NEXT CHAPTER
In the act of analysis or the making of a prediction, we recognize that as
an object moves through time, so it is open to influences that can lead to
change. Change is distinguished when the nature of the object is detected
to be different when compared to its existence in a previous timeframe.  As
we move through time, we determine an object’s state based on previous
contexts (Fig 1). 
(o) T6
                              (o) T5   ^
                              (o) T4   |
                              (o) T3   |
                              (o) T2   |
                              (o) T1   |
                                      X
Fig 1. An object’s observed path through time. The context at T6 is the sum
of texts and contexts from T1 to T5.
By doing this, an interesting pattern emerges if we take into consideration
all previous contexts and use the generic dichotomy of change/no_change.
What we find is that irrespective of the value of the separating moments,
after, for example, six time frames the object has traversed a path within
a binary tree of [64] possibilities (‘o’ in Fig 2).
 +---------------------------------------------------------------+
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| T6
 +---------------------------------------------------------------+
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |o| T5
 +---------------------------------------------------------------+
|   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   | o | T4
 +---------------------------------------------------------------+
|       |       |       |       |       |       |       |   o   | T3
 +---------------------------------------------------------------+
|               |               |               |       o       | T2
 +---------------------------------------------------------------+
|                               |               o               | T1
 +---------------------------------------------------------------+
|                               o                               | T0
 +---------------------------------------------------------------+
Fig 2. A diagram of all the possible paths within six time-frames.
The symbol ‘o’ represents the apparent straight path from figure 1.
In fig 2 we start at  T0.  If a change occurs we move left (CHANGE), if not
we move right (NO CHANGE).  Similarly, in the psychophysical model we
ascend the ‘ladder’ of dimensions by always taking the left-hand
bifurcation (CHANGE).  If we stay in NO CHANGE positions (representing
different qualities of feeling-consciousness, I suggest—and marked by ‘o’
in fig 2), then after six time-frames, even though our object has not
changed, i.e. in relation to time and what could have happened, we find it
at the extreme right-hand position (T6). This position reflects a specific
‘state’ [i.e. a "no change/contractive" state = RH feeling-consciousness,
this "no change" being needed at every ‘temporal’ level of the binary tree,
I suggest,  just because feeling-consciousness must inform the ‘tree’ at
every level.  On the other hand, "change/expansive" = LH mental/psychic
consciousness.]
                                                 ## <.> ##

The above process need not be in consecutive time frames. It is possible
for us to consider concepts relevant to T3 before concepts relevant to T2,
but the latter will emerge such that formalization leads to the same
format; everything ‘finds’ its place.  Furthermore, we could hold our
consideration at T3 and come back to it at a later time to pick-up where we
left off; but the act of dichotomization attaches the frame (fig 2) to the
object under analysis.
What this development implies is that, when considering any system of
classification based on pairing (a dichotomy e.g. CHANGE/NO CHANGE), as we
move through time taking into consideration all previous contexts, then all
possible comparisons will naturally emerge, forming a binary tree as shown
in fig 2.
Since we are concentrating on the specific situation, the possible paths
are explicitly unobserved and all we ‘see’ is the path experienced, as
shown in fig 1.
The principle of dichotomy functions within the development ratio set by
the binary sequence. This emerges since in dichotomy the previous action,
both text and context, becomes the whole context of the next action and is
thus ‘cut’ into two.
The development of ‘meaning’ seems to be the standard form found in any
[LH] serial process. In fig 2 we find that, even though we have detected no
change through six time frames, we have in fact moved into a cell which is
one of sixty-four we could possibly have been in. This results from the
passage of time and nothing else.  In traditional ‘logic’, it should be
noted, time is never explicitly considered.
At each ‘higher’ step, if a change occurs we move left (=  LH thought
expansive) since the dichotomous analysis emphasizes a 50/50 point of view
(to cut into two), equivalent to being always at level 1. Time, however,
emphasizes possible variations in contexts, as we saw in fig 1, where an
apparent choice of (RH feeling-consciousness contractive) ‘no change’
leaves one in an ‘unbalanced (extreme)’ position when seen in the framework
of the whole.  Time introduces ‘reality’.
"This shows that at each level developed within a dichotomy-tree the
implicit relationships go beyond one:one. If we hold one state [e.g.
‘bottom up’ feeling-consciousness] as constant then as we develop so other
states develop at each level and the one:one condition becomes a one:many
condition".
                                                  ## <.> ##

