Considering the apparent presence of emotive hierarchies, we need to
recognize that any whole that is built as a [LH] hierarchy manifests the
concept of harmonics, where the current level is compared to the [RH]
whole. This is where the subtle nature of emotion is manifest.
Emotion, in both [RH] tone and [LH] vision is connected with frequency,
manifest in tone as a harmonic and in vision as colour (visual harmonic).
To a degree, the degrees of lateralization found in humans stems from
genetics. Ignoring the psycho-analytical factor for the moment, that
this
degree can vary over individuals as well as cultures implies that at the
bottom-end, at the analysis of the fertilized egg, there is the suggestion
that a form of gene mixing has occured—known as hybridization. (Thus,
neurological development of an information processing ‘block’ has the
characteristics of both black and white—shades of grey.)
The term ‘hybridization’, in this context, is not the same as abstraction,
in that it is not abstraction but aids in the development of.
Diagrammatically, a slice through the neo-cortex gives a layered system,
i.e. LRLRLRLRLR.
It is important to recognize that, at the level of abstraction, the ‘whole’
biased hemisphere is not processing information in parallel, it is
processing information as a whole. There is a subtle difference here in
that parallel processing implies different serial tasks running
concurrently on the same data, for which there is little evidence, whereas
wholistic processing is simply processing of wholes rather than parts.
Lofting states: "The best way to interpret the ‘whole’ bias is as a bias
to
pictures and the serialized bias as a bias to sound. Full capability is
based on the hybridization of these two abilities into ‘spatial’ concepts
and ‘temporal’ concepts applicable across the senses, allowing for
temporalness in [LH] vision and [RH] spatialness in sound". All that
Lofting’s model of mind/brain functioning lacks, I suggest, is an
elucidation of the acquisition of symbol formation (according to the
principles of the bimodal-psychoanalytical model). [N.B. A good example
of
hybridization from the psychophysical standpoint is Blake’s use of the
term
"echoing green". Cf. Crick,
"The title [of George Orwell’s essay ‘Such, Such Were the Joys’] came from
a line in ‘The Echoing Green’, one of Blake’s Songs of Innocence ...
Such, such were the joys
When we all, girls and boys,
In our youth time were seen,
On the Echoing Green.
"As the mature Orwell fully realized, an echoing green is a more complex
metaphor for the relationship between artistic and literal truth than,
say,
‘holding a mirror up to nature’, or any delusion of ‘I am a camera’"
(George Orwell: A Life by Bernard Crick, Penguin Books (1980), p. 66)."]
The crucial implication of Lofting’s model is that, due to the
sensory-hybridization to which he draws attention, there are two forms
of
meaning within a timeframe. One is based on [LH] hierarchy and the other
based on [RH] relations. In any one timeframe, however, a hierarchy
can
elicit a [RH] somatic response (emotion) and a relation can elicit a
response to [LH] syntax (This response to syntax has in fact been found,
Lofting notes, with a bias to being located in the [LH] serialized biased
hemisphere—see Munte et al (1993)) . And I suggest that an understanding
of this invisible ‘structure’ is precisely what is needed to help the
individual choose consiously to take the ‘bottom up’ left-hand bifurcation
to ascend the ‘ladder’ of dimensions (particularly in the context of the
love-relationship).
## <.> ##
A fine emotional response to serialized data is only possible once the
hierarchy has been developed over time. It is possible for tonal variations
to introduce emotive content, but even here, these seem to be ‘accumulated’
as the [LH] serial information develops to its final point. Within
a
timeframe, emotional response is gross, or neutral, when compared to the
[RH] whole bias hemisphere, where rich emotional nuances are more likely.
What seems to create these hierarchies are the development of contextual
levels. These are always present in ‘the whole’; they can be seen. For
novel serial data, these levels are built, where each contextual timeframe
is linked. This generates a whole, which if stored is stored as a linked
list of contexts (parts) developing from the gross context to fine context.
