"The *socialist revolution*, which brings about the transition from capitalism to socialism, is a fundamentally new type of revolution. Its aim is not to replace one form of exploitation by another, but to sweep away exploitation altogether and to put a class society on the road of transformation into a classless society" p446 Malinin, V.A. et al(1974)"The Fundamentals of Marxist-Leninist Philosophy (2nd Edition)" Progress Publishers Moscow [English Trans - Robert Daglish]
The emerging understanding of our species nature, due to the findings in the neurosciences, cognitive science,
and psychology, seems to suggest that exploitation is a fundamental property of our nature, rooted in our neurology,
and as such the above mentioned intent to 'sweep away exploitation altogether' suggests the intent to destroy the
species!
At the same time, the excessive exploitations we find in capitalism also reflect an unbalanced state that can also
destroy the species.
The 'battle' of idealism/materialism, of capitalism/socialism, reflects the general distinctions that operate in
our brain of differentiation and integration, where these activities are manifest not
just in the mindless processing of sensory data but in the mindful reflections on our species and the Universe
in general.
As such there is no way we can 'destroy' either of differentiation or integration without destroying ourselves.
Thus we need to focus on the relationships of differentiation/integration that we find 'in here' as well as 'out
there' and in doing so identify the 'perfect match' that will ensure species survival and yet still allow for personal
expression.
Our current focus as a species seems to be dominated by a differentiating and so more capitalist focus that favours
exploitation and transcendence - the recruitment and abstraction of the abilities of others to lift one 'above'
the current context and/or to assert one's own context over all others (gets into the globalisation issue)
This form of thinking reflects what we can call 'left brained' thinking which seems to come with the following
set of properties and methods:
HIGH energy focus (Expend).
Idealist.
Seeks precise identifications.
Single context thinking - prefers a context that is universal and that is used for all interpretations of reality.
Isolationist to those 'outside' of the collective.
Uses Archetypes/Stereotyping for communications.
Focus on transcendence, sudden change.
Focus on immortality; the 'eternal'.
Focus on 'youth'.
Focus on the 'new' and so a 'sudden change' but also the unchanging (and so 'eternal youth').
Focus on perfection.
Focus on (a) escaping the context (transcend) and/or (b) asserting own context over all others. As such, an overall
focus on REPLACEMENT of one context by another, 'better', context.
TO achieve the above will recruit others to achieve aims but not necessarily include these others once the aim
is achieved (hierarchic focus, 'need to know' functionality, exploitive).
Focus on the 'spiritual' and as such can be fundamentalist (single context influence).
Overall emphasis is to 'stick out', to be top of the hierarchy. EITHER/OR, BINARY perspective.
These attributes are not just to capitalism but also to ANY differentiating perspective and as such reflects both
secular (capitalism) as well as religious (monadic faiths) fundamentalism, and, as we shall see, idealist socialism.
The success of this 'left brained' perspective has been in the 'escape' ability and the 'dot' precision that comes
with the skills to re-configure 'habits' for the betterment of the individual/collective as well as the idealist
aire that favours a positive perspective that is more often reflective of the mind of a child.
The original 'intent' of this mindset seems to have been for the acquisition of details on a sensation, the gaining
of high details of 'something' that could benefit the individual/collective later. As such this mindset acted as
an aide to the 'everyday' but its success has led to the mindset becoming a 'way of life'.
The price of this mindset has been the extremes in exploitations we witness and that includes cheap labour (reflects
the recruitment of others) as well as over-use of the planet's resources to the extent that we are approaching
levels of waste production that are 'drowning' us as well as us being in need of alternative raw resources to replace
those we have 'mindlessly' used-up.
The isolationist, singleminded, spiritualist perspective comes with the child mind's behaviours of (a) no consideration
of consequences of one's actions, and/or (b) belief that 'god will find a way' iow reflecting the child's belief
in the magical. These concepts are all properties of 'left brained' thinking (but then with it also comes our sense
of wonder)
It is understandable that, given these properties of extreme differentiations, an attempt at balancing comes in
the form of an agent in the form of a PROTECTIONIST perspective that complements the EXPLOITIST perspective.
From the neurocognitive research this protectionist perspective seems to reflect the more 'right brained' where
apparently integration dominates (when compared to the left). The attributes of the more integrating perspective
are:
LOW energy focus (Conservationist).
Materialist.
Seeks approximate identifications (probabilities)
Multiple context thinking - prefers a context that is local.
Focus on transformations.
Focus on protection of mortality.
Focus on the 'begin-end'; the dynamics.
Focus on 'maturing'; the group.
Focus on dealing with the changing, establish algorithms/formulas to aid in surviving change.
Focus on perfection is more into the form of qualities and so implicit.
Focus on adapting to/integrating with the context; the establishment and maintaining of balance - homeostasis.
Overall emphasis is to 'blend in' but also recognises the ever-changing nature of reality and as such the need
for learning 'good' habits that allow for surviving within the ever-changing.
These attributes are more 'socialist' than 'capitalist' and more protective than exploitist but the protection
focus is from the developing/learning of 'good' habits rather than protection in the form of being 'top dog' (which
is always under attack) (Note the assertion of what is a 'good habit' comes from the State/Family and as such denies
personal freedoms of choice which can be detrimental to the collective as a whole in that the individual is more
prone to 'innovative' insights and so the source of new behaviours useful as habits)
The 'problem' with combating capitalism from the above perspective is that it is not possible in that the combat
requires high energy and that forces competition which the capitalist perspective will always win in the short
term since high energy focus is its forte.
What has 'killed' socialism, or more so those collectives that strongly expounded socialism has been the idealism
of those collectives; to be materialist means to focus on the balancing of differentiation/integration, exploitation/protection
NOT the eradication of one for the sake of the other, that just reflects the idealist mindset of replacement and
in that mindset the exploitive angle will always come out 'top' (on the internet hackers *still* rule!).
Note in the opening quote of this article, a quote taken from a supposedly socialist/communist perspective, that
there is a VERY strong BINARY perspective based in the total eradication of exploitation. In other words the issue
with socialism is in adverting it, asserting it, idealising it - that act is an act of exploitation and as such
reflects idealism but, due to the natural reluctance in materialism to pour in lots of energy, so overall there
is a lack in 'dot' precision, and as such any form of idealist socialism has to fail when up against the 'pure
dot' perspectives of capitalism (although "minimise costs - maximise profits" can lead to some of the
'perfection' collapsing at times -- see comments in the media re the quality of the concrete etc in the World Trade
Center towers.. but then also note the continuing 'lack' in precision of the old USSR is reflected in the shoddy
quality of their modules produced for the space stations etc)
WITHIN capitalism is the HIGH ENERGY focus on the same dichotomy of exploit/protect (the encapsulation process
of an idealist collective encapsulates all of the properties and methods of the everyday but also exaggerates them)
and out of this has emerged a mediation industry where the exploitation of A leads to the protection of A that
leads to the exploitation of that protection, and so on. As such a mediation industry emerges, be it lawyers, accountants,
or psychologists/councillors. This industry reflects the emergence of integration, the protection factor, WITHIN
the idealist realm, but we also see these mediation professions being exploited and/or exploiting the ideals of
law, confidentiality etc etc.
