...life can be translucent

Menu

Link to some more etymology (hexagram 3)

Sparhawk

One of those men your mother warned you about...
Clarity Supporter
Joined
Sep 17, 1971
Messages
5,120
Reaction score
107
<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!><font size=1>quote:</font>

In the neuron, in its input areas, a 'bush'-like structure labeled as the dendrites,<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>

"Bush" and "Neuron", in the same sentence?? Well, that's a real dichotomy...
biggrin.gif


L
 

lightofdarkness

(deceased)
Joined
Mar 16, 1970
Messages
1,025
Reaction score
3
Hi Martin,

you wrote:
> Hi Chris,
>
> A have a question about the universality of IDM.
> As far as I see IDM always starts with ONE dichotomy which is then
> refined recursively. Depending on the original dichotomy we get
> different languages (the meanings of the 'words' differ) but all those
> languages are structurally the same, isomorph.
>

The IDM TEMPLATE is the one dichotomy reflecting our brain dynamics and as such sets the ground out of which all else develops. Apply that dichotomy recursively to give a set of universal qualities usable to derive local meaning once they are labeled. Thus we OVERLAY local distinctions onto that template; we do not start-off with 'nothing', there is always 'something' even if we label it is meaningless (since to recognise it as meaningless we have to contrast that meaningless to the set of things meaningful!)

if you give the brain two words derived 'randomly' it will (a) first try to derive meaning directly, literally and then (b) try to derive meaning figuratively. IOW it will FORCE meaning in the form of a POTENTIAL rather than ACTUAL. It is this forcing that leads into imagination etc and 'novel' concepts of experiences - anthropomorphism etc

> So far so good, IDM can be called 'universal' in the sense that it
> covers all languages or categorical systems that are based on one
> dichotomy.
> But what about 'mixed' languages that are based on two or more
> (relatively) independent dichotomies?

There is no independence. The WORDS of the elements of the dichotomy are LOCAL representations of QUALITIES of differentiating/integrating. For example, in the IC we have, over three recursions ONE dichotomy of yin/yang:

0 / 1
00, 01 / 10, 11
000, 001, 010, 011 / 100, 101, 110, 111

Now move to the MBTI where we have THREE dichotomies supposidly 'orthogonal' to each other:

N/S, T/F, J/P. When we map out the QUALITIES associated with the categories formed from these dichotomies (using cognitive analysis) we find a recursive pattern of development from general to particular (note these are all STRUCTURAL in form, the I/E dichotomy, traditionally FUNCTIONAL in form, does not come out until level 4 to give us the 16 MBTI types - my original analysis of all of these category systems was from level 3 - octets - and from there work backwards/upwards):

MBTI recursive tree:

NF / SP
NF, SJ / NT, SP
XNFP, XNFJ, XSFJ, XSTJ / XNTP, XNTJ, XSFP, XSTP

The general QUALITIES represented in XNFP map to the general qualities associated with the trigram of earth (000) with a focus on devotion, advocacy etc etc It is this pattern that is the IDM qualities (contractive blending etc) and allows for the cross discipline mapping.

If we apply recursion to the dichotomy of flight/fight - aka fear/anger - so the same underlying qualities pop out but with different labels based on four dichotomies:

fear / anger
fear, rejection / acceptance, anger (phases of grief overall - see E. Kubler-Ross)
fear, grief, rejection, anticipation / surprise, acceptance, love, anger

The dichotomies here are:

fear/anger
grief/love
rejection/acceptance
anticipation/surprise

Recursion shows that a focus on the 'orthogonal' is in fact a focus on levels of recursion moving from general to particular (and so each dichotomy operates within a context set by the previous - we then relabel the 'mixing' of elements). Thus, in Mathematics so the first dichotomy is the X-dimension place WITHIN the 'whole', the sheet of paper, the realm of discourse etc etc. WITHIN that X mapping we put the Y-dimension and WITHIN that pair of X/Y we put the Z-dimension. These are supposed to be 'orthogonal' but the WITHIN nature shows us recursion is in fact at work as we move from general to particular.

In emotions so fear maps to earth - 000 - with a focus on integrating with context and so 'dissapearing' into that context (which includes being devoted to that context, be it church, guru, family etc)

Each level of recursion will elicit more dichotomies as TEMPLATES. As long as the order is maintained from moving from general to particular, each 'new' dichotomy can be either 'yin/yang' or some 'new' set of labels - the labels are infinite, it is what they represent that is constant. The CORE dichotomy will set the interpretation 'constant', as in all elements are interpreted as asymmetric or symmetric.
 

martin

(deceased)
Joined
Oct 2, 1971
Messages
2,705
Reaction score
60
Hi Chris,

You wrote:
"There is no independence. The WORDS of the elements of the dichotomy are LOCAL representations of QUALITIES of differentiating/integrating"

So it's indeed true that IDM assumes that all dichotomies reduce to one on some fundamental level of the mind or the nervous system?!