Each part has a gross emotive marker (good/bad/neutral) that, when linked
with the other parts gives subtle emotive variations.
What is of interest is that the [LH] serial biased hemisphere can be
hierarchical but only over time, and the [RH] whole biased hemisphere can
be relational but also only over time (compares wholes, and/or
parts-as-wholes). A good analogy is with a film. If the film is frozen
at
a specific [LH whole object] frame, we will see rich visual details within
the frame but [RH] relational details can only be made with the next, or
previous, frames. On the other hand, the auditory track information will
be
lost when the film stops, and only grossly understood if we just play two
or three [LH parts-as-whole-objects] frames, but becomes, potentially,
extremely [RH relationally] rich once the film is running.
The best example of wholistic processing is the visual system, and here
we
see individual retina information being grouped into lines at the thalamus
and this data abstracted to planes at the primary visual cortex.
The
apparent [RH] parallel processing within the retina is abstracted (many
into one) to present a [LH] whole at the visual cortex, and at the cortex
end it is this whole that is dealt with. However, "Generally, any
information that has been taught to be serial in form is processed by the
[LH] serial biased hemisphere. *This includes information derived
visually* [my emphasis]. All other information is dealt with as if
it is a
[RH] whole requiring breaking down [It should be noted that the original
whole—that which comprises self-plus-mother—is also the source of all
metaphor; cf. Tvat Tvam Asi, "thou art that"}. This includes information
derived auditorally".
Again, an important feature of the model is that there are two forms of
meaning within a timeframe. One is based on [LH ‘vertical’] hierarchy and
the other based on [RH ‘horizontal’] relations.
## <.> ##
The process of synthesis is the building in the fore of what will become
the whole and thus a future background, for once a part is put in place,
it
becomes part of the overall background when we consider the placement of
the next part; a task that occurs in the next frame.
A developed hierarchy can be drawn as a tree, in this case binary:
ANALYSIS PATH
([LH] Top-down)
D = Dichotomy; C = Context.
+------------------------------+
| THE FUNCTIONING WHOLE | L0
+------------------------------+
| A
| B |
D1 (C = WHOLE)
+---------------+--------------+
| c | d | c
| d | D2 (C = a/b)
+-------+-------+-------+------+
| e | f | e | f | e | f |e | f | D3 (C = c/d)
+---+---+---+---+---+---+--+---+
|
etc.,
| D4 (C = e/f)
--- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
|
etc.,
| Dn
+------------------------------+
Fig P4.1 Explicit hierarchical structure. [N.B. In a bimodal exegesis,
these 8 letters—a to h—might be divided between man and woman, for example,
thereby representing in each case the cerebral hemispheres as they interact
and evolve contextually with their complementary opposites, via the
unconscious (with the unconscious originating in part from each
individual’s relationship to the parental objects).]
A simple diagram of the process of synthesis introduces some interesting
concepts:
SYNTHESIS PATH
([RH] Bottom-up)
+------------------------------+
| g(i) |
h(j) | L3 (C = e/f(g/h))
+------------------------------+
| e(g) |
f(h) | L2 (C = c/d(e/f))
+------------------------------+
| c(e) |
d(f) | L1 (C = a/b(c/d))
+------------------------------+
| a© |
b(d) | L0 (C = 0(a/b))
+------------------------------+
Fig P4.2 Implicit hierarchical structure.
For the synthesis path, the initial context (L0) can be either ZERO
(Context-free - the paper on which we write, or the NULL set of set theory)
OR a prime dichotomy (giving an implied gross context), or just an explicit
gross context [e.g. man/woman]. In the above diagram, for context-free
we
have dichotomy a/b. For an initial gross context we have dichotomy a/b
as
the context from which is derived the first distinction c/d, and so on.
The stacking, and thus apparent visually equal nature of the path levels,
hides the development of contextual complexity, from the gross context
of
L0 to the refined context at L3. Neurologically, Lofting notes, we can
actually see this form of map in the primary auditory cortex, thus adding
some credence to the overall model.