We now consider the overall format of dichotomy trees.  The difference
between the format used in fig 2, when compared to the more common
representation of binary trees—for that is what dichotomy trees are—is that
in these common systems the emphasis is on the relationships between the
nodes rather than each node’s specific context. Nodes are symbolized as
‘dots’ connected by lines, as in fig 4:
•       o        o     o          o    o       o
•       o            o
•       o

o
Fig 4. An apparently expanding tree.
Considering fig 4, only when we emphasize contextual boundaries, as in the
borders in fig 2, does the contracting, or contextual bounding, nature
become manifest.  The introducing of these markers shows the emergence of
hierarchy in that the scope of each cell is only equal to those cells at
the same level.  Starting at the bottom of fig 4, it is easy to draw
connecting lines, but only when we give each node a ‘domain’ of operation,
defined by a border around it does the emphasis that we are working in
smaller and smaller units become explicitly clear. The lines in fact
symbolize context in a [RH] relational form (‘horizontal’ links) whereas
the establishment of borders represents context in a [LH] hierarchic form
(‘vertical’ links).
Comparing figs 2 and 4, so-called ‘context-free’ behaviour (fig 4) appears
as [LH] expansive whereas context dependent behaviour (fig 2) appears [RH]
contractive.  The single unconnected node in fig 4 can be considered as
‘context-free’ but when placed in a structure like fig 2 it always has a
context. Thus the ‘whole’ is both [LH] hierarchic and [RH] relational but
founded on hierarchic to be of ‘value’; relational links can be broken but
‘value’ maintained as long as hierarchy is maintained. 
An element that only exists in a [RH] relational context, when freed of
those links becomes ‘random’ in that it has no ‘position’ whatsoever.
Therefore, in thought processes, [LH] hierarchic thinking will reflect
dependency biases—where the concept of randomness is treated warily.
Relational thinking, on the other hand would allow for the existence of
totally independent elements, e.g. ‘random’ events vis-a-vis either
part-as-whole(s) (leading to RH biased concrete symbolism) or,
alternatively, vis-a-vis new ‘whole’ objects (i.e. involving separation,
and so leading to LH mature symbolism). 
From this comes the concept that identity (‘non-randomness’) has two sides.
 Identity in the form of (RH) relational links and identity in the form of
(LH) positional links. Relational links are those links that give an
element a sense of ‘purpose’, says Lofting, "in that the breaking of the
links introduces a degree of instability—an identity crisis; the links
define the context for identity but the element maintains a degree of
independence".  Positional links get around this breakage problem by an
element being embedded in a (LH) context. They are more dependence based in
that any.(RH) relational links can be broken and yet a form of ‘identity’
remains; there is still the part-to-whole aspect in that one cannot move
outside of the core context [cf. the ‘core context’ of infant-plus-mother].
                                                     ## <.> ##

As a result of these concepts we find creativity being divided into two
types—innovative (LH expansive, out-of-context approach), and adaptive (RH
contractive).
Clearly, in the bimodal model "creativity" (‘good’) can be either LH
(innovative-expansive, out-of-context), or it can be RH
(adaptive-contractive, in that it works within the context of the whole). 
In fact, Lofting himself argues:
"There is the suggestion that creativity is affected by biased sensory
differentiation.  Thus LH bias creativity is more innovative (almost
context free) when compared to RH bias creativity that is adaptive (works
within the context of the whole). By using a (LH) hierarchic approach we
inherit the property of everything having its place and thus a subtle
limiting on going out of the boundaries. The (RH) relational approach does
not recognize the boundaries—everything is ‘equal’. By combining both
biases one can both create (innovate) and refine (adapt)".
By a quite independent route, that afforded by bimodal-psychoanalysis, I
had already arrived at the same insights as Lofting elucidates here.
                                                  ## <.> ##

