Copyright © 2008 C. J. Lofting
The natural fragementation of a whole into parts and on into paradox and POSSIBLE transcendence covers the fragmentation as being a property of distinction making and so mediation dynamics where the creation of borders lets loose what lives on borders - complexity/chaos dynamics and so the realm associated with emergence. There is self-referencing involved and as I have shown (.pdf file), if you do that enough times out pops a language
The mind/brain dichotomy is isomorphic to the dualism/physicalism dichotomy (aka idealism/materialism) where BOTH are categorisable as asymmetric dichotomies and so reflect mediation dynamics. Paradox emerges when one tries to make mind/dualism 'break free' of the other element in the dichotomy. The mediation we see in the brain dealing with simple sensory paradox is IDENTICAL with the mediation we use in dealing with what we can label as mental paradox - the oscillations across an asymetric dichotomy where the escape of one element from the other is not possible due to the physical tie present. Thus just as the necker cube cannot escape from the complex line drawing that is has emerged from, so the concept of mind cannot escape from the complexity of brain from which it has emerged.
The oscillations across an asymmetric dichotomy cover the oscillations across the asymmetric hemispheres of the brain, most often when we are dealingwith the new/complex in that oscillations intra-hemisphere are more common with the known/simple. See:
Banich, M.T., "Hemispheric Interaction" IN p 270 Hugdahl,K., & Davidson, R.,(eds)(2004)"The Asymmetrical Brain" MITP
Banich,M., & Karol (1992) "The sum of the parts does not equal the whole: Evidence from bihemispheric processing" Journal of Experimental Psychology :Human Perception and Performance 18, 763-784
Friedman,A & Polson,M.,(1981)"The hemispheres as independent resource systems: limited capacity processing and cerebral specialisation" Journal of Experimental Psychology : Human Perception and Performance 7, 1031-1058
As such, in the context of asymmetric dichotomies and one element 'breaking free' of the other, there is scope for transformation rather than transcendence and this covers the dynamics present where there is fragmentation that elicits re-configuration of a whole as it develops or maintains its position in a dynamic universe - as such we see a focus on a need to re-invent oneself to keep developing. This reinvention is through self-referencing where such elicits a language usable to describe oneself as if 'new' (shape shifting changes the exterior but keeps the core. Transcendence covers core change) in that the fragmentation of the whole covers the eliciting of mediation strategies in dealing with the whole and its interactions with the environment - either imagined or real or a confabulation. Given these dynamics, what can we dig up in regard to the mind/brain dichotomy given what we know of 'in here' to date?
We can identify two forms of hierarchy in the brain that come out in social dynamics – those hierarchies biased to CONTROL and those biased to FLUX. (the specialist dichotomy of control/flux was developed from the work of:
Bradley, R.T. (1987) "Charisma and Social Structure : A Study of Love and Power, Wholeness and Transformation" New York : Paragon House
Bradley, R.T., & Pribram, K.(1998) "Communication and Stability in Social Collectives" IN Journal of Social and Evolutionary Systems 21(1):29-81 )
Flux covers 'flat' hierarchies where the hierarchy is logical and covers the dynamic of refining the known. In these dynamics relationships are easily formed across a level in a hierarchy and even across levels or even bypassing levels. The main focus covers dependencies that leads to a 'web-like' appearance of a hierarchy – or a network we can call 'small world' as compared to the POTENTIAL form of 'flat' hierarchy where all is potentially connected. IOW local context aids in customising this 'flat' hierarchy turning potentials into actuals.
From a neurological perspective the dynamics here are unconscious and cover relational flows (and so the sense of flux, all is in movement and we cover patterns of movements as we make relationships, develop pathways etc. but all in little steps and so energy conserving. We can call this are the realm of BRAIN and the realm of “AS IS”.)
Control covers pyramid style hierarchies and covers the dynamics of interfacing with DIFFERENCE and the translation of such to SAMENESS. Control is dominated by a sense of meaning grounded in 'correct position' within the hierarchy – and so semantics is compressed into what we call syntax. This correct ordering of things covers the processing of symbols that serve to represent relationships and so make a tie to the realm of flux. We can order the SYMBOLS into hierarchy where probabilities sort the symbols into best-fit order with the context; this is very energy-conserving. The rigidity of sequencing reflects the lack of trust in dependencies across levels; any spanning is closely regulated since interaction with differences demand a lack of trust and so the avoidance of surprises (something NOT usual in flat hierarchies with their trusting allowance of dependences across levels since no surprises are anticipated (!) as they are in non-nested hierarchies)
Thus we can call the manipulation/maintenance of symbols and so of sequencing as the realm of MIND; as such there is no Mind WITHOUT sequencing. There is no necessity of a physical 'cut' here, the creation of labels is part of the neurology (as covered in, for example, the Executive Brain) and so covers linkage of relationships into a set that is the labelled and maintained by adding or refining or removing members of that set.