Finally, the advantage of this form of structure is, simply, space
[suggesting that in the love-relationship, for example, we effect
‘economies of space’!]. We can store the integrated hierarchy for
four
dichotomies (a/b,c/d,e/f,g/h) in three levels, compared to the explicit
hierarchic map that requires four levels less, thus manifesting a
GROSS/FINE bias where the previous context enables the process of refinement.
## <.> ##
Lofting is aware that over the years a few publications have emerged noting
the ease of making analogy between the sixty-four hexagrams of the I Ching
and the sixty-four possible codes that occur in the genetic code for the
linking of amino acids (he cites Schonberger, M.,(1976)"The I Ching and
the
Genetic Code" ASI Publishers Inc.; Walter, K.,(1994)"The Tao of Chaos:
DNA
& the I Ching" Element Books; Yan, J.F.,(1991) "DNA and the I Ching:
The
Tao of Life" North Atlantic Books). And he points out that there is a
strong suggestion that in the DNA/RNA system in humans we have: DNA -
storage. (form bias - hierarchic structure (all contexts)) RNA - transfer
and encoding/decoding. (aspectual bias - single context(gene)).
" ... the ‘fact’ that we can map an external coding system to a human
coding system is interesting. There is a faint possibility that there
is
‘something’ going on since the DNA/RNA coding system is strongly based
on
dichotomy. The question is whether our classification of DNA/RNA results
fron our method of classification or whether our method of classification
is an extention of ‘nature’. Life refines the basics despite the complexity
of the system."
For further details regarding Lofting’s intriguing (and complex) analysis
of the relationship between the template and DNA/RNA, I refer the reader
to
his website.
## <.> ##
At this point we consider the fundamental dichotomy within quantum
mechanics, the particle/wave dichotomy. The level of integration
within
the associative areas of the brain is such that we can include the
probability of sensory hybridization, where the audition/vision systems
share neurons.
The question is, what are the connotations of this? At the psychological
level, there exists cases of mental states that seem to resemble the
joining of the senses. This is called synesthesia. Synesthesia may be an
example of hybridization or an example of strongly linked, but seperate,
sensory cues responding to a stimulus. However, the senses can be separated
in that the individual is aware of seeing and hearing. There does seems
to
be an overall concept that is challenging to our culture, Lofting argues,
and this is the apparent duality that we seem to observe as a ‘natural’
manifestion of nature.
The apparent duality of nature, he points out, as manifest by modern
physics, seems to be a function of our consciousness! And his belief is
that having adapted a hybrid abstraction system, our study of reality has
reached the stage where the hybridization interferes with the discovering
of ‘reality’—the world ‘out there’, both at the micro and macro levels.
In the hybrid system, he states: "wave detection has its roots in audition,
and particle detection (a whole hierarchy of them) has its roots in vision.
All our instruments, although having degrees of bias, seem to be
designed
such that both biases are detected thus making things ‘incomplete’. The
only way that I can see (!) to get around the problem is the recognition
of
the separateness of both systems and the adoption of measurement systems
totally dedicated to one system or the other".
"Reality appears twofold because our abstraction system is twofold, not
necessarilly because reality is twofold. The methodologies used attempt
to
detect a ‘one’ but we are implicitly using two independent systems to do
it. This has been extremely successful on this planet, but at the
levels
of quantum mechanics, we are dealing with resolutions that can be handled
by one system but not two at the same time since one will interfere with
the other. This interference is not necessarily out there, but a possible
result of us attempting to use two systems at once. (It is important to
note that QM is founded on probability waves not ‘real’ waves. Using this
tool, observation suggests a duality, that, for example, light is made
of
‘wavicles’.)"