What then does 'nature' tell us about the 'perfect' fit of differentiation/integration? From the level of the microtubules
that dominate the structuring of the neuron, to the level of the structure of galaxies of the universe, there is
one pattern that reflects the 'perfect' balance of differentiation/integration and that is the fibonacci sequence
and the concept of the golden mean/ratio.
The dynamics we see in the political arena reflect the oscillations across the dimension that reflects low energy-high
energy, socialism/capitalism, protection/exploitation. Our species development REQUIRES high energy focus as we
derive details on 'reality' but it gets to a stage where either we are overloaded with details and/or we can no
longer afford to keep throwing energy at everything, and/or there is no further NEED to do so. Either way, the
patterns in the Universe suggest that as things 'stabilise' so out pops a pattern that 'best fits' the differentiation/integration
processes.
From a sociological perspective our 'path' is towards a fibonacci pattern - a pattern already identified at the
local levels in the 'battle' of profit and loss in the stock markets (see anything on the Elliot Wave etc etc).
What has not been covered is the full spectrum of these patterns, reflecting the dimension from 'pure' integration
(implicit UNARY focus) to 'pure' differentiation (explicit BINARY focus) where ultimately the extremes of the binary
are 'pulled back' towards the unary but never reach there, stopping at the position of the fibonacci that ensures
development within integration but also ensures conservation of energy and as such recognises the thermodynamics
of the Universe.
"if the 'Universe' is 'random' other than the moments of time (thermodynamics from high to low etc) it can
be represented as a string of 1s:
1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,..... [UNARY focus]
If I develop relying on feedback from the past then the following patterns emerge where I SUM the current and previous
to identify the next:
0,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1... (no summing)
0,1,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8... (sum last context frame)
0,1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21... (sum last two) this is a fibonacci sequence
0,1,1,2,4,7,13,24,.... (sum last three) this is called a tribonacci sequence
....
...
....
When we include summing ALL previous context frames out pops this sequence:
0,1,1,2,4,8,16,32,64... this is a BINARY sequence
The realm of 'dot' precision is EITHER/OR - in other words it is the realm of the BINARY.
It is common in the realm of the everyday to find the fibonacci sequence dominating in that this sequence reflects
the 'perfect' balance of differentiation and integration. This is a 'natural' sequence stemming from growth dynamics.
With this level of balance, development is slow but is not excessive to cause 'imbalance' (and so microtubules
reflect the same patterns as those of galaxies) Note that in the sequence involved, the unary, binary perspectives
and all in-between have value linked to the patterns elicited by the perspectives. As such the numbers in the sequences
reflect tighter integrations, tighter concentrations of the perspectives - the higher the sequence number in the
binary so the more 'dot' perspective WITHIN the general 'dot' perspective of binary (if you can make that distinction
in EITHER/OR!!!)
The extreme in energy, and a cause of imbalance, is the binary perspective. BUT it is also the border between the
stable and the unstable aka the realm of complexity/chaos and so the 'emergent'. In other words if you put in more
energy than is there in the first place, as in the use of past memories to influence perceptions, 'new' perspectives
can emerge - some are 'errors' but some are 'new insights' such that the realm of the binary is associated with
the realm of 'transcendence'.
Transcendence CAN occur at lower energy levels but it takes time and at really low levels it cannot happen, you
have to make a 'breakthrough' in something and that requires energy - not enough energy and the breakthrough will
not happen; it will be a vague sensation of a 'possible' but not clearly identifiable and not achievable (or so
we believe)
The advantage of the low energy levels, the fibonacci levels etc, is the protection in the form of the balanced
nature which ensures a tight relationship of differentiation (e.g. plant buds, individuals in the collective) and
integration (plant as a whole, the collective).
The high energy binary perspective is so focused on the 'dot' that it will not consider consequences of actions
since that requires understanding of dynamics BETWEEN boxes but the 'dot' focus is WITHIN a box.
Between these 'extremes' of fibonacci/binary are all of the other possible perspectives, all of which have different
degrees of precision but given time can be very precise - note that the process of tetration allows you to take
the 'meaningful' patterns of a perspective and by recursion derive more refined values and yet still stay in the
'box' - e.g. a fibonacci perspective means all 'value' will be seen in the form of fibonacci patterns - all other
patterns are 'extremes', they reflect, from the fibonacci perspective, imbalances. Thus all quality is that which
reflects fibonacci patterns.
Individuals, collectives, etc can develop WITHIN these perspectives such that idealist collectives develop from
a more binary perspective. This can be precise but also lacking in considerations of others outside the 'border'
formed due to the focus. The binary perspective is also very energy expending and on a planet with limited resources
these collectives can become 'problems' to other collectives within the species (and to the species as a whole).
Ideally (!) the formation of a hybrid reality, derived from interactions of species with environment, reflects
the entanglements of idealism/materialism, differentiating/integrating, and as such eventually leads to.... a fibonacci
sequence... the sequence 'closest to' the everyday and the sequence reflective of a proportionality that as a species
we find 'pleasing' - the golden ratio.
The PROBLEM with this, for us at the moment, is that the fib sequence is way too 'imprecise', way too 'lacking'
in personal identity where we have been living in this BINARY perspective and as such have become habituated to
it, addicted to it.
The issue therefore is, if the development path to a more 'fibonacci' perspective is inevitable, what patterns
will emerge as we develop towards 'balance'? what can we identify NOW and start to teach? What socio-economic structures
can we start to develop that can lead us there 'sooner'? or is that a too binary perspective? too 'high energy,
need it now' perspective?
The problems are that we are 'too fast' and as such not open to 'slow'/'approximate' developments as expressed
in the fibonacci sequence BUT we are instinctively susceptible to the QUALITIES of the fibonacci patterns - we
instinctively find them 'pleasing' such that a focus on QUALITY may in fact aid in our approaching 'balance' sooner
than if we just 'let it happen' in that that approach at the moment, our binary emphasis, comes with the possible
eradication of the species!
So, even though we will continue with the 'buzz' of the binary perspective, perhaps we should also be focusing
attention on the fibonacci patterns and so develop a more qualitative sense over the current quantitative sense;
Our oscillations of differentiate/integrate WILL eventually lead to a fibonacci sequence so why wait?...