The creation of labels brings out the EXPERIENCE of the discrete and so 'numbers' or 'words' that are in fact representations of, labels for, ratios and cover rigid ordering of such to elicit language from categories. There are issues here in the form of levels of precision dependent on memory systems as in the amount of previous sequence available to support the present. We can in fact map these out where low level support that still ensures structural development is tied to the Fibonacci sequence (forms a circular spiral), and high level support that lives on the border of complexity/chaos tied to the Binary sequence (the square spiral that comes with XOR perspectives)
Given this model, the dichotomy of mind/brain is asymmetric and covers the dynamics of difference/sameness where from the discrete (difference) we can refine our memory as a continuum of links etc (aggregation of sameness).
The holographic link is the realisation that a label is like a reference beam in a holograph in that it works to elicit the original experience/state. It is this that give people the notion of a holographic brain but the best we can say is that there is an ease in making the ANALOGY and at the moment, no more than that.
When we consider certain types of memories, in particular state-specific, we enhance the holograph analogy in that, like holographs, we need the correct frequency or less to bring out an experience. This gets into issues of resolution power and the dynamics of FM (spatial frequency modulation) vs AM processing where the realm of differentiating is strongly associated with FM experiences of clear but LOCAL experiences. This gets into issues of sampling rates where high frequency is needed for high, clear, details – this is brought out in recent times with the invention of the blue light laser DVD players in that they have higher sample rates and so clarity in presentation.
What is implied here is that the more AM associated realm of flux is energy conserving and focused on essentials and so can miss details (or their storage) since the symmetry bias here covers ease in communication – we dumb things down and conserve essentials as instincts/habits to be used for processing 'like' experiences. This gets into the realm of determinism, instincts/habits/genetics etc all packed into a closed system (symmetry) as compared to an open system focused on dealing with differences and the local 'moment'. The high level distinctions required to deal with and so interpret what is going on 'moment by moment' brings out a dominating FM bias to MIND where we manipulate symbols but are still physically bound.
The path from pyramid to flat is a path of asymmetric dichotomies of mediation and allow for data compression (equivalence, EQV) and decompression (exclusive or, XOR) as it does the ordering of semantics into syntax – and so into a sequence of symbols to communicate.
The CLARITY of MIND covers the decompression process of CLEAR, excluded-middle, distinctions of A/NOT-A. On the other hand, The FUZZYNESS of BRAIN covers the compression process where, economically, we can pack A and NOT-A into the same space and so bring out their equivalence in that we can define something by what is is NOT and so map out equivalence of A and NOT-A
Thus mediation dynamics covers this translation of A/~A equivalence (flux hierarchy base – meaning is vague, semantics) into A/NOT-A exclusion (control hierarchy base – meaning is precise, concentrated, syntax) and reverse. Clarity of thought brings out this discrete aspect of our brains and the formation of labels as compared to our brain fuzzyness in thought where the focus is on minimising the distinction process (conservation of energy) through creation of general instincts/habits that allow context to push. Overall these dynamics cover the dynamics of positive (XOR) and negative (EQV, ‘getting closer to’) feedback operations.
Given the distinction of symbol manipulation rather than what they represent (and so an energy-conserving task) we have the ability to be 'creative' by adding, deleting, or refining elements within the set of relationships represented by the symbol. If we include mind in this as well then within the one brain we can establish mind-sets, to a degree where a set can become highly context sensitive and so be brought out as the dominating mental state in some unique context (and so allow for many minds in the one brain). Added to that is the ability to externalise these sets in the form of written down symbols that can be passed on to others and so avoid too many redundancies.
