If I walked up to you, the reader, in the street and asked "Can you give me an example of Wholeness?",
it is more than likely that you could and would, and do so in a very short time.
There is a good chance that I would agree with your example or if not I would say "I disagree. To me an example
of "wholeness" is <whatever>".
This brief interaction touches on some fundamentals regarding our species nature and how we share meanings; especially
from an implicit perspective where your reply and my answer reflects the fact that we AGREE on there being a concept,
a quality, called/felt as a sense of, 'wholeness', but we differ on the identification of the EXPRESSION of that
quality. The agreed sense of 'wholeness' seems to be a species-wide property, hard-coded as part of our neurocognitive
processes.
Any differing of perspectives means we recognise the act of distinction that in its abstract form can be represented
as A/~A (NOT-A) except that the ~A is not 'opposite' to the A in a 1:1 manner, it is more 1:many as in "A
is a whole and ALL ELSE NOT-A" which means NOT-A is the rest of the universe. Yes, it is possible for the
rest of the universe to contain the structural/representational opposite of A but that is but a part of NOT-A as
a GENERAL emphasis; when we get the PARTICULAR we could identify a NOT-A as an exact negation of A, such us -1
to +1 and so A/NOT-A would shift focus from 1:many to 1:1.
Having a discussion on what is 'wholeness' and what is not would more than likely develop into recognising the
distinction of differentiation as compared to that of integration, where the latter draws things together and the
former separates them and as such a sense of 'wholeness', of being 'all linked together' is more reflective of
integration than differentiation.
As such, my disagreeing with your example of wholeness means that I have intuitively differentiated your example,
I have zoomed-in to analyse it and compare it to my interpretation of 'wholeness' and discovered that, to me, there
is a mismatch where your example becomes part of my 'NOT-A'.
At this point in the discussion we may introduce other examples of 'wholeness' and some we would agree upon and
some not. The focus of attention would more than likely be drawn not to the wholes that we agree upon, the SAMENESS,
but on those we do not agree upon, the DIFFERENCES.
What is this attraction to NOT-A? The intent seems to be to resolve the NOT-A, to convert it to A BUT to each person's
perspective - I will seek to convince you that the wholeness examples I presented and you rejected are in fact
valid examples, as you will do with your examples that I have rejected.
Unconsciously there seems to be an 'issue' raised in that if I assert A and you NOT-A then our brains will react
by switching into 'paradox processing' mode where any NOT-A to my A is interpreted as a paradox, A and NOT-A existing
in the same time and space, and the paradox is generalised as a threat to my identity {all elements of my identity
(or even the collective's identity) being wrapped-up in A and so being negated, deemed 'worthless' when you say
NOT-A!}
The brain deals with paradox by oscillating as it tries to identify A or NOT-A. We end-up oscillating as we argue
about your examples of wholeness as compared to my examples of wholeness.
Being 'reasonable' individuals, with some experience in social interactions, we will not try to eliminate each
other (well, not yet) but will try to 'Reason' (interpreted in some schools as an attempt to show the other person
how wrong they are but without the affect ;-) - don't show them to be fools, show them to show themselves as fools)
The focus for the Reason is on the NOT-A where my NOT-A is different to your NOT-A, especially in the specifics
of our rejected examples of 'wholeness'.
As we start to differentiate each other's NOT-A so we start to make slightly more refined distinctions, we are
not just dealing with 'wholeness' and 'NOT wholeness', we need to zoom-in to identify the differences in our perspectives
and so 'resolve' the situation.
This zooming-in process is done WITHIN the context set by the distinctions of 'wholeness' and 'NOT-wholeness' and
we can use the A/NOT-A as markers of those original distinctions.
When we zoom-in to the NOT-A, to identify the differences in our perspectives, we notice that in the analysis of
NOT-A we are in fact using the original distinctions in the form of the original dichotomy (dichotomy = perceived
50/50 split pair - see http://pages.prodigy.net/lofting/dicho.html for more)of A/NOT-A - in other words we are
using what is called self-referencing. What this means is we are using the A/NOT-A ON EACH ELEMENT OF THE A/NOT-A
dichotomy; we are trying to identify those elements of A that in fact contain some NOT-A and those elements in
NOT-A that in fact contain some A and in doing so trying to demonstrate that the 'some' should be 'all' where a
rejected example of 'wholeness' is due to it being mistakenly categorised as not fully 'whole', only 'some'.
