To re-state the introduction to this paper, reading through the literature of
the Neurosciences, Cognitive Science, and Psychology, it is possible to identify two fundamental functions sourced
at the level of the neuron that seem to be generalised and so reflected in behaviours of the columns, lobes, hemispheres
of the brain and 'out' into the behaviours of the individual, collectives, and species.
These functions I will label as the Transformation, or Compliance, function and the Transcendence function but
if we wanted to reduce these terms to very basic expressions then we are dealing with pushing and pulling.
The Transformation function reflects the processes of encoding instincts and
habits within the dendrites, the input areas, of a neuron such that they work as filters and allow the context
to PUSH the neuron. The benefit of this is in (a) conservation of energy through not having to continuously monitor
the context for change and (b) integrate with the context through the formation of habits and so the ability to
respond immediately to change and as such 'flow' with the context. Thus the sensitivity to context is on 'auto
pilot' and is not conscious for us as a species; we can be placed in a context that 'sets off' behaviours that
we, as conscious forms, have
no immediate control of.
Habit formation reflects the encoding of 'sameness' and as such the ability to instinctively respond to a stimulus
where the response is highly precise and elegant, ensuring conservation of energy. The habit as such serves as
a tool of PROTECTION and establishes a degree of stability in a relationship with a context and thus we can identify
habits and instincts with the concept of rules and an overall focus on integration. (there is a subtle distinction
here that associates instincts with LAWS and habits with RULES. Laws cannot be broken, rules can
be broken.) This habit formation allows for the consideration of responses to a stimuli and so conscious descision
making comes to the fore to aid in refining the habit that eventually becomes 'instinctive'. In complex species
as that of ourselves, so the genetic context-sensitivity of the mindless instincts are supplemented by the mindful
sensitivity to context.
The stability of a habit implies the presence of a sense of the eternal where the instincts of a species, from an individual's perspective, are 'eternal' as
are, to a lesser degree, the habits of a collective/individual. This sense of the eternal allows for the identification
of the particulars of habits and so the recruitment of those particulars in the prediction of behaviours of both
one's own as well as that of other species.
The etyomology of the sense of the eternal sources the sense as
a product of high energy information processing where the focusing of attention upon 'something' forces subjective
time distortion such that time is impoverished, transformed from its thermodynamic links to being something mechanical
and so slowable, stoppable, and even reversible. This impoverishment, if analysed itself without reference to any
scientific research on metabolic rates and information processing, elicits a sense of the 'timeless' other than
a time sense that is labelled 'eternal'.
The generalisation of the transformation function, through recruitments etc (see following comments on the transcendence
function re recruitments), allows for (a) the learning of 'good' habits that ensure quick integration with a context,
and (b) the internalisation of a map of the context such that certain events can elicit behaviours that reflect
the pre-empting of situations within the context - the general reactive nature of living in a context and being
pushed leads to the development of a proactive nature - the ability to intentionally push and even pull others.
Note that the transformation function, being concerned with habits, will act in an inhibiting manner in that it expresses the particular characteristics of a particular habit and as such MUST inhibit all processes not reflecting the habit (but at the same time excite elements of the habit to express themselves - there is a focus here on passive expression, where what is not inhibited becomes the expression, and active expression where energy is expended to excite a pattern to 'stick out' from the set of patterns)
The shift from a reactive perspective to a proactive perspective is reflected
in the other function of the neuron - the Transcendence function, where the transcendence is more exciting than
inhibiting in that the process reflects the ESCAPE from a habit/context and as such the inhibition of the habit
through the excitation of all else bar the habit (and as such the habit is inhibited)
Of primary importance in brain function is the ability to integrate all elements involved in expression into a
whole. This process is reflected in the neuron through the use of synchronisations where groups of neurons can
fire 'as one' to ensure the proper expression of an instinct/habit. With this synchronisation, circumstances can
arise where the habit does not fit the context such that 'out of context' behaviour can result that can threaten
the lifeform.
The synchronisation processes allow for habit data, as it flows from dendrites through to the cell body (soma)
prior to eliciting a firing down the axon, to experience an anomaly in the synchronisation such that the habit
data is re-ordered, re-sequenced and so can elicit an 'error' in behaviour. However, this 'error' can also serve
as an 'insight' into alternative behaviour that allows for (a) the escape from a context to another or (b) the
assertion of one's own context over the existing context; thus the synchronisation processes allow for habits to
be 'sliced n diced' and offer escape paths from the rigidity of stimulus/response.
This ability to escape/assert reflects the REPLACEMENT of a context with a 'better', or potentially better, context
and as such reflects the concept of transcendence. This process complements the transformation function where the
focus is more on integrating with the existing context and as such focusing on retaining overall BALANCE of the
ecosystem.
What is of importance to note in the transcendence function is the process of synchronisation that implies the
process of RECRUITMENT - the synchronisation process requires integration of many to fire as if one and this process
enables a neuron to recruit another/others to widen bandwidth to aid in identifying and responding to 'something'.
This does not mean that those recruited benefit to the same degree as the neuron that recruited them - it means
that the process of recruitment is a property of transcendence in general and as such reflects the concept of EXPLOITATION
and also reflects the development of a hierarchic perspective.
The transcendence function thus comes with an element of exaggeration as a property. Since the soma of the neuron
FOLLOWS-ON from the dendrites so the transcendence function operates WITHIN the context set by the transformation
function and so transcendence operates within a general context of PROTECTION in that the transcendence function
is the last step in protection, the need to escape/take-over all being extreme acts of protection.
Thus the properties and methods of the transcendence function stem from a focus on protection where the exaggeration
abilities allow for the ESCAPE from a habit and/or context in that the habit either is not working or has become
too oppressive in nature and so the transcendence function serves as a door to FREEDOM.
