Idealism vs Materialism : Idealism and the Differentiating Element
Hi Avril,
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-standard-upper-ontology@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> [mailto:owner-standard-upper-ontology@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG]On Behalf Of
> Avril Styrman
> Sent: Sunday, 20 March 2005 4:08 AM
> To: Chris Lofting
> Cc: standard-upper-ontology@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: RE: nature -> "human brain" -> "language terms" ==>> knowledge
> ?
>
>
> Dear Chris,
>
> please analyze thoroughly the idealism-materialism debate with IDM,
> so that I don't have to read any more books about it.
Jeeze, a *thorough* analyse on this list!? Ummm.. lets keep it 'vague' for
the moment in that since we are dealing with the Language of the Vague lets
start 'vague' through the use of differentiating and so a focus on contrast.
The Oxford dictionary definition of differentiating is:
"differentiate v.
1 distinguish, discriminate, contradistinguish, separate, contrast, oppose,
set off or apart, tell apart: They must learn how to differentiate one
species from another.
2 modify, specialize, change, alter, transform, transmute, convert, adapt,
adjust: All organisms possess the power to differentiate special organs to
meet special needs."
What is not clearly emphasised here, from a QUALITATIVE perspective, is the
association of differentiation and of PUSHING AWAY others to assert self or
some 'point'. As such there is a sense of 'clear identification' and in that
identification a sense of EXAGGERATION of A from ~A. (in our brains we can
see this difference between single context thinking, associated with a
'fundamental' harmonic within which play all of the others, and multi
context, 'mindless' processes where there is little exaggeration of A from
all of its harmonics. See comments and refs in
http://www.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/general.html - as such one part
contains all of the POTENTIALS, and the other part ACTUALISES one
perspective from the others, sets the key if you like, the tone - what we
see here at the level of consciousness is patterns of FM/AM processing where
the "A" of A/~A is FM and so very clear, FM stereo but being so is LOCAL)
This process of exaggeration IMPLIES a difference in energy utilisation
where to 'make the point' to differentiate A from ~A requires an increase in
energy expenditure, be it for a millisecond or a millennium. (thinking is
not free - our brains burn about 4 to 15 watts of power overall - our bodies
are usually as 'bright' as a 60 to 75 watt light bulb. as we think of 'new'
things so covalent/ionic bonds are broken/established in the brain and so
generate heat)
PHYSIOLOGICALLY, and so usually unconscious to our experience, the increase
in energy reflects an increase in bandwidth to 'make the point' clear,
obvious, precise. This increase in bandwidth will DECREASE the notion of
thermodynamic time, it will marginalise time into something at most
mechanistic and at best 'forgotten' - time becomes something slowable,
stoppable, even considered reversible. This emphasis is due to the increase
bandwidth where we focus on NOW. As such, time is felt as a sense of the
'eternal' - a STATIC focus emerges that favours differentiation, to make a
'point', to assert A over ~A, I need to 'freeze' it.
In our brains XOR-type thinking does this - (see the page on paradox
processing - http://www.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/paradox.html) where a
'static' form is extracted from a complex pattern - the problem in the
particular sensory 'paradox' examples is that that form appears to share
space with another and that, in the realm of XOR, is a no-no. So - given the
failure of bandwidth to sort out the problem, to resolve the 'paradox', we
fall back on TIME to resolve the issue, our brains 'oscillate' across the
elements expressed in the 'paradox' as we try to reduce an irreducible.
The MAIN focus here is on explicitly identifying the ONE over all else to a
degree we over-exaggerate that 'point', to a degree we make it a universal
when compared to all else. This focus is supposed to be temporary, LOCAL, in
that once the point is made so all energy is reduced, we fall back to our
more energy-conserving nature, our species-nature.
To experience this referred-to subjective time distortion that can come with
differentiating you need to speed yourself up. Play a mindless shoot-em-up
computer game can do it, or go driving on the freeway and then drive off the
freeway onto normal city streets. Check your comfort level and your speed.
You will find that when sped up/down so your sense of time has changed due
to the increase/decrease in energy expenditure required as you control the
joystick/car etc. This change will AFFECT your decisions and so thinking in
general - IOW it can affect your reflections on reality such that the
FEELING of the 'eternal' is formalised into the 'reality' of the eternal,
the static, and so unchanging.
