Re: Re: opposition and dichotomy
Hi Azamat,
> -----Original Message-----
> From: azamat abdoullaev [mailto:abdoul@cytanet.com.cy]
> Sent: Thursday, 24 March 2005 7:33 AM
> To: Chris Lofting
> Cc: standard-upper-ontology@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: 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.
When dealing with the basics, repetition gets the message through and in doing so can flesh out 'anomolies' in the overall perspective very quickly. I just do what nature does, exploit its methods ;-)
There is also a trait here that goes with persona, the prose reflects me talking to myself and so validating the expression. For example, if I walk up to someone and ask "what is the time please", some personas will work stimulus/response by looking at their watch and answering immediatly - others will repeat what you said first, either out aloud on in their heads, reflecting a bias to consideration of response through validation of the stimulus("did I sense that correctly?")
On the 'net using email and so writing 'off the top of my head' there is little editing etc ;-)
> 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,
:-) ... but thats the purpose, to SHOW the generality that FEEDS the specialities - the IDM and the "Language of the Vague" covers PRE-symbolic representations, direct experience of whole or part through hard-coded patterns of differentiating/integrating. Follow that path and you have a direct link of basic information processing at the neural level to all of our specialist categorisation tools operating with their own lexicon at the level of EXPRESSION of consciousness through spoken/written words etc.
Thus from the root notions of blending (whole), bonding (static relationship), bounding (parts), binding (dynamic relationships) comes all else in the form of compounds; from the REALLY simple comes the seemingly complex - but much of that complexity is 'wind' - re-labels of ONE set of qualities guarantees the 'speeding up' of social dynamics in general due to the embedding of complexity/chaos dynamics in any borders - and a 'cut', be it literal or figurative, will let loose those dynamics - IOW with a lot of labels, and their recycling, refurbishing etc, comes the potental for delusion, which capitalism exploits ;-)
It is this 'cutting' focus that enables capitalism to operate with its focus on REPLACEMENT and that focus is sourced way back down in the 'mindless' dynamics of differentiating/integrating. From the integrating 'side' comes the focus on BALANCE and so neutralising the excesses of the differentiating side. That in itself is 'attracted' to the light of differentiating and so agents of balance 'fragment' into competitive forms, rather than staying cooperative!
All of these 'generalities' are sourced in the neurology and SEED the specialities; seed their dominating 'drives' where they can all be mapped, IN THEIR GENERAL FORM, through recursion of the differentiate/integrate dichotomy.
IDM replaces NOTHING, it acts to aid, to guide, and as such is a support tool for dealing with the many expressions of the same thing. That is what my webpage examples of specialisations are about, showing the core meanings reflecting the underlying patterns of meaning from the species level that we then exploit at the consciousness level through re-labels etc.
> 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.
>
A valid point but I am not really interested in 'old' terms as foundations since they come with baggage that can be misleading. I am not presenting material to get accepted by the current dogma and so coached in their terms, the root focus is on FEELINGS and that will put off a lot of the more 'rational' individuals who dont want to get into how they feel (another persona trait of many 'rationals' is when asked "How do you feel?" they will have to think about it, repeat the question to themselves, think some more, and then come up with something cryptic or 'vague' - as in "ummm... Im fine".)
PRIOR to the realm of words was, still is, a realm of non-verbal communications that is 'vague' when compared to the wordy precision of the verbal. This non-verbal level has reasonably well differentiated structure to allow for those who do not speak the same language to communicate - and as such is more universal than English or Mandarin etc etc.
What is important to understand is that the 0/1 representations used in IDM reflect increased differentiations of QUALITIES, of FEELINGS, rather than being bit values 'as is'. For each moment we operate XOR but add in memory and recursion becomes a property of the system solely by linking SEQUENCE + MOMENT + FOCUS(encapsulation) - IOW the recursion is passive, an initial side-effect of linkages that has proven to be beneficial and so 'formalised' in brain dynamics.
Thus in IDM the 'bit' symbol of 100 represents a quality derived from moving from the general to the particular whilst 'XOR-ing', IOW qualitatively they are different - the first 'bit' is not qualitatively the same as the next bit when taken as a pair, but as individuals they are the same. The buildup of quality is represented in 100 - thus I differentiate (in general) to then integrate (middle) so I can finally integrate in particular.
