensures some change at some level such that precise is becoming approximate or approximate is becoming precise) |
|
~(A = ~A) (A can never be equal to ~A) |
A = ~A (yin into yang into yin...; enantiodromia) |
|
~(A AND ~A) (You cannot have A and its contradiction existing in the same spacetime. The exception is in a superposition where both concepts exist as POTENTIALS and the influence of context forces a determination that forces EITHER/OR rather than BOTH/AND) |
A AND ~A (emphasis on oscillations; e.g. complex line drawings surrender to oscillations of two expressions of the one object - Necker Cube etc The complex line drawing is a 'whole' but our object sense, our sense of differentiation, forces us to see particulars see paper on Paradox processing) |
|
Analytical Negation Something is negated totally. Forgotten. Wiped-out. Recall is impossible. replacement is unconditional. |
Dialectical Negation Something is negated but also has its properties and methods, some or all, included in that which is replacing the negated. This process reflects properties of nature (and of mind in the form of memories) where nothing is thrown away when it is replaced, it is stored where it may become usable in a some later context or if that which negated fails in its function and we fall back a level. |
|
A AND B The focus in Analytical vs Dialectical Logic is on deriving one from turning the other 'on its head'. Thus the above conjunction in Formal Logic.... |
A NOT AND B = A XOR B ...becomes and exclusive OR in Dialectical Logic (Since AND means BOTH so turning it on its head to NOT AND gives us an OR but which one? inclusive or exclusive? since we remove the BOTH nature through the act of conversion so it MUST be an XOR condition. The added interpretation is the presence of Time in its thermodynamic form and so we will see A XOR B as oscillations (see the examples in the above mentioned paradox page) As such we can convert all calculi in formal logic to dialectical logic equivalents other than those 'forbidden' due to the irreversibility of time) |
|
A OR B |
A NOT-OR B = A AND B |
|
A XOR B |
A NOT-XOR B = A OR B |
|
A AND B (symmetric) |
A COIN B (symmetric) becomes A IMP B (asymmetric) |
Recent work on the analysis of recursion, an example of self-referencing, as a method used
by the brain for deriving a set of qualities with which to describe reality, suggests that the method has an interesting
property. This property is where the rotation of the list of qualities derived using recursion, where that list
reflects a perspective based on magnitudes, and so a scalar perspective, leads to the same qualities being usable
from a perspective based on directions as well as magnitudes, in other words the perspective is of vectors.
This duel encoding in a quality at the brain level, stemming from an instinct-driven process, indicates that
the source of the more abstract notions of scalar/vector, object/relationship, idealist/materialist, pure/mixed,
static/dynamic is in our physiology and reflects the recruitment and abstraction of processes in our sensory systems
to be used at the level of the psychological/sociological in the form of sources of analogies in describing the
universal.
The specific example of these scalar/vector qualities sharing the same space are given later in discussion on the
relationship of the abstract concepts of Formal (Analytical) Logic and Dialectical Logic where we show ‘laws’ of
the former, reflecting scalar representations, can be converted to represent ‘laws’ of the latter, reflecting vector
representations. Before we get to these abstract concepts I will focus attention on the source of these abstractions,
the development in the human brain of object/relationships processing.
Hegel wrote that "With regard to its form, logic has three aspects (Seiten): (a) the abstract or understandable (versändige) aspect; (b) the dialectical or Negatively rational (vernüntige) aspect, (c) the speculative or positively rational aspect."
This is not so much reflective of a trichotomy but more so the process of bifurcation. differentiations, and
later integration. This (c) reflects the derivation of a quality (e.g. A AND B). (b) reflects the rotation process
(where A AND B becomes A XOR B) and (a) the 'whole' that is the sum of these parts OR the cause of the differentiations
into (b) and (c). A example of this is bifurcation process can be found using the works of Karl Marx where as a
response to the exploitation by capitalism has emerged the anti-exploitation causes of socialism (fights the exploitation
of labour) and conservationism (fights the exploitation of natural resources - the means of production). Note that
to understand Capitalism one needs to understand the acts of exploitation of both labour and natural resources
as well as understand the mediation processes that come out when the exploitation is extreme - as in the mediation
industries of socialism and conservationism.