As one refines skills, so one will habituate and so any differentiating, any
mediation by consciousness, will disappear to become instinct/habit or
packed into a symbol - a representation and that can include 'instinctive'
recognition of the sense of the eternal regardless of its 'truth' or not.
Note that the XOR(differentiating) 'drive', being a focus on clarity
introduces the notion of PRECISION - the differentiating attempts to replace
a current perspective with a 'BETTER' one and as such there is a bias to
focus on REPLACEMENT. I say this now since it will emerge later when mapped
to its complement - COEXISTENCE.
In the context of differentiating, and so a focus on mediation processes in
general, there is a mapping of any act of DELAY with the presence of some
form of awareness (see examples in J Libet's work (2004)"mind time"). This
delay is about 0.5 seconds in 'real time' overall and appears to reflect
MEDIATION activity - once one has habituated to whatever one is mediating,
so the delay disappears. As such, there is a relationship of consciousness
dynamics, increased energy dynamics, and differentiating overall (WITHIN
differentiating there is integrating but that area will be covered later).
The mindless (or semi-aware) 'species-nature' dynamic is where the ability
to go past a sensation, into its parts, allows for refinement of any
responses to that sensation. As such, stimulus/response gives way to
stimulus/considered_response that in turn folds back into stimulus/response
but now with fine details, finer levels of discrimination and so finer
choices in response.
In addition to all of the above, a fundamental concept that appears to come
out of exaggerated focus on consciousness is the concept of the spiritual,
the transcendental, and neurologically there is a focus on the delay factor
(sourced all the way down at the level of the neuron, just not necessarily
'conscious') working as a tool for mediation and for ESCAPE. As such, with
this focus on XOR-ing, differentiating, pushing-away, comes the notion of
escape.
Escape comes in two forms - the reactive where we back away from something
not caring where we are going, only concerned with getting away from 'here',
and the proactive, where we CHOOSE where to go, to escape to. Thus from the
notion of escape comes the notion of FREEDOM and with that notion comes a
focus on exploiting 'freedom' as well as 'protecting' it.
Note that all of this 'cutting' done in differentiating, freedom-seeking,
precision, will create borders - and what lives on borders? Complexity/chaos
dynamics and so the concept of emergence/transcendence/phase-transition etc
etc.... IOW we can detect a link here of differentiating with the notion of
spiritual (regardless of 'fact' or 'fiction') in the context of
transcendence (that focus on 'betterment' drives things - and so capitalism
is the 'best fit' of an economic system to these processes, as democracy is
the 'best fit' as a political system)
What is implied here? A property of differentiating is the formation of
fundamentalist groups where the natural fragmentation that comes with the
differentiating (recall all of that complexity/chaos input to things) forces
isolationism. Combine that with the differentiated form of the 'spiritual'
and these groups can be religious or secular in their fundamentalism.
What else emerges? The fragmentation, together with high energy expenditure
and a focus on 'betterment', elicits competition and a focus on
universalisation - the precision means EVERYTHING needs a label, but since
there is so much, so UNIVERSALS are used - communication is more along the
lines of using stereotyping etc. We see here a transition from the 'organic'
but vague nature of the species to the 'mechanistic' but precise nature of
the conscious species. With this concentration, this distillation, of
species qualities in general into particular individuals comes a focus on
each individual becoming a universal. This ultimate form of fragmentation
focuses on self-autonomy, being self-sufficient and so not dependent upon,
nor responsible for, anyone else.
With this hugely competitive focus develops technology. That technology
elicits data that reflects 'best practice' dynamics. Those dynamics are
incorporated into each individual's general behaviour (iow we all need to
adopt the latest in weapon systems etc to 'keep up'). From here we have
different outsides, SAME insides. What do we get with this form of
structure? Phase transition; the individuals start to group (at the
corporate level this is in monopolies and corporations developing their own
perspectives of reality - they are now starting to build their own schools,
pensioner resorts, and so promotion of the corporation as its 'own little
world')
Can we see this sort of behaviour in other life forms? Yes - flocking
behaviour where individuals making LOCAL distinctions elicit a non-local
expression in the behaviour of the collective. The difference is that in
phase transition all the individuals start to 'think alike'.
