JoVo,
Here is part of a recent email of mine to the JCS-online. I did it in
numbered points to keep some order in my thinking as well as make it easy to
reference.
Note the sections on single-context thinking, where this acts as a
intepretations BASE, something we find in holographic concepts (the
reference beam) as well as in your own 'pet theory' re anchor points. IOW
ANY analysis of ANYTHING will contain these general concepts since they form
part of our neurology but need no necessarily be 'true'. :-)
Note that in the template model I use, the concept of dynamic relationships
and static relationships are 'natural' conceptual products of applying
recursion to the object/relationship dichotomy.
Thus the concept of QUALITY is interpreted as a 'whole', a 'part', a
'static', and a 'dynamic'. These are then refined to include motion in the
form of such concepts as contractive/expansive etc etc This gives us eight
basic modes of interpretation, or 'anchor' points.
Note that Dynamic Quality functions within a domain of no trust, either in
self or in others. Thus the self makes maps to establish 'meaning' and
'completion', and trust in others (or more so the distrust) is expressed in
the form of management/supervision etc (and so "TRUST NO ONE"!)
Hope the following clarifies some things :-)
Static Quality functions close to a domain of total trust, in others as well
as in yourself. Static Quality requires the sharing of the same space by
'different' forms to a degree where these forms have to merge and in doing
so establish a dependence that cannot be broken without causing some sort of
damage. In Dynamic Quality the dependencies are implicit, like the
constraints of a contract etc and so the forms CAN disengage.
TRUST forces the establishment of links and so bonds are formed. Distrust
favours BINDS, formal explicit contracts for defined times etc, all based on
the premise of not trusting...
---
Some points regarding the reflection on ANY concept (e.g. Quality,
Consciousness, Traffic Lights, Florida etc etc)
(1) Working from a neurological perspective, the brain shows a methodology
in
analysing of reality through the distinguishing between objects and
relationships. This distinction seems to be hard coded but is also
arbitrary --
What is an object and what is a relationship are validated through feedback,
personal, cultural, and universal.
(2) The object/relationship distinctions are further refined within the
context
of objects with the distinctions of wholes (stand-alone, self-contained
objects)
and parts (a term made-up of combining the concept of an object with the
concept
of a relationship).
(3) Within the context of relationships we find the distinctions of dynamic
and
static. Note how these distinctions seem to reflect behavioural
characteristics
similar to the whole/parts distinctions.
(4) Added to these concepts is that of duration/direction expressed in such
distinctions as foreground/background, text/context, positive/negative etc
These
are, at a general level, synonymous terminologies.
(5) Combining these sets of basic distinctions leads us to a set of possible
states used to describe any concept but at a very general level.
(6) Neurology work points to the brain making the fundamental distinction of
particular/general (P/G) within which operates the object/relationships
(O/R)
dichotomy.
(7) We thus find that within the general distinctions of P/G we find O/R
distinctions at all scales. For example, the hemispheres of the neocortex
reflect GENERAL biases of left to objects and right to relationships.
They are combined at this level with the P/G dichotomy such that a
particular is
also linked to the concept of an object, reflecting the pointed-ness, the
thingness of a particular as compared to a general.
(8) When we zoom-in to LOBES in EACH hemisphere we find the same O/R
distinctions but now within LOBES. Thus within the left hemisphere, a
generally
Object biased component of the brain, we find that the LEFT temporal lobe is
sensitive to objects whereas the LEFT pariaetal lobe is sensitive to
relationships.
(9) Switch sides and move to the RIGHT hemisphere and the RIGHT temporal
lobe
and RIGHT pariaetal lobe have the same sort of relationship but founded on
the
underlying bias found in the right hemisphere of GENERAL.
(10) Thus in face recognition there is a bias of the right to
general/unknown
face identification when compared to the left having a bias to
particular/KNOWN
face recognition (i.e. NAMED and so PARTICULARISED)
(11) If we zoom-in to a particular (!) lobe in either hemisphere we will
find
'interdigitations' of the left/right biases mentioned above such that a
particular object sensitivity in the left temporal lobe will have
surrounding it
ASPECTS-sensitive neurons, i.e. relational concepts.
(12) All of the above reflects a set of distinctions that unconsciously
influence our conscious mappings of reality.
(13) We further need to include the 'fact' that the left/right patterns
point to
a mode of analysis that favours (a) the setting of an interpretive context
(reflected in the single context, precise, high bandwidth but local mode
(single
frquency) of the left hemisphere (b) combined with a set of analytical
tools,
namely the set of harmonics, 'located' in the right hemisphere.
(14) Thus the analysis/synthesis process involves the dynamics of
interaction of
the harmonics WITHIN the single context used as the interpreter.
(15) For ANY concept all of the above distinctions are applied, such that
the
same processes are applied to MOQ as are applied to PHYSICS, HISTORY, ART,
SCIENCE, etc etc These disciplines are in fact localised metaphors for
describing object/relationship distinctions and combined with feedback lead
to
the emergence of a lexicon for each discipline that goes to emphasising
DIFFERENCE.
(16) What is implied by all of the above is that there is only ONE method of
analysis within the context of species-wide communications and in it is
sourced
all possible meaning; all meaning is sourced in the method used to derive
it.
Thus understanding the expressions within this method can aid in refining
our
maps as well as resolving paradoxes, more often the result of failures in
categorisations.
(17) To understand how we do what we do and how we get VALUE out of anything
requires analysis of SAMENESS, not DIFFERENCE, difference is artistic, it
deals
with expressions, samness is more scientific in that it deals with what is
BEHIND differences, the algorithms and formulas.
(18) The above is sort of looking at what is BEHIND the algorithms and
formulas,
namely the method used...
best,
Chris.
>
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
