The human brain seems to uses recursion to derive details from which it can assert what something 'is'. It does
this by taking the WHAT/WHERE dichotomy (which is pretty much hard coded in the brain)
and applies that dichotomy to itself. (there is a suggestion that the root process is spectrum aquisition that
is then analysed using the same processes such that parts (a 'colour') is extracted and ITS parts extracted etc)
This process allows for the creation of a SET of general qualities usable for categorisation and so description
of the whole. The WHAT/WHERE dichotomy is synonymous with the sense of OBJECTS/RELATIONSHIPS. We can differentiate
these general elements further to give:
GENERAL WHAT : SPECIFIC WHAT that includes WHO and WHICH
GENERAL WHERE: SPECIFIC WHERE that includes WHEN and HOW
BOTH 'sides' contain WHY which has an interpreation of 'why does X do that? (give me the how and when) and WHY
is X? (focus more on the intrinsic properties of who and which and so relationships WITHIN an object as compared
to relationships BETWEEN objects)
The recursion means we have:
Level 0: the 'whole' (universe of discourse etc)
level 1: A/~A{NOT-A} First level of differentiation - (aka WHAT/WHERE or WHERE/WHAT or WHAT/WHAT or WHERE/WHERE
BUT the first element is the object (!) of attention be it object or relationship in that the act of focusing means
isolation and that act elicits an 'object' perspective - thus a relationship is NAMED and so is treated as a 'thing'.
This reflects exageration, taking something out of the 'everyday' to analyise it. Physiologically there are consequences
of this act that are properties that get attributed to the 'thing' rather than the methodology. Thus the process
elicits a sense of the 'eternal', the process aims to 'stop' time or at least impoverish it such that it is treated
mechanically and is deemed reversible - all useful but for time all illusions.
The whole of level 1 is applied to itself to give:
Level 2: AA - A~A - ~AA - ~A~A
This level 1 is for DESCRIPTION so you can 'see' the pattern, it is a pattern emerging in the SAME SPACE as level
0 and as such is irreversible. IOW when you develop the categories to a level n you cannot 'undevelop', you CAN
focus on level n-x (x = 1...) to see if that 'reduced' perspective can be useful in building a model of something
(and so reflect the 'isolation' process we use so much in Science - 'consider a body falling...excluding such things
as air resistence...' classic phrase from 101 Physics - VERY IDEALIST in perspective. Useful LOCALLY, has problems
when extended universally)
Note that from a perspective of LOGIC, level 1 reflects Propositional Calculus with an emphasis on ALL or NOTHING.
IOW the act of asserting A/NOT-A introduces all of the theorems of that calculus and they being intrinsic to the
'mind' of ANY LIFEFORM using neurons and first level A/NOT-A distinction making. (see Stephen Rose's work on the
memory of chicks.)
Level 2 reflects a development where we move from the ALL or NOTHING of level 1 to the ALL, SOME, NOTHING of Predicate
Calculus - all theorems of that calculus are applicable at this level of development simply in the fact that FOUR
states serve as qualities that we can communicate 'as a whole' or as a sequence that develops into a 'whole'.
Lets do just one more step:
Level 3:
AAA
AA~A
A~AA
A~A~A
~AAA
~AA~A
~A~AA
~A~A~A
What is all of this? When you focus on the methodology the first two levels (0 to 1) reflect the taking of a WHOLE
and identifying implicit PARTS (in the ~A). Move from level 1 to 2 and we clearly identify WHOLES, PARTS, but still
retain something else in the form of NOT-A.
When we move from level 2 to level 3 what comes out of the NOT-A is the concept of relationships, the focus on
the space 'inbetween' the OBJECTS (which are wholes, parts). This space has TWO forms of expression - STATIC (invarient)
and DYNAMIC. BUT we also still maintain 'NOT-A' FOR ALL OF THE CATEGORIES thus:
Level 3:
AAA - whole
AA~A - static relationship
A~AA -part
A~A~A - dynamic relationship
~AAA - dynamic relationship
~AA~A - part
~A~AA - static relationship
~A~A~A - whole
The DIFFERENCE between the first four and the last four is determined by a context-dependent qualifier in the form
of a dichotomy such as POSITIVE/NEGATIVE, EXPANDING/CONTRACTING, DOT/FIELD, PRECISE/APPROXIMATE, QUANTITATIVE/QUALITATIVE,
TEXT/CONTEXT, FOREGROUND/BACKGROUND, YES/NO etc etc etc
This realm of level 3 introduces qualitative distinctions focused on the relational and so our logic develops to
include fuzzy logic, indicative logic (spencer-brown- gets into oscillations etc), and all of the multivalued logic
concepts (rooted in Peirce et al) The main emphasis here is the emergence of PROBABILITIES where we have moved
from the absolute A/NOT-A of level 1 and as such level 3 reflects our CURRENT social perspectives on mapping reality.