It seems as if, in our species in particular, in the process of development, the transcendence function has itself transcended in that the seemingly original intent of exaggeration for protection has developed to include exaggeration for the sake of exaggeration - we 'get off' on the stimulation of the process, we enjoy the 'buzz' of the sudden exhilarance when we 'transcend'.
These dynamics of both transcending and transforming have their own creative nuances where transcending is, creatively, more innovative in that the creation is NEW and as such can REPLACE past perspectives. On the other hand creativity in the realm of transforming is more adaptive in that the focus is on a variation of something and so an addition to an existing toolset rather than the replacement of that set with something totally different.
Overall, The properties and methods of our species reflect the attempts to isolate
and so 'divest' our selves of connection to the universe or more so to divest our selves of explicit dependencies.
This divestment is enabled through the development of technology that initially is considered the 'servant'. The
overall intent, the drive is to be 'free' of current contexts, to be able to, with our technology, be self-sufficient
and so assert our context over others.
Mindless dynamics in this perspective of development will focus on a demand for replacement - this is due to the
nature of the thinking alone in that high precision thinking forces a single context perspective and so an A XOR
B perspective (the exclusive OR) that dominates the culture - there develops a transcendence seeking process that,
originally there to enable escape from a context, becomes habituated where we transcend to transcend and so try
to assert the context; we seek a 'better' X to replace all previous versions. This is a property functioning at
the level of the neuron that seems to have been abstracted to function at the level of consciousness-dominated
collectives and so can lead to 'problems' where metaphors are taken literally, the map is taken to be the territory
it represents; our created 'everyday', the everyday of the species is believed to be the everyday of the universe
- it isnt, it is a hybrid.
This replacement focus, this A XOR B perspect reflects a distortion such that the push for technological progress,
the mindless, stimulus/response push, ignores consequences of one's actions and so ignores the ever-strengthening
dependency on the resources of the planet to derive more technology as well as maintain the existing technology.
Since the resources of the planet are limited so technology becomes a burden more than a 'godsend' in that it cannot
be maintained OR people must lower their expectations or more so become the servants to the technology - or else
we shift our economic focus and so be discerning about what we develop (and so billions of dollars required to
make accelerators are focused more on social demands - schools, hospitals, defence systems etc) or we focus on
universal transcendence - we seek to escape the planet and move out into the universe - but Einstein seems to have
put a block in the way.
Furthermore, technological progress as such can lead to diminishing returns and as such a push to favouring the
development of monopolies etc where take-overs are required to keep the technology ball rolling.
The point here is that all of the expressions, the formulas, algorithms etc etc are reflections of the underlying
species-level manner in which meaning is processed - the dynamics of objects and relationships - such that understanding
the manner in which we THINK reveals the properties and methods of all we can ever know and as such all of nature
that we can ever know since to understand our technology so our technology is required to be extensions of us,
never replacements for.
By identifying the properties and methods from which we derive meaning so we can better identify what we can know
as well as get a better idea re the filtering process we use in dealing with the universe (one consequence of which
is the wave/particle duality issue in that for most interpretations context is ignored, people focus on this as
a 'universal', it isnt other than being a consequence of methodology and so a reflection of pattern in our 'universe'
but not necessarily 'the' universe.)
The current trend in specialisations reflects the trend to try and understand the universe through some metaphor
(that is not considered as such - it is considered as a 'pure' discipline, a magical '1:1' mapping of the universe).
The error here is in not understanding the properties and methods of the species such that no one discipline can
achieve 'perfection' since all disciplines are LOCAL manifestations, expressions, of the GENERAL patterns of meaning
we all share as a species. In other words these disciplines will always require 'fresh blood' as well as continue
to 'bifurcate' into further specialisations - and so reflect the process of derivation (as in a sub-discipline
that specialises on the properties and methods of 'location' compared to another that specialises on the properties
and methods of velocities etc etc).
Thus, to develop deeper understanding you have to step out of the box into the
'bigger' box of the species where that box is the 'root' box for all perspectives; otherwise you get caught-up
in the infinite loop of specialisations and that takes you away from understanding the species nature.
Thus the only way to refine these specialist disciplines is to tie them to the one generalist discipline - that
covering the manner in which we as a species categorise and so derive meaning. In other words once you understand
the properties and methods of the species so you can 'refine' your reflections within each of the specialist disciplines
and treat them for what they are - metaphors for communicating meaning derived from the linking of the general
set of qualities, with the overall transcend/transform focus, of the species with a specific context.
[Neuron-related References on Transformation] [Neuron-related References on Transcendence]
The dichotomy of Exploit/Protect is a common dichotomy reflected in social dynamics where the exploitation of X leads
to the protection of X that leads to the exploitation of that protection and so on and so on.
Out of the middle of this interaction of exploit/protect develops a mediation service industry (e.g. lawyers, accountants,
psychotherapists etc) that in turn uses the same dichotomy in that industry's development; meaning that the mediation
industry will itself reflect attempts at exploitation and so the emergence of a need to protect the industry from
that exploitation.
What is noticeable about the two functions is that they reflect properties we at the 'mind' level associate with
Logic where analytical, or formal, logic is represented in characteristics of the Transformation function and dialectical
logic is represented in characteristics of the Transcendence function - e.g. the replace issue of context A with
B leads to a transcendence to a state C and as such we can identify the source of Hegel's focus upon the negation
of a negation (see more details on Logic).
The 'eternal' nature inherent in the transformation function reflects the focus on the static emphasis in formal
logic where the nature of instincts/habits reflect the identification of 'eternal' laws and such concepts as the
law of identity, the law of the excluded middle, the law of contradiction; all laws applicable to assertions of
'eternals', the never changing - as in the form of instincts/habits.
