PPS .. the 'Whole/Aspects' article I sent you was 'edited' by the KJ FORUM...here is section 20 that I rewrote but was not included for reasons they have not yet stated -- I thought it refined my point, especially since it included a reference and a little more detail.... best regards, Chris. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------ > <20> We start by noting the implied presence of dichotomisation in the whole/aspects distinction. This appears in the form of relational emphasis of 1:1, 1:many and many:many types. together with this we note the presence of dichotomy in the expression of emotion -- a la the fight/flight dichotomy (amygdala linked -- there seems to be a range of four base types which through mixing become more complex in descriptions. Galen and Hippocrates developed temperaments in the form of anger+sad neutral+happy. More recent work has demonstrated these 'basic' biases are present across the neocortex with the right hemisphere being negative and the left neutral/positive (e.g. see Gainotti, G., and Caltagirone, C., (eds) (1989) "Emotions and the Dual Brain" Springer-Verlag ). The neutral state seems to be more of a state of emotion cancellation where A/~A emotive expressions cancel each other out and in personas this 'area' is where we find 'rationals'.) A heuristic study, based on reading the descriptions of many dichotomy-based relationships across many different disciplines, leads to the realisation that humans actually seem to describe things by how they MIX the elements of the dichotomies, and there are four basic ways to mix: > > (A) BLEND -- combining two into one such that a 'new' identity is formed. > (WHOLE) For example, in whole number math 1+1 = 2 is a 'blending' and is the emphasis on purity (prime numbers and their composites). > (B) BOND - physically link A to B but allow for A and B to retain some > identity (STATIC RELATION). For example, in irrational numbers, symbols like PI manifest static part-to-whole relationships and so described as a 'bonding' -- In the unit circle the concepts of diameter and circumference are maintained but a 'bond' is emphasised in that separation is not possible; the two entities are dependent on each other by explicit observable linkage and this is shown by the use of irrational numbers. > (C) BOUND - let A enclose B or visa versa -- the emphasis on distinction but > no 'link' (PARTS). Thus in rational numbers we find all of the parts that we can cut the whole in the form of distinctions -- 1/2, 1/3, etc etc. and so 'independent' units. Any part can be then analysed as if a 'whole'; the whole/aspects distinction works at all scales. > (D) BIND - A and B are 'independent' except for some 'invisible' relationship observable through time. (DYNAMIC RELATION) With complex numbers we express oscillations and transformations where objects are binded together 'invisibly'. > > If we then add 'contract' and 'expand', these four terms 'link' to the > eight basic elements: > > contractive wholes -- expressed emotively as 'contractive blending' or > words synonymous with this. > contractive statics - 'contractive bonding' -- A and B together -- a > relationship (bonded) > contractive parts - 'contractive bounding' -- a protective boarder > between A and B. > contractive dynamics - 'contractive binding' -- A and B 'dance' > > All of the above emphasise a drawing inwards whereas the expanding element > emphasises pushing outwards and in the context of left/right brain biases so contractive whole/aspects descriptions are more 'right' and context bias than the more expansive text biases of the left. (note that I stress BIASES). ..... Return-Path: Delivered-To: zap@dnai.com ************************************************* here is a copy of article I did recently..you may find it of interest..it will be added to the list of KARL JASPERS FORUM articles on my index page... Chris.. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- WHOLES AND THEIR ASPECTS by Christopher John Lofting 30 December 1997, amended 27 January 1998 <1> The brain processes information in the form of wholes and their aspects. When I say 'brain', I do not just mean the human brain, I mean all animal brains, although the initial distinctions were only possible through the extensive work of Roger Sperry et al on human brains in the 1950s and 1960s. These findings have been reinforced over the last forty years with both neurological and psychological research on humans and other life forms, stressing a line of neurological development that culminates in humans in it's most refined form. <2> With this point made, let us stick to considering in some detail the methods of information processing possible in a system that only 'sees' wholes and their aspects. <3> The first question raised is "what is meant by the term 'aspects'?". This term covers a number of areas that we can divide into three 'basic' categories: <4> PARTS - areas of the whole that we find are removable and so 'independent' of the whole (actuals) and an abstract list of all of the possible 'parts' that the whole can be cut into (1/2, 1/3, 1/4...