We could map this into wave patterns where each bit reflects the level of the recursion and so the frequency format of the wave - the initial is 2cps, then 4cps, then 8cps when dealing with 3 bit patterns. This will give me eight wave patterns/pulse patterns BUT in doing so I lose the obvious 'bit' level precision that allows me to use logic operators to flesh out more details (e.g. If I COLOURED the representations, used coloured circles etc etc I would LOSE precision in that all I would have would be hues. I cannot get at the RGB details of that hue 'naturally' using the eye. OTOH if I use some attribute of AUDITION and ITS harmonics - chords - I CAN get access to each note in that chord - and the bit representations reflect that)
To FEEL all of this you have to step back from high energy wordyness and so into the realm of the vague (vague when compared to what we get out of our speech etc but crisp when comapared to even vaguer levels of experience). This is borderline consciousness/unconsciousness, just after sensory data passes into the neurology where vague sensory-system derived categorisations (e.g. fovea/parafovea distinctions made at the eye level) are 'refined' to elicit feelings of wholeness, partness etc etc.
In IDM we find a pattern of precision differences reflected in how much past context we use to seed our interpretations of the present. This is simply mapped out using sequences of 1s and summing contexts to reflect the present.
Thus in the realm of the mindless moment to moment (not even that, just 'moment') we can represent it as:
...1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1... (set-like)
If, regardless of scale, we use the immediate previous context frame to 'influence' the current we get:
...1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,.... (sequence-like)
If we use the previous TWO frames we get
...1,2,3,5,8,13,21,.... (set + sequence)
This is a fibonacci sequence and reflects the beginning of 'structure' using the minimum of energy. The pattern that comes out of this is a spiral that is 'close' to a circle form.
If you keep going to the point of considering ALL past contexts from the 'beginning' and you get:
...1,2,4,8,16,32,64,128...
The binary sequence. Here the circular spiral of the fib sequence has become a square spiral, we are in very high precision focus, very XOR. (as we move along the sequences so the numbers reflect contraction of the spiral, tigher, more concentrated, expressed in PAIR relationships (e.g. 64/128, 32/64 etc))
To go beyond this is where we put into something more than is there, and in doing so destabilise things - we move into the realm of complexity/chaos (as covered on the number line by Verhulst, Complex plain by Mandelbrot) and so emergence.
This ordering of precisions 'maps' to the dimension of precision of IDM and so onto JS's "bottom-top" lattice mappings. Thus, high precision 'theories' will reflect binary, differentiating, perspectives. 'Lower' levels will reflect lesser, more energy conserving, patterns. Squares are harder to integrate with reality than circles in that they intuitively reflect 'thought' at work and so not 'integrated' with reality, strongly differentiating, even transcending, when compared to the qualities the fibonacci sequence can elicit. IOW there is a detectable difference of 'flow', of gentle vs high speed, rounded vs edged.
Thus in JS's top-bottom perspective, 'crackpot' theories etc are more out of the realm of the fibonacci or before (and so not linked at all!) - vague in quantitative precision. However, the WHOLE dimension is in fact the 'reality', not just the binary end's focus on precision in that that focus is high energy using, to a degree 'artificial' - it requires US to extend things, to take over the context ;-) IOW each point on the dimension is a point of departure for eliciting 'meaning' and groups/individuals work perpendicular to the dimension to develop local perspectives a touch 'gentler' than high energy precision ;-)
High precision will elicit universals and so ideal forms that require LOCAL context to 'complete' them as wholes. The fibonacci 'end' of things is more 'integrated' with the local context but in being so requires TIME to elicit the structure of universals without actively, 'artificially' looking for them.
"Spiritual Geometry" of the ages gets into the notion of the fibonacci pattern being the 'closest to "god"' and you can still see this perspective at work today - the expression of the WHOLE is the expression of the WHOLE dimension of precision. LOCAL dynmaics will sort preferences in precision such that the 'less' precise in a precision-dominated collective will be marginalised. The 'spiritual' for some is at the fibonacci or 'nothing' end with a focus on a relationship with god etc - move to the binary end and the focus is on transcendence, and even on 'being' god etc. (and so "crackpot" theories can come out of the binary in the form of too much introspection and so emergence of one's "own little world" - IOW the binary end, besides being benefically 'transcending' can also lead to psychosis. (the 'lower' levels get into issues of personal identity and so depression etc)
On this dimension of precision is reflected the bandwidth/time dichotomy - high end binary means high bandwidth, focus on NOW. As we move towards the fibonacci end of things and before, we move into the use of TIME and so a stronger past/future focus than NOW focus. Again, these specialist labels represent the application of differentiating/integrating to a particular context - information theory etc (which, even in precision comes in a pair - Shannon (bit) and Gabor (holon)).
Since the IDM material has been APPLIED and dramatically extends such specialist perspectives as MBTI categorisation and I Ching/yin-yang categorisations (as philosophy etc) so its eating has been 'beneficial' to those who 'get it' and use it.... and I have had some positive emails from teachers of basic mathematics re describing the types of numbers used in Mathematics, their core qualities, through FEELINGS.
