Re: RE: nature -> "human brain" -> "language terms" ==>> knowledge ?
Gary, Alex,
Using recursion we can take ANY concept and flesh out all POSSIBLE expressions. At the core level we take the dichotomy of NOUN/VERB and derive from its recursion all of the qualities reflecting the 'mixing' of the elements of the dichotomy - and so we introduce the gerund (superposition format) and all variations where some nouns work more like verbs, some verbs more like nouns etc etc etc.
We can create a taxonomy of universal noun/verb concepts (or more so the qualities elicited) spanning all LOCAL languages (i.e. English, Mandarin, etc etc) where local nuances add 'colour', add 'difference' and so can favour some threads of the taxonomy over others. (English for example attempts high precision by labelling everything, and at least twice - reflecting the mix in its evolution of, for example, old English and old Norse (and so 'sick' and 'ill' mean the same thing but have different social roots).
A fundamental METHOD that comes out of this recursion of an asymmetric dichotomy is the notion of nominalisation (and so denominalisation) were we convert the verb into a noun - this method demonstrating a NATURAL function of differentiating/integrating dynamics.
If we change levels from a focus on nouns/verbs in general to focus on particulars, so with the same method we have the notion of A hammer vs TO hammer - derivable from the 'whole' that is the gerund form of hammering.
Our dichotomy therefore becomes object(a-hammer)/relationship(to-hammer) Apply it recursively and out will pop all POSSIBLE qualities describing 'hammering' as a universal. LOCAL context will then select one of the qualities, or sort them all into bestfit/worstfit orderings, for use.
What those qualities are applied to is determined locally - it could be a 'real' hammer, or a brick, or a hand motion, etc etc.
This method is applicable to ANY label since we work off PAIRS, namely the differentiating element vs the integrating element. Note that in this asymmetric format the 'thing' comes out of a 'process' - what is differentiated comes out of the integrated, a part comes out of a whole where the whole is the set of all POTENTIALS and differentition extracts a potential, converting it into an ACTUAL. (if we zoom down to the dichotomy of the labels of fermions/bosons or of mRNA/DNA and the same general dynamics occur - reflecting those dynamics being properties of the method of meaning derivation) - the potentials as such is a set of links that can be summed and then a label attached - the label reflects the 'objectification' of the integration of the links, the associations.
The differentiating/integrating dynamic is fundamental to the brain, all else follows. Thus in linguistics, a specialisation, we re-label differentiate/intregrate into noun/verb. In OOP we relabel it into classes/methods. As we recurse the dichotomies we derive all possible meanings to a level where either we can no longer detect difference or else it is no longer practical to continue.
Note that for EACH quality derived, we can apply the SAME method - reflecting the XOR/AND methods usable to derive more details; iow each derived quality, in its formal identification, becomes a 'whole' out of which we can extract more parts - this can go on ad infinitum if we want.
IMHO the focus of the previous emails has been on LABELS and a somewhat 'rigid' perspective rather than on what is underneath - the FEELINGS from which we get a sense of 'meaning'. Those feelings have their roots in our species-nature, not our consciousness-nature. As such, to try and 'start' at the level of linguistics or 'OOP' concepts is naive, it reflects starting half way up a ladder and so excluding understanding of the whole that is the ladder and its dynamics (and so 'laddering' is broken down into A ladder vs To ladder. The verb, the qualities derivable, cover climbing up <something> or 'laddering' a stocking! ;-).
The recursion of gerunds etc allows for all possible meanings to be derived and CONTEXT then selects the meaning that 'fits'. - that perspective of a superposition where context then decides is reflected in such notions and particle/wave 'duality' etc.
Traditional perspectives re linguistics stem from a past that has been ignorant of the functioning of 'in here' and how it processes information. As a result there is an 'ad hoc' manner of development of theories and as the theories/models start to fill in the dots so they get more precise but insist on staying 'in the box' of linguistics. This is, IMHO, an error; the idea in specialisations is to derive precision but being specialist means that sometimes 'new blood' is required and so a need to step out of that specialist box and into the generalist box ;-)
Chris.
This message was sent through MyMail http://www.mymail.com.au