In the brain a recursion is applied to a dichotomy, A/~A
(the symbol '~' means NOT), where the dichotomy is applied to itself. The process of recursion reflects exponentiation
in the form of 2n where n = the level of recursion, and the expression of 2n is the number
of possible qualities we can use to describe reality, thus for 3 levels there are eight possible qualities (23
= 8) (the binomial form is (A+B)n where A=1 and B=1 and n=3)
For example, take the dichotomy of 1/0. If we apply this dichotomy to itself a few times we get:
First Level: 1, 0 {two qualities only - a very EITHER/OR perspective, reflecting the realm of what is called propositional
logic)
Second level: 11, 10, 01, 00 (EITHER/OR, and so the ALL or NOTHING, is extended to include the concept of SOME.
This level reflects the realm of what is called predicate logic)
Third level: 000, 001, 010, 011, 100, 101, 110, 111 (Here we will see emerge notions of dynamics as compared to
statics and as such emerges notions that form into the distinctions of the analytical and the dialectical, the
changeless(eternal) and the ever-changing)
This process of recursion allows for a set of qualities to be created that can be used to describe reality where
for any single moment one of the qualities is the ‘best fit’ out of those available for use. Furthermore the ORDER
of the 1s and 0s reflect a layering of qualities such that at the first level the focus is EITHER/OR, there are
only two possible qualities expressed. At the second level we have four qualities expressing (a) the continuation
of the ‘pure’ qualities in 11 and 00 and (b) the ‘mixed’ qualities of 10 and 01. In (b) what makes the differences
is the ordering where 10 has a context of 1, as compared to 01 which has a context of 0. Thus the overall qualities
expressed in 10 and 01 will be different enough despite their apparent similarities; the second digit functions
within the context set by the first digit; when we move to level three so the third digit functions
within the context defined by the previous two digits and so on.
The above use of binary symbols (0,1) can represent the answering of YES[1]/NO[0] questions, presented in a specific
order, general-to-particular, such that the SUM of the answers is reflected in a feeling, a sense of meaning. This
sense is of an expression of MAGNITUDE, thus the list of eight qualities given above for the third level, although
interpretable as a SEQUENCE is more a list of scalar values that can be treated as a sequence - e.g. the temperature
markings on a thermostat control etc; this is a very mechanistic perspective where time has no place other than
in an impoverished form of being reversible (and so ‘cut off’ from its thermodynamic roots) or else reduced to
a sense of the ‘eternal’.
Thus the set of qualities derived at level three above, specifically:
000, 001, 010, 011, 100, 101, 110, 111
are initially expressions of magnitudes, they are descriptive, even though the whole sequence can be ordered
to represent a sequence of expressions such as temperature as well as, but in an impoverished form, expressions
of Time; thus the differences in expression allow for ordering from ‘low’ to ‘high’ but NOT necessarily reflecting
a DIRECTION that is irreversible.
The above analysis demonstrates the concept where the elements of a dichotomy become entangled once we use recursion
and in the human brain the 'root' dichotomy used for analysis is that of the distinctions of WHAT
(objects - symbolisable as ‘1’) and WHERE (relationships - symbolisable as ‘0’). The recursion ensures the
whole, captured by the emphasis of the original dichotomy of 1/0, is encoded in all parts and as such is identifiable
in all parts ( even the state of 000 which contains no explicit 1s reflects the 1s in that the presence of the
000 state implies the state of 111)
The qualitative refinement of the what/where distinctions introduces the concept of WHO and WHICH (from WHAT),
and WHEN and HOW (from WHERE) such that all qualities reflect both what/where states as both hybrid forms as well
as 'pure' forms - thus a quality can be interpreted as WHAT-biased, or more specifically WHO or WHICH-biased, as
well as WHERE-biased, or more specifically WHEN or HOW-biased, and it is CONTEXT that dictates the degree of bias.
