An example of the benefit of hybridization is the laser. From its
development we have been able to create holograms.  Holograms were
developed after pictures and required the development of lasers and an
understanding of waves. This development is an example of the feedback
found in development between the two sensory based biases.
A picture is a good example of FORM in that it stores a static whole
measuring amplitude (energy - colour). A hologram is a good example of
PROCESS as it is more strongly dependent on time, since it uses phase
interference (waves harmonics) as its method of storage and requires a
reference beam to recall the image.  The invention of the laser allows for
the creation of visual holograms, the hybridization of audition and vision.
However, these holograms are currently lacking in full spectrum colour.
By recognizing the hybrid nature of our sensing system, as suggested by
neurology, and by adopting specific tools for a specific sense, as we do in
astronomy with different types of telescopes, Lofting argues, "we can
develop systems that, for example, go back to pure wave analysis (what ever
that is) and incorporate the ignoring of particle concepts.  The
uncertainty principle as a universal law may be wrong, and this may be
manifest in the dichotomies used to describe uncertainty". 
                                                ## <.> ##

The most common of these is that of position/momentum which can be
classified as a 1:many type dichotomy of contexts. Here, position is of a
FORM type and momentum of a PROCESS type and yet the PROCESS component is
‘many’ (momentum implies changing movement over differing timeframes)
whereas the FORM component  is  ‘one’  (one position over differing time
frames).  The principle of complementarity FORCES these dichotomies and the
thinking arising from their use.  In the microcosmos of quantum mechanics,
he points out, phenomena abound that fly in the face of common sense: 
"Many of these effects are a consequence of the principle of
complementarity.  Its most popular manifestation is the wave-particle
duality. A microscopic object, such as a photon, an atom or an electron,
can appear to behave as a water wave in one instance and as a discrete
particle in another. Both features complement one another as a complete
description of an object. Since the idea of complementarity was first
enunciated more than 70 years ago, a belief common among many physicists
has been that it is simply a consequence of the uncertainty relation.
According to this rule, two complementary variables, such as position and
momentum, cannot simultaneously be measured to less than a fundimental
limit of accuracy. The uncertainty relation normally prevents one from
learning everything about the behaviour of a quantum object. As a result we
can never see the object acting both as a [LH] particle and as a [RH]
wave." (Englert, Scully, and Walther (1994), p56).
Furthermore, these authors state:
"We devised and analyzed both real and thought experiments that bypass the
uncertainty relation, in effect, to "trick" the quantum objects under
study. Nevertheless, the results always reveal that.complementarity remains
intact even when the uncertainty relation takes no role." (Ibid, p56).
and :
"The principle of complementarity implies that in the microcosmos, complete
knowledge of the future in the sense of [LH] classical physics, is simply
not available. If one of a pair of complementary properties of a quantum
object is known for sure, then information about the second complementary
property is lost." (Ibid, p57).
and :
"This complementarity is a fact of life and we have to live with it.  The
Danish physicist Niels Bohr, more than anyone else, insisted on just that,
and he deserves the lion’s share of the credit for making us accept
complementarity as a fundamental truth.  It did not come easily, and the
resistance put up by devil’s advocates as prominent as Albert Einstein
himself was formidable. The thrust of their arguments centred on whether
complementary properties could be measured simultaneously" (Ibid, p57).
and thus:
"The principle of complementarity is certainly more fundamental than is the
uncertainty relation" (Ibid, p60).
This implies that the complementarity principle is more of a gross context
from which the uncertainty principle is derived. The ‘gross context’ of
complementarity is of course both explicit and implicit in the
12-dimensional template, along with the hybridization of vision-(cf. The
7th-1st-dimension complementarity) with audition (cf. the
4th-10th-dimension complementarity)! Nevertheless, Lofting is correct to
point out that: "The principle of complementarity accepts duality as
something ‘out there’, whereas I suggest that it is a result of our hybrid
nature."
The field/particle concept seems to be a natural and unconscious tool used
for description, he notes. "We can associate the field with wholeness;
prior to [LH] conscious distinction everything is balanced, a field of
harmony—including the future observer".  On the other hand,
"A conscious observation is an act of putting a border around something in
that to describe something we ‘cut it out’ of the background; bring it to
the fore. When we observe [LH] explicitly, we detect a particle. When we
observe [RH] implicitly we detect a wave. However, the creation of this may
arise from sensory hybridization.
"Since we seem to have adapted to the environment by internalizing it, then
at the highest level, the level of mind, ‘we are one’ with it—Level 1 (L1).
The moment we choose to analyze we automatically drop to Level 2.  Reality,
therefore, is implied. We can not prove explicitly that we exist, we can
only accumulate enough L2 data to imply L1’s ‘true’ state; this is a bit
like an Airy pattern when seemingly random bits of information (electrons
randomly hitting a photographic plate) lead to the emergence of a wave
interference pattern (and therefore another level of information but
implicit in form).
"L2 seems to be the point reached by many mystics. To experience oneness
just stop the mind, stop ‘bounding’ and just ‘blend’; make oneself boundary
free. By doing this one returns to harmony and balance. One of Von
Neumann’s Quantum Reality models suggests that the point where the
probability wave of QM collapses to something [LH] ‘classical’, as in
something we see (known as collapsing the wave function), is in the mind
(not the brain - the mind; consciousness).  Everett introduced the ‘many
worlds’ model to get around the wave collapse. In his model, everything
that could happen does; new universes appear originating from decision
points.  This means that the wave collapse  never happens and therefore the
measurement ‘problem’ does not exist. Richard Feynman introduced the sum of
histories model as a tool of measurement.  In this model everything that
could happen tries to happen, and it is wave interference that causes
reality. Everett’s model  seems  to be an extension of Feynman.  In
measurements, Feynman’s model works."
                                                  ## <.> ##

