(Copyright © 2007 C.J.Lofting)
A lot of water has passed under the bridge since Kelly's 1955 publication of "The Psychology of Personal Constructs". Working from a different perspective, namely how we as humans derive meaning from brain dynamics, we find correlation between neuroscience research and Kelly's focus on dichotomies as a fundamental methodology in constructing models of reality. This correlation stems from a more generic focus of order generation stemming from the containment of noise eliciting order through self-referencing (this known in the literature as the "Chaos Game"). Through consideration of research in neurosciences has come the model of meaning generation labelled "IDM" (integration, differentiation, and meaning) and the correlation of this material with Kelly's thoughts on personal constructs brings out the core essences that seed all formation and expression of meaning for neuron-dependent life forms, and in particular human beings.
George Kelly, the founder of PCP, makes the assertion that:
"Our psychological geometry is a geometry of dichotomies rather than the geometry of areas envisioned by the classical logic of concepts, or the geometry of lines envisioned by classical mathematical geometries. Each of our dichotomies has both a differentiating and an integrating function. That is to say it is the generalized form of the differentiating and integrating act by which man intervenes in his world. By such an act he interposes a difference between incidents -- incidents that would otherwise be imperceptible to him because they are infinitely homogeneous. But also, by such an intervening act, he ascribes integrity to incidents that are otherwise imperceptible because they are infinitesimally fragmented. In this kind of geometrically structured world there are no distances. Each axis of reference represents not a line or continuum, as in analytic geometry, but one, and only one, distinction. However, there are angles. These are represented by contingencies or overlapping frequencies of incidents. Moreover, these angles of relationship between personal constructs change with the context of incidents to which the constructs are applied. Thus our psychological space is a space without distance, and, as in the case of non-Euclidian geometries, the relationships between directions change with the context." (Kelly, 1969)
In his original text, The Psychology of Personal Constructs Vol 1, Kelly spells out the concept of Hierarchical scales (pp 99-100) where he writes:
"Just as it is possible to express an infinite number of gradations of value in terms of binary number systems, so it is possible to express an infinite number of gradations of value in terms of a dichotomous construct system. One may construct such a scale by assuming a hierarchy of construct.
Consider a hierarchy of four constructs in the order of A, B, C, and D, each of which has two possible values, 0 and 1. A hierarchical scale of values may be built up from these four constructs. It will have log2^-1 4 or sixteen steps. The values of the sixteen steps can be represented by the first sixteen numbers of the binary system as follows:
0000
0001
0010
0011
0100
0101
0110
0111
1000
1001
1010
1011
1100
1101
1110
1111
Suppose we build a hierarchical scale of integrity vs disintegrity out of four basic constructs of honesty vs dishonesty, candour vs deviousness, courage vs defeatism and objectivity vs subjectivity. Suppose also that these constructs are arranged in that hierarchical order. Let the binary digit 1 represent the first of each pair and the binary digit 0 the second of each pair. A dishonest, devious, defeatist, subjective person would be represented by the scale value 0000 and would be at the disintegral end of the scale. An honest but devious defeatist, subjective person would be represented by the number 1000. Because if the high relevance of honesty to integrity, he rates in the upper half of the scale. A person who was dishonest, devious, defeatist, and objective would be represented by the number 0001 and would still be near the bottom of the scale" pp99-100
Given these two quotes, lets move away from Kelly for a moment and into research on recent brain dynamics in the processing of information. From there we will find we return to issues covered in the above.
We can start with Sperry's work in the 60s covering dealing with epilepsy through the cutting of the connections between the left and right hemispheres of the brain. What this did was bring out the differences between the hemispheres of the brain where one side (the left in most) was biased to differentiating and 'parts' whereas the other side (the right in most) was biased to integrating and 'wholes'.
As more and more research went on it became evident that oscillations across the hemispheres of the brain contribute to the derivation of meaning or more so categories and so classes of meaning where a local instance of a class gets a special label to represent that link.
Further research showed that this oscillation was not just left/right but also front/back (associated with circadian rhythms) and also across lobes within either side (e.g. temporal/parietal) and within a lobe (front/back temporal) and on down to the humble neuron. (e.g. Buzsaki 2006)
The TIMING of oscillations brought out the price of mis-timing, of timing 'anomolies' where accumulated time 'over' one side led to the characteristics of that side influencing thinking in general (e.g. Pettigrew 2002 ) and so bringing out mania/depression dynamics.