I suggest that from the standpoint of the 12-dimensional template, the
importance of the hybridization to which Lofting draws attention is that
it
tends to corroborate the fundamental hypothesis—from which all else
flows—that there exist two psychophysical modes of space-time. These
not
only mutually inform each other but also alternate with one another; they
are height, breadth, depth plus ‘good’ (harmonic) self-time and/or past,
present, future plus ‘good’ (vision) object-space.
Here, then, is the solution to the riddle posed by the existence of qualia.
From the standpoint of the 12-dimensional model, hybridization would
appear to facilitate the interplay of ‘top down’ "vision" and ‘bottom up’
["audition"]!
It is the fact that ‘vision’ (7th-/1st-dimension complementarity) and the
‘harmonic’ (4th-/10th-dimension complementarity) are orthogonal that makes
possible their interaction in this way, I suggest, i.e. via LH explicit
object-choice (analysis) and RH ‘bottom up’ implicit identification
(synthesis).
This hypothesis is perhaps corroborated by the following remarks, from
a
lecture entitled "The Neural Basis of Binocular Rivalry & Strabismic
Suppression" (1994), given by Dr. Colin Blakemore:
" ... in a natural scene many objects are outside of Panum’s area and are
potential stimuli for diplopia, [but] we rarely see diplopia [i.e.
double-vision]. Thus, some form of inhibition or [RH sensorimotor]
suppression must be at work in concert with [LH object-choice] facilitation
or fusion.
"In normal binocular vision, one form of suppression of diplopia is
referred to as suspension (an interocular inhibitory process that reduces
visual information from the suppressed eye below the threshold for
conscious perception). Another form of normal suppression occurs when
dissimilar targets, that cannot be fused into a single percept, are
presented simultaneously to corresponding retinal areas in the two eyes
(confusion). Under confusion conditions, an unstable alternating
suppression of information from each eye is experienced, which is referred
to as binocular rivalry. Binocular rivalry is a remarkably powerful but
unexplained visual phenomenon: Conflicting images in the two eyes
alternately dominate perception. The neural correlate for binocular
rivalry has not been conclusively established. It has been demonstrated
that ... if both eyes are stimulated with contours of similar orientation,
most neurons in the visual cortex of normal cats exhibit binocular
summation or facilitation, as long as the retinal disparity is optimized:
Such interocular facilitation is thought, as we learned earlier in the
lecture, to play a part in binocular fusion and stereoscopic vision. On
the
other hand, cortical neuron responding to an optimal stimulus in one eye
is
hardly affected when a stimulus of orthogonal orientation is presented
simultaneously in the other eye, even though binocular rivalry or
suppression is thought to take place. In other words, no one has shown
interocular inhibition under the condition where rivalry occurs. However,
Dr. Blakemore reported that, very recently, using a novel procedure devised
by himself and his students, they have discovered a compelling neural
analog of rivalry in the cat’s primary visual cortex.
"Dr. Blakemore reported that rivalry may be mediated by reciprocal
intercortical inhibition between neighboring ocular dominance columns:
The
sudden appearance in one eye of a grating stimulus of an inappropriate
orientation can suppress the activity of neurons, but only if they are
already responding to an optimally oriented pattern through the other eye.
He found the majority of the 45 cells studied were clearly suppressed by
a
grating that is orthogonal in orientation to the optimal conditioning
grating. The ability of a stimulus introduced into one eye to depress
cortical responses elicited through the other eye suggests a possible
explanation for the switches in perception that occur in binocular rivalry"
(synopsis by Brian Tsou).
This tends to confirm a hypothesis of the bimodal model that a phenotype’s
relationship to the external world is carried out via alternation(s)
between RH ‘bottom up’ harmonic quantum superpositions (identification)
followed by LH ‘top down’ visual collapse of the wave function
(object-choice. And an orthogonal interaction beween vision and audition
would occur in the course of evolution as a consequence of a ‘higher level’
hybridization, with all of the advantages of dichotomous analysis and
synthesis that this potentially offers access to.
## <.> ##