Note that each of the distinctions above can be treated in the SAME WAY - IOW we use the method of derivation WITHIN
each of the distinctions. This means that as categories we have the 8 of level 3 and we use them to focus on EACH
catagory to 'flesh' them out such that we get 8 octets of qualities giving 64 possible qualities - 8 'reals' and
the rest as 'analogies'. BUT we can in fact recruit and abstract the analogies to become automous qualities giving
us 64 'unique' qualities with which to 'map' reality.
Furthermore the recruitment/abstraction processes (reflected in the behaviour of our neurology) allows for the
64 to be applied to themselves (giving 4096) and that is repeated (giving 16 million+) and so on (as long as you
can maintain resolution power to keep identifying the differences).
Level 3 reflects 8 general qualities we have derived from taking a whole and applying it recursively. These qualities
are in the form of FEELINGS.
To get a better 'feel' for the abstract concepts notice that in the dichotomies the elements of the dichotomy are
MIXED when you go past the initial A/NOT-A. So we pose the question, how many ways can you MIX two elements? Using
a Thesuarus we get four BASIC terms that map to the four BASIC terms in level 3:
AAA - whole - BLEND
AA~A - static relationship - BOND
A~AA - parts - BOUND
A~A~A - dynamic relationship - BIND
these are repeated for the other four and the DIFFERENCES come with the qualifying dichotomy - e.g.
[1]expansive BLEND
[2]contractive BLEND
[3]expansive BOND
[4]contractive BOND
[5]expansive BOUND
[6]contractive BOUND
[7]expansive BIND
[8]contractive BIND
These are all GENERAL feelings, general qualities associatable with 'out there' but associatable to both the GENERAL
and the PARTICULAR.
With the recruitment/abstraction process I can extend these into compounds/composites. I will use the numbers above
and order things vertically in the format of bottom number represents the quality associated with the CONTEXT and
the top number represents the quality associated with the TEXT:
[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8]
[1][1][1][1][1][1][1][1][2][2][2][2][2][2][2][2]....
EACH of these is a quality; a FEELING reflecting the mixing of the basics such that:
[7]
[1]
is a feeling that reflects 'contractive bounding' in a context of 'expansive blending'. When we FEEL this (as a
whole as well as recognising the parts) we know the position of the quality in relation to all others but to communicate
it we need more. Since these feelings are 'in' all members of the species so all we need to do is derive a method
of 'setting off' the feeling - to elicit empathy, resonance.
Sensory associations and, especially for us, SYMBOLS do this, be they smells, tastes, touches, images, sounds or
the digital representation of these analog processes, words. For long distance communications (which includes the
symbolisation of the CONTEXT to which as quality is applied) it is image and sound that best achieves 'good' communications.
The derivation of the set of qualities is ordered such that we can represent them in binary forms ranging from
000000 to 111111 (each bit reflects a choice of element from a dichotomy of 0/1, yes/no, what/where etc etc etc)
The set of 64 qualities derived above are the set of 64 qualities that are intrinsic to ALL 'wholes', be they objects
of relationships, and it is to these qualities that we assign WORDS to tie the set of qualities to a specific context
(either general context or particular context) and allow is to communicate 'meaning' where the words elicit resonance
of a particular quality and so a sense of 'meaning' is elicited in the receiver. This GENERAL feeling can then
be refined through the feedback processes in the form of the receiver's memories.
So, here we have a methodology for deriving a set of categories we can use to communicate information about sensations.
This set can be extended ad infinitum where the extentions are 'refinements' of the original set and can also be
abstracted and so converted into autonomous qualities rather than interpreted as analogies (and so metaphor etc
is taken literally).
