What the refining process introduces to the template is the concept of
context; thus the base line is the overall gross context. Implied here is
that the base line is ‘worth’ 51% of the whole; also its character
influences all that follows (sets the overall tone/colour).  Consequently,
all of the other lines are diminishing quantitatively as we move up, but
are increasing qualitatively (a feature also evident in the psychophysical
model).  This is a natural process for any ‘whole’, where aspectual
refinement leads to an increase in apparent quality.
Clearly, then, the nature of the first line is vital when creating a
dichotomy ‘tree’ through non-random means—it becomes the hardest line to
figure-out. This is not something ‘original’ to the I Ching, it is
something that is ‘standard’ when we deal with any ‘whole’.  Thus, in our
brain, every new situation is coloured by emotion which then influences all
of the following links to that initial moment—the concept of ‘first
impressions being important’ stems from this neurological ‘fact’.  
Repeated dichotomization through time leads to emergent hierarchies.
Although hierarchy implies relationships, they are fixed. (Through an
analysis of what he calls the ‘context ratio’ (CR), Lofting suggests that
an optimum state of audition-vision relation occurs at a CR of 1.618 (phi)
-- the ‘Golden Ratio’.)  The emphasis on [RH] relational and [LH]
hierarchical emphasises the dynamic and static concepts.  From continuity
comes the ability to use wave analogies and the concepts of parts and
aspects as harmonics of the whole; the whole treated as an octave. As we
progress from one level to the next we are performing the equivalent of
creating harmonics!  But one of the most important features of the template
is that once the parts have been dichotomously derived, so their
re-integration back into the whole requires trichotomous methods.  
                                                ## <.> ##
        Based on the assumption that once the parts of a whole have been
explicitly listed, it might be assumed that to achieve a synthesis one
would just need to put them together again to get back to the whole.
However, careful consideration of the use of dichotomy to synthesize has
led Lofting to the view that the only method that can successfully combine
previously dichotomized data is in fact trichotomous in form. 
        We can demonstrate the distinctions between dichotomy and trichotomy by
starting with a whole, say in the form of an integer - 2.  We can break 2
down into two parts, 1 & 1. But the process of putting the 1s back together
consists of the parts (1,1) and the process of summation (+). What this
process does is combine the two parts into one ‘space’—a ‘space’ we label
as ‘2’. This process of recombination requires the two parts and a
*temporal* component—the use of summation.  Thus, in simple form, addition
is the process of packing 1s into a single space (as is multiplication but
in a more refined manner). 
        For a more detailed analysis, consider the process of repeated
dichotomization on a whole. To describe this process, consider the use of
six dichotomies; this will give sixty-four possible ‘states’, or ‘parts’,
that make-up the whole.  These sixty-four parts are in an explicit
form—they are ‘all there is’ and have been derived using EITHER/OR methods.
In simple terms they are lifeless; like the parts on a garage floor after
the engine of a car has been stripped-down (although perhaps in a little
more order in that contextual considerations emerge as the analysis process
functions.  Consideration of contexts leads one to lay-out the parts in an
ordered fashion, with parts from a common area being grouped together). 
        From the engine analogy we ‘know’ that putting the parts back together
requires something more than just putting everything back where we found
them; position options in placement, if not considered, can lead to what
was a smooth running engine turning into a rough, or even non-, running
engine. 
        This is where Lofting introduces his concept of what he calls BOTH/AND
logical states, as compared to EITHER/OR logical states.  In these BOTH/AND
states we are dealing with process as well as form; we are combining two
‘things’ into the same ‘space’ and there is the strong suggestion (more
like ‘fact’, we shall see) that these combinations sometimes do not work,
simply because we have assumed a [LH] dichotomous thought process whereby
we just stick the parts together, assuming they will work.  What this does
not do is recognize that the concept of [RH] wholeness is based on the
*integration* of parts rather than just the summation of parts.  (Thus, for
example, the car engine does not ‘exist’ until it is turned-on; prior to
this act it is just a block of ordered parts combined with some theoretical
considerations—everything in an EITHER/OR state.)
        The important thing, then, is that where BOTH/AND conditions exist --
BOTH yin [RH female] and yang [LH male] occupy the same ‘space’—until, that
is, an EITHER/OR determination is made. 