A prime function of the brain is in identification - of establishing a clear, eternal, notion of something/someone.
We can split this function into two, (a) the identification of something from a universal perspective and so 'eternal',
and (b) the identification of something from different contexts where we are often required to RE-identify in that
context determines the expression - this re-identification process is reflected in the spoken word where, for example
the closeness in sounding of the terms wail and whale mean the context will aid in identifying the meaning intended.
The transcendence function works WITHIN the context set by the habits and so the transformation function. The transcendence
function is strongly associated with timing, synchronisations and as such reflects a more vector perspective when
compared to the more scalar perspective of transformation function. The totality is expressed with the concept
of a tensor, a matrix made-up of many vectors.
The transcendence function reflects the ability to exaggerate or distort a particular perception and as such is
more reflective of left brain processes than right brain.
Since the transformation function focus in on protection, so the transcendence focus is on exaggeration of protect
in the form of an ability to ESCAPE, a perspective that is later changed to a search for 'FREEDOM', the focus shifts
from escaping FROM something to escaping TO something 'better'.
Note how by identifying the transcendence function as dependent on timing and being the source of integrated responses
to stimuli, so we associate distributed systems and the division of labour as prime elements of the transcendence
process.
A fundamental property of the transcendence function is 'getting it right' - expressed in the form of exact timing,
of perfect synchronisation of all elements of the psyche/soma in all forms of information processing. The dependence
on high precision and the exact 'moment' relates the transcendence function to the emphasis on 'dot' precision
and a focus upon 'purity'.
The transformation function, more attuned to habits and instincts and so more GENERAL in nature than the transcendence
function, is more biased to approximations in processing information and as such has an emphasis more on 'field'
precision where the linking of different 'dots' leads to an IMPLICATION of some sort or another - there is a focus
on signs rather than taking things literally, the latter a trait of the transcendence function.
The transformation function reflects an emphasis on BALANCE, homeostasis, and so a bias to INTEGRATION. The transcendence function reflects an emphasis on EXAGGERATION and a focus on REPLACEMENT and so a bias to DIFFERENTIATION. The dynamics within is entangle integration and differentation to varying degrees. We can here identify the set of generic meanings we have identified as resulting from recursion, as properties of the neuron. We now can turn all of this abstraction into a concrete example of the protect/exploit dichotomy at work:
Capitalism is an excellent example of exploitation, the drive for the recruitment
of others to aid in achieving one's own 'transcendence' where Capitalism needs to 'keep producing' to keep the
money coming in and so each year a new model 'replaces' the old and is deemed 'better' than the old. The 'recruitment
of others' is the exploitation where these others do not receive the same benefits (profit) as does the recruiter.
The basic resources for capitalism are those of human labour as well as the labour of other lifeforms and the exploitation
of natural resources of the planet.
Socialism is the expression of mediation
as a reaction to the exploitation of Labour (in particular peoples labour-power) by Capitalism. This mediation
activity has led to the development of labour unions, arbitration commissions etc etc to mediate the exploitation.
Conservationism (the Green movement) is the expression of mediation as a reaction to the exploitation of the Means of Production in the form of raw materials
- in other words the exploitation by Capitalism of the natural resources of the planet.
The product of all of this need for mediation is the growth of a mediation industry - accountants, auditors, umpires,
lawyers, park rangers, lobbyists, psychotherapists etc Of note is that the mediation industry itself is also open
to the exploit/protect dynamic where within the industry are those out to exploit it as are those out to protect
it. In other words a degree of self-referencing occurs such that the focus by some in the industry is on the industry
itself rather than on the mediation process being applied externally.
Mindless Capitalism ('unbridled' Capitalism) has its focus on transcendence, on the 'new' and as such will not
consider consequences of its actions in its endeavors to produce the 'new'. All it 'knows' is 'new' means 'benefit'
in that the species is attracted to the 'new' in that we exploit the 'new' for social identity (as in "*I*
have this year's BMW.. etc etc") - the 'new'
helps one to 'transcend', can give one a 'lift' (as does the act of acquiring the 'new' - shopping!). Here we witness
the benefits of the Transcendence function running out of control where the success of the function means we transcend
to transcend, we get off on the 'buzz' of the new, ignoring consequences as well as ignoring the main focus of
transcendence as a force of escape from 'unwelcome' contexts where it allows one to break habits.
When caught in the transcendence loop the transcendence process has become 'habitual',
where seeking of 'freedom' has no purpose, there is nothing one needs to escape from, the escape process has been
transformed into a process of seeking 'more', somewhere to go for the sake of going rather than somewhere to escape
to.
We can see that the social problem is that as new-ness becomes addictive, as we transcend to transcend, as we get
high of the buzz of 'new' without consideration of consequences - so we have the exploitation of children etc in
factories as well as the exploitation of natural resources to supply energy/raw materials to create the 'new' etc.
As the mediation processes introduce labour laws, conservation laws etc, so these laws influence Capitalism where
the capitalist's focus on labour shifts to exploit the labour of those countries without such labour laws etc.
As conservation laws influence Capitalism so the focus is upon those countries that have the natural resources
but not the laws etc Thus Indonesia gets stripped of trees and Reebok etc build factories in Indonesia for cheap
labour etc
The analysis of socioeconomic processes by Karl Marx demonstrated the perspectives of exploit/protect without recognition of the role of mediation in these processes such that Marx's focus, or more so that of Marxism-Leninism, was more on replacement than integration where the Capitalism of the Marx's focus was that of the unbridled Capitalism of the 1850s.