Given the categories of mediation, (.pdf file) each category represents a mediation strategy and as such a 'state of mind'. The validation for this is in the ability to correlate categories of persona types with the mediation categories and so specialist symbol manipulating and so mental states and so 'minds'. As shown in the mediation material, if you go through enough loops of category formation by self-referencing you will find the emergence of language in the form of making analogies where this is HARD CODED to start with and symbol manipulation can add-in novelties. (we include here the ability for symbols to join as well as bifurcate)
What these differences between pyramid and flat hierarchies do is bring out two different forms of information processing, one based on magnitudes (symmetric bias, cardinality, general semantics) and the other on sequences (asymmetric bias, ordinality, compressed semantics now labelled as syntax). The abstract nature of the sequencing dynamics brings out meaning through ordering of symbols representing sets of relationships. Play with symbols is shorthand for playing with relationships to elicit new perspectives where symbol manipulation is very energy conserving.
If we take the two DIFFERENT forms of information processing and form them into a dichotomy they form an asymmetric dichotomy and so a mediating dichotomy where self-referencing will bring out a language covering the description of the elements of the dichotomy and the mixing of those elements. The categories derived are those covered in my Categories of Mediation material where we customise such by applying new labels.
Note that in formal information theory the two forms of information processing are covered in the two dominating theories of information processing – the bit representations of Shannon and the holon representations of Gabor.
This is further brought out in the IDM showing of (a) treating self-referenced dichotomies as bit patterns and (b) treating self-referenced dichotomies as summations of frequencies. BOTH forms of interpretation/representation work, showing the overall dynamics in mediation as we oscillate across differentiating/integrating aka pulse/wave aka FM/AM aka difference/sameness etc etc etc – ISSUES come in the realm of precision where the differentiating nature is, from a focus on identification of 'thing-ness' more precise than the integrating side (differentiating has higher bandwidth, higher sampling rate (frequencies) etc) but less precise when we focus on relational dynamics (the space in-between ‘things’)
Mediating dichotomies are isomorphic in that the only differences are in the contexts we apply the mediation to, and so the labels we create to differentiating that context from all others. Thus the FM/AM dichotomy is isomorphic to the differentiating/integrating dichotomy and that to the difference/sameness dichotomy and that to the object/relationships dichotomy and that to the yang/yin dichotomy and that to the A/NOT-A dichotomy and that to the pyramid/nested dichotomy and that to the pulse/wave dichotomy and so the Shannon/Gabor dichotomy etc etc etc
Since mediation implies ‘issues’, these dichotomies reflect two DISTINCT perspectives of reality where the organic, holistic, parallel nature of our species is dominated by symmetry in communication and so the dynamics of emotion and metaphor. This focus on emotion etc brings out the use of cardinality (magnitudes) in generating value and so experiences are sorted by emotional highs and lows with the date/time of such being secondary at best and more so dismissed as contributing anything to meaning.
Thus the IMMEDIACY of instinctive behaviours covers the lack of unique context precision of those instincts – as such we can work in parallel, intuitively or even then ‘mindlessly’ and so react prior to thought even entering the moment.
The other form of perspective is serial (SEQUENCE) and so not immediate, it is delayed. The success of the delay is in the precision of communication through sequencing. This focus on sequencing comes out in high level differentiations and a focus on syntax and so high precision. Furthermore, the nature of syntax reflects the compression of semantics into only one meaning, ‘correct position’. With this compression focus comes the realisation of symbols being compressed metaphors and as such taking on a metonymic aspect (where a summing of symbols gives the metaphor but each symbol can serve, if amplified and exaggerated, to be AS IF the whole metaphor)
As such, sequencing lacks the subtleties of immediate emotional responses and is dominated more by secondary emotions derived from the developed sense of SELF. There is also the presence of the feeling of ‘correct’ or ‘incorrect’ that come with syntax, and so at times an almost ‘flat’ emotional form of expression – complementing the almost pyramidal form of emotional expression possible when expressing through cardinalities (magnitudes).
As such, a more ‘sequencing’ development can elicit flat emotions and/or limited to assertions of ‘right’ or ‘wrong’. On the other hand a more ‘magnitudes’ development can elicit a large range of emotional expression (even for one emotion) but can also lack ‘reason’ – that being more a property of sequencing.
Of course the sequence/magnitude dichotomy is a mediating dichotomy and when self-referenced presents its version of the categories of mediation. The isomorphism with mediating dichotomies that elicit persona types presents us with categories of personalities driven by emotional biases in expression. This covers personas dominated by ‘magnitudinal’ thinking ranging to personas dominated by ‘sequential’ thinking. Of note here, to complement the sorting of events by emotional highs/lows comes the precision of sorting events by date/time stamp.