I have studied Marx etc extensively as part of the ongoing work on derivation of meaning etc and find in such
texts as the Communist Manifesto a degree of rhetoric just as 'extreme' as the opening quote made from a 'standard
textbook' that was used in the past to promote Marxist-Leninist Theory.
The ERROR in Marx's thinking, and more so in that of USSR et al seems to have been in turning a focus on integration
to one of differentiating 'us' (socialism/communism) from 'them' (capitalism). This focus introduces 'idealist
socialism' and in the short term the marxist cannot compete since the capitalists are the gurus of differentation
(and so idealism) and being more precise in their idealism will keep throwing money into maintaining their 'edge'
for an eternity; unlike the more materialist perspective, there is no consideration of consequences of one's action
outside of the collective! Thus 'idealist' socialism has to fail since it contradicts the fundamental development
path of socialism which must focus on a local context - go universal and you enter the realm of the capitalists!
Idealist socialism also comes with phrases etc as quoted, phrases that are distinctly 'left brained' rather than
'right brained', distinctly just as 'exaggerated' as capitalist rhetoric. The NATURAL sociological focus, as reflected
in the neurology etc, is to BALANCE differentiate/integrate in that these processes are the fundamentals of our
being. Thus the overall dichotomy is exaggerate/balance and the differentiate/integrate dichotomy functions in
both elements of that dichotomy and in fact FORMS both elements. The more common WHAT/WHERE dichotomy reflects
the intense differentiation (and so dot focus - the 'what') and intense integration (and so a more 'field' focus
- the 'where') concepts.
It IS inevitable from the analysis of the products of integration/differentiation, with NO reference to anything
else other than the dynamics of integration/differentation, that the extremes of capitalism will be reduced out
of necessity to a level of balance of differentiation/integration and the patterns dominating that level of balance
are those derived from development along the lines of the fibonacci sequence. As such, since I map sociological
to 'balanced' expression so capitalism WILL 'turn into' socialism but a socialism unlike the ideals expressed by
Marx et al. but more so reflecting the balancing of differentiation/integration and as such the MAINTAINING OF
A DEGREE OF EXPLOITATION.
Marx and Engels emphasised the erradication of private property etc but that is an IDEAL, it reflects single context
thinking, and is not a property of the NATURAL perspective where a DEGREE of personal property is maintained ensuring
a DEGREE of differentiation of the individual/clan together with a DEGREE of integration of collective/species.
The 'need' for encapsulation is a NATURAL need and is a property of the differentiation process. The transcendence
function, as discussed elsewhere, is also a method of the differentiation process and
that comes with the 'need' to recruit and abstract, just as we find down at the neuron level, and this 'need' reflects
the exploitation aspect of transcendence, the recruitment of others to aid in achieving transcendence but in doing
so not necessarily passing the benefits of that transcendence on to those who you recruited (other than, say, in
the form of wages etc - gives surplus value a new 'perspective'!)
From the neurocognitive focus we are now more 'precise' than Marx et al could ever be and as such we can identify
the exaggerate/balance focus in our brains that gets recruited and abstracted to be reflected in social structure
and dynamics of the species. As such, patterns will emerge in the social realm that seem to be 'irreducable' to
the individual but these patterns are more so expressions of interactions of individuals and so still reflecting
the integrate/differentiate patterns in general.
Prior to writing "Capital", Karl Marx wrote "Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy" (COPE). In this text, considered a 'precursor' of Capital, Marx expounds on the properties and methods of 'use-value' and 'exchange-value'. For our purposes of demonstrating the 'hidden' influences of our neurocognitive processes on our descriptions of reality (and so self-referencing), what is noteworthy is that the use/exchange dichotomy reflects the differentiate/integrate properties where one form of value is context-sensitive (use value) and the other independent of context (or more so context universal) - (exchange value).
The focus on the use-value of, say, a hammer, is to focus on its qualitative elements that aid in specific context and as such aid in making the dynamics in that context 'efficient'. This qualitative focus reflects a more integrative perspective where the quality of the hammer allows for integration with the context.
The focus on exchange-value, on the other hand, has no interest in the quality of the hammer but more so what is its replacement value in the form of X hammers for Y chisels and the only shared element is the *UNIVERSAL* of the labour required to produce hammers and chisels.
The focus here reflects the differences in differentiation, where the emphasis is on A SINGLE, universal context, as compared to integration, where the emphasis is on a integrating locally. Once we have labelled an integration process, as done in the replacement of commodities to show the dependencies in 'exchange value' - Marx writes "[a commodity's] second form of existence, exchange-value, can only be represented by another commodity, for only commodities confront one another in the exchange process" p46. - we can shift perspective to seeing the exchange value concept as a differentiated form, a focus on REPLACEMENT. The consequence of which is to introduce a focus on a more universal emphasis where "Every commodity considered as exchange-value became a measure of the value of all other commodities" p 46.
The focus here is on the oscillations across terms dealing with differentiations/integrations and these patterns
are reflected in "Capital" where we can consider this seemingly 'casual' statement from Capital Vol 1,
Part 1, chapter 1, section 1:
"Every useful thing, as iron, paper, etc., may be looked at from the two points of view of quality and quantity".
Note that 'every useful thing' includes individuals, collectives, species where the term 'useful' implies something
that is recruitable, something exploitable.
Reflect on this, KNOWING the neurocognitive processes and their affect on our assertions as I have outlined before,
note that:
(1) the sense of the quantitative is directly linked to the concept of, the process of, differentiation. The 'dot'
focus is on distinguishing '1' from '2', on asserting precise values of '1.345' etc. This focus on differentiation
manifests a focus on identifying difference, on identifying uniqueness - the 'dot' and as such a focus on replacement.
(2) the sense of the qualitative is directly linked to the concept of, the process of, integration. To derive a
qualitative sense forces a comparision of at least TWO things where the quality is in the form of an assessment
of A to B as in 'heavier than' or 'prettier than' or 'more useful than' etc. The emphasis here is thus on distinguishing
'1' WITH '2' as compared to '1' FROM '2'. This focus on differentiation by integration manifests the same focus
on identifying difference as in (1) BUT forces identification through linkage, I have to 'see' the two, I cannot
focus on just one as I do in (1). There is here more of an emphasis on the 'field' than the 'dot', or more so a
'dot' that is corse when compared to the 'precise' value I get in (1).
Thus (1) reflects a focus upon objects (2) reflects a focus upon relationships. WITHIN these general focuses operate
the OTHER, thus within differentiation and so the quantitative we find expressions of integration; within integration
and so the qualitative we find expressions of differentiation.
