RE: opposition and dichotomy
Hi Azamat,
the material comes out of analysis of the neurology, not Aristotle ;-) As
such the neurology SEEDED Aristotle but he did not flesh it out re the
symmetric vs asymetric forms using recursion etc etc. The analysis of
differentiating/integrating has fleshed it out and sourced it in our brains.
The dynamics of the brain indicates recursive dichotomisation as a 'sense'
if you like - as our brains oscillate over areas biased to differentiating
or integrating so those qualities are reflected in thought (and emotions),
especially when the attention system encapsulates 'something'. From a
mindless state we have for each moment:
0 XOR 1
If we focus attention and oscillate within the bounds of that focus we get:
[t0] 0 XOR 1
[t1] 0 XOR 1
[t2] 0 XOR 1
add memory and we start to get:
[t0] 0 XOR 1
[t1] 0 XOR 1 IN [t1] = 00, 01, 10, 11
[t2] 0 XOR 1 IN [t2] gives us EIGHT possible qualities and so on.
Memory allows us to 'start' any analysis from [t2] (or higher) using the
qualities derived in context X as sources of analogy in fleshing out context
Y - until we relabel things to derive a unique lexicon for Y.
0/1 above represents dichotomies with core qualities, their template nature
of:
(a) integrate/integrate
(b) differentiate/differentiate
(c) differentiate/integrate
(a) and (b) focus on extracting DIFFERENCE from SAMENESS - they form
guassian distributions.
(c) extracts SAMENESS from DIFFERENCE - it forms spectrums, power law stuff.
The properties of (a) cover a focus WITHIN a level of hierarchy, all members
are in general 'the same' and we seek to identify difference. (b) spans
levels of a hierarchy.
The ordering of logic operators give us a hierarchy from general to
particulars:
IOR
AND
XOR
IMP
XOR and IMP map to dichotomies we use a lot. IOR and AND map more to the
'universe of discourse' when viewed structurally - AND also allows for
sequencing.
The sensory experience of XOR/AND is manifest in the experience of paradox.
FROM that experience we can apply the methods of dealing with the
experiences to dealing with life in general (see
http://www.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/paradox.html)
Does this oscillation in the brain affect our thinking and so models? - sure
does (see for example the papers of interhemispheric switching -
http://www.uq.edu.au/nuq/jack/jack.html )
The main focus in IDM has been to go back to the brain, the centre of
information processing and categories formation etc and 'start again'. With
the data available today we can review all of the speculations of the past
about how 'in here' works and either validate them or 'correct' them.
EVERY dichotomy we can come up with will 'map' to the above
symmetric/asymmetric forms and elicit the SAME general qualities when
applied recursively. It is the LABELS of those qualities that make the
differences in understanding.
Thus the following examples of dichotomies reflect the generic qualities of
differentiating/integrating applied to particular contexts (asymmetric
dichotomies):
fermions/bosons
RNA/DNA
particular/general
concentrated/diffuse
IMP+XOR / AND+IOR
syntax/semantics
...
...
Recurse these and all of what we find is reflected (as well as all
potentials). The ability to use one of these fleshed-out dichotomies to
describe another is due to the underlying sameness - the
differentiate/integrate qualities we FEEL when things are considered
'meaningful' etc.
In principle, given what we have today re 'in here', we could destroy all
past texts re mind/brain etc etc and we would not lose much ;-) Science will
always elicit change as it makes new discoveries that will REPLACE the past.
In fact, our consciousness likes all of the labels, the diversity etc and so
given the chance would re-establish lots of labels and 'aspectual' thoughts
;-)
How our brain deals with the 'negative' is constant. LOCAL context will add
some 'colour' but there is a universal pattern that spans the IDM 'dimension
of precision' and so shows us the full spectrum in possible expressions of
negation, BUT negation IS negation and as such has a definite, universal,
structure that is FELT.
IDM has its prime focus on the ROOTS of meaning, how we derive the BASIC,
the GENERIC, qualities to then use in particular, and so specialist,
contexts (and that includes communications with oneself).
Chris.