Other work covering frontal lobes and left/right oscillations brought out the SHARP distinctions in most of a dichotomy of differentiating/integrating 'spanning' our brain and the dynamics of manic vs depressive behaviours associated with damages to different sides.
We then find that in the process of encountering new or complex information, oscillations span across both hemispheres as compared to when we deal with the known/simple where these dynamics are limited WITHIN hemispheres (Banich, M.T., "Hemispheric Interaction" IN p 270 Hugdahl,K., & Davidson, R.,(2004))
This moves us into hierarchy and top-down/bottom-up dynamics that allow for properties of one level not being manifest in lower levels and so bringing out issues of contextual robustness needed to enable more complex developments.
We also find a focus on differences to sameness where the known is processed differently from the unknown as is the known derived from the unknown through a 'journey' across hemispheres from right to left (in most, see Golberg, 2001) and so reflecting a shift from relational to object formation (negative feedback to positive feedback, 'getting closer to' to 'amplification' and discretisation to give us the assertion of 'thingness')
When we add the use of attention to this collective of research material (e.g. see Posner (2004)) we include the amplification and encapsulation of 'noise'. A natural property of the containment of noise is the generation of order through self-referencing (Google "the chaos game") and as such self-referencing covers the oscillations across the elements of a dichotomy where in our brains that top level dichotomy is that of differentiating(aka WHAT/object/noun)/integrating(aka WHERE/relationship/verb).
What is noteworthy here is that the dichotomy of differentiate/integrate is ASYMMETRIC within which is the SYMMETRIC. If we let differentiating take on the value of 1 and integrating the value of 0 then self-referencing the dichotomy will give us dimension of values where each iteration (Tn) moves us from the general to the particular and so brings out a hierarchic emphasis:
T1 - 0 / 1
T2 - 00, 01 / 10, 11
T3 - 000, 001, 010, 011 / 100, 101, 110, 111
T4 - 0000, 0001, 0010, 0011 .....
..
..
We can see that at T4 we are at Kelly's representation of 16 steps to build a hierarchic scale of some dichotomy through 'lesser' dichotomies. Kelly intuitively built-up his sequence whereas here we have built the sequence from self-referencing and qualities have emerged out of the middle of a dichotomy.
As such we derive representations of differentiating/integrating in a hierarchic scale left-to-right but also top-down (and so maintaining the general-to-particular bias).
Careful consideration of the properties of differentiating/integrating bring out a core set of categories and so classes of meaning covering:
Wholeness by differentiation (111)
Wholeness by integration (000)
Partness by differentiation (101)
Partness by integration (010)
Static relatedness (sharing of space) by differentiation (110) Static relatedness by integration (001) Dynamic relatedness (sharing of time) by differentiation (100) Dynamic relatedness by integration (011)
Since our brains use the same oscillation dynamics across the hemispheres regardless of general context, so the oscillations generate a set of constants that can be relabelled to represent some unique context. As such the elements of the differentiate/integrates dichotomy take on different forms and so bring out the metaphoric nature derived from self-referencing the dichotomy - thus dichotomies such as difference/sameness or asymmetric/symmetric or fight/flight share the same GENERIC form and so elicit properties that are isomorphic.
Consideration of the above four classes of meaning (wholeness, partness, static relatedness, dynamic relatedness) bring out a basic form of representation - numbers. The original, symmetric bias, to numbers covers:
Wholeness - whole numbers
Partness - rational numbers
Sharing of space - irrational numbers
Sharing of time - imaginary numbers
With these the symmetry of mathematics gives way to the ever increasing asymmetric where we move from scalars, cardinality, magnitudes, to increasing inclusion of vectors, ordinality, sequences as we try to map reality (or even the imagined). This movement correlates with the development of the amygdala emotions (emotions as magnitudes) well prior to the development of sequencing through hippocampus development (feelings as sequence - syntax bias)
As we break symmetry so the types of numbers become more sophisticated to give us:
Real,
Complex,
Quaternions,
Octonions.
Thus, from self-referencing a dichotomy we have derived the basic categories of numbers used in Mathematics.