Dominating all of the above is a focus on clear identification of
individual/collective - to an extreme of exaggerating that identity and
associate it with some 'universal' sense of the 'spiritual' - IOW
consciousness is considered 'originating'.
With this comes fundamentalism, the 'religious right', and other
'specialist' perspectives that can reflect elements of another property of
over-differentiating - psychosis, where we disappear totally into our own
'little world'. Note here that the strong focus on XOR-ing, on
differentiating converts all meaning from a semantics position to a
concentrated form of semantics we label as syntax - all that matters is
one's location, one's position in the hierarchy (using logic operators, the
XOR focus gives way to the IMP operator - the only asymmetric operator in
the set of logic operators - and in our brains the bias is asymmetric
overall)
Given all of the above, to which would you associate differentiating/XOR?
more:
idealism / , / n.
1 the practice of forming or following after ideals, esp. unrealistically
(cf. realism).
2 the representation of things in ideal or idealized form.
3 imaginative treatment.
4 Philos. any of various systems of thought in which the objects of
knowledge are held to be in some way dependent on the activity of mind (cf.
realism).
OR
materialism / / n.
1 a tendency to consider material possessions and physical comfort to be
more important than spiritual values.
2 Philos. a the opinion that nothing exists but matter and its movements and
modifications. b the doctrine that consciousness and will are wholly due to
material agency.
3 Art a tendency to lay stress on the material aspect of objects.
?
------------------------
From the IDM perspective, the realm of idealism maps better to the realm of
differentiating, exaggeration of energy to bring out 'something' and in that
exaggeratation focus originality in the tool used - individual
consciousness, and so a focus on SELF, promotion of, betterment of,
replacement of existing context with something 'better' - i.e. one's IDEA,
one's model of IS-NESS in the form of what it SHOULD BE, expressed clearly,
lots of labels, but in that expression is clearly LOCAL rather than
UNIVERSAL, or more so local universals rather than universal universals!.
Overall the 'center' of things is WITHIN and/or ABOVE.
If we fall back on the IDM qualities, at this basic level, the differences
of idealism vs materialism is of a focus on the EXPLICIT and so
EXAGGERATED - labelled 'expansive blending' - as compared to a focus on the
IMPLICIT and NON-Exaggerated - labelled 'contractive blending'. The explicit
is more precise than the implicit but being exaggerated reflects more the
"AS INTERPRETED" vs "AS IS" nature of our being.
Note that, through IDM we can map-in other categorisation systems to aid in
fleshing out dichotomies. For example, given the dichotomy of
idealism/materialism there is an association to qualities in emotions re
anger/fear. These in turn reflect more basic dynamics dealing with CONTEXT
and how to deal with it - to REPLACE it or to COEXIST with it. Replacement
is manifest in anger/love(sexual) where BOTH are focused on betterment, be
it by erradicating the competition or drowning it out through
self-replicating. As such, idealism is 'extreme', discrete focused,
betterment focused, and in no way considerate of consequences of actions
upon others; the focus is all self - being 'free' of dependencies other than
one's own - self-contained, and ideal form where there are no dependencies.
On the otherhand, materialism is more associated with issues of FEAR and
GRIEF and in a more generic sense is focused on COEXISTENCE over
replacement, to BLEND IN with the context and in so doing (a) gain
protection from that context, and (b) identity from that context (and so the
association of materialism to surrounding oneself with comforts etc)
The use of context to PROTECT allows for the movement from a reactive focus
to a proactive focus, we can exploit the context, and so elicits the notion
of DEVOTION to context (fear transformed) as well as developing a sense of
quality control (Discernment, we learn QA from our sufferings). Overall a
focus on consciousness etc being rooted in, determined by, the existing
context into which one adapts - learns good habits/instincts etc to 'flow
freely' in that context in that the relationship PROTECTS the individual
overall.
This notion of 'blending in' to context, gaining identity THROUGH the
context, be it species, church, family, nation, or football club, makes
identity dependent on the existing context that is not 'mine' and as such is
not idealised directly - identity is idealised THROUGH the context and as
such coexists with 'something/one' else and so is dependent.
The overall differences we see here re idealist vs materialist perspectives
is a focus on PULL (idealism) vs PUSH (materialism); idealism equates with
differentiating and that equates with the aristocratic and is self-serving.