In an earlier article on the Neurocognitive Roots of Prime Numbers we (a)
took the set of integers. (b) applied rules to identify 'pure' differences where all variations on a difference
were removed from the set. For example the rule "find first example of 1+1, and so an example of n+n where
n is any number, delete all variations retaining the original and so 'pure' difference" leaves us with 1 plus
all of the odd numbers and a single even number - 2.
When we keep applying the filter of 'find n+n+n' (gives us 3, removes all else) and 'find n+n+n+n+n' etc we eventually
end-up with a set whoes members are 1 and all of the prime numbers. BUT we have not finished in that since our
focus is on 'pure' differences so we apply the rule "find the original prime number and remove all repeatitions
of the concept" This leaves us with a set with two members, 1 and 2.
This resulting set reflects the distinctions of differentiation (1) and integration (2), of quantity and quality.
If we introduced the filter "Remove all distinctions of uniqueness other than the original distinction"
then we have a set with only one member - 1. As such this expresses explicitly the notion of differentiation but
also IMPLICITLY the notion of integration, of summing relationships to imply 'something', a '1'. The keeping
of the 'prime' number, 2, allows us to be more EXPLICIT with the notion of integration.
As such, Marx's Capital focuses on all of the variations of these basic concepts of quantity/quality in an attempt
to describe exactly these concepts. We find the same sort of work in the commentaries of the I Ching where one
commentary ONLY focuses on yang/yin (hexagrams 1 and 2) since ALL other hexagrams etc are recognised as variations
on these 'pure' themes.
The 'simple', almost 'casual' statement by Marx contains within it the seed, the realisation, of our total being
and as such all the rest of Capital is about quantity/quality; about exchange-value/use-value, universal-context/local-context
(universal = money, local = quality)
Lets move on to Capital Part II, chapter 4 - The General Formula of Capital.
Here Marx introduces two 'circuits' - C-M-C and M-C-M where C = commodities and M = Money.
C-M-C reflects selling in order to buy - I exchange the commodity for money and then exchange the money for a commodity.
M-C-M reflects buying in order to sell - I exchange the money for a commodity such that I can sell the commodity
for money.
Marx notes that "The character and tendency of the process M-C-M is... not due to any qualitative difference
between its extremes, both being money, but solely to their quantitative difference". With this he moves on
to realise that the 'true' form of M-C-M is more that of M-C-M' where M' [M-prime] reflects 'surplus value'.
Marx writes "the value originally advanced, therefore, not only remains intact while in circulation, but adds
to itself a surplus-value or expands itself. It is this movement that converts it into capital"
Reflect carefully here re the neurocognitive processes for what Marx is trying to describe is - the transcendence
function, the 'natural' function that is part of the neuron that focuses on synchronisations, on RECRUITMENT, to
'transcend', and with it the focus on replacement. In this M-C-M' exchange it is the commodity that has been recruited
to allow for a transcendence of VALUE, BOTH quantitative AND qualitative.
As such the 'formula' M-C-M' is the formula of capitalism, of idealism, whereas the formula of C-M-C is the formula
of materialism, of socialism where the exchange of commodity for commodity reflects the 'bubbling' realm of materialism
- small exchanges based more on utility that raise little energy and so energy overall is conserved and all is
kept in balance. In the realm of capitalism we are more into the extremes of highs and lows, the main focus is
not the second law of thermodynamics but the first law, the law that lacks reference to time as a vector, more
time as a scalar and so the notion of 'hey, it is all conserved so lets ROCK!! ;-))')
Marx comments on the formulas that "The simple circulation of commodities - selling in order to buy [C-M-C]
- is a means of carrying out a purpose unconnected with circulation, namely, the appropriation of use-values, the
satisfaction of wants. The circulation of money as capital is, on the contrary, an end in itself, for the expansion
of value takes place only within this constantly renewed movement. The circulation of capital has therefore no
limits"
What Marx is getting into here is complexity/chaos areas (as the transcendence function allows) and intuitively
recognises the differences in expression of neurological processes where the transformation bias, the integrating
with the context to 'blend in' and so satisfy all needs is in the 'appropriation of use-values'. This reflects
the learning of 'good habits' to integrate with the local context. The transcending bias focuses on recruitment
to escape a context/assert one's own context and as such 'go beyond'. Note that the more 'idealist' perspectives
focuses on the notion of the 'eternal' and as such a sense of 'no limits'. Also note the emphasis on self-referencing
and as such the recursion focus - all elements of 'left brained' thinking.
The M-C-M' formula seems to attract Marx's attention and as such the C-M-C is more or less dismissed but it is
within this realm of commodities circulation that balance is maintained between the integration/differentiation
processes; the attraction of M-C-M' is its extreme, the high energy focus of the transcendence function; the 'dazzle'
;-)
The point made in all of this is that Marx identified the expressions of the underlying neurocognitive processes
but could not go 'deeper' into identifying them as NATURAL consequences of species dynamics sourced WITHIN the
brain.
My template work identifies the qualities derivable from the integration(where)/differentiation(what) processes
and in doing so shows how Marx, Plato, Aristotle, etc etc came up with the concepts they did, as well as show how
the distortions in those concepts arose.
I have not seen Marx mention capitalism as an exaggeration of socialism, more so he emphasises a historic development
of one perspective replacing the other through revolution. My point is that this reflects 'idealist socialism'
rather than 'natural socialism' where the latter has capitalism as an exaggeration of socialism and as such capitalism
will 'cool down' (or needs to be but WITHOUT erradication - capitalism is like a child and as such needs some 'discipline'
in the form of guidance/direction rather than containment/control; or have an 'accident' that makes it fall over
and still get up but a bit more wary of things!)
The intense focus on details by Marx reflects an idealist mindset and as such thoughts will be influenced by properties
of the method of analysis - notions of recruitments, erradications, and overall transcendence etc etc. 'Natural'
socialism focuses more on balance, on integration with the local context rather than trying to replace it and as
such a more energy conserving, slower development focus - more qualitative than quantitative.
A 'new' paradigm is emerging that replaces all past philosophy etc that was NOT rooted in detailed analysis
of the neurocognitive processes of the species. Capitalism REFLECTS differentiations bias. Socialism REFLECTS integration
bias. These are NOT opposites nor is socialism a 'product' of capitalism etc these are all reflections of patterns
in differentiation/integration that dominate the structure and dynamics of all lifeforms. As such we need a course
in 'Species 101' PRIOR to reading Marx, Plato, Peirce, et al where that course can identify the patterns in the
mindset of the species that these philosophers TRIED to describe.
It is only in recent times that we can identify these patterns and as such a 'difficulty' can emerge in 'forgetting'
the works of the past. That is something we will have to work upon.