Thus the symbol:
--   --

-------

can be symbolized as -- - -- , representing a ‘BOTH’ state where the
explicit determination has not yet occurred.  Note that to resolve a
BOTH/AND state we translate it into explicit EITHER/OR-ness through the
adding of a dimension! -- This process however leads to *two* forms
emerging, so that it then becomes up to the user to determine which one
they wish to use!  Cf. The need to choose the left hand bifurcation (to
ascend to the next dimension) in the psychophysical model!  Thus, in
Lofting’s template and the 12-dimensional template alike, it is *intent*
that dictates the path that follows. (In the above diagram, reversing the
yin/yang order does not change the BOTH/AND symbol.)
What we find is that, in using this new symbol, there are four possible
‘combinations’ of diagrams that can be compressed into three monograms: 

--   --   becomes --   --
--   --

--   --   becomes -- - --
-------

-------   becomes -- - --
--   --

-------   becomes -------
-------

These lines can be used to translate six-dichotomy symbols into trichotomy
symbols. Thus the dichotomously-derived symbol: 
--   --
--   --
--   --
-------
-------
-------

becomes the trichotomously-derived symbol:

--   --  [’wife’]
-- - --  [’child’]
-------  [’husband/father’]

With this conversion system in mind, we find that to convert sixty-four
dichotomously-derived symbols we need twenty-seven trichotomously-derived
symbols.  The difference between the two systems is that the trichotomous
system includes BOTH/AND states, the specific order of which is not
determined until the user shows ‘intent’—how he/she wishes to analyze.
        What is ‘interesting’ about this process is that certain trichotomy
symbols contain more than one dichotomy symbol; a number of symbols occupy
the same space. For example, in using symbols composed of six dichotomies
(hexagrams), some symbols translate without conversion (one : one—there are
eight of these) whereas most trichotomy symbols ‘contain’ 2,4, or 8
dichotomy symbols. 
        What this implies is that there are certain parts that cannot share space
with other parts unless both parts are in some way ‘tuned’.  By this is
meant that the combination of contexts leads to a ‘virtual’ context
emerging that is ‘stable’ for the lifetime of the relationships; some
relationships [such as the Oedipus project?] will never ‘work’ simply
because of their contextual differences which cancel each other out or
raise ‘extreme’ conditions [Think of the trichotomy symbols as ‘man, woman,
child’—and the ‘extreme’ condition of the ‘virtual’ Oedipus project as
experienced by the child, for example].  Thus, in a ‘perfectly’ working
system, parts work in their own context but the joining of the contexts of
all of the parts is such that a stable ‘virtual’ context emerges.
                                                   ## <.> ##

        As you break-down the whole so the level of ‘cutting’ can be extremely
refined to the extent where you end-up with a ‘continuum’, with pole A at
one end and pole B at the other, but when we start to form parts into
groups we are starting to study relationships and we do this with the idea
that all we have to do is stick the parts together; which is the reverse of
our act of cutting. However,  there is a subtle problem here in that we are
no longer cutting a space ([LH] analysis) but more trying to fit parts into
a space ([RH] synthesis); thus even though we appear to be analysing we are
also synthesising. This emphasis on at least ‘threeness’ is overlooked when
we cut but comes into its own when we try to blend for we find that some
parts cannot share the same space.
        The best way to describe the ‘sharing’ of a space is by using wave
analogies.  This is so because waves can occupy the same space in that wave
A and wave B can pass through each other and at a specific moment ‘create’
a virtual wave © (an example of superposition). This is done through the
influences of the different phases and amplitudes such that their
constructive and destructive interferences ‘create’ C.  These superposition
states can be considered as BOTH/AND states and in logic are equivalent to
the excluded middle—this can be symbolised as C = A AND B (same as C = A
AND ~A). (in sets this is the intersection).  What happens here is that we
lose some information about A and B for the period of time of the
relationship but gain information in the form of C.  Considering this, we
can say that all parts of any whole can be considered as each having a
unique wave form and that there is a high probability that some of the
waves are in direct opposition in that their phase and amplitudes are such
than when combined they cancel each other out.
        What this cancellation does is make C into a straight line (or flat
surface etc), and this line can be interpreted as ‘nothing’. Thus when we
line-up all of the relationships based on pairs, triplets, quads etc rather
than there being a continuum of relations we find a degree of ‘lumpyness’
[e.g. in the psychophysical model located as between the 1st- &
4th-dimensions—see Chapter III] where some parts have been unable to ‘mix’
with others and thus ‘nothing’ and other areas when parts combine like hand
and glove and C has a definite ‘form’.
        This ‘lumpyness’ is a characteristic of [RH] synthesis where rather than
look at the [LH] whole or individual parts (EITHER/OR states) we want to
look at the relational aspects (BOTH/AND states), and as noted above, there
is a strong suggestion that the method of [LH] dichotomous analysis is
hard-wired—and so would the [RH] synthesis concept be.
        "Now consider what happens when we apply statistical methods to synthesis
rather than analysis, especially if we ‘assume’ that the partial
integration of parts is just the reverse of the differentation of parts.
If we do not build in a ‘fudge’ factor to compensate for the lumpyness—the
presence of BOTH/AND conditions amongst the EITHER/OR states—then our
statistics will show biases that are not really there.
        "With this in mind we can consider, for example, the recent tests on the
EPR paradox and Bell’s inequalities. These tests involve the analysis of
pairs of photons which, since we are looking at a relationship *must show
lumpyness unless compensated for*.  (This even raises an issue with
conservation laws which are dichotomous in form (and thus ‘parts’) but
combining them may lead to ‘lumps’).  What this implies is that apparent
statistical significants could be invalid and merely ‘anomalies’ created by
the lumpyness inherent in synthetic methods."
        Elsewhere Lofting notes:
        "One of the metaphors created for whole/aspects analysis is Science, and
there is the suggestion that much of the success of hard Science is based
on a serial-biased wave-analysis approach abstracted from the audition
system with its basic symbolism of wholes and their aspects as captured by
the metaphor we call Mathematics (strong serial bias). The vision-rooted
part is in the concept of a whole (parallel bias). From this it becomes
obvious that science is strongly aspect-oriented as it endeavours to
analize a whole in detail, and the high level of precision required for
this task seems to be ‘rooted’ in the audition system. (e.g. see Levarie
1980; McAdams & Bigand 1993)
        "In the mind, when we explicitly attend to a whole, the whole is detected
to be an object, something with substance. Thus, in Physics, the placing of
a detector close to a hole through which an electron is supposed to pass
will detect exactly that—an apparantly solid object passing through the
hole.  The moment we try to observe statistically we move from a narrow
angle of concentration to a wide diffuse angle (mentally we go from a ‘what
is’ state to a ‘what could be’ state). This act changes the level of
analysis from that of a whole to the analysis of many wholes that are now
aspects of a greater whole - the group and the period of observation; this
is often missed, and thus the apparent whole we were detecting is now
aspectual and appears to have ‘wave’ characteristics. Thus all information
is more in aspectual form (harmonics) rather than in whole form."
                                                     ## <.> ##