Returning to his connection of the template to the feature of hybridization
that exists between ‘vision’ and ‘audition’ (harmonics), he argues that:  
"The hybridization concept, if applied at the root structural level
(crossover at cell division being a ‘logical’ point) favours the
dichotomous nature of structures as well as the dichotomous nature of our
thought processing, thus including the detected gross and refined
hemispherical biases of the neo-cortex and other systems.  Implied in this
is that, through structural development, the left / right dichotomy becomes
more refined and thus manifests at its most refined level, a continuum.
This would explain the paradoxical observations made on the brain’s
structure where apparent LRLR patterns at, say, the centimetre level seem
to dissapear at the millimetre level. This would be logical if you tried to
maintain a constant pattern. The study of each level of analysis must
include a manipulation of the ‘size’ of the interdigitation as well as
being wary of the ‘phenotype’ situation which introduces subtle differences
within each form (like fingerprints). A scaled hierachy would manifest this."
This interdigitation may have its roots in the primary sensory areas of
[LH] vision and [RH] audition due to the nature of our eyes and ears. Of
these two senses, the ears have a serial bias (and thus building [LH]
‘wholes’ from [RH] parts), and, according to Lofting, the eyes have a
‘wholes’ bias [cf. the infant/child’s LH whole object-choice]. The sharing
of neurons allows for abstractions to be made where the abstract concepts
of ‘wholes’ and ‘parts’, common to both systems, can be shared.
"Note that the [LH] aspects/whole dichotomy can be in 1:1 form when we are
first exposed to a ‘whole’, at either the atomic level or the universal
level.  This first exposure forms part of the base context for all that
follows, the moment we cut, or build, the aspects/whole patterns of
hemisphere biases emerge.
"In the brain, for the majority of individuals, there is a bias for the
left hemisphere to process data presented serially, and the right
hemisphere to process data in parallel (‘wholistically’). The processing of
data serially favours the processing of aspects before the whole, whereas
the processing of data in parallel favours the processing of the whole and
then analyzing the aspects.  This implies that in general, information is
presented either serially or ‘wholistically’ and that its form is
considered as either whole or aspectual.  Thus the left hemisphere is
biased to aspectual processing but can deal with wholes just as the right
hemisphere is biased to wholes processing but can deal with aspects; the
emphasis is on bias rather than absolutes.
"Although this implies that serial language—speech—is a left hemisphere
function, the brain oscillates as it processes data, with one hemisphere
taking the lead. Thus any form of serial data leads to a LH control of
processing, but the RH contributes when ‘wholistic’ processing is required.
 This sharing of tasks is applicable to any parallel data where the RH
takes the lead and the LH contributes when ‘serial’ processing is required.
 (Syntax is more of a LH task, whereas semantics is more of a RH task but
both hemispheres can handle both tasks; it is all a matter of refinement
(e.g. see Munte et al 1993))."
                                                  ## <.> ##

It has often been pointed out that in quantum mechanics a particle does not
exist until you ‘look’ at it.  Lofting proposes, as we have seen, that this
results from the method of analysis rather than being a property of ‘out
there’.  At the macro level, the world of Relativity seems biased to [LH]
geometry, whereas the world of Quantum Mechanics is biased to [RH]
harmonics.  In this context, the EPR paradox and Bell’s theorem are more
about the ‘whole’ and harmonics, than about ‘particles’, and Relativity is
more about preserving the whole, where the wave equivalent of E = mc2 (E =
nfm ) is more a limit on an object’s matter wave.  Visually this would
protect the ‘whole’—matter, manifest as a wave, cannot become ‘infinite’,
and thus lose its wholeness.  Bell’s theorem makes the same case, but for
QM. It says that splitting an apparent whole into two parts merely creates
harmonics that remain linked; the whole is retained.  The apparent problems
with the QM model is the intrusion of spatial concepts, concepts that
derive from [LH] vision: 
Preservation (Conservation) of the whole:
    Relativity                                                    QM

    matter wave cannot be                                correlations cannot
    [RH height, breadth, depth] infinite.           be [LH past, present,
future] split.

    or                                                                or

    matter cannot exceed speed                         ‘cutting’ a wave only
    of light.
creates its harmonics.

The systems we use to analyze are hybrid systems and as such we detect
manifestations of apparently two ‘things’ in the same place at the same
time. The attempted unification of physics into one ‘model’ involves, as we
know, the problem of linking [RH] QM and [LH] Relativity via relativistic
gravity. 
"There is the suggestion that this will not work because they are different
systems.  QM has been able to model concepts that were originally derived
from Relativity. To take QM beyond Relativity means we need to ignore the
extremes of Relativity that cause interference. The continued incorporation
of relativistic concepts, Lofting concludes, only confirms our hybrid
sensing of audition/vision.
"The development of QM suggests that QM is to PROCESS what Relativity is to
FORM, and as such the two can never be totally, explicitly, united.
Furthermore, the observation of mental oscillations between FORM and
PROCESS through time (Bateson) and the bias to new developments in PROCESS
and their full manifestation in FORM, causes Lofting to conclude that QM,
often treated as a complement to Relativity, is in fact it’s full successor." 
In this scenario, Relativistic concepts would become explainable eventually
and so be replaced by QM concepts (see below, however, for the "contrary"
bimodal view).  Given sensory hybridization, it is difficult to remove the
‘whole’ concept to be replaced by waves (harmonics) since we still have
eyes that see ‘wholes’. At the moment it is at the scientific interface
with ‘reality’ that these sorts of extremely one-sided biases are required.
(Harmonic wholes can be made into images (see Jenny (1966), inspired by
Ernst Chladni) where, with the use of a resonating surface and sand,
patterns appear in the sand. These images change as a function of tonal
scale, and seem to oscillate between a static state (FORM) and a dynamic
state. (PROCESS))
                                                 ## <.> ##