Of special notice re capitalism is the relationship to the more 'left brained' perspective and in particular the
concentrated 'transcendence' function where habitual responses can be 'sliced n diced' and so allowing one to ESCAPE
the habit/context. This emphasis on escape, when recruited and abstracted to the level of the universal, reflects
the strong emphasis in capitalism of FREEDOM (as long as you can pay - exploit everything seems to be the rule!)
The seeking of escape is embedded in the strong focus in capitalist collectives to 'immortality' and the sense
of the 'eternal', the perpetuation of 'youth' and as such the ultimate escape - from death.
The more 'natural' socialist perspective is on balancing life/death with an 'edge' to life (the differentiating)
such that we learn good habits that ensure a lengthy survival in the current context - optimisation through habituations.
From an internet perspective, the .org focus is on developing new drugs, gene therapy etc to aid in PROTECTING
the species. The .com focus is to EXPLOIT this protection through building expensive labs and selling the products
at 'exaggerated' prices!
Recall that we can identify the transcendence function as a property of synchronisation processes at the neuron
level where to synchronise requires cooperation, requires recruitment and abstraction, all at local levels to enable
'replacement' of something with something deemed 'better'. The 'slice n dice' property of the transcendence function,
where the timing processes can 're-sequence' a habitual response and so introduce a 'new', a transcending, perspective
(or just an error!), reflects a fundamental property of neurocognitive processes.
Lets look at this from a social perspective, a SPECIES perspective where the differentiations/integrations of the
single brain are amplified in a group context : Members of a fundamentalist group (reflecting a tight encapsulation
of a belief etc and so a 'dot' perspective - single context, literal interpretations, high focus etc) will be more
than gregarious to each other in that they are all part of the recruitment program to achieve the transcendence;
they all 'Believe' and it is that sense of shared belief that aids in dropping personal boundaries BUT the intense
experience of a 'eureka' is more than often PERSONAL. An individual introducing an ontology will go through belief
phases (why am i doing this? etc etc etc) but the passion, the belief, in what is being worked upon means the only
member of the group is the individual and as such the individual is the 'dot'.
What is of interest here is that the 'dot' perspective, in seeking pure expression will enclose itself, ignoring
all external context. Since high precision recruits constants in the context to support the precision, the only
context left once we ignore 'out there' is 'in here' - in other words we use self-referencing as our aid in precision.
Disciples/Advocates and so the 'likeminded' etc are recruited to aide in develop things to achieve/continue-to-achieve
'transcendence' moments [and that includes a sense of 'profit'] (recruitment is active or passive, the latter through
creating a sense of resonance such that the disciple/advocate sense that THEY could achieve 'transcendence' if
they followed whomever/whatever) but once a transcendence is achieved, these disciples/advocates do not necessarily
get some of the direct benefits of the transcendence, just as recruitment by the King to build a castle does not
mean those recruited get to live in it - they can admire it from afar, be 'proud' of their contribution but that's
it, you have to be in the 'inner circle' to reap the benefits - to get the key to the executive washroom.
In capitalism the 'dot' is in the form of the organisation, be it IBM, GE, GM, or even the Government etc. WITHIN
that 'dot' there is a tight social structure based on hierarchy, the 'top' positions are occupied by charismatic
leaders and all 'strangers' are kept out or watched very carefully if they visit (this reflects another property
of left-brained thinking; the tight integration WITHIN the dot means a sense of 'sameness' applies to the context,
it is all full of the likeminded and that means one associates AS A WHOLE with the WHOLE of the context - An "IBM
Man" etc where there is no distinction between the individual's boundary and that of the corporation; conversation
contains lots of "WE at IBM think...." and that is from mail room to CEO. When we introduce DIFFERENCE
into the context paranoia immediately 'pops out'. This behaviour is a property of 'left brained' thinking at the
individual level and as such reflects the overall differentiate/integrate patterns that function in the species,
be it in collectives or individuals)
The transcendence function applied ACROSS the dimension of precision, from field to dot, will be expressed in different
degrees of energy. At the dot level it is extremely intense, personal, textually local, BUT the more precision,
the more EXPRESSION required so the more universal must be the context and as such the more noticed the experience
and more dominant the association of transcendence to 'dot' perspectives (note the focus on globalisation, a need
for a universal context to express 'clearly' the value of the transcendence - e.g. 'Capitalism' or the 'Messiah'
etc. The context REPLACEMENT process dominates and the intense focus WITHIN the 'dot' - be it individual or collective,
means the 'best' context is that derived from self-referencing.)
At the field level the energy is more diffuse. In fact the field level would be in the form of an intuition rather
than a 'eureka!'; an intuition here being a sense of 'something' that takes you off into new areas. At too weak
a level there is not enough energy to go beyond 'self-preservation' housekeeping. Of note here is the subtle qualitative
nature of intuitions rather than the 'blinding light' of dot level 'enlightenment'.
The field-level intuition reflects a diffuse 'dot', big enough to encompass the local context! This 'corse' granularity
means the 'refined' focus of energy is not present - patterns are linked in an unconscious manner, we have entered
the realm of habits/instincts out of which an intuition can emerge(and as such a focus more on integrating many
'dots' into a more IMPLIED expression) This reflects experience where the 'old' professor, and so rich in experience,
comes up with an intuition that can utterly 'floor' the young interns. As such this intuition has a context, there
is a sense of creativity that is more adaptive.
The 'transcendence' function at the level of the dot, on the other hand, is extremely intense, and very innovative
if accepted, otherwise the individual concerned is considered a 'crank' etc. (Note that this more 'left brained'
perspective is also the realm of the psychotic as well as the child and so the acceptance of the 'magical' can
be an issue)
In the context of a social interaction other than one starting with a shared belief, communications can break the
ice and introduce a sense of 'sameness' ( we establish rapport - listen/follow, pace, lead) such that a boundary
forms and you have a 'dot', a point of focus. Once the boundary forms so out pops the 'charismatic' leaders etc
(and they can be 'passive' as in elected rather than asserting themselves to lead...) The capitalist, the idealist,
'drive' will instinctively force hierarchy, with leaders and their 'helpers';IOW the recruitment and abstraction
process of the neuron filters up to lobes recruiting lobes, hemispheres recruiting hemispheres, individuals recruiting
individuals, collectives recruiting collectives, species recruiting species (we recruit horses etc etc) - all happily
problem-solving all of the way ;-)
In extremely high 'dot' focus, and also extremely individual, one can introduce an ontology, a parts list of 'something'
that is VERY detailed, VERY refined and, what is noticeable, is that all parts are clearly linked to all others
to form the WHOLE that is the ontology. The problem is that once created the ontology is sterile; pure but sterile.