>From the standpoint of the 12-dimensional psychophysical model, I argue
that true innovation actually involves stepping outside the ‘whole’ and so
going from Level 6 to Level 7; for this would mean switching from the
intrinsic consciousness of the ‘animal’ 6th-dimension to human ‘classical’
"observer" consciousness in the 7th-dimension.
At time T6, if we consider the previous contexts (T1 - T5) as affecting our
current state, then there are sixty-four possible alternative positions, in
only one of which the object is located.  But I suggest that if we ascend
to T7 (cf. the "observer" in the 7th-dimension) we will be "stepping
outside" the ‘whole’—or paradoxically, we will now be both extrinsic to as
well as involved intrinsically with, the true harmonic whole, i.e.
comprising the twelve-dimensional template.  [N.B. Interestingly, Lofting
states: " ... neurotransmitters are a refinement of the endocrine system.
The early communication (and pre-existing) system has been adopted at a
finer level. This form of development continues into the levels of the
neo-cortex where the top neurons of the pyramid/cone do not just ‘develop’
but actually ‘climb’ into place [i.e. as a concomitant of consciouslsy
choosing to ascend from T6 to T7 via the left hand bifurcation, I suggest],
and this implies contextual development."]
This is shown, I believe, from the fact that if we now call T1 one hundred
per cent (i.e. gravitation, in the bimodal model), and this is divided by
two as we ascend (i.e. 50% at level 2, 25% at level 3, 12.5% at level 4,
etc.), then by the time we reach T7 this becomes the "observer" who can
"measure" the whole, initially in relation to the original T1 -- but now
undertaking this from an entirely *extrinsic* vantagepoint (on a Riemann
sphere), rather than from the the intrinsic (within the context) position
that had pertained up to T6.  
What Lofting seems to have missed is that at T7 we have 0.015625 (i.e.
1/64th) of the 100 per cent (i.e. of gravitation, in the case of the
psychophysical model) that we had begun with at T1!   The ‘vertical’
ascension that he points to (from T1 to T6) is now seen to have actually
have been pursuing a *curve* once we step outside the context of the
‘whole’ at T7 -- with T7 now itself suddenly functioning as an extrinsic
"observer" vis-a-vis its complementary opposite, i.e. the line-object at T1
(in the 1st-dimension)!
Moreover, since this ratio of 1/64 continues as between each of the higher
six ("observer") dimensions and their complementary opposite lower
space/energy dimensions, then in the 12-dimensional template—which has the
tendency to self-generate ‘naturally’, we recall, once the 7th-dimension
has been reached (i.e. because the latter is opposite the smallest
"object", a line, in the 1st-dimension—in which case the maximum number of
dimensions on a symmetrically-divided sphere must automatically be 12) --
we now have not only Lofting’s intrinsic 6-level template, but in addition
an extrinsic twelve-dimensional template for dichotmous analysis and
synthesis.  And, in addition, one that is informed by a teleological
principle, ‘guided’ by music. Thus, in the human case, the
‘musically-informed’ 12-dimensional template becomes an entirely new way in
which "text and context are tied".
                                               ## <.> ##

William Hamilton (Oxford University) has proposed a simple explanation for
the value of sexual reproduction.  His idea is that enemies of a species,
especially harmful parasites, find it more difficult to adapt to the
diverse attributes of a population generated by sexual reproduction than to
the comparative uniformity of a population produced by parthenogenesis
[i.e. generation without sexual union].  Yet on the face of it, this
strategy would appear to fly in the face of Darwinian theory.
Cf. Murray Gell-Mann,
" ... the advantage of sexual reproduction must be considerable to outweigh
the obvious disadvantage of breaking up the succesful genotypes of parents
and grandparents that survived long enough to reproduce.  These advantages
accrue to the populatkon as a whole, however, while many evolutionary
biologists insist that selection presssures are exerted only on
individuals.  Perhaps that need not be a rigid rule" (The Quark & the
Jaguar; Adventures in the Simple and the Complex, p. 255).
In fact, I suggest that it is the higher level ‘music’ that the ‘aesthetic
subsystem’ (Josephson) is able to generate as a consequence of the ascent
to the extrinsic T7 that, under optimum conditions, makes posssible the
evolution from parthenogenesis to sexual reproduction.  In other words,
since the combinations of expansive/contractive are ‘maximised’ by the time
we reach T6, what the ascent to T7 would make possible is to create the
conditions for the ‘male’ expansive mode to recommence at an entirely new
‘independent’ and higher level.  From T7 onwards the template facilitates
the conditions under which male/expansive can exist, as it were, in its own
right (although psychologically-speaking this ascent would initially be
informed by a RH matriarchal bias—and only later, in the course of later
evolution, a LH patriarchal bias again).
                                                  ## <.> ##