The focus here is to flesh-out concepts we find in the work of Karl Marx vs the
IDM concepts of the Transcendence function (exploit) and the Transformation function (protect).
In his texts "A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy" and the "Grundrisse" Marx
starts to fleshout his circuit concepts where, fundamentally we have:
C - M - C (commodity - money - commodity)
vs
M - C - M' (money - commodity - money+)
The first circuit reflects the selling of a commodity to get money to buy a commodity. This is 'simple' exchange
of one commodity for another and so reflects an overall 'integrated', a balanced system where all is conserved.
This concept reflect the properties and methods of IDM's Transformation function where 'shape shifting' satisfies
the need to remain integrated within a context and so overall the focus is on maintaining symmetry. The 'refinement'
is in the original circuit being C - C, basic exchange, where the C - M - C allows for the seller to have choice
in what is later bought in that the choice is in the form of using M and so delaying 'final' exchange.
The second circuit reflects the notion of "Surplus Value" in that we use money to buy commodities we
can sell for more money. This reflects the IDM Transcendence function in that the aim is to replace M with M' (and
so 'transcend') but to do that we have to recruit and exploit C (commodities). This process reflects the development
of asymmetry (which can focus upon the breaking of symmetry - a form of 'escape'). Note also that in the C - M
- C relationship there is usually a personal need for the C, there is a relationship of seller/buyer to C whereas
in the surplus value circuit what C is is immaterial, the focus is on the M/M'.
The general categorisation of these circuits are fleshed-out in Marx's Capital Vol I but of more interest is the
analysis of the dynamics of these circuits (or more so the surplus value circuit) and this dynamic is focused upon
in Capital Vol II.
The IDM material identifies the Transcendence and Transformation functions as being fundamentals to our neurocognitive
processes and as such expressed in the development of our species in social context as well as personal contexts.
In other words it is 'inevitable' that Marx would come up with what he did (and these circuits are covered in general
in the earlier economic theorists such as Adam Smith and David Ricardo, both upon whom Marx drew extensively in
his analysis of political economy)
BUT, in Marxist-Leninist philosophy the idealism starts to come out in that 'socialism' is deemed the path to 'communism'
as a replacement for capitalism. One of the main aspects of this process is the 'abolishment of exploitation'.
As we seem to make-out in analysis of our neurocognitive processes, the recruitment and exploitation of A to help
B transcend is 'built in' where at the neuron level this 'transcendence' is in the basic form of increasing bandwidth
with which to process data and we see this 'drive' in neurons where, for example, neurons in the brain usually
linked to processing a specific type of data (limb movement, vision processing) will be recruited by nearby neurons
if the original source of information ceases to function (amputations, blindness of an eye etc)
Furthermore, the synchronisation processes in the brain allow for one area to be recruited to aid another in processing
data - I.e. 'increase bandwidth' and so 'transcend' the current state for something 'better'. In other words exploitation
is a property sourced at the level of the NEURON (or more so neural network) and is thus a property of all neuron-dependent
lifeforms.
Since our behaviours, their patterns, have their roots in our neurocognitive processes so at the level of consciousness,
both social (others-aware) and personal (self-aware), these patterns will be expressed in particular abstract forms.
What is noticeable about the "Surplus Value" Circuit is its reflection of transcendence as in M' to replace
M but also that the exploitation process actually bifurcates C into a pair of (a) Labour as a commodity and (b)
Means of Production as a commodity where these 'means' are in the form of raw materials etc. (we also get into
C' etc reflecting the refinement of commodities that become marketable for more M'' etc etc)
Through the application of IDM has been identified a process where, in the focus on exploitation there is a 'drive'
to protect against excess where out of the middle of the exploit/protect dichotomy emerges a mediation industry
such that the 'breaking' of symmetry is possibly avoided.
From these processes of transcendence develop mediation that, for Marx becomes the perspective of socialism stemming
from the Labour exploitation (and so unions, government intervention re labour laws re exploitation of children
etc) BUT there is also the perspective of Conservationism stemming from the exploitation of the Means of Production,
in particular the finite resources of the planet.
The modern-day political activity of conservationists as well as socialists reflects the precision in Marx's analysis
of 'commodities' in that the distinct 'cut' of labour/means-of-production has been validated in the distinct differences
in the political make-up of the socialist and conservationist movements.
The focus of the capitalists was on socialism due to the immediateness of human-to-human interactions as compared
to the at times seemingly 'limitless' resources on this planet. Once capitalism continued to develop so the protection
of the means of production started to become an issue where the tension of social issues were reduced (comparing
1850s capitalism to that of today where interventionism aids in 'management') and environmental changes brought
our attention to the 'means of production' issues.
The point here is that IDM maps all of this from the generic level and as such can serve as a guide in both fleshing-out
disciplines as well as providing predictions/prophecies stemming from the understanding of neurocognitive processes.
We can map-out the dynamics of the mediation process in that there is a dynamic of exploit/protect where, moving
from the integrated state of the 'universe', here symbolised as '0', is an exaggeration, here symbolised as '1':
(exploit)1<---0 (protect)
As the exaggeration becomes too exaggerating it threatens to break the symmetry rather than just exaggerate part
of it to reflect 'asymmetry'. In other words the 1 becomes a threat to 0.
Out of the middle of this, as an initial act of protection, comes mediation (+):
1<---+---0
This mediation then develops along the same lines as the original in that the position of (+) reflects a new focus
on symmetry and so 0 and so emerges a new path. This repeats and repeats:
----+----
|
|
+----+----
| |
| |
+----+----
| |
| |
+----+----
|
|
etc etc.
The SUM of this horizontal/perpendicular process is an emerging focus on the diagonal and so the 'state vector' associated with the everyday of
the universe.