It has to be integrated with all of the other 'boxes' that make-up individual/collective/species/universe. This
often an issue since the claim is often that the box is THE box and as such needs no 'integration'! This issue
reflects the PURITY focus of the 'dot' perspective - all is archetypal, communication is at a level of stereotyping
and there is the avoidance of 'mixing' - but it is the mixing that is needed to develop! (allows for genetic diversity
at the cost of the 'immortality' of the original work - sterility is avoided by adding 'fresh blood')
The main point of focus here is in fact the linkage WITHIN the ontology in that attempts to be highly precise in
a universe that is highly dynamic forces the recruitment of universal constants to ensure the stability
of the precision. Thus as you focus more and more on a particular, trying to 'pin it down' so you have to make
links to universals, those universals that will live 'as long as' the universe of discourse under consideration.
If the level of precision is extremely high then self-referencing will dominate and be the 'universal' context
from which we recruit universal constants.
An aid to this is in the reciprocal relationship of high energy focus with subjective time experience - the focus
of energy forces the emergence of concepts tied to 'stability' - i.e. the sense of the 'eternal' and so the stopping
of time or its mechanisation, allowing it to be measured in scalar form rather than vector form (and so idealist
theories of reality abound with notions of time reversal etc)
As the dot gets finer and finer until it is a 'true' dimensionless form (!) all that it represents is a node through
which pass relational links to every other 'dot' in the universe of discourse. This reflects the absolute clarity
possible in 'left brained' thinking and as such reflects the TOTAL moment of CLEAR, EXPLICIT 'enlightenment' that
comes with the function, especially at the 'dot' level - BUT what is made 'clear' is only all that which is WITHIN
the bounds set when we originally focused attention and as such the clarity can be pure delusion. (the other issue
is that to get a clear picture of the macro level, and micro for that matter, means inputting huge amounts
of energy that may be a waste - may be better to allow some less intense perspectives to develop that could give
'good' pictures as well)
Overall this energy 'buzz' is addictive. The sensation seeking and problem solving properties of the more 'left
brained' approach reflect (a) the creation of 'new' sensations if you run out of sensations and (b) the creation
of 'new' problems if you run out of problems to solve.
The dot/field dichotomy, and the associated dimension of precision, is not restricted to the individual, it is
a property of the SPECIES and as such is also reflected in social, spiritual, political, economic, and ideological
frames of reference.
In capitalism the strong 'dot' focus, the huge expending of energy to create 'new' things/ideas etc reflects the
transcendence function at work, and I don't mean from a more 'intuitive' perspective; the focus is in intense,
'hard core', focus and the seeking of IMMEDIATE results (another property of left-brained thinking - instant gratification).
The issue re socialism is that the underlying focus of 'natural' socialism, the concepts reflected in the balancing
of differentiation/integration that we seem to see in the expressions of the brain, is primarily more 'protective'
than 'exploitive' such that global promotion of the seemingly socialist perspective as presented by Marx et al
('idealist' socialism) reflects a shift in focus to a more idealist, a more exploitist, perspective and as such
is sure of being defeated in that it is 'out of its context' - it is NOT a REPLACEMENT for capitalism, capitalism
is an EXAGGERATION of socialism and, given time, will have to 'calm down' and in doing so return to a more balanced
state - reflected in the patterns of the fibonacci sequence.
Marx recognised the 'socialist' element that is natural to us but also worked from a high focus, high detail perspective
that wanted the 'change' NOW (or more so towards the end of his life). The point is that changes in the integration
realm are slower than the 'sudden change' of the more differentiating realm (a la a 'mutation' occurs - the underlying
bias is to differentiation and so 'clear' and 'eternal' identification.) This can be frustrating to a mind that
is quicker than the everyday!
Our need for a capitalist phase, a differentiations phase, has been to AID the species in development but that
aiding seems to have 'taken off' - the encapsulation process in exaggerations elicits a sense of autonomy, of emergence
etc. The benefits have been in the fine details we have re ourselves and the Universe but we cannot sustain the
energy requirements much longer - unless we get off the planet and/or find alternative energy resources (and then
there is the issue of not all of our species enjoying the 'lights' of capitalism - more than 50% of the planet?
they are not even exploited - just ignored other than aid from the more materialist thinkers - the protectors...
so does the aid help them? or is the aid used as a way to exploit the 'protective' nature of the species by drawing
in funds willingly surrendered of which less than 30% actually get to the 'needy'... in other words there is a
distinct lack of SPECIES awareness, due to our development lacking knowledge of the 'likemindedness' nature that
is required to establish 'rapport')
In our processing of information, the focus of attention leads to isolation and self-referencing being used as
a method to gain high details as expressed in the use of recursion in differentiations. The prime dichotomy is
STILL exploit/protect such that capitalists will invest money in such areas as biotechnology that protect the species
with the goal to make profits from it - in other words to profit from the exploitation of the protection of 'whatever';
there are more .coms than .orgs !
The presence of what I have identified as the 'transcendence' function is the difference that makes a difference
in the 'battle' of exploit/protect where the high energy input into a 'problem' allows for going beyond the problem,
into a new realm, BUT the STRUCTURE of this realm is in fact generally isomorphic to the realm from which it came.
(and so no matter what new firewall method is introduced in the internet [and so a protection bias], some hacker
'cracks' it at some time ['goes beyond', exploits properties of the protection to break-in])
Thus we find that patterns operating at the brain level in processing local events get recruited and abstracted
to be used at the 'higher' realms in the describing of universal events; e.g. the concrete processes of focusing
energy and thus as a consequence causing a distortion in subjective time experience, where the energy/time relationship
is reciprocal, gets recruited and abstracted to emerge as a property of our theories of the Universe - in particular
in Relativity theory, where the distortions in energy/time relationships are supposidly limited to 'high energy'
realms - not so.
The method of high energy focus acts to impoverish the thermodynamic nature of time such that time as something
reversible, something mechanical and so even 'stoppable' is an acceptable notion in idealist models of the universe.
These notions reflect the consequences of the METHOD of analysis where properties of the method get interpreted
as 'facts' rather than as artefacts of the method and so are treated as such. (this reflects the LACK of knowledge
of our neurocognitive processes and how that lack has 'infected' our interpretations of reality)
The everyday processes of recursion of a dichotomy in the form of combining choice A with choice B plus indeterminacy
and storing the result on film leads to patterns emerging on the film that have a frequency distribution that IMPLIES
wave interference. The METHOD creates this pattern. The recruitment and abstration of the METHOD to the level of
reflections on the Universe has led to our sudden 'recognition' of the literal nature of wave/particle duality
at the microlevel - not so. (and the armchair physicists still dont understand this...)