The I Ching consists of a set of symbols representing six levels of recursion of the 'yin'/'yang' dichotomy. From
a qualitative perspective, the 64 symbols created are ordered from 000000 (pure yin) to 111111 (pure yang). As
such we can associate 1:1 our set of brain derived 'meanings' to the list of the I Ching hexagrams which means
we are using the hexagrams as representatives of the brain derived 'meanings' and so ignore all of the descriptions
of meaning given to the hexagrams per se, we are just recruiting the SYMBOLS to communicate the BRAIN patterns.
BUT analysis of the TEXT of the I Ching associated with the SYMBOLS in fact demonstrate strong correlations with
the Brain MEANINGS. For example, brain pattern 111111 maps to the concept of a 'expansive blending'. This concept
reflects expansion of 'wholeness' where all that surrounds the whole is assimilated by it and as such the CONTEXT
is being replaced by that of the WHOLE. This process of assimilation does NOT include recognition of 'difference',
it works on the expression of sameness - a singleminded, highly focused 'expansion' of 'whole'.
At the other end of the 111111-000000 scale is the concept of contractive wholeness. In the I Ching this position
has text that associates with the wholeness by absorbtion, by drawing 'something' IN to maintain wholeness. What
we find is that the 4000 year old text of the IC is tied in with the symbols to express the same GENERAL feelings
we have derived from our Brain mappings and as such the I Ching REFLECTS the qualities inherant in the SPECIES.
Thus the I Ching (when placed in 'binary' order, reflecting the method of derivation of the hexagrams) serves as
a CARRIER of the set of qualities used by the brain to elicit meaning based on 'object/relationship' mappings;
IOW the I Ching is a metaphor for the Brain processing meaning.
The point in my template work is that this 'tight' association of meanings is NOT limited
to the I Ching but in fact reflects the link to ALL disciplines in that all disciplines use the brain's method
of category creation - recursion of dichotomies - to establish the foundations of the discipline. As such the ordering
of the qualities in the dichotomy-derived typology of the MBTI can be mapped to the Brain patterns as can the ordering
of the TYPES (or qualities) of numbers we use in Mathematics. (see http://pages.prodigy.net/lofting/MBTIX.htm
as well as http://pages.prodigy.net/lofting/NeuroMaths3.htm
)
This ordering demonstrates the ease in which we can make analogies etc e.g. I can describe properties of the general
I Ching pattern of 000 (the TRIGRAM of earth, a general version of the hexagram 000000) with a link to the MBTI
type of XNFP - identified as 'disciples, advocates' etc where the behaviour of these types reflects establishing
wholeness by drawing something IN and as such having total trust in someone/thing 'out there'. When we sort the
MBTI by its dichotomies this 'type' maps to the same 'space' as does the 000 pattern from the I Ching - they are
BOTH symbols of the general brain-distinction of 'contractive blending'.
Now things get interesting. The methodology used in the I Ching to derive a sequence left-to-right, tightly bound
by binary notations, is applicable to EACH hexagram but now working vertically, up through the hexagram (bottom
line to top line - six lines give us 64 possible patterns of line relationships). The difference that emerges from
this is that in the horizontal version we have a GENERAL set of qualities from 000000 to 111111. This CAN be used
to reflect CYCLIC behaviour but SEMANTICALLY there is no enforced direction, all is reversible. This order can
be used in such concepts as energy measurement, like a thermometer, and as such the sequence reflects energy expressions,
phase transitions, mechanistic time etc all that can be reversed 'immediately'.
When we focus on the cyclic behaviour WITHIN a hexagram, its vertical expression, we discover RIGID order that
is NOT reversible OTHER THAN as a CYCLE. IOW we discover TIME in its more thermodynamic element where A
MUST HAVE B AS PRE-REQUISITE and there is no repeation OTHER THAN when we run out of categories which FORCES repeatition
of the cycle but there is no reversing. (if we extend the categories (64 to 4096 to 16 million) we extend the DETAIL
within the cycle but the cycle is still present and still irreversible)
The point here is that from analysis of the I Ching patterns we have identified an intrinsic property of qualities
used in the brain - the qualities derived from recursion etc serve TWO masters, one spacial (energy) and one temporal
(time). CONTEXT acts to determine which perspective of a quality we wish assert/focus upon. IOW a quality encoded
in the brain can 'instinctively' associate with a CYCLE as well as with a 'pure', autonomous, expression of energy;
we can look at some expression and intuitively derive its position in a cycle and so what came before and will
come after. This does not mean that this WILL happen to the expression only that it is POSSIBLE. As such 'in here'
establishes 'truth' by comparing the 'universe' we have 'in here' with 'out there' and a valid perspective is when
they seem to resonate (but even then there is possible 'delusion')
The I Ching/MBTI/Number Types etc etc etc all serve as sources of information ABOUT the brain since they are all
dependent on the brain for their structure. Until recent times we have had little knowledge about how the brain
works, or more so not enough to generate a 'good' model. Now we have that information and I have used it to develop
the model I have where the use of the model allows for the analysis of 'out there' from a context of the brain
itself rather than from one of its metaphors.