The intriguing point is the discovery of rotation, of turning a quality 'on its [symbolic] head' that allows for
what appears to be a scalar representation to become a vector representation; this process changes the emphasis
from general-to-particular to particular-to-general (this is described more fully below in the outline of Logic
where Formal Logic manifests the more scalar expressions and Dialectical Logic manifests the introduction of direction
- vectoring - specifically in the form of thermodynamic time, something not reversible). Overall this rotation
process reflects the transition from a descriptive focus to a narrative focus - every quality has a story to go
with it [See the specific examples of this within the context of the I Ching, a Chinese
book focusing on both prediction and general philosophy using the layering (recursion) of a dichotomy. This format
elicits meanings and in this system we find perfect examples of the rotation of an initial quality of magnitude
to become one to now include direction]
The scalar/vector dichotomy reflects the focus on statics/dynamics, on 'dot' precision that comes with an aire
of the eternal, and so the 'timeless', as compared to 'field' precision that comes with an aire of thermodynamic
time -begin:end - the irreversible but possibly repeatable ['field' precision focuses on the making of approximations
based on implications based on intergration of various factors, mostly dynamic. There is a more geometric perspective
here that gets refined to a more algebraic perspective the more 'dot' precise we become. As such, the realm of
‘field’ precision is more often tied to implicit identifications through the use of negation, as in something is
‘not this, not that’ as well as the use of data forming constellations, geometric patterns that are interpreted
as indicative of 'something']
Of note is that, from a precision focus the law of identity is A=A such that the category of A must be constant
- EITHER a literal/precise XOR a metaphor/approximate. When you use precise=approximate then you are into bullshit
OR shifting levels of analysis IOW 'treat this metaphor AS IF precise'. ;-)
Turning A=A on its head moves us to the dialectical realm of A != A and so we move into the realm of change. Here
you CAN have precise != precise [precise=approximate] as well as metaphor != metaphor [approximate=precise] in
that the process of change will convert precise into approximate, approximate into precise; literal into metaphor,
metaphor into literal. When you do that and focus back on the analytical so A=A can appear as 'precise=metaphor'
etc. confusion.
There are fundamental differences in the manner in which meaning is derived such that you can think 'out of context'
and distort that process. If I approach something in an analytical fashion then A=A (pure, static, unchanging).
If I approach something in a dialectical fashion then A != A (mixed, dynamic, change). This is an important issue
in that it is demonstrated at the 'base' level dichotomy of fermions(A=A)/bosons(A!=A) in that different statistical
methods are required to deal with the elements of this dichotomy. A != A allows for superpositions such that a
literal can be a metaphor, a metaphor a literal - context decides. In fermions it is more EITHER/OR - you cannot
share the space but you can form a hierarchy.
Since in general it is CONTEXT that determines a perspective this does not REMOVE the other perspective, I am dealing
with a superposition of categories of analytic+dialectic such that the parameters I add to both are the same. Thus
when I interpret dialectically, with a focus upon change so the focus is A != A and my parameters are precise !=
precise, metaphor != metaphor PLUS the inclusion of TIME, its arrow. Thus precise changes as does metaphor change.
We can write this as precise = metaphor (precise BECOMES metaphor), metaphor = precise (metaphor BECOMES precise).
BUT if we change perspectives to analytical then the parameters must be A=A and they are not!
This gets us back to the 'logic' of paradoxes where the A XOR B perspective reflects the EITHER/OR of precision
which falls WITHIN the bounds of the dialectical that is expressed in the oscillations we experience in seeing
'two cubes' or 'two faces' etc etc in the one space. Our brain uses BOTH logics as ONE, all encompassing Logic.
The precision issue forces the integration side to be 'approximate' when compared to the differentiation side BUT
attempts to 'mix' things will lead to problems - and so we need to review Mathematics & Logic etc in the light
of the research coming out of neurosciences/cognitive sciences.
These distinctions of ‘dot’ precision and ‘field’ precision can be identified as expressions reflecting biases
in brain hemisphere function of not just the human brain but of all lifeforms whoes brains use neurons to communicate
(see Left Brain,Right Brain for descriptions of hemisphere ‘differences’
that in fact reflect more the idealist/materialist perspectives of the species - also see Transforming & Transcending : The Dance of the Neuron
)
As has been discussed elsewhere ( template ), all disciplines that have their roots in recursion of dichotomies are metaphors for the
brain's singular perspective of applying recursion to the distinctions of objects and relationships; terms reducable
to the concepts of differentiation and integration (see template link abovr). As such all of these disciplines
may have very different terms of expression but these terms all point to the invariant set of meanings we all share
as a species, namely the qualities derived from recursion of WHAT/WHERE; we all share the same feeling of 'wholeness'
but can have an infinite number terms for this one feeling where the terms tie the feeling to a context.
The rotation factor, when applied to the discipline of Logic, introduces a perspective for development of the more
'dot' precise school of Formal Logic into the realms of Dialectic Logic in that the development is based on the
simple task of taking standard formal logic axioms and literally turning them on their heads - what is implied
here is the act will give us a clearer perspective on dialectical logic and as such integrate the static and dynamic
to give us a Logic than can capture the essences of our species (e.g. formal logic can have a problem symbolising
such concepts as compulsive/obsessive disorder, or manic/depression etc where these 'disorders' can in fact be
beneficial from a creative development perspective and as such there is an oscillation in the perspectives of the
rational/irrational, logical/illogical).