The isomorphism introduced earlier brings out how Mathematics does what it does - it is a metaphor for differentiating/integrating and as such is exchangeable with any other metaphor covering differentiating/integrating and so can describe social dynamics or pure mathematics or quantum mechanics. ANY metaphor will do in that all are interchangeable since they all represent the ONE set of categories derived from self-referencing differentiate/integrate.
The success of PCP is due to it too being a metaphor but more so its precise use of hierarchies of dichotomies that are 'best fits' for the dynamics of our brains.
If we extend the self-referencing and maintain the use of binary representations, we move into meaning spaces 6 to 12 dichotomies deep - all mapped from general to particular - where going further than that brings out diminished returns in the use of the meanings derivable.
The essential feature here is that as long as the dichotomies are asymmetric and ordered from general to particular, it does not matter what they represent, their nature combined with their order will always elicit the ONE general meaning out of the set of POSSIBLE meanings derived from self-referencing the differentiate/integrate dichotomy.
Thus the ordering of 111111 will elicit a meaning focused on 'wholeness' as 'thingness', differentiated, and with it properties associated with positive feedback dynamics and an emphasis on mediation, competitiveness, in a LOCAL context. These are QUALITIES in that the fight/flight dichotomy is isomorphic to differentiating/integrating and so each quality derived from self-referencing also comes with emotional traits with context determining the degree of emotional expression.
If we apply the above self-referencing to only three loops we elicit eight categories that have qualities isomorphic to those we find in qualities of emotion from fight/flight, through qualities of personality derived from the dichotomies of the MBTI, to qualities of prediction derived from the dichotomy of yang/yin.
Kelly never got this far in considering the dynamics of dichotomisations in that the brain research at the time (50s-60s) was lacking in clear, precise, research data on how 'in here' operates, but his intuitions about difference/sameness and the ASYMMETRIC focus (one difference vs two same) and the seeming SYMMETRIC focus (compress the two same into one and so have one-one dichotomies) brought out the basics of brain dynamics in application to dealing with environment - be it 'in here' or 'out there'.
We now find that we can 'access' the unconscious utilising the layering of dichotomies combined with careful use of general questions and so mapping the vague in a general to particular order to bring out an emotional assessment of some situation where the assessment can at times be at odds with the assessment of consciousness (consciousness having repressed the expression due to the expression being considered 'inappropriate/taboo'.)
This layering of dichotomies and the use of such to elicit a representation of some current condition is done through the use of the Chinese equivalent of differentiate/integrate - yang/yin - and the self-referencing of such to give us 'hexagrams' - six-line symbols of ordering a dichotomy from general to particular six times to give us 64 classes of generic meaning where one is linkable to some situation, giving us an emotional assessment of what is going on. (see the Emotional I Ching experiment )
What we demonstrate here is not just personal constructs but collective constructs and species constructs where it the oscillations in our brains that allow for the creation of such constructs. As such we see the dynamics of difference/sameness, the conversion of the asymmetric to the symmetric, and the emergence from the symmetric of the asymmetric we call 'unique consciousness'.
This focus on consciousness takes us into our constructs of maps of reality, such as, for example, quantum mechanics where we find the mixing of dichotomies, self-referencing, and indeterminacy give us the basic qualities of 'wave/particle' duality noted at the microcosm but also operating at the level of the classical.
This mapping of wave interference etc at the classical level brings out the treatment of dichotomies as wave forms and allows for their addition to derive meanings. Furthermore we bring out a property of dichotomies, or more so their recursion, not formally considered within PCP or any other discipline for that matter where we map out the properties associated with collective purpose mixing with the random/mediation dynamics of consciousness as it oscillates to derive meaning.
-----------------------------------------------
Refs/further reading:
Buzsaki, G., (2006)"Rhythms of the Brain" OUP
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
Goldberg, E.(2001)"The Executive Brain : Frontal Lobes and the Civilised Mind" OUP
Hugdahl,K., & Davidson, R.,(eds)(2004)"The Asymmetrical Brain" MITP
Kelly G.A. (1955, 1991)"The Psychology of Personal Constructs Vol 1" Norton/Routledge
Posner, M.I., (Ed)(2004) "Cognitive neuroscience of attention" The Guilford Press