The ADVANTAGE in using the metaphors is that they are highly specific and so PRECISE and can be used to flesh-out
aspects of the brain. The I Ching is one of the easiest to use - Mathematics is too 'abstract' for many and the
MBTI too personal, too focused on personas etc. The I Ching is both general enough to deal with all dichotomies
and yet specific enough to give a good sense of 'what is going on' which you can then 'zoom-in' upon for more details.
To conclude, lets look at the possible roots of all of this in complexity/chaos theory (the focus being in emergence
of patterns that are 'meaningful').
The roots seem to be in our sensory systems and in particular a consequence of their limits. Since our brain seems
to favour original adaptation to vision (and so the recruitment/abstraction of vision properties and methods to
general information processing) lets focus on that area (as well as the lower level source of smell and taste.
The former is highly varied, works with mixing smells to make composites etc. The taste sense is interesting in
that it seems to form a tetrahedron to categories - the benefit being that given three bits of information I can
derive the fourth - IOW from an EXPLICIT three and a hidden I can IMPLY something - a method we use a lot in pattern
matching.)
The visual system is tied strongly to triadic patterns where the parafovea focuses (!) on BLACK-EDGE-WHITE and
the fovea more on RED-GREEN-BLUE (this could all map to a tetrahedron in some way in that there is also visual
opponent processing in the cones of Yellow-Blue, Red-Green, White-Black but all of these cones also have an inhibitory
link to black)
The point here is that ANY sensory system that 'captures' reality (and so a 'random' flow of data) in this sort
of configuration (triangular or tetrahedron containment) will lead to the emergence of a pattern as the data 'bounces
around' within the limits set by the sense.
This pattern is called a Sierpinski gasket.
Is there any evidence in our studies of meaning derivation that links back to such a structure as being 'fundamental'
in our 'thoughts' - yes there is in that if we 'refine' the gasket a more detailed pattern emerges - Pascal's Triangle.
Pascal's Triangle manifests processing of (A + B)n - if A = 1 and B = 1 then we have a development reflecting
recursion of binaries (powers of 2)
Lets go back to the LEVELS within the derivation of meaning as given earlier and their associations with the triangle:
Level 0 : 1 [whole]
Level 1 : 1 1 [A/NOT-A]
Level 2 : 1 2 1 (where the 2 = the noticing of NO DIFFERENCE in order of A~A and ~AA and as such the two represent
the general notion of SOME)
Level 3 : 1 3 3 1
These numbers reflect the coefficients in each row of Pascal's triangle. They also reflect the TYPES of logic we
used in each level EXCEPT that those elements reflecting the MIDDLE of A/NOT-A (in level 3 this is parts, static,
and dynamic relationships) are grouped together; there is no further differentation than this - we require more
refinement for that.
Note that the I Ching derivation reflects the differentiation in emergence of the number of qualities derived per
level equal to the sum of the coefficients of the triangle (reflects 2n)
Note that Peano's formal derivation (as shown by Dedekind) of the integers is rooted in the use of recursion of
the empty set where the numbers are formed from the SPACES inbetween the coefficients in each row of Pascal's triangle:
level 0 : 1 (no space = 0)
level 1 : 1 1 (one space = 1)
level 2 : 1 2 1 (two spaces = 2)
level 3 : 1 3 3 1 (three spaces = 3)
...
...
From our set feelings we have:
level 0 : whole
level 1 : whole + NOT-whole
level 2 : whole, parts, not whole
level 3 : whole, parts, static/dynamic relationships
..
..
compounds...
Thus, given the LIMITS of our sensory systems and especially our methodologies in vision we can identify a potential
path of our most abstract concepts from the concrete level of our senses processing 'random' data.
Furthermore, the refinement of our concept formations mean that the differences can 'hide' the sameness underneath,
the sameness that makes us a species and allows us to communicate even if we dont speak the same language.