Of prime importance here is the recognition that the abstract characteristics of the formal and the dialectical
are expressions of physiological processes of our species, and for that matter any species that uses the neuron
to communicate. As such the formal and dialectical do no 'oppose' each other, just as the greater abstractions
of Idealism and Materialism do not oppose each other in that we can identify their roots in the physiological processes
of the brain as it processes data and in fact show that the realm of the formal and of idealism are EXAGGERATIONS
of particulars exstracted from the materialist 'everyday'. As such Dialectical Logic is the logic of thermodynamics,
of the irreversible universe, as compared to Formal, aka Analytical, Logic that is tied to static concepts, the
unchanging as compared to the ever changing.
Focusing our attention on Logic, the three primary 'laws' of formal logic are:
The Law of Identity : A = A
The Law of Contradiction : ~(A = ~A)
The Law of the Excluded Middle : ~(A AND ~A)
As we have noted above, formal logic focuses on a sense of the eternal and as such there is no time factor involved,
the focus is on stability in establishing identity. When we move to a dialectical perspective, time is ALWAYS involved.
As such the laws of the dialectical include such notions as "A AND ~A" BUT, due to the time element,
this does not occur at the SAME time but can occur in the SAME space. In other words the "A AND ~A" reflects
oscillation (or more so an exaggeration of the A FROM the ~A. This exaggeration becomes encoded in cycles of development
that reflect spiral development rather than circular - again time is INCLUDED in these concepts whereas in the
mechanistic realm time is impoverished if not excluded all together).
Do we see this 'oscillation' in nature? Yes we do. In particular in our own functioning where:
(1) all sensory paradoxes are processed where the A and the ~A are presented in sequence, as oscillations; A,~A,A,~A....
This oscillation can span milliseconds to seconds in time. (see some examples in my paper on Paradox
as a Source of Meaning )
(2) the 'mindless' brain, when asserting 'A' and it comes face to face with another brain asserting '~A' will instinctively
switch into paradox processing mode as it attempts to resolve this 'paradox' which serves as a threat to one's
identity, that identity being parcelled-up in the concept of 'A', as in 'A' is MY assertion and so my sense of
"I" is entangled with that assertion. This resolution drive is reflected in our species in the form of
argument, and the time span for the oscillations is no longer milliseconds but now hours, days, years, centuries
etc.
(3) the expressions of mind, of psyche, can be directly, but implicitly, linked to brain hemisphere oscillations
where the dominant oscillation is across brain areas that reflect A/~A characteristics where those characteristics
reflect the A as emerging from the ~A as a form of exaggeration as our attention zooms-in on a sensation. The excessive
focus can distort perspectives so much that the context from which the sensation has been extracted becomes '~A',
just as foreground relates to background, positive relates to negative, text relates to context.
(4) The general, statistical, properties and methods of Thermodynamics reflected in the irreversible flow of
energy from 'far from equilibrium' to 'equilibrium' - exaggeration to balance (integration).
Thus in formal logic the statement A + ~A = 0, the excluded middle law, emphasising the extreme 'dot' precision
involved here, the 'pure' sense of A XOR ~A (A V ~A), when now turned on its head and, COMBINED WITH A TIME FACTOR,
gives us A AND ~A (A /\ ~A) that is NOT interpreted as being in the same TIME, IOW we identify oscillation as a
primary property of dialectics and as such a stable oscillation (A<->~A) is the dialectics expression of
formal logic's assertion of a static (A). As such vibrations of atoms are seen as seemingly stable objects.
Formal Logic's Law of Identity, turned on its head, becomes A NOT= A. Again it is the time factor that validates
this in that the 'me' of a millisecond ago is NOT the 'me' of now.
Formal Logic's Law of Contradiction, turned on its head, becomes A = ~A. This seems 'illogical' until we move to
a dialectical perspective where TIME is fundamental such that A CAN BECOME ~A. This property is well documented
in such concepts as that of enantiodromia, a Greek term capturing the development path of a state into its opposite
(and so reflecting the underlying oscillation focus within a dialectical perspective). This is also reflected in
the I Ching with the concept of change across yin and yang.