[in mathematics this is called the harmonic series]) <5> STATIC RELATIONSHIPS - when observing the whole, patterns emerge that reflect relational formats. These patterns can be created either by groups of parts or else consideration of a single part in relation to the whole. These patterns help us to refine our description of the whole and so can be used to make whole-to-whole comparisons where it is aspectual differences that enable differentiation rather than an overall differerence in form. <6> DYNAMIC RELATIONSHIPS - here we observe a whole in relation to other 'wholes' where the source of the relationship seems 'invisible' -- thus the whole seems 'independent' of anything else but at the same time seems to be involved in some sort of 'partnership' e.g. the Earth going around the Sun whilst Earth and all the other planets travel with the Sun, and so as a 'whole', through space. <7> One important distinction is the 'fact' that a PART can be treated as a WHOLE in it's own right and so we add another aspect -- context, and so emerges the distinction of text (foreground) from context (background) as well as consideration of multiple contexts and so hierarchy and dependence. Thus text is more 'whole/part' oriented emphasising self-containment and 'single context' (and in an idealised form NO context). <8> The 'final' distinction is more one of direction, in that wholes can expand or contract, as can relationships, and so we have a basic set of elements that we should be able to use to describe ANYTHING: contractive wholes, parts, static relationships, dynamic relationships. expansive wholes, parts, static relationships, dynamic relationships. <9> We can in fact show a path of derivation of these 'terms' in the form of a binary tree: (1) WHOLE (2) WHOLE/PART (3) WHOLE/STATIC/PARTS/DYNAMIC <10> Note that at (2) there is the emphasis on seperation but still with a bias to 'objects' and only at (3) does emerge the distinction of objects from relationships where relationships are divided into, using modern-day programming terms, properties (static) and methods (dynamic) (in passing note that methods enable transformations). <11> Also note the ORDER at level 3, namely that STATIC relationships emerge in between wholes/parts since that is where we find them -- they are 'non-removable' patterns of the whole that are at the same time distinguishable from the whole (like an object's colour) or else are made-up of grouping parts of the whole. <12> Furthermore note that in our culture's teaching of wholes and their aspects, we START with the whole and then study STATIC relationships and THEN detailed parts and FINALLY dynamic relationships; thus our methods of teaching are shown horizontally but the derivation process is 'vertical'. (in maths we 'start' in pre-school with whole numbers and dont get into complex numbers until out teens; same with any 'language'). <13> If we take the basic 'template' in <9> and mirror it so we get the EIGHT possible 'basic' elements that are then seen in text/context relationships with each other, but what could be meant by 'contractive' wholes? This can be expressed as negation or opposition or a whole that 'pulls inwards' compared to an expansive whole that 'pushes outwards' or else is expressed as something 'positive'. <14> What is striking about this primitive 'template' is that we find that all of our maps of reality -- both 'in here' reality and 'out there' reality (as well as the interactions between 'in here' and 'out there') seem to be based on creating labels for these basic elements or their combinations (see below) <15> A simple example of this is in the origins of our number system in that the abstract terms of whole, irrational, rational, and complex are 'refinements' of the basic whole/aspects elements, thus: Whole numbers (primes + composites) -- wholeness Rational numbers (1/2,1/4...) -- parts Irrational numbers (PI, e, sqrt(2)) -- static relationships Complex numbers (i, a+bi etc) -- dynamic relationships To this we 'add' contract and expand in the form of negative and positive. (we can count with wholes and parts but NOT with relational symbols for that is what PI etc are) <16> Without touching on anything else, here we have a direct link between whole/aspects descriptions and mathematical descriptions; we can in fact create ANYTHING using mathematical terms since they are directly linked to whole/aspects mappings since that is where they come from. (as stated before, combining the basic elements enable rich, complex expressions in that we can have 'whole numbers' in a complex context -- as we find in 'quantum jumps'.) <17> The difference between mathematics and all other 'languages' is that mathematics is context-resident in that the formulas and 'laws' serve to guide mathematical expression and so most of it 'lives' in our context; as do syntax and grammar rules. Spoken language is more 'text' oriented in that the words serve as symbols for patterns of local 'meaning' and so are more 'cultural' in that in maths '1' is '1' whereas in spoken language there are many terms for '1'. <18> What this implies (obviously) is that the whole/aspects template is 'in' our context and serves to guide us. It is what I call 'middleware' in that it sits inbetween neurology and psychology as chemistry sits inbetween physics and biology, and mathematics is 'on the border' between middleware and psychology and so its 'universality'. <19> We now come to the 'interesting part', and that is the elicitation of 'meaning'. By this I mean that beside the terms used (whole/parts/static/dynamic) so there is a 'feel' that is describable and directly linked to the wholes/aspects template. <20> We start by noting the implied presence of dichotomisation in the whole/aspects distinction. This appears in the form of relational emphasis of 1:1 and 1:many types and in an emotional context there must