When we apply A/NOT-A to itself we end-up with four 'qualities':
(1) we see in A all A
(2) we see in A some elements that qualitatively are more like (analogous to) NOT-A
(3) we see in NOT-A some elements that qualitatively are more like (analogous to) A
(4) we see in NOT-A all NOT-A
The (1) and (4) states reflect the 'All or nothing' characteristics of our original dichotomy, all is A or NOT-A
and nothing else, no in-between.
The (2) and (3) reflect 'new' qualities we can use to describe things, to represent the DIFFERENCES in perspective
as to your NOT-A and my NOT-A. These 'new' qualities mean that the qualities of (1) and (4) have in fact been 'refined',
they are not so all encompassing.
Note that in these four qualities, the 'pure' quality of 'wholeness' is still represented in (1) but now the quality
of 'NOT wholeness' has been differentiated into THREE qualities, 2,3, and 4 with the 2 and 3 seemingly 'emerging'
out of the middle of the original dichotomy.
The two middle qualities symbolise neither 'wholeness' nor 'NOT wholeness' but more an 'in-between' states, initially
'created' to aid us in identifying the differences in our original examples of 'wholeness' and as such they take
on an aire of 'someness' rather than the aire of 'allness' reflected in the original dichotomy.
So we have developed to a level where we can focus on 'someness' where both of our rejected examples of 'wholeness'
can reflect SOME A and SOME NOT-A and as such are not categorisable as either A nor NOT-A. Thus, to me, my rejected
example of 'wholeness' is 'correct' but to you, given the limitation of the above four qualities we can use to
categorise, my 'wholeness' is partial - some not all - and there is a clue to what we can focus upon, the concept
of PART as compared to WHOLE.
Thus the two middle qualities are tied to the concept of PARTS where my rejected example of 'wholeness', as well
as your rejected example, are, at best, PARTS (2,3), at worst, NOT-A (4).
The difference between 2 and 3 is context. 2 is closer to A and reflects definite PARTNESS, 3 is closer to NOT-A
and reflects indefinite PARTNESS (as in categorisable as a part OR NOT-A. This reflects a dimension of PRECISION
where A is PRECISE and KNOWN and NOT-A contains only approximations at best and is more UNKNOWN).
Being 'reasonable' people, our discussion on examples of 'wholeness' would now need to either cease, or continue
to another 'level' in that the four qualities we are using are not enough to aid us in differentiating, and so
eventually resolving, our differences.
However, the success of 'recursion', the self-referencing, has at least allowed us to differentiate to some degree,
which means we do not have to wander off to find other categories, other qualities, to use in our discussion, we
can just use the same method as before, apply the A/NOT-A to each of the four categories to derive new categories.
When we do this we end-up with eight categories, or eight qualities, that we can use to describe 'reality' and
as such describe the differences in our perspectives regarding my examples of 'wholeness' and your examples of
'wholeness'.
The eight categories are symbolised as:
(1) AAA (we see all of A in A)
(2) AA~A (we see a touch of NOT-A in A)
(3) A~AA ( we see a noticeable degree of NOT-A in A)
(4) A~A~A (we see a high degree of NOT-A in A)
These above four categories are sourced from the original A and as such reflect the qualities of A to varying degrees
ordered from 'high in quality' (1) to 'low in quality' (4) but still identifiable as A.
The other four qualities are:
(5) ~AAA (we see a high degree of A in NOT-A)
(6) ~AA~A (we see a noticeable degree of A in NOT-A)
(7) ~A~AA ( we see a touch of A in NOT-A)
(8) ~A~A~A ( we see all NOT-A in NOT-A)
The properties of 'wholes' and 'parts', derived in the previous set of qualities are carried forward in [wholes](1),
(8), [parts](3), (6) but we now have four 'new' qualities to describe.