Materialism equates more with integrating and that equates with the
egalitarian and is others-serving.
Given these SHARP distinctions so we apply recursion to the dichotomy of
idealism/materialism and in so doing move into the REALITY of it all (IOW,
by being differentiating I have used an idealist perspective).
When we recurse we have such states as idealism operating in a context of
materialism. We can in fact map out VERY basic psychological 'traits' (with
vague emotion biases as well):
pure idealism - sensation seeking (anger/sex)
pure materialism - identity seeking (fear/grief)
idealism IN materialism - security seeking (rejection/anticipations)
materialism IN idealism - solution seeking (problem solving)
(acceptance/surprise)
If we keep going with the recursion we develop an ever increasing spectrum
of POSSIBLE states where LOCAL context will then add colour. The point to
make here is that differences in energy expenditure etc is not just
determined by nurture, nature also controls things such that genetic
diversity can elicit persona TYPES that take-on the traits covered above.
In the USA, according to analysis of the persona typologies through IDM we
have the vague mapping of:
35% sensation seeking
35% security seeking
15% identity seeking
15% solution seeking
IOW we have a mapping of personas within a collective to the IDM mappings in
general and they in turn back to basic qualities of idealism/materialism etc
etc etc
When we go 'deeper' into the categories we find we can cut the dimension
that develops in recursion to TWO threads. For example, if I recurse
0(materialist)/1(idealist) three times I have:
000, 001, 010, 011, 100, 101, 110, 111
These form into:
000, 001, 010, 011 (materialist thread)
100, 101, 110, 111 (idealist thread)
The state 011 reflects a STRONG idealist focus but in a materialist context.
This will elicit 'competitive' individuals but who focus on serving the
context, the group, the state, rather than serving themselves (111).
If we REDUCE all of the energy expressions (the 1s) then they all pack into
the symbol representing POTENTIALS - 000 and each expression is brought out
through expending energy with the 'ultimate' form being in the charismatic,
high energy, idealising, expenditure of 111. These make leaders (PULL ALONG,
push away). The 'lesser form' (011) make managers (PUSH ALONG, pull
together).
Given this expending of energy to differentiate, so the GROUND state is
000 - materialist - where the species adaptation to the universe is through
instincts/habits and context will PUSH these to extract one expression, an
ACTUAL, from that set of potentials.
BUT - given genetic diversity, so over-energy-expending individuals can be
born, not just made, such that the rare charismatic types end up in the
'high energy' realm of things. Due to the differentiating bias so the
'instinctive' focus is on idealisation, self-promotion, competitiveness etc
etc. In that realm they 'shine' and in doing so can attract followers, as
moths to a light (and so those followers can be destroyed by that
association but also 'uplifted' by that association - the issues with these
types is they focus on themselves and so can fail in basic group management
tasks).
Note in the above representations of the idealism/materialism dichotomy, of
the eight categories, only two are 'pure' and CONTEXT will determine any
biases - thus in the USA there are more 010/011 types of materialists (35%)
reflecting an overall idealist influence across the collective. (in the
idealist thread it is dominated by 110/111 idealists - 35%)
Science, at its core, is idealist and reflects the materialism WITHIN
idealism focus on problem solving - here the focus is on facts/fictions.
Lessen the 'ideals' and we move to idealism in a context of materialism but
now the focus changes to issues of right/wrong, a moral element presents
itself, ethics replaces logic.
The 'pure' forms of idealism/materialism are related more to issues of blind
faith - absolute trust in self (sensation seeking) vs absolute trust in
others (identity seeking). Due to the recursion, within each you will find
the other. This is not recognised at the high precision realm of
EXPRESSION - the focus on precision has forced a COMPETITIVE perspective re
the elements of the dichotomy of idealism/materialism whereas the dichotomy
is more asymmetric than symmetric and so reflects spectrum, power law stuff,
rather than some guassian distribution.
Note that we can use the SAME mappings to, say, Science and so derive
'idealistic' science vs 'materialist' science and so on. The underlying
patterns, qualities, are the same, the CONTEXT makes the difference, and
that includes some areas being well mapped out whilst other areas have not
yet been touched.
time to take a break? ;-)
Chris.