Thus, from the stress of capitalism -- socialism, there emerges a mediation process that initially is focused on
protection and so reflects the '0' end, the socialist end, of the original dimension. Out of this develops the
same general pattern where the protection, the mediation process, is itself exploited and so and so on.
Since we have unbridled capitalism < -----> socialism we have mediation <----> excessive mediation
(exaggeration of mediation). This act forces a restraining of development and so an apparent 'socialisation' process,
we enter 'stagnation' in development - too many laws etc make 'innovation' difficult. as such, due to the excessive
mediation so the 'drive' of exploitation can become too 'restricted'. This can turn into revolution if the bridle
is to 'rigid', too imposed. BUT this can be a revolution of technology etc etc and from Marx's perspective so the
development of a mediation industry to 'protect' workers etc reflects a form of 'revolution'. IOW the rigid EITHER/OR
of Marx's thinking was over-precise, too rigid and failed to see what comes out of the middle.
The strong details focus of Marx and later of Lenin etc DEMANDS a focus on REPLACEMENT as the only solution to
problems. This is (1) LOCAL and (2) not necessarily in the form of 'armed conflict'.
Over the 'long term' the focus is on integration over exaggerations such that replacement is not an option, more
so revolution in the form of new perspectives/ideas/technologies allow for continued development of the long term,
integrated 'whole' (and so 'evolution'). These dynamics reflect distinctions made by Hegel where he comments that:
"With regard to its form, logic has three aspects (Seiten): (a) the abstract or understandable (versändige) aspect; (b) the dialectical or Negatively rational (vernüntige) aspect, (c) the speculative or positively rational aspect."
This is not so much reflective of a trichotomy but more so the process of bifurcation. differentiations, and later integration. Thus (c) reflects the derivation of a quality (e.g. A AND B). (b) reflects the rotation process (where A AND B becomes A XOR B) and (a) the 'whole' that is the sum of these parts OR the cause of the differentiations into (b) and (c). A example of this is bifurcation process can be found using the works of Karl Marx where as a response to the exploitation by capitalism has emerged the anti-exploitation causes of socialism (fights the exploitation of labour) and conservationism (fights the exploitation of natural resources - the means of production).
Note that to understand Capitalism one needs to understand the acts of exploitation
of both labour and natural resources as well as understand the mediation processes that come out when the exploitation
is extreme - as in the mentioned mediation industries of socialism and conservationism.
I think you can 'see' how Marx etc al came up with their perspectives in that they intuitively picked-up on the
above dynamics but could not put their finger on it other than the interpretation of replacement etc, not recognising
capitalism as as an exaggeration of socialism and so when MANAGED can 'transform' as well as 'transcend'.
With the concepts of transforming/transcending, and the derivation of protecting/exploiting, comes the additional derivation of evolution/revolution. The transformation function, with its focus upon integrating with a context by learning 'good' habits reflects the concept of evolution and the use of what we can call dialectical negation. Dialectical negation is where, rather than totally, absolutely, replace 'something' we in fact retain elements of that something as elements of the 'new' perspective. This reflects an evolutionary process based on feedback processes where nothing is thrown out purely for the sake of 'starting again'; there is in fact a focus on 'shape shifting' where basic infrastructure is retained and only expression is 'new' and as such we see an example of adaptive creativity.
The process of 'starting again' reflects properties of the transcendence function and the concept of analytical negation where the past is totally replaced and so destroyed - there is thus no chance of going back, of restoring some past perspective; we move into the realm of innovative creativity. This replacement process reflects that of revolution where the intense 'passion' of the moment demands total replacement of the past such that at the level of collectives so a collective's history is 're-interpreted' to reflect the 'new' vision as if it was always there or else a new collective is claimed and so a new history begins. Note here how both dialectical and analytical negation exist WITHIN both evolution and revolution where in the latter the re-writing of history allows for a more dialectical form of negation ('keep what can be useful') whereas the assertion of a 'new' collective, and so totally eradicating the previous even as history, reflects the analytical form of negation.
In summary, through IDM, we can identify the notion of EVOLUTION with the IDM Transformation function based on the gradual integration with the context through the development of habits and so a sense of maintaining balance. We can identify the notion of REVOLUTION with the IDM Transcendence function with a focus on replacement of the current context with something 'better' - be it by direct replacement or escape to another context - as such there is an emphasis on continuity in the transformation function and discontinuity, the transition/'exceeding' focus, in the transcendence function.
Recognising the dynamics of differentiation and integration so we here can recognise revolution as being an exaggeration of evolution, where the high energy focus reflects the over-exaggeration of a situation to allow for a replacement of context, and as such the revolution feeds back into the realm of the everyday to, in principle, restore some balance through eliciting development or constraining some form of over-development and so allowing for further evolution.
A point of interest in the context of evolution (and for that matter its revolutionary aspects) is that of the development of awareness of self and of others (a theory of mind).
We opened-up this work on IDM with the following comments (I have added some links to relevant material):
"We can make two distinctions re our nature - as individuals and as members
of a collective.
Our development seems to be sourced in a few million years of species development such that our instincts, our
senses, etc etc have all developed from the species perspective.
An example of the 'mindless' stimulus/response process of instincts is where in Baboon troops that start to move
across country a particular pattern forms instinctively where young and elderly are in the middle of the troop
surrounded by the 'warriors' etc.
The flocking behaviour concept reflects the development of rich patterns of social behaviour that is not sourced
in any one individual - it comes from all individuals making local distinctions and that behaviour being amplified
and spreads across a collective with a life of its own.
The species operates in the everyday of the universe through instincts/habits and as such works off full spectrum
responses to stimuli - whole responses to whole stimulus. There is a strong collective perspective here.