So, to indicate I am on some 'incorrect' or 'formally unacceptable' path is of no concern ;-) I came back onto the list to ask a question re recursion that no one as yet as answered! ;-)
As such, I have no intention of 'formalising' IDM to meet current 'academic' standards. I just do this for me - I want to know what is going on 'in here' and in that focus have come up with material that, I think, is of interest to others and so put it onto my website. Those who sense the 'depth' tolerate the prose. Those who dont, move on. Fine by me ;-)
Has there been 'commercial' interest? yes, but I put them off for at least a year, too much still to do to get it 'complete' and I am not interested in being financed to a degree where THEY determine what goes on (yes, the offer was made, and not bad, but...) - I finance myself through my contract work and in so doing am 'free' to think things out in my time ... I am not a hard core capitalist, money is not my particular source of meaning but I can map its nature where its 'all meaningful' to some ;-) - That said, as I 'age' so there are issues coming up re retirement, superannuation etc etc so I have to start 'considering' financial benefits possible from the material (IT contracts for the 'aged' are not that good these days, despite complaints of lack of people!)
All of that said, it is obvious from going through the discussions of this list and JS's website etc that the realisations of existential graphs etc and FCA etc are touching on the same area but NOT from understanding the METHOD we use as a species to derive meaning. As such, all I see is 'waving of hands' - the approach is 'getting there' but isnt 'there' - mine may lack 'mathematical rigour/formalism' BUT IS 'there' in general - which is where it is supposed to be ;-)
For example, the lattice perspective overlays a more 'basic' perspective, a context of recursion of X-otomies where we use the rows to establish FINITE states (e.g. top-bottom mappings). Apply the recursion enough and you get to the level of the row reflecting a continuum, no more differentiation is possible but also apparent structure is too detailed to be noticable (naked eye astronomy sees patterns of bright stars to create constellations. Move to the high precision of Hubble etc and those differentiations can get drowned-out by the surrounding details. The details can be of particular interest, showing local 'anomolies' etc but they still reflect universal influences, 'archetypal' forms as such, represented in our neurology through its adaptation to the universe).
At the continuum level, overlaying a lattice, and so ignoring background, seeing it as a 'plain sheet of paper', to reflect linking of qualities from row q to row p across column n will give you what you see but lacking in subtle differentiation of the *qualitative* differences determined by the underlying recursion. Consider this generic pattern:
x111
x110
x101
x100
x011
x010
x001
x00
This is recursion applied left-to-right (X being the 'whole') where each column is a perspective, a source of finite categories used to represent things and so communicate 'meaning', then each column reflects differences in precision. If we use any column as a source of meaning, and so as an ontology, we can make lattice patterns linking column,row across columns relationships seemingly 'free' of the background based on individual attributes - BUT it is the background, the context, that establishes local 'meaning' - IOW recursion comes with properties that are encoded in the expressions of that recursion.
As neuron-dependent life forms, it is the background, the context, that 'pushes' our buttons such that if any of us are placed in any column/row position, the qualities of that position will 'push buttons' and elicit behaviours - as a CONSCIOUS being so we can detect this push and try and assert our own perspectives over the current OR learn to adapt quickly by understanding the properties/methods of that particular position. These core qualities of positions are POTENTIALS that are ACTUALISED through labels etc.
That 'continuum' background is at the level of our species-nature, a 'carpet' of differentiating/integrating QUALITIES we then recruit to express 'meaning'. Using the top-bottom perspective, the bottom level reflects the integrating realm, high local context sensitivity of individual to surroundings, a BETWEEN focus. Move to the top and we move to the realm of universals, but that includes high local context sensitivity WITHIN the individual - IOW the realm of the 'universal' is also the realm of the charismatic; self-devotion over others-devotion, assertion of one's own context (being a 'universal') rather than coexisting with the existing context (and so 'fitting in').
In relation to various existing ontologies, since the IDM perspective maps out, IN GENERAL, the influences of neurology on categorisation of number types etc so it slots in 'before' the specialiation of Mathematics, 'before' the specialiation of Linguistics, and, in general, 'before' the specialisation we call 'consciousness'. To try and work from a specialisation to flesh out the generalisation is a 'problem' in that the working backwards CAN force one to make assumptions about things that do not exist at that more 'primitive' level (and that comes from personal experiences ;-))
To try and express something so basic in 'old' terms, also causes confusion in that it can be hard to 'dump' some associations linked to those terms. As such, the focus has been on starting again - given the recent data from neurosciences, how far can we go in coming up with something that maps senses-neurons all the way 'up' to symbols/metaphors.
IDM does that. It is intentionally 'vague' in terms, it wants you to FEEL the four Bs and so ground specialisations in the nature that nurtures them - our species-nature of differentiating/integrating ;-)
Chris.
This message was sent through MyMail http://www.mymail.com.au