be a SINGLE 'feeling' that expresses the 1:1 or 1:many relationship. A heuristic study, based on reading the descriptions of many dichotomy-based relationships across many different disciplines, led to the realisation that we actually describe things by how we MIX the elements of the dichotomies, and there are four basic ways to mix: (A) BLEND -- combining two into one such that a 'new' identity is formed. (WHOLE) (B) BOND - physically link A to B but allow for A and B to retain some identity (STATIC RELATION) (C) BOUND - let A enclose B or visa versa -- the emphasis on distinction but no 'link' (PARTS) (D) BIND - A and B are 'independent' except for some 'invisible' relationship observable through time. (DYNAMIC RELATION) If we then add 'contract' and 'expand', these four terms 'link' to the eight basic elements: contractive wholes -- expressed emotively as 'contractive blending' or words synonymous with this. contractive statics - 'contractive bonding' -- A and B together -- a relationship (bonded) contractive parts - 'contractive bounding' - - a protective boarder between A and B. contractive dynamics - 'contractive binding' -- A and B 'dance' All of the above emphasise a drawing inwards whereas the expanding element emphasises pushing outwards. <21> Thus the 'simple' distinctions of wholes, parts, static, dynamics, also encode emotive forms in those of blend, bound, bond, and bind and when we, at the psychology level, describe things we unconsciously use words that link to these basics. (WE can have complex emotions where these basics exist in a context set by another but overall they are reduceable to a 'common' root and this is the initial context which colours all that follows.) <22> Thus to describe the process of being or becoming 'whole' I will use terms that 'link' to the 'feel' expressed by the term 'blending'. There will be MANY possible terms by which they will all 'point' to this 'blending' pattern since it is this pattern, together with the other 'mixing' patterns, that is also 'in our context'. <23> My point is that this 'middleware' is shared by ALL humans and it is what enables us to get around 'local' expressions and so understand each other; it is thus initially independent of 'out there'. Furthermore it demonstrates that ALL of our maps created at the psychology level are in fact symbols and metaphors for whole/aspects interactions and so need not be taken to literally as many are (e.g. Astrology, Tarot, QM, Mathematics etc etc etc). The ease with which we make analogies across these disciplines is because it is the whole/aspects template that enables resonance -- e.g. all wholes have a blend feel and so are the same. Different cultures will create different words that all point to the same feeling of wholeness. <24> The presence of a whole/aspects template in here enables the abstract distinction of out there together with developing a feel for these distinctions and so a sense of meaning both at the abstract level and at the gut level. These basic categorisations are fed back into each other to create more complex representations that we then label with words, and so allowing for the distinctions of hate (totalist -- whole) from dislike (more aspectual), or hope (future biased reactive state) from anticipation" (future biased proactive state). <25> These complex representations have simple roots that colour or set the tone for the overall complex descriptions; the basic elements of the template are like those of chemistry for that is where the template resides -- in-between neurology and psychology like chemistry resides in-between physics and biology. <26> The linking of pattern leads to the establishment of meaning, in that good patterns are maintained and bad ones thrown away. It should be noted that good patterns are not true patterns -- and so a well-structured illusion can elicit staggering degrees of faith in individuals; to the extent that when demonstrated to be illusions they are hotly defended and it can take a generation or so for these patterns to be removed from the culture (if at all .. flat earthers are still around). <27> I hope that the readers will be able to see that from very simple whole/aspects distinctions we can create rich maps of reality -- some true and some others false -- and that these maps do not need to have ANY validity outside of the culture (or even the individual). They will feel right regardless of out there and only the passage of time (and so feedback) will determined their having any universal worth (e.g. Newtons specific form of mathematical representations are no longer used but the overall ideas are.) <28> In modern times, due to the whole/aspects template and the development of mathematics, so a degree of global consensus has arisen about out there. Standardisation in teaching methods and content ensure that your wholes/aspects distinctions are similar to our whole/aspects distinctions and so there is no need for believing in external forces to describe the origins of mathematics or of any other system of description. We all use whole/aspects and that serves as the base for the symbolic and metaphoric diversities we see. The problems arise when we fail to recognise that our symbols and metaphors are just that -- they have a hidden, literal layer based on the categorisation of sensory information as wholes/aspects, and lack of awareness of these processes can lead us astray. For a more 'detailed' study see http://www.ozemail.com.au/~ddiamond Chris Lofting.