The refinement of the brain, especially in our species, where from the GENERAL wholeness perspective has emerged
a PARTICULAR partness perspective, and so revolution at work,means the emergence of a problem in that:
(1) as species members our instincts/habits work 'wholistically'. As a species we operate in the everyday of the
universe, the universe "AS IS"
(2) as refined species members we can refine our instincts/habits through parts analysis (details processing) and
so make our holistic responses more context sensitive, be more refined. This can take time in that it is 'mindless'
feedback processes.
(3) the development of consciousness, initially awareness of SELF followed by awareness of OTHERS (as in their
minds), as a consequence of increased sense of the particular, increased neural complexity, introduces a distortion
in the species, namely that the species' whole responses to the environment, and so a focus on whole as whole,
conflicts with the parts nature of our responses where, given consciousness, so this parts realm is considered
from the individual mind as a whole, it is the realm of "AS INTERPRETED".
(4) What comes from (3) is that, at the LOCAL level of perception, and so the parts perspective, the individual perspective, we experience paradox
in that we fail to recognise our parts nature in sensory processing (where our senses reflect species adaptations not individual adaptations) and so interpret parts expression as wholes expression
and so can experience paradox.
(5) (4) is supported by the ability of the brain to see a 'complex line drawing' just prior to our focusing on
details and our consciousness 'naming' the parts of the 'complex line drawing' as if wholes sharing the same space.
(for more on this see the page on paradox)
(6) in summary, our species nature precedes our individual and so awareness natures but our individual nature does
not make the distinction and as such will interpret parts perspectives as if wholes perspectives. We see these
'errors' all the way 'up' from basic sensory processing of paradox to the so-called EPR 'paradox' of Quantum Mechanics where the
structure of the experiments are parts oriented but interpreted as wholes oriented. OUR individual reality is LOCAL,
differentiated. The reality of the universe is NON LOCAL, integrated, and contains within it our species nature,
a nature we share with other neuron-dependent species with a focus on stimulus/response.
(7)Through reflections upon the findings of IDM re meaning derivation we can identify empirically-derived data
that shows that species nature came before self, and others, awareness, before 'consciousness' emerged as we know
it. As such our sense of awareness is but a PART of our WHOLE being. BUT, being 'derived' from complex neurocognitive
dynamics so consciousness has room to develop its own 'wholeness' - the everyday of the species, a hybrid everyday
made-up of the everyday of the universe entangled with our idealisations."
The Above points take us into such territory as the derivation of, the conscious seeking of , 'truth'.
(A version of this section originally sent as an email to a General Semantics list)
From work in the neurosciences, zoology, and cognitive sciences there seems to
be a definite path of development for the notion of 'truth' where its roots seem to be in territorial mapping,
on IS-ness as in 'mine mine mine not-mine'. IOW 'truth' seems to have its roots in the concept of, the feeling
of, ownership, and from a collective perspective of 'kin' ('one of us' and so accepted rather than rejected - acceptance
seeming to be a 'fundamental' emotion - see the page on IDM
and Emotions).
The development path of the feeling of 'truth'/'correctness' etc., seems to be completed in the left hemisphere
of the human brain where the feeling associated with a 'truth' is linked to such abstractions as syntax processing
and so 'correct/incorrect'. The territorial focus is reflected in the linkage processes (mapping using waypointing and vectoring)
of the hippocampus and associated 'painting' of the link as positive (mine) and negative (not-mine) by the amygdala.
These in turn seem to stem from our more primitive brain areas ('reptilian') which in turn link down to the level
of the neuron and so all neuron-dependent lifeforms would seem to have a sense of ‘truth’! (ALL is used as in the
properties and methods of the neuron, its basic communications processing of input (axonic), output(dendritic),
and their mediation (synchronisation processes, feedback loops etc), are known and so common to all neuron-dependent
lifeforms)
The overall focus is on 'dot' aka 'point' precision, a trait of our brain processes that deal with discreteness
and the A of A / NOT-A. (we even express negation through its positive assertion (as in the intense focus of "NO!")
and in doing so can distort our perceptions, our categorisations such that the expression of something being NOT
TRUE is done in an intense, positive, truthful manner. For example see the page
on persona categories)
We can derive three categories of 'truth' - individual, cultural, and those of the species that we can label as
'universal' in that the sense of 'truth' is rooted in the properties and methods of our species' derivation of
meaning (at least, the roots of truth seem to be more in the properties and methods of the neuron, abstracted to
a high degree in our species)
As such, 'absolute' truth stems from the species level where that level sets the bounds for all perceptions and
as such is 'universal'. It is usually our left hemisphere that focuses on deriving universals with its focus on
single context processing - the more precise you need to be in a dynamic universe so the more you need to recruit
universal constants to 'pin down' that precision, that 'point' that one needs to be stable 'forever'. This gets
into the labeling process where once something is labeled it can be hard to re-label - also touches on the 'first
impressions' process.
BUT also note that the left hemisphere focus is PARTS oriented, it deals with the LOCAL as compared to the NON-LOCAL.
In other words the links made to a 'universal' context does not necessarily mean that what is identified is 'universal'
but more so what is identified is 'universal' WITHIN the bounds of what we are focused upon - in other words the
'universe of discourse'. Here we move into the realm of specialisations where the feeling of 'truth' is associated
with the specialisation through the developed lexicon that comes with, is derived from, that specialisation.
Knowledge development is reflected in the exaggerations of data from the everyday of the universe and the categorising,
labeling, of that data. This too focuses on specialisations as we 'go for details'. BUT there is also a distortion
present where the apparent 'universal' nature of some knowledge stems from the distortion of time, where the high
energy focus of energy in the form of our attention system causes a physiological event where time is converted
from its thermodynamic nature to a more mechanistic nature that allows for it to be slowed down, stopped, and even
considered reversible!
