Re: opposition and dichotomy
Chris,
It appears you don't read other messages, while asking for particular
attention to your person and constantly repeating the same content as a
mantra. In fact, you study is an application of the ontological principle of
(recursive) opposition to neurological processes, misplaced by you as
dichotomy (symmetric and asymmetric). And this virtue, not misplacement, is
the main reason why you content may have some appeal. But if you insist on
the generality of you approach and method, you have to lift up your terms
out of their specific domain and subsume them under ontological elemental
conceptions, when you will reach what is said below.
You are glorifying a rather doubtful logical concept.
Dichotomy, as a partition of a class (or kind) into two opposed subclasses,
has its small pluses but big minuses. Following the principle of perfect
dichotomy, when seeking the exhaustive division of a kind, you have to
divide it into two parts, one of which always make the negative opposite,
indefinite and completly indeterminate. Because of such an 'infinity of the
negative', Aristotle replaced the method of dichotomy by the method of genus
and difference, which is widely used both in logic and science.
Let's not mix up this defective logical category with opposition, a
universal (ontological) dynamic category, the origin and the source of most
radical changes in the world, where the opposites neither exclude each other
nor negate, but rather complete, so that to make a synthetic whole from its
opposing but interracting parts.
Last but not least, due to its ontological status, the principle of
opposition can be found in every sphere and realm of being: in nature
(natural selection), mind (reasoning and emotions), society (the rich and
the poor), human life (life and death), and human morality (desires and
duties). The meaning of opposition involves the most fundamental categories
whereby we reason about reality: thing and nothing, universal and
particular, same and other, one and many, necessity and contingency,
identity and diversity, division and integration, life and death, good and
evil, vitrue and vice, knowledge and opinion, liberty and slavery, truth and
falsity, as well as all sorts of conflicting ideas, theories, meanings,
reasoning and opinions.
As you may be noticed, although significant for the human brain, the
difference/integration oppositeness as applied to one kind of vegetative
cells, neurons, make only a case and example of ontological opposites, only
one specific kind of opposition in the domain of physical nature for one
specific sort of somatic cells.
Regards,
Azamat Abdoullaev
EIS Encyclopedic Intelligent LTD
http://www.eis.com.cy
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris Lofting" <chrislofting@ozemail.com.au>
To: "'SUO WG'" <standard-upper-ontology@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2005 2:32 PM
Subject: 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.