Formal Logic has the sense of the 'eternal' as a dominating context but that is not the context in which we exist,
we exist in a highly dynamic context with a definite sense of direction reflected in the simple process of aging
and eventually dying.
As such the realm of the 'everyday' is a materialist realm rooted in dialectics when compared to the 'extreme'
realm of formal logic, the idealist realm. As a species we develop within this dimension representing these formal-dialectical
distinctions and as such develop a hybrid set of qualities stemming from the refinement of the dialectical through
formal exaggerations in the form of 'stabilising' a sensation, 'stopping' an oscillation and so asserting A XOR
~A.
In turn, these formal assertions can, in principle, be 'turned on their heads' to reflect properties hidden in
the realm of the 'everyday' - the properties of the dialectical; thus the 'dot' precision of formal logic can be
recruited to aid in revealing the 'laws' of the dialectical and as such these logics do not oppose each other -
they reflect aspects of Logic as a whole.
In summary : The use of recursion of a dichotomy allows for the quick creation of a set of qualities usable in
the measuring of expressions as magnitudes. Turning these qualities on their head allows for the use of the same
qualities to measure expressions as directions where the interpretations of the symbolisms MUST include a time
emphasis in that the realm of the dialectical is strongly ruled by the irreversible but repeatable; the same time
is not shared in the one space and it is this emphasis that allows for such expressions as "A AND ~A"
to be 'true' (Charles Peirce's work touches on these areas where the realm of 'thirdness',
and in particular the concepts of thirdness-as-mediation and thirdness-as-representation, focuses upon dynamics
and feedback processes etc)
The only way that A and ~A can share the same space-time is in the form of POTENTIALS, as a pair of qualities applicable
at any moment where the CONTEXT will determine the A OR ~A expression (or their oscillation - paradox reflects
the encoding of a 'complex line pattern' that is focused-upon and oscillates between the perceived duel encoding
of two cubes - The Necker Cube paradox); and this seems to be the way in which our brain derives and uses qualities
in that the WHAT/WHERE recursion ensures the dual encoding (as in WHERE is also NOT-WHAT)
Note the subtle ordering here, you cannot have a relationship WITHOUT something to relate to something else.
As such, at the fundamental level, the realm of 'WHERE' is biased to being categorisable as NOT-WHAT but the realm
of 'WHAT' is NOT biased to being categorisable as NOT-WHERE. Also note the implication of FOCUS and the need to
differentiate the WHAT and so a close tie of WHAT to the PARTICULAR whereas WHERE remains more GENERAL when compared
to the WHAT and also more qualitatively 'negative'. (In the brain that part that is more 'what' oriented is also
more emotionally 'positive' in perspective, even in asserting negation, when compared to that part of the brain
that is more 'where' oriented - see above paper on Left Brain, Right Brain)
The possible oscillation of A/~A can reflect issues of logical levels, where oscillations at level X are reflections
of a static concept expressed at level X+1; e.g. the oscillations of the brain are expressed in the form of a seemingly
static concept - mind. Thus mind is only identifiable by implications stemming from the brain oscillations. As
such a WHAT is expressed as a sum of WHERES, as the intergration of various bits of data into a 'one' that once
labelled is interpreted as something 'static' whereas its foundations are more dynamic and as such a WHAT breaks
down into a sum of wheres and whats of a lower level.
Another reason for oscillations is mis-categorisations, where we have not made enough universal categories to ensure
complete categorisations, thus some categories end-up doing double duty and so 'oscillate'. Then of course there
are the oscillations occuring due to the sensing of something that, as a whole, is beyond the sensory abilities,
including our extentions of senses through our technology. In these cases, no matter how many categories we create
we still 'see' oscillations.