This moves us into the experience of the sensation of the 'eternal' and from that comes the concept of 'eternal
truths' aka universal truths -- well, sort of, in that the presentation of eternal truths comes with an aire that
at times seems to 'transcend' the Universe!
In other words a consequence of our physiology, stemming from our focus of attention to identify 'something' clearly,
creates an ideal form that is asserted as if real rather than ideal. This gets into the understanding that our
self and others-awareness seems to be rooted in a sense of the particular, of personal identity, and as such is
to us the source of 'wholes' etc whereas our species sense of 'wholes' is rooted in the realm of the general.
Paradox
is a consequence of this confusion of individual wholes perspective vs species wholes perspective where the reduction
from general species to particular species but also to personal 'universal' is missed such that part perspectives
are deemed 'whole' such that apparent paradox can emerge. E.g the assertion “There is no absolute truth” is a universal
statement, and so ‘wholes’ oriented, but comes from a parts perspective.
If we focus on Logic, as in both analytical and dialectical, we notice that the law of identity, A = A, stems from the analytical and comes with
the ‘requirement’ that A is “PURE” in form. The realm of the analytical is the realm of exaggerations to the degree
of removing dynamics, time is impoverished and even ignored - the focus is on the sense of the ‘eternal’. As such
the PURE quality of A can be that of the categories of ‘pure’ or ‘mixed’ but the law says you must have pure=pure
or mixed=mixed.
When we move to the realm of the dialectical, A != A, and so keep time as a factor, so we cannot have pure=pure
nor mixed=mixed, we always have pure->mixed, mixed->pure, IOW pure BECOMING mixed, mixed BECOMING pure. IOW
the notion of ‘pure’ or ‘mixed’ is but a moment in time, a phase transition point. Remove time, remove ‘becoming’,
and all you have are these phase transition points, the ‘absolutes’ of the realm of the analytical (also note the
discrete perspective that emerges from this removal)
From these distinctions we can identify two forms of negation - analytical negation and dialectical negation. Analytical
negation is replacements oriented, it is absolute where X negates Y by destroying it, total replacement - A VS
NOT-A, A XOR B. Within the same box of the analytical we have analytical affirmation - A == B, A ‘is the same as’
B.
Dialectical negation, on the other hand, reflects transitions and transformations, cyclic and morphic changes,
that allow for X to negate Y but through replacement that can absorb Y WITHIN X. Within the same box of the dialectical
we have dialectical affirmation - A =!= B, A ‘is similar to’ B.
As such the dialectical perspective is evolutionary (negation allows for integration) whereas the analytical perspective
is revolutionary (negation is totalist, replacement oriented, differentiating) and from the IDM material we can
identify the revolutionary as an exaggeration of the evolutionary, analytical is an exaggeration of the dialectical
through the impoverishment of thermodynamic time to being mechanistic and so stoppable and so ignorable - fine
for developing LOCAL perspectives but a problem when trying to focus on the NON-LOCAL. (As a maturing culture,
so the instant gratification of revolution can give way to the delayed gratification of evolution)
All of this discussion on Logic etc takes us back to the concepts of truth. In the realm of the analytical, its
focus on ‘dot’ precision means that my feeling of ‘truth’ is linked to some thing, event, concept etc as A (my
feeling) == B. This is LOCALLY useful but also comes with some potential illusions/delusions (e.g. confusing thing
with the feeling e.g. the sense of the spiritual, and its association with idealism stems from the realm of the
analytical - as does our personal senses of identity, of ‘me-ness’)
Dialectical ‘truth’ on the other hand is not as ‘precise’ as analytical truth, it is more ‘field’ oriented and
focuses on dynamics rather than statics where the static is ‘fleeting’. As such dialectical truth is closer to
the everyday of the Universe and as such is more NON-LOCAL in perspective, more integrating than differentiating
but being integrating takes-on a more probabilistic focus in that the base unit of measurement for integration
is a PAIR as compared to the unit of measurement for differentation - the ONE.
So -- we can say that individual truth is differentiating and can be asserted as ‘absolute’ when compared to Cultural/Species
truth that is integrating and can be asserted as ‘relative’. Step out of the box of the individual and you step
into the ‘greater’ box of the local collective. Step out of the box of the local collective and you step into the
box of the species. WITHIN each box there exists a sense of absolute truth, as there exists the notion of ‘what
you see is what you get’ - IOW things are taken literally rather than as metaphors. It is only in the box of the
species that universal truths are identifiable as absolutes since we cannot step out of that box - unless we mutate
- but the communication processes at the level of the species is limited to qualities, patterns, stemming from
the neurocognitive dynamics of differentiations/integrations, objects/relationships, WHAT/WHERE - the moment you
apply labels to these qualities so you move back into the collective/individual boxes. In other words, at the species
level the ‘dot’ precision, the strong feeling of ‘truth’ experienced at the level of the individual becomes too
diffuse to be intensely ‘meaningful’; we are ‘driven’ to specialise truths.
However, individual consciousness introduces something of interest in that it (a) asserts whole ‘truths’ from a
level that is parts biased from the species perspective and as such can create paradox but (b) has an intensity
that allows for ‘transcendence’, for the ‘sudden’ moment of enlightenment, the ‘ah-HA’ experience within the lifetime
of the individual rather than collective/species - IOW evolution can be sped up through revolutions where the revolutions
are now in the form of ideas. Of particular interest is in the impassioned ideas - those of ‘IS-ness’ in that the
faith, the blind faith, in these ideas acts to ‘force’ their expression - we ‘spread the word’ - and as such take-on
a charismatic, catching, focus that is deemed ‘THE truth’ for the initial periods following the introduction of
the idea. The longer ‘THE truth’ is held to be so the longer the idea is retained and so becomes integrated with
the individual/collectives.