These four new qualities reflect the determinate/indeterminate biases used before in identifying the two categories
of PARTS. Here we need to observe the following:
The concept of a WHOLE and that of a PART reflect a more 'Object' oriented perspective, a focus on 'things'. As
such a part is an object (and so a whole) that is in a relationship to a greater whole and as such the pairing
of WHOLE:PARTS reflects a bias to Object distinctions but implicitly reflects the OBJECT:RELATIONSHIP distinctions
which we will see dominate our categories and so our set of qualities we use to describe the universe.
It is important to note the concept in the last paragraph of RELATIONSHIPS in that what is NOT a WHOLE is a RELATIONSHIP
(which includes the concept of a PART). Since we have derived the qualities associated with wholes (1) and (8)
and those qualities associated with parts (3) and (6) it follows that the other four categories just derived must
deal with 'pure' relationships, they focus more on what is 'in-between' the objects rather than the objects themselves.
So far we have:
a concept of 'wholeness'.
a concept of 'partness'.
a concept of 'NOT wholeness' which contains all that is NOT-whole OTHER THAN the distinction of PARTS which we
have differentiated out of the general concept of NOT-Whole.
Since we are focusing on relationships but NOT parts then we can identify two GENERAL types of relationships -
STATIC relationships and DYNAMIC relationships.
Static relationships are what you could call 'relational wholeness' in that they represent invariance of some sort
e.g. PI deals with static relationships, the diameter relationship to the circumference of a circle NEVER changes
but the distinctions of 'diameter' and 'circumference' are required at all times - IOW two concepts are sharing
the same space but retaining their identity and as such do not reflect a 'whole' but more a 'static' relationship
formed out of parts within the whole (even if the parts are abstract - you cannot 'remove' the diameter of a circle!)
Dynamic relationships reflect the ever changing - variance - and especially cyclic and morphic change, oscillations,
phase transitions, transformations, transcendences. These relationships are nine times out of ten NOT noticeable
until some time has passed and we 'see' the changes (or else they are SUDDENLY noticeable as in phase transitions,
transformations, transcendences where the change over time is dramatic)
Our set of qualities are now:
A sense of 'wholeness'
A sense of 'partness'
A sense of a 'static' relationship
A sense of a 'dynamic' relationship
If we add to these four universal categories a context-determined qualifier in the form of ANY dichotomy (as in
definite/indefinite, expanding/contracting, positive/negative, text/context etc) then we have eight categories,
eight qualities, we can use to 'discuss' our differences regarding my set of example of 'wholeness' vs your set
of examples of 'wholeness'. [e.g. definite whole, indefinite whole, expanding whole, contracting whole etc etc]
With this list of categories I can assert that 'your sample X is more a part than a whole' and 'your sample Y is
more a static relationship than an example of 'wholeness'' - and we can get into finer details from there. What
is of importance is that (a) we have derived a set of qualities that we can use to describe ANY expression in reality
(b) The set is tightly ordered(format is that of a binary sequence) such that not only can we describe object expressions,
spatial states, but also relational expressions and that includes temporal states; thus with the qualifiers such
as 'expanding/contracting' we can define a cycle behaviour from (1) to (8) and back. In other words ANYTHING we
apply our set of categories to can be interpreted AS IF expressing cyclic behaviours either over time or over space
(as in changes in colour due to heat etc)- it is the CONTEXT that decides what is 'usable' or 'valid' and what
is not.
And then there is another point - finer details. Why the need? surely the eight categories we have are enough -
four universals and one context-dependent quality (in the form of the qualifier mentioned above)? The answer of
course is NO - it is not enough, the rich world of meanings goes beyond eight categories.
But how can we go 'beyond'? One method is to continue applying A/NOT-A to EACH category and slowing work your way
up the list of possible categories where each application of A/NOT-A reflects the use of exponential growth through
powers of 2.