The fact that the combination of (a) oscillation across the hemispheres of the brain + (b) focusing of attention
on a particular + (c) the simple passage of thermodynamic time (and so the irreversible) will FORCE passive recursion
to dominate our thinking and as such all qualities derived from passive recursion become the source of all meaning
regardless of scale such that we instinctively create experiments reflecting this structure (as in double slit
experiments in QM).
The resulting hierarchy that comes for recursion etc introduces stratification such that each level seems 'autonomous'
and as such can develop laterally to the 'upward' development of the hierarchy. As such Mind perspectives use different
terms to communicate the SAME patterns we find at the brain level.
The transcendence function allows for 'new' perspectives to emerge but these are not 'independent' from the underlying
levels but they can be irreducable. What seems to happen is that when you zoom-in to the 'support levels' you discover
that which is irreducable IS expressed (and so is irreducable) but in the form of dynamics, oscillations, across
the support levels and as such an IMPLICITATION of what the irreducable is, an implication that can appear as a
PARADOX at the support levels. (for more on this see http://pages.prodigy.net/lofting/paradox.html
). As such this stratification reflects the differences we see in Brain vs Mind concepts etc.
The transcendence function is what gives capitalism, and other expressions of high level differentations/integrations
and as such a dot level focus, an edge over the protection biases of socialism where any 'transcendence' function
at the more socialist/materialist perspectives either functions extremely slowly (generations etc) or else not
at all other than as a 'potential' rather than 'actual' due to the lack of the energy required to make the 'leap'....
...BUT there is a form of 'transcendence' function in the form of 'wholistic' responses where the development of
habits, the purpose of the more integration focus, allow for the development of intuitions that can serve as aids
to 'transcendence'. As such this reflects 'instant' transcendence vs 'delayed' transcendence where in the latter
the build-up of experience allows for 'insights' but more so as part of the integration process and so more ADAPTIVE
transcendence rather than the 'instant' transcendence that is more INNOVATIVE (novel associations of text with
a context)
The structure of the ecology WITHIN capitalism or any other encapsulated, high energy focus, will reflect a distortion
when viewed from without but when observed from within will appear as a dynamic system based on oscillations and
emergences from the exploit/protect dichotomy with high detail, high precision - all as 'balanced' as possible
or so it will seem.
It is this potential for delusion WITHIN the box that can cause problems in that the transcendence function, so
mindlessly operating in dealing with 'differences' in local habit-context relationships has been recruited and
abstracted at the univeral level with a focus on MUTATION, where the term 'mutation' reflects a preference for
the 'eternal' and so core change is 'rare' and even considered 'distasteful'.
In fact the Darwin/Lamarck differences in perspective of evolution reflect the differences in left/right thinking
where Darwin is 'dot' precise and so particular, focuses on WITHIN a species (differentiations of finches etc),
as compared to Lamarck who was more into sameness BETWEEN species (as in giraffe kneck and tree branch height etc);
Darwin focused more on differentiation and the slow('an eternity')/sudden change, Lamarck more on integrations,
more on dynamics within the integrations that allows for continuous change; within these general contexts all else
developed. These patterns are rooted in our neurocognitive processes and as such dominate our models of reality
and that includes our wondering of 'what could be' etc.
As a species all we can ever know we already know in the form of the infinite (?) number of patterns of qualities
derivable from recursions of the differentiate/integrate dichotomy where differentiate is reflected in the notion
of WHAT and integration is reflected in the notion of WHERE. (the (?) reflects the emergence of a continuum due
to the recursion and the lack of resolution power of our senses - we stop differentiating since we can no longer
see differences)
The differentiation process will NATURALLY favour high 'dot' precision and comes with the transcendence function,
aka mutation ability. The integration process will NATURALLY favour a high 'field' precision (linking the dots
into a pattern, a law, an implication).
As such ALL disciplines will reflect our neurocognitive processes since these disciplines have developed from our
species adaptations to 'out there' where the 'rule' is differentiate/integrate and the meanings that form the lexicon
of a discipline are derived from the method used to create the discipline - i.e. our brains categorising using
recursion of differentiate/integrate and our instruments are extentions of our differentate/integrate biased senses.
The transcendence function allows for autonomy to emerge from recursion of high focus differentiate/integrate that,
when compared to low focus will reflect a more 'differentiating' perspective - high energy, hierarchic structures,
where, for example, the collectives expend huge amounts of energy and feed off charismatic leaders etc. (See:
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
)
The development of 'autonomy' is a 'classic' drive in idealist perspectives reflecting the influence of the transcendence
function where the 'mindless' intent was the ability to 'slice and dice' habits and so ESCAPE - to BE FREE of the
constraints of habit/context. The notion of 'freedom' is primary in idealist collectives and is a notion EXPLOITED
in capitalism where the reactive element of 'escape' become proactive in the form of taking over - asserting one's
own context to replace the 'old'.
As such the transcendence function reflects PROBLEM SOLVING that initially had its roots in AIDING the protection
bias, the reactive nature of lifeforms to try and 'fit in', but once the problem solving leads to an internalisation
of a MAP of the context, a mapping of the dynamics of the context, so the reactive nature becomes proactive WITHIN
THE SCOPE OF THE MAP in that we can now PLAN and so pre-empt context changes to our benefit - we exploit.
Once the map is proved to be 'successful' so IT is recruited and abstracted and applied at the level of the UNIVERSAL
rather than staying at the local (and so what was once Quantum Mechanics -a sub-discipline of Physics - has been
recruited and abstracted to 'Quantum Psychology' etc etc etc)
This map-making process is reflected in the more 'left brained' bias to creating INTERPRETATIONS - ONTOLOGIES -
which we use as the basis for dealing with reality. These ontologies are very precise, very clear, but can also
be total and utter delusions (every book of fiction reflects this 'push' to interpret not only 'what is' but also
'what could be' but the latter in the form of 'what WILL be' - thus even books of 'non-fiction' can be delusions
;-) ALL of this drive to interpret reflects the underlying drive to differentiate as primary within which we can
further differentiate and/or integrate)
As such the reflection of neurocognitive processes will include reflection of its refined dynamics, all of which
are re-labelled in the 'new' context but at the general level remain isomorphic to the 'original' patterns of differentiation/integration.
Thus the macro-economy reflects the same patterns in its processing of differentate/integrate since the economy
is rooted in the activity of the species and that activity is all differentiate/integrate.