Based on the above identification of scalar and vector representations sharing the same neurocognitive space (where conversion of one into the other is based on the 'rotation' of the quality) we can derive a set of 'laws' applicable to the dialectical (vector bias) from the formal (scalar bias) by simply rotating the formal expressions and re-interpreting with a context of TIME in its thermodynamically dominated nature - i.e. a definite direction that is irreversible in that at a moment of expression you can share the same space but not the same time:
|
FORMAL (ANALYTICAL) LOGIC (logic of the mechanistic) (There is here an impoverished notion of Time, limiting it to a mechanistic concept and so something reversible/stoppable. Allows for the notion of the 'eternal'. This logic dominates 'idealist' thinking which is high precision focused on stability, on 'eternal' identification and the universal, a single context perspective that is deemed 'fundamental' even if possibly delusion/illusion. When generalised, the idealist realm is the source of parts-lists, ontologies, used to interpret reality. These can become 'sterile' and there is a drive to 'transcend', to 'go beyond' and so escape the ontologies, escape the context or assert one's own context) |
DIALECTICAL LOGIC (logic of the thermodynamic) (There is here a thermodynamic notion of Time, where time is NOT reversible but qualitative patterns formed from the process can be repeatable. Allows for the notion of 'cycles'. This logic dominates 'materialist' thinking which is more biased to integration of dynamic processes to imply an identification. There is thus more of a focus on probabilities, of approximations than the 'dot' precision of formal logic; this focus favours 'field' precision and also allows for RE-identifications; the intentional 'blurring' of boundaries to avoid identification. As such there is an aire of 'approximations' and so a lack of precision when idealistically compared to formal logic) |
|
A = A (there is a sense of continuity of A, the unchanging) |
A NOT= A (each moment ensures some change at some level) |
|
~(A = ~A) (A can never be equal to ~A) |
A = ~A (yin into yang into yin...; enantiodromia) |
|
~(A AND ~A) (You cannot have A and its contradiction existing in the same spacetime. The exception is in a superposition where both concepts exist as POTENTIALS and the influence of context forces a determination that forces EITHER/OR rather than BOTH/AND) |
A AND ~A (emphasis on oscillations; e.g. complex line drawings surrender to oscillations of two expressions of the one object - Necker Cube etc The complex line drawing is a 'whole' but our object sense, our sense of differentiation, forces us to see particulars see paper on Paradox processing) |
The oscillation is where (a) in the everyday that is materialist in form we identify a sensation, (b) the sensation is extracted from the everyday and analysed 'in detail'. This introduces an idealist interpretation. (c) the 'refined' sensation is returned to the everyday but is no longer 'pure' everyday in that it has been 'painted' by the species to elicit refined senses of meaning. This 'painted', this identified form, can then become the raw material to be again extracted from the everyday to go through more refinement.
The process of the formal, the analytical, is for establishing precise, clear, identification of a thing and/or process. The scale of that identification can be at the level of the local, as in identifying a chair, or at the level of the universal, of identifying the universe; the terms we use are in these identifications are always traceable, reducable, to what the brain deals with - objects and relationships, the WHAT and the WHERE. This means the seemingly irreducable (as in trying to locate a word in the brain) is reducable but to oscillations in the brain; as such changing levels of analysis can change something 'meaningful' into something paradoxical and visa versa.
The precision in the identification allows for what has been identified to serve as a model for further identifications and so the process of generalisation. This associates the concept of Archetypes, and so 'purity' with the more idealist perspective. It also associates the process of stereotyping as a method used for categorisations in the more idealist collectives.
The source of what is to be identified is the realm of the everyday, but the feedback, the re-intergration, of that identification into the everyday allows for that identification to be later RE-identified and so seen differently; in other words this process of everyday-exaggerate-everyday allows for the dressing-up, the facading, of the old in 'new' clothes but within this dressing-up is a core that is invarient to change.
This invarience of the core reflects the adaptation process of a lifeform to a context and as such the process of transformation. This is reflected in the push the context has on the habits/instincts encoded in the input areas of the neuron such that if the weather changes we start to grow winter coats or start to molt for summer BUT 'we' do not change as such; A = A.
The process of identification, the intense energy input as we analyse and label a sensation, allows for the sudden awareness of a different perspective that can aid in development - we can 'escape' the context, 'escape' the habit; we can transcend. The process of transcendence emphasises 'going beyond' the core self such that the whole self changes and there is no 'going back'. This process is reflected in the concept of 'loss of innocense' such that once the core self changes there is no path back; A NOT= A.
For us as a species, it is time for a 'loss of innocense' in the form of understanding the neurocognitive processes that make us the species that we are. We have access to data and to models as presented here that demonstrate a need to re-define our understandings and so intergrate the many different, and conflict-ridden, collectives under the one umbrella that is the species. The identification of scalar and vector aspects rooted in the use of recursion to create qualities reflects the hard-coding of such 'high level' concepts as 'idealism/materialism' etc where the delusions have been on these concepts being independent of, and in opposition to, each other. This is illusion/delusion and stems from our failure to understand our inner workings over tens of thousands of years; we are now at a level to 'deal' with these illusions/delusions.
For more material on the development of brain and mind from sensory processing see the other articles listed on the home page.