        With the understanding of synthesis and its property of ‘lumpyness’ we can
now easily see ‘why’ we have ‘jumps’ in QM, Lofting states. For example, an
electron out on its own can be treated as whole with ‘aspects’ but the
moment it is bound to an atom it becomes a part and when we analyse its
relationships we find ‘lumps’ in the energy levels.
        "Consider Planck’s work and the discovery of the unit of action (quanta)
in that it emerged from the analysis of relational concepts (and thus
synthesis and thus ‘lumps’).  My point is that analysis and synthesis are
properties of mind and our experiments and instruments are extensions of
mind. What has happened in the past is that we have followed the pattern of
making distinctions of the whole and then its parts but have possibly
faltered when it comes to analysing the underlying principles of
relationships; we have assumed that the path of both methods, [LH] analysis
and [RH] synthesis, are the same but only different in direction but this
is not the case, they are different in method and thus the tools we use to
analyse these paths need to compensate for these differences."
        This process is analogous to the concept of superposition with waves. In
this state, at least two waves occupy the same ‘space’. The constructive
and destructive interference leads to the emergence of a ‘virtual’ wave
that ‘exists’ as long as the two waves occupy the same space. Here, the
virtual wave is like a ‘whole’ that is made-up of the two parts—the two [LH
and RH] ‘real’ waves.  In the model of dichotomous analysis, the resulting
parts can now be put back together in a more integrated way.
        We here see the linking of mind and brain where the analysis of the brain
into parts does not give an overview of the whole: to do this requires the
conversion of dichotomous analysis (DA) to trichotomous synthesis (TS);
thus the mind includes a *timing* component that adds a degree of
‘thirdness’ (like Charles Peirce’s concept of firstness, secondness and
thirdness which by its definition leads to firstness/thirdness oscillations
where it is intent that determines which is which (and both states are
explicitly described by *two*  dichotomy symbols).  
        This oscillation does not appear until we move past the first iteration
process where ‘firstness’ is the initial [hermaphroditic]
perception/sensation of an object, secondness is the dichotomous analysis
of the object [cf. Sexual differentiation] and thirdness is where these
previous two concepts are combined to give a third. At this point, this
‘third’ becomes the ‘first’ for the next level of iteration. 
        Since the analysis of [LH] dichotomous analysis suggests that the method
is hard-wired and is an adaptation to ‘out there’ it follows that [RH]
trichotomous synthesis is also from ‘out there’ and is the other end of the
dichotomy process. Thus DA and TS form the whole that is DATS; the method
used by humans (and other lifeforms) to ‘map’ reality and function within
it.  The full implication is that by employing the template consciously,
i.e. as a kind of raw extra-corporeal ‘DNA’, this should constitute a
quantum leap in terms of survival value—Survival, perhaps, in the next
century, from "the disease called man" (Nietzsche), 
                                               ## <.> ##