What can happen is that due to the group behaviours within the economy so patterns can emerge that are RARE or
not clearly differentiated in the realm of the individual. These patterns I think will reflect the irreducibles
mentioned earlier where we NAME and so OBJECTIFY a dynamic pattern occuring at lower levels (amongst individuals/clans/families
etc) - this reflects integration of patterns to IMPLY a meaning, a 'something'.
In the analysis of the patterns of integration/differentiation we can identify patterns that are free of ties to
objects, they reflect 'pure' relationships and 'live' in the space inbetween 'objects'. Analysis of the possible
patterns of integrate/differentiate allow us to identify generic patterns, universal categories, that reflect both
'object' as well as 'relationship' expressions.
The transcendence function reflects the consequences of high energy focus taken beyond the level of the binary
- complexity/chaos rules. Verhust demonstrated what happens when you go beyond this level, as did Mandelbrot.
Our current development of capitalism is extreme and rightly so, we need the precision to develop BUT over the
LONG term it is too extreme in that it lacks the constraints that emerge 'naturally' a la consideration of consequences
of one's actions and in particular for us, the increasing strain on natural resources - we will need to get off
the planet to survive and to continue our excessive use of energy.
As such the capitalist perspective is 'childlike' - and as a species we need to grow up. THAT act of growing up
has a direction - the path to the fibonacci patterns. We may not need to go there for a while, we may succeed in
our 'escape' attempts as we seek 'eternal youth' etc or even discover 'new' energy sources or mine other planets
in our solar system BUT the inevitable 'path' takes us to the 'perfect' balance of integration/differentiation
and that is in those fibonacci patterns where the overall STRUCTURE is in the patterns as UNIVERSAL patterns that
allow at LOCAL levels expressions of the 'extreme' - be it new star formations in galaxies or new ideas for our
species.
In this article I am focusing on the unconscious activities of the neurocognitive processes that FORCE the making
of the distinctions unconsciously. The use of A/NOT-A is a built-in methodology that elicits the values we use
to describe reality.
Marx had no idea about these processes such that he comes up with an idealist perspective of abolition of class
- this is IMPOSSIBLE other than as an ideal and so as an extreme at odds with our NATURAL structuring processes;
to abolish class requires the abolishing of the transcendence function and so the neuron itself! What can be done
is the 'down grading' of the distinctions, the lessening of the energy put in to making the distinctions. (ever
investigate breeding? we do it with animals but try to avoid doing it our selves - although like usually ends up
with like - IOW our unconscious selection processes maintain stratifications within collectives. Even a collective
of 'likeminded' individuals will develop a hierarchy in a time of strong binary perspectives. To 'lessen' the energy
you need to lessen the intensity of the focus a la such patterns as the fibonacci etc)
In the USA in particular, the current 'idealist' collective, the attempts to remove class just shifted the value
to money and as such developed a whole new class based on wealth; the transcendence function comes with such properties
as recruiting of others to help YOU transcend but not those recruited - other than paying them for their time!
YOU CANNOT ESCAPE ;-)
Thus you cannot abolish class, but you can integrate classes into a balanced system where the levels reflect the
class structures of ants nests etc etc There is nothing stopping specific 'transcendences' across classes, genetic
diversity alone ensure that, but the OVERALL nature forces class distinctions due to the transcendence function.
The rigid stratification of the classes, the IDEALIST focus exaggerates the differences and so hides the samenesses.
This 'abolish' perspective reflects the 'erradication' element within idealist thinking. I recall a monk once commenting
on how he had 'erradicated' desire (he was buddhist). He hadnt - you cant. What you can do is reduce the energy
of desire such that just waking up in the morning leads to satisfaction and as such your desires are always satisfied,
never erradicated. This level of satisfaction reflects 'fibonacci' perspectives where the CONTEXT is balanced and
that pushes you to be balanced.
Overall, my focus is more on what is BEHIND the expressions, processes that are UNCONSCIOUS and act to guide expression.
As such, idealist socialism is the promotion of socialism as a replacement for capitalism and as such that act
of promotion is the act of an idealist, a capitalist! Capitalism is not opposite to socialism it is an exaggeration
of socialism. Capitalism/idealism would exploit the notions of socialism to profit from it ... dont care what it
is about - how much can I make?
The fibonacci sequence patterns reflect development (differentiations) within integration that is slower than the
binary sequence patterns. As such there is a degree of exploitation but it has a purpose (or is given one) rather
than being 'mindless' ... market forces are fine .. upto a point... when insider trading become easy then 'market
forces' are being exploited! a property of development in capitalism...
In the realm of integration there is no total freedom other than that possible in idealism/capitalism (even if
delusion). There IS a sense of 'protection', of being 'safe' - of freedom to walk down the road without fear etc
that sort of freedom is more 'socialist' in that the integration processes dominate all members of the community
etc.
These differences in interpretations of 'freedom' stem directly from analysis of the neurocognitive processes where
freedom to the transcendence seeking individual is a different concept to the freedom of a transformation seeking
individual (as in context PUSHES and 'good habits' respond). In the transcendence function the process enables
ESCAPE from the context or assertion of one's own context. In transformations the process ensures integration with
the context.
As covered in earlier in this article, capitalism. as well as 'idealist socialism' reflects the qualities of 'left
brained' thinking biases - note the dimension of left-right is repeated anterior-posterior, surface-core and all
the way down to the neuron - the discreteness of the axon (FM processing), the continuum of the dendrites (AM processing).
As such capitalism is FM, high energy, wide bandwidth but short range. Single (universal) context. Socialism is
more AM, low energy, narrower bandwidth, but long range. Multi contexts. Idealist socialism is AM theory but FM
focus and so some of the properties of the idealist focus can get entangled in the materialist focus.
Interpretations of time influence perspectives where the more 'everyday' sense, the more materialist sense sees
time as a property of the thermodynamic universe and as such there is a direction and 'entropy' rules. The adaption
of lifeforms thus focuses on energy conservation to optimise the period of one's life. This adaption includes the
encoding of habits/instincts into the input areas of neurons and so allowing context to PUSH you, context determines
your expression.
Learning 'good' habits ensures integration with the context and so ease in being 'pushed' etc - all very ecological!...
very 'fibonacci' ;-)
Our species, and a lot of others that use neurons, developed the ability to not only learn habits but to transcend
them - to escape them if need be and that is where the high energy transcendence function operates.
A property of the intense analysis process we find in idealism is the distortion, the impoverishment of time, shifting
it from its thermodynamic nature to a more mechanistic perspective. This 'delusion' is useful in pinning-down what
is being analysed but it also allows for 'novel' concepts to emerge - the sense of the 'eternal', time being reversible
etc etc
Refs:
Marx, K., (1970) "A Contribution to the Critique of Politcal Economy" International Publishers
Marx, K., (1976) "Capital : Volume 1" Penguin