The brain does not seem to do this; the brain is more 'dramatic' in that it will recruit and abstract ALL existing
categories and apply them to each other such that from eight categories we can actually jump to 64 (8 * 8), from
64 to 4096 (64 * 64), from 4096 to over 16 million (4096 * 4096) (this is called tetration and reflects one of
the four methods of self-referencing - addition, multiplication, exponentiation, tetration)
What tetration does is in fact give you more than you need at the moment! (reflected in such development as the
two hemispheres of the brain where removal of one during childhood development does little change since the change
in neuron numbers is NOT halved - we are working with exponentials/power functions and so if there are 1012
neurons in the brain and you remove half you are left with 5 x 1011 NOT 106. As such the
remaining neurology can take-on the load, and the duality, of both hemispheres (see Battiro, A.M. (2000)"Half
A Brain Is Enough" CUP) As such our brains seem to be a little 'idle' at times.
So, if we simply recruit and abstract our original eight categories we now 'jump' to sixty-four. Our discussion
on my examples of 'wholeness' vs your examples of 'wholeness' just got a whole (!) lot deeper.
This process of recruitment and abstraction means that for each of the eight original categories, each category
is now made-up of an octet of expressions. For example, the category of 'wholeness' now comes with the concept
of 'static relationship' WITHIN a context of 'wholeness'. This is an expressible quality but how!?
All meaning is determined by the method used to derive it and in our species that method includes the use of emotion,
of feelings (value assessments) as well as affect (exaggerations in expression). At the level of specific expression
management we are dealing with a dichotomy made up of positive emotions and negative emotions (all tied to another
dichotomy - fight/flight)
One thing that is noticeable in recursion is that the elements of the dichotomy get 'mixed' so I have analysed
the main ways in which we can describe this mixing qualitatively and have come up with the following:
A sense of wholeness is 'felt' as a sense of blending, of becoming [or unbecoming] 'one'.
A sense of partness is 'felt' as a sense of bounding, of differentiating, of setting a boundary, making a 'cut'
that clearly differentiates 'this' from 'that'.
A sense of static relationships is 'felt' as a sense of bonding, of forming an invariant relationship, of sharing
the same space but retaining unique identities (and so avoiding blending). A bond can also represent a representation
of a whole - a symbolic expression or habit which is 'not the thing' but close enough to it.
A sense of dynamic relationships is 'felt' as a sense of binding, of forming a relationship in time which can dissolve
with no consequences - unlike bond where there usually are consequences. Thus in binding I can form a contract
for a time period. The behaviour of both parties, even though they seem to be operating autonomously, will show
patterns that indicate there is some 'deal' going on.
These four 'feelings' or qualities of blending, bonding, bounding, and binding, when associated with a context-determined
dichotomy as qualifier can be again recruited and abstracted where the abstraction is now describable as a 'feeling'
- thus the earlier derivation of the quality of "'static relationship' WITHIN a context of 'wholeness'"
now becomes 'bonding' in a context of 'blending' - a far easier expression to deal with, and especially to feel.
[you may need to reflect on this - take the concepts and see if you can derive particular situations that reflect
the general experience of bonding in a context of blending. Then particularise using, for example, the contract/expand,
or general/particular, or text/context, dichotomies - e.g. 'expansive'(or 'generalised', or 'textual') bonding
in a context of 'contractive' (or 'particularised', or 'contextual') blending]
Although we can move on to 4096 or 16 million + qualities, usually we can work with the sixty-four where the original
dichotomy of 'wholeness/NOT-wholeness' has been apparently differentiated into 1 concept of wholeness, one concept
of NOT-wholeness (as in direct opposite) and 62 categories of 'in-between' qualities - qualities that in themselves
can describe wholeness in that each is capable of being recruited and abstracted and so setting its own context
and as such we have 64 'wholes' covering the range of qualitative differences from 'most pure' (the original 'whole')
to 'most mixed' (the original 'NOT whole').
The notion of a quality gaining autonomy also raises a 'new' perspective in that the development of a degree of
(or even 'full') autonomy for EACH quality extends their usefulness in that we can apply the whole set of qualities
to the INTERNAL development of a specific quality - we can identify by analogy differences in the sameness of the
specific quality, we can identify spatial and temporal developments and as such a 'vertical' dimension of activity
along with the derived horizontal dimension that links the specific quality with all the others. In this sense
a quality can have a 'direction', a 'place to go' other than just being a 'quality'! This possibility comes simply
from the structure and function of the general set of qualities derived from self-referencing.