I'm not sure about your meaning because you write 'QUALITIES of differentiating / integrating', not differentiating / integrating. Where do these qualities come from?
In your math example, where do Y and Z come from? Recursion? Y is not a refinement of X, neither is Z a refinement of (X,Y). If it was the flat-landers would have discovered the third dimension a long time ago.
happy.gif
 

lightofdarkness

(deceased)
Joined
Mar 16, 1970
Messages
1,025
Reaction score
3
Martin,

all the neurology deals with is integrating/differentiating. It is CONTEXT that makes the difference in that it is the linking of the one set of universals with a context that elicits local meaning.

Dichotomies will 'reduce' to what the labels of the elements represent, the differentiated or the integrated. The TYPE of dichotomy will be symmetric, and so favour guassian distribution patterns, or asymmetric and so favour spectrum patterns.

Feelings are one step 'up' from the neurology where the sensory cortex feeds into the motor cortex and frontal lobe association areas as well as emotional 'painting' from mid brain areas (amygdala etc). Thus the differentiating/integrating is recursed to elicit differences. AS such we can FEEL a sense of 'wholeness through differentiation' as compared to 'wholeness through integration'. IOW we have moved into the realm of categories. Each category is a quality derived from, and so a PART of, differentiating/integrating and so the general phrase of 'QUALITIES of differentiating/integrating'.

The neurology is self-referencing and so the qualities come out of the neurology as it 'recurses'. Think of them as emotions where the same dynamics occurs but specialised in the fight/flight dichotomy where emotions are qualities of fight/flight.

As for maths - Our brains will set down a basic, fixed, 'infinite' X axis. WITHIN the bounds of that definition is then applied the Y axis where that axis is moveable 'along' the X axis.

X is a dichotomy (-/+). Y is a dichotomy (-/+). WITHIN the bounds of XY we derive Z, a dichotomy (-/+) We can write Y <= X and z <= XY - these are properties of the IMP operator (Y is a pencil, X is set of writing implements etc)

In the context of PRECISION, so adding a dimension to X refines precision, as does adding a dimension of Z to XY. We move from the general to the particular, the vague to the crisp ;-)

In recursion each row is associated with a geometric representation e.g. 2^2 being the tetrahedron, 2^12 the dodecahedron.

The representations of the 'orthogonal' X, Y, Z is in the form of recursion to three levels giving a 'meaning' space into which we 'map' information in the form of a cube etc

The roots of all of these structures comes out of the Sierpinski gasket (the root of recursion) with our specialist focus in mathematics on the discretisation of mathematics where we move from the dimensional to the dimensionless, from the geometric to the algebraic; the field to the dot.

Chris.
 

lightofdarkness

(deceased)
Joined
Mar 16, 1970
Messages
1,025
Reaction score
3
Martin,

just to cover the IMP operator. Working from the concept of the X axis, so it does NOT imply Y nore Z - just as X and Y do not imply Z; BUT Z implies X and Y and Y implies X.

The truth table is:

x y | x IMP Y
--+--+---------
0 0 1
0 1 1
1 0 0
1 1 1

I will write a program to scan through this operator applied to hexagrams.
 

martin

(deceased)
Joined
Oct 2, 1971
Messages
2,705
Reaction score
60
Hi again Chris,

You wrote "As for maths - Our brains will set down a basic, fixed, 'infinite' X axis. WITHIN the bounds of that definition is then applied the Y axis where that axis is moveable 'along' the X axis."

Is there research that indicates that this is also what the brain does when it processes 2D or 3D visual information, for instance?
Does it start with one dimension (X) and then construct the others (Y,Z) through recursion (and relabeling, etcetera)?
I don't know.
I tried a few Googles ('recursion + space - aliens' etcetera
happy.gif
) but I got too many results and I didn't find anything yet that seemed relevant.
 

lightofdarkness

(deceased)
Joined
Mar 16, 1970
Messages
1,025
Reaction score
3
Hi Martin,

>
> Hi again Chris,
>
> You wrote "As for maths - Our brains will set down a basic, fixed,
> 'infinite' X axis. WITHIN the bounds of that definition is then
> applied the Y axis where that axis is moveable 'along' the X axis."
>
> Is there research that indicates that this is also what the brain does
> when it processes 2D or 3D visual information, for instance?
> Does it start with one dimension (X) and then construct the others
> (Y,Z) through recursion (and relabeling, etcetera)?
> I don't know.

