RE: Dialectical view on the goals and means of Upper Ontology
I wrote:
> There is also the concept of enantiodromia. I find this comes up
> in the focus on extracting particulars where things come in PAIRS
> when extracted from the WHOLE. If I define A and 'push' that
> definition, pour energy into it, so it gets to a point where
> identification is no longer possible by what it is, but by what
> it isnt, and so A becomes ~A; this happens structurally as well
> as temporally. The WHOLE is the two, the AND. Our method of
> analysis, use of XOR, forces the symmetric form of dichotomy to
> treat each element as if 'whole' when they are not - the A/~A are
> REPRESENTATIONS of the WHOLE (the universe of discourse in this
> +/- form of dichotomy and as such, push one end and you will
> 'pop' into the other.) (the commonest of examples of
> enantiodromia temporally is of birth to death; a thermodynamic process)
>
I dont think this is as clear as I would like it to be so consider this:
We have a pool of POTENTIAL notions. If we apply some energy, raise the
temperature a bit, in certain ways, out will come an ACTUAL notion. Lets say
we have extracted the notion of devotion.
There are some fundamental properties associated with the notion of
devotion, in particular the notion of devotion TO X.
The extracting of the actual notion of devotion from the pool of potential
notions reflects the operation of the asymmetric dichotomy. If we apply that
dichotomy recursively we get 'degrees' of actualisation, from the 'vague'
sense of devotion to the 'crisp' - and so a spectrum of values where the
more energy we put in to extract that notion so the more 'universal' that
notion becomes.
If we now 'zoom in' to the focus on DEVOTION TO X, so we move from the realm
of the asymmetric to the realm of the symmetric in that out of the SAMENESS
that is devotion we focus on DIFFERENCES in the form of OPPOSITES - here as
devotion to SELF vs devotion to OTHERS, aka NOT-SELF.
From this extraction of an apparent 'single' notion from the pool of all
potentials has come the extraction of 'sides' - we are dealing with two
sides of the same coin.
If we analyse in high precision the properties and methods of one side, say
the devotion-to-self, we will reach a position where we have poured in so
much energy that we 'flip' the coin and are faced with devotion-to-others.
IOW to fully understand 'devotion' we have to cover both sides as well as
the 'flip' mechanism, that sudden 'jump' from one perspective to the other.
If we zoom-down to our categories in particle physics, the dichotomy of
fermions/bosons we find:
(a) fermions emerge from bosons AS A PAIR and reflect the asymmetric form of
dichotomy.
(b) fermions reflect the symmetric form of dichotomy in such categories as
electron/proton - IOW these form the two sides of the one coin. If we focus
analysis on the electron, at some time we will come face to face with its
other side, the positron, and BOTH give us details on the WHOLE that is a
'fermion'.
This dynamic of general-to-particular (asymmetric dichotomy) and then
particular/particular (symmetric dichotomy) appears to be a fundamental of
our thinking and so of our brain in action.
We are not dealing with reality here, we are dealing with the METHOD used to
interpret reality, where that method is a universal and so applies in all
analysis, be it of the imagined or the real.
In that analysis, formal logic has emerged from dialectical logic and as
such is over-focused on symmetric perspectives. That over-focusing
marginalises the dialectical perspective where that perspective is essential
for understanding reality 'as is' - the idealism, the fundamentalism, that
has come out of our analytical perspectives is 'fun' but also dangerous in
that it can blind us and so we fail to see consequences of our actions on
reality 'as is'.
Chris.