It is this level of integration, linked to the dialectical and the consideration of time as well as our species
nature, where ‘absolute’ truths eventually end-up, they become ‘instinctive’, ‘obvious’. This realm of the integrating
is also the realm of habits and instincts such that fundamentalism does NOT end-up as ‘absolute’ truths despite
the attempts by religions etc to force it to be so (the limit seems to be at the collective level rather than species
- reflecting the time period required to make a truth ‘universal’ for the species ;-) - thus psychosis (the absolute
truth of one’s “own little world”) seems limited to individuals and a possible extension into a local collective.)
If we convert ‘truth’ to ‘facts’ so all facts fall within the bounds of the species but cannot be expressed clearly
at that level - we need specialisation, we need ‘IS-ness’ to communicate, categories, compute and as such the precision,
the ‘dot’ precision of ‘IS-ness’ is required. The brain, when reasoning, works from a general to a particular perspective
and within the particular uses precise probabilities prior to assertion -
“Cerebral Cortex, Vol. 11, No. 10, 954-965, October 2001
© 2001 Oxford University Press
New Evidence for Distinct Right and Left Brain Systems for Deductive versus Probabilistic Reasoning
Lawrence M. Parsons and Daniel Osherson1
University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, San Antonio, TX and
1 Rice University, Houston, TX, USA
Lawrence M. Parsons, Director, Cognitive Neuroscience Program, Division of Behavioral and Cognitive Sciences, Directorate
for Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA
22230, USA.
Deductive and probabilistic reasoning are central to cognition but the functional neuroanatomy underlying them
is poorly understood. The present study contrasted these two kinds of reasoning via positron emission tomography.
Relying on changes in instruction and psychological ‘set’, deductive versus probabilistic reasoning was induced
using identical stimuli. The stimuli were arguments in propositional calculus not readily solved via mental diagrams.
Probabilistic reasoning activated mostly left brain areas whereas deductive activated mostly right. Deduction activated
areas near right brain homologues of left language areas in middle temporal lobe, inferior frontal cortex and basal
ganglia, as well as right amygdala, but not spatial–visual areas. Right hemisphere activations in the deduction
task cannot be explained by spill-over from overtaxed, left language areas. Probabilistic reasoning was mostly
associated with left hemispheric areas in inferior frontal, posterior cingulate, parahippocampal, medial temporal,
and superior and medial prefrontal cortices. The foregoing regions are implicated in recalling and evaluating a
range of world knowledge, operations required during probabilistic thought. The findings confirm that deduction
and induction are distinct processes, consistent with psychological theories enforcing their partial separation.
The results also suggest that, except for statement decoding, deduction is largely independent of language, and
that some forms of logical thinking are non-diagrammatic.”
ALSO SEE:
“Oaksford, M., and Chater, N., (2001) "The probabilistic approach to human reasoning" IN Trends in Cognitive
Sciences Vol 5. No8 August 2001: 349-357
(published PRIOR to the above) From the intro:
"In a standard reasoning task, performance is compared with the inferences people should make according to
logic, so a judgement can be made on the rationality of people's reasoning. It has been found that people make
large and systematic (i.e. non-random) errors, which suggests that humans might be irrational. However, the probabilistic
approach argues against this interpretation" (p349)”
Of special note is the statement that : “The results also suggest that, except for statement decoding, deduction
is largely independent of language, and that some forms of logical thinking are non-diagrammatic.” This touches
on the IDM perspective of there being a ‘language’ of the neurocognitive processes pre the specialisation processes,
a species ‘language’ we share with all other neuron-dependent lifeforms and existing prior to, and determining
the specialised expression of, human language a la spoken/written words.
For all species there exists a hard-coded hypothesis about reality, a set of ‘universal’ truths, in the form of
the set of hard-coded instincts that, being elements of a hypothesis, are used for deduction and so a developing
‘partness’ perspective over the root ‘wholeness’ perspective; we cannot ‘replace’ instincts, but we can re-configure
them to a degree where their absoluteness (context sensitivity is at the species level) is made more context-sensitive
through local interactions.
As we have developed so we have recruited this hypothesis creation process from its genetic, species level, focus
to that of making personal as well as collective hypotheses - and so different categories of ‘truths’.
The above identified probabilities perspective operates within the bounds of high precision focus (left hemisphere
thinking where we work out of the particular as compared to right hemisphere bias favouring general to particular
- combine the two perspectives and you get ‘us’) is reflected in our most precise of tools - Quantum Mechanics
where ‘IS-ness’ is the collapse of the wave equation (a set of probabilities) upon confirmation of a measurement,
but Science is focused on generals, on algorithms and formulas, and as such does not get involved with ‘blind faith’
in that a probabilities perspective requires negation to function. In blind faith there is just ‘certainty’ and
that is ‘not scientific’ even if the passion can move mountains.
We see here a tie of the feeling of absolute truth to blind faith and so a strongly LOCAL focus that through the
actions of consciousness can be made ‘universal’, BUT the ‘final’ declaration of a truth as fundamental only seems
to be ‘complete’ when the ‘truth’ becomes encoded in our instincts (not habits) and as such becomes unconscious and so ‘beyond question’, integrated into
our species nature (a process that takes time).
So -- the confusion re absolute truths is in that they cannot be asserted since to assert them brings them ‘into
question’ as the assertion is either of blind faith (and so ‘unacceptable’) or of an A/NOT-A format and so allowing
for their negation to be considered. This is all ‘consciousness’ stuff and as such not real but ideal.