| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
Azamat, you wrote:
"As I have
noticed in my communication with Chris, dual thinking, the tendency to
classify things into two opposed classes, the damnation of all
metaphysical argumentation, makes all the confusion here
again."
No. There are TWO
perspectives operating. ONE is based on exaggerations from a base, what I have
labeled as "asymmetric" dichotomies. These focus on identifying SAMENESS
across DIFFERENCES. These will give you a spectrum format in expression - power
law stuff. The passage 'along' the dimension that develops from this is a
passage from vague to crisp, local to universal. Each point in this hierarchy is
a point for analyisis of DIFFERENCE from SAMENESS and as such we use opposition
to analyse - this gives us Gaussian distributions, the dynamics of +1/-1 as
compared to those of worthless/priceless.
Due to the PRECISION
focus of our brains, so as we differentiate we move into perspectives that are
'opposites' oriented, we are focusing on a particular point on the spectrum
derived from asymmetric perspectives. Our brains do this
'naturally'.
The price of high
precision thinking is the pushing away of 'others' to make things 'clear' - this
clarity is PARTS oriented when seen from the position of our species... gets
into what I have pointed out before re XOR/AND dynamics - and is experienced in
such areas as basic sensory paradox processing.
Understand these
dynamics and out pops the properties and methods of all categorisations where
the universals created then need local context to give them some
colour.
As a dichotomy is
recursed so it develops into a continuum where we can no longer detect
'difference'. THAT becomes the background upon which we then try to impose
structures - that background is not a 'tabular rasa', it has the structure of
patterns of differentiating/integrating such that the labels we create will
reflect what is beneath them: meaning in the form of vague 'feelings' of
'something' where the precision is in the label that links the universals to a
local context, and in doing so causes the generation of a
lexicon.
The differentiation
element of the differentiating/integrating dichotomy is the 'discrete' end of
the process and will focus on objects, wholes and parts. The integrating element
is the 'continuous' end of the process and will focus on
relationships.
The asymmetric
nature of the dichotomy shows objects being derived from relationships (or the
'space inbetween' objects - as fermions are derived from bosons). Focus on the
objects and out will pop 'opposites' in the form of DIFFERENCE from SAMENESS
(fermionic perspectives - electron/positron pair where the difference is in the
charge).
If we focus on the
'boson' end of things, so the focus on differences in energy levels reflected in
differences in temperature give us the 'hierarchy' we see emerge from a BEC
where the BEC is representitive of the 'integrated whole', no distinctions
possible, and as we raise temperature so fragmentation occurs, allowing for
identifying SAMENESS from DIFFERENCES. This SAME *dynamic* operates in our
brains and reflects the overall dynamics of differentiating/integrating - same
patterns across all scales of analysis.
(for some maths re
representation of all of this at the abstract level of
'differentiating/integrating' see http://www.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/symmetry.html)
Chris.
|