(1) in the building of maps we move from general to particular and so reflect the IMP operator - thus, if I find a piece of paper with "...the Z axis was +5", that information allows me to IMPLY the presence of a Y axis and that allows me to IMPLY the presence of the X axis. If, OTOH the piece of paper said "....the X axis was -4" there is NO implication there is a Y axis, and, if there was a Y axis, there is NO implication there is a Z axis.

The IMP operator is the only logic operator that is ASYMMETRIC and serves to represent high precision thinking where we instinctively conclude A given B but not B given A. (its format is thus ~x | y ) There is an emphasis on DEVELOPMENT in a HIERARCHIC, general to particular, dynamic. How this works in the IC? Dont know yet - I get 'numbers' but the focus is on finding the right question that 'fits' the numbers serving as answers. For 02 I get all hexagrams, which is right for the realm of potentials where that is the set of all hexagrams - IOW if I find a hexagram it IMPLIES a set of all of the others - reflected in the potentials of 02 (000000). I think the ordering at the moment from the program relates to the binomial theorem and its reflection of total yin and total yang lines in hexagrams. e.g. 24 implies 02 but no more. 07 implies 02 but also 24, and so on, to 01 that implies all 'below' it.

As I covered with the introduction of the XOR and line meaning perspectives, many of us have been 'playing' with logic operators and the IC and andreas and steven karcher even wrote a paper on use of logic operators etc but they did not ask the 'right' question such that they could have come up with what I came up with. What seeded my perspective was brain dynamics and how we derive meaning, not the dynamics of divination which was their perspective.

What the XOR material shows is that ALL logic operators are usable and will surrender meaning when applied to the 'right question'. From brain dynamics comes the XOR/AND patterns of part/whole dynamics with a focus on STRUCTURE and so a SET. The AND element takes us into issues of SEQUENCE (as your AND algorithm does) but it is GENERAL. If we order some of the operators reflecting movement from general to particular, flat to hierarchy, we have something like:

particular / general
----------------------
XOR+AND / IOR (general - unconscious)
XOR / AND (begin of conscious - as we see in paradox processing)
IMP / XOR (particular - high level, mediating consciousness)

Note how this pattern reflects the properties of semantics (a general) where, when compressed by language develops into a focus on SYNTAX (particular, rigid sequence). Note how syntax reflects a focus on 'correct sequence' and how IMP reflects a focus on sequencing ensuring A follows from B but not necessarily B from A. As such there is a relationship of IMP to AND where IMP is more 'precise' than AND in the context of linkage; it reflects the unidirectional element we find in nature re (a) structure as hierarchy and (b) development over time. "AND" links things but is symmetric, bidirectional and that is not reflected in thermodynamics. As such we can talk about "AND-ing" etc as a focus on linkage in space as well as 'time' but it lacks the precision in sequencing of IMP. IOW AND is like the first law of thermodynamics - all is conserved, whereas IMP takes us into the second law - things have a direction, we cannot use energy that is translated into waste heat and so the universe heats up to establish ITS version of hex 15! ;-)


(2) see such texts as:

Hoffman, D.D., (1998) "Visual Intelligence" Norton

(also see some of the comments/refs in FM/AM processing using vision in the hemispheres - http://www.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/general.html and our adaptations to light processing etc and its generalisation: http://www.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/light.html )

As information comes into the visual system through the eye (where differentiate/integrate is in the from of the fovea/parafovea dichotomy) it is broken down, deconstructed into 'planes', and later re-constructed in the visual cortex that covers a number of specialist areas. All data flow from any sense is also 'cut up' by the hippocampus as we form memory 'frames' spanning about 200ms of exposure; IOW the WHOLE is 'cut' into temporal ordering that allows for, reflects, XOR-ing from a sequence perspective (1,2,3,4...). Remove the hippocampus and you can no longer do this for new information, but can recall old information.

The emotional 'colouring' of information is done by the amygdala and lose that and you cannot map emotions to new experiences, but retain the old experiences. Lose BOTH hippocampus and amygdala and no new information is processable - no more memories.
 

Clarity,
Office 17622,
PO Box 6945,
London.
W1A 6US
United Kingdom

Phone/ Voicemail:
+44 (0)20 3287 3053 (UK)
+1 (561) 459-4758 (US).

Top