The main emphasis here is on the method of derivation - the self-referencing, the recursion, tetration, exponentiation,
all of which has allowed us to stay 'in the box', we have derived each quality from the set of qualities derived
earlier where the initial use, of taking the previous qualities and using them as analogies within each quality
(reflected in the recruitment process) allows us to take those analogies and convert them into autonomous units,
'new', fully functional qualities on their own.
The method used allows us to derive a set of qualities that are universals in that ANY discipline, any concept,
can be analysed using this set of qualities where within them we find spatial recordings (range of possible energy
expressions), temporal recordings (passage of time as cyclic), Chomsky's hierarchy of grammar (restricted (regular),
reflection, repetition, unrestricted) and as such a tie to language where the infinite number of words all point
to the ONE set of qualities we all use as a species.
This one set of qualities is universal such that we can take a 'random' sequence of symbols and find unlimited
meanings due to the method of deriving meaning from them. (as a 'cheap' exercise - juxtapose any two terms from
the dictionary and 'reflect' on them long enough and you will derive 'meaning' (or more so a possible). This reflects
analogy and metaphor at work which is what the qualities reflect - when we use them in mapping reality we use them
by implicit associations, analogy usage where a particular is LIKE quality X [analogy] or CARRIES quality X [beginning
of metaphor where we end up describing the particular in terms of X but through another perspective - e.g. using
the wave metaphor that is derivable from the qualities due to their 'high to low' mapping ability]
The set of qualities here derived would be the basic set used in ANY DISCIPLINE that uses self-referencing through
recursion of dichotomies as a way of deriving detailed analysis of 'something'; of deriving a parts list, an ontology,
of 'something' be it local or universal, concrete or abstract. That ontology is then used as an interpreter of
reality. Local nuances will add 'flavours' as well as a unique lexicon that aids in differentiating differences
but despite all of the specialisation and all of the different words they are all talking the same general thing
- objects and relationships.
There are THREE examples of this 'template' that show-up the depth of what this 'simple' set of qualities can do:
(1) The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator(R), or more so the qualitative expressions BEHIND the formal terms used where
the strong use of dichotomies reflects 'recursion' in that each dichotomy is either orthogonal to, or qualitatively
embedded 'within' the previously defined [orthogonality is expressible in the form of binary trees which reflect
recursion at work] The success of the MBTI reflects its 'resonance' with people as it being 'correct' in its identification
of social persona etc. (and so its GENERAL precision. The set of qualities in fact allow us to go far deeper in
typology - see link below)
(2) The Book of Changes (or I Ching) where A/NOT-A becomes YANG/YIN and the qualities expressed in the trigrams/hexagrams
reflect the blend, bond, bound, bind distinctions but at a finer level of expression. The 'reason' for so much
being seen in the I Ching is due simply to the emphasis on dichotomisations where ANY discipline that has its roots
in dichotomisation will 'reflect' all other like-rooted disciplines in that it is the shared set of QUALITIES that
determine 'meaning' - and so the ease in which we can make analogies and create metaphors in that it is the qualities
that 'resonate' with meaning, the words just 'carry' the qualities, thus the I Ching is a metaphor for describing
at the mind level what the brain deals with - 'object/relationship' interactions - and as such absorbing the I
Ching (and extentions)is akin to absorbing the nature of the species.
For the combined MBTI-IChing associations see http://pages.prodigy.net/lofting/MBTIX.htm
(3) The set of number types which form the foundations of Mathematics. See http://pages.prodigy.net/lofting/NeuroMaths3.htm
The emphasis here ties the roots of Mathematics to our neurocognitive processes. Note that the implication here
extends our set of qualities into all of Mathematics and so ALL DISCIPLINES USING MATHEMATICS FOR DESCRIPTIONS,
PREDICTIONS etc.
The overall emphasis here is on filling-in the space between neurosciences and psychology/philosophy where there
is much 'missing' in the area of 'where does meaning come from?'. The understanding of the qualities enables identification
of the unconscious influences on our expressions and as such can aid in 'refining' those expressions.
For general coverage on possible development pathways etc of brain and mind see http://pages.prodigy.net/lofting