It is also clear that such stepping outside of the whole at the highest
level (i.e. in the 12th-dimension) would need to be followed in a ‘bottom
up’ fashion (i.e. from the opposite 6th-dimension) if we are to keep "in
touch" with the new and greater whole now being apprehended by the higher
"observer" self.
Here I argue that what is required in order to integrate T6 and T7 (and the
levels that follow, upto T12) is a special mediation by the number 8 (or
"8th-dimension"), just because the number 8 introduces an harmonic that is
unavailable in Euclidean geometry.  This is because the geometrical mean is
not to be found within the compass of a single octave.  
An octave is: the interval between two musical notes, the fundamental
components of which have frequencies in the ratio of two to one (cf.
dichotomy); the term has been extended to include the interval between two
frequencies of any type of oscillation that are in relation of two to one.
And the reason that we add the harmonic (wave/audition) mode to the
geometric (visual) when we step outside the ‘whole’ is that now time is no
longer merely apprehended intrinsically (i.e. as is the case upto T6). From
T7 to T12, time is also experienced extrinsically.
Thus, we see immediately that the extrinsic/intrinsic time that is inherent
in the 12-dimensional template would "make sense" to whatever entity is
experiencing it—just because the ‘dichotomy tree’ is henecforth informed by
"music": the 12-note chromatic scale.
                                                    ## <.> ##

The 8th-dimension (T8) serves as ‘bridge’ that facilitates the interaction
between number (the 64 elements upto T6) and harmonics (i.e. from T7 to
T12), I suggest, by virtue of the fact that it is the ‘Now’ of the
8th-dimension that collapses the wave function of a ‘surface
differentiation’ (in the opposite 2nd-dimension), both [RH harmonic-wave]
intrinsically and [LH vision-particle] extrinsically.
Cf. Penrose, who states on the subject of two-dimensional space-time, "The
symmetry between time [cf. the ‘Now’ of the 8th-dimension] and space [cf.
the surface of the 2nd-dimension] would be ... essentially symmetrical with
the interchange of space with time ..." (The Emperor’s New Mind, n. p. 574).
Cf.  also John Burnet, who, in speaking of the ‘mysterious’ notion of the
blending of "opposites" in the Pythagorean system (involving ‘the harmony
of the spheres’),  states:
" ...  the term 8, which represents the note of the paramese, extends and
is exceeded by the same fraction of the extremes: for 8 = 12 - 12/3 == 6 +
6/3. This was called the subcontrary, or later, for obvious reasons, the
harmonic mean. The geometrical mean is not to be found within the compass
of a single octave".
Burnet continues:
"Now this discovery of the Mean at once suggests a new solution of the old
Milesian problem of opposites. We know that Anaximander regarded the
encroachment of one opposite on the other as an "injustice", and he must
therefore have held there was a point which was fair to both. That,
however, he had no means of determining. The discovery of the Mean suggests
that it is to be found in a "blend" of the opposites, which might be
numerically determined, just as the high and low notes of the octave had
been....It may well have seemed that, if Pythagoras could discover the rule
for blending such apparently elusive things as high and low notes, the
secret of the world had been found" (Greek Philosophy: Thales to Plato,
pp.46-49). 
And as Joseph Campbell informs us:
"In the teaching of Pythagoras the philosophic quest for [Gr. ‘arch’], the
first cause and principle of all things, was carried to a consideration of
the problem of the magic of the Orphic lyre itself, by which the hearts of
men are quelled, purified, and restored to their part in God. His
conclusion was that the arch is number, which is audible in music, and by a
principle of resonance touches—and adjusts thereby—the tuning of the soul.
This idea is fundamental to the arts of both India and the Far East and may
go back to the age of the Pyramids. However, as far as we know, it was
Pythagoras who first rendered it systematically, as a principle by which
art, psychology, philosophy, ritual, mathematics, and even athletics were
to be recognised as aspects of a single science of harmony. Moreover, his
approach was entirely Greek. Measuring lengths of string of the same
tension, stopped so as to sound differing notes, he discovered the ratios
2:1 for the octave, 3:2 for the fifth, and 4:3 for the third. And then, as
Aristotle states, the Pythagoreans supposed the elements of numbers to be
the elements of all things, and the whole heaven to be a musical scale and
number. So that, finally, [LH ‘top down’] knowledge, not [RH ‘bottom up’
behavioural] rapture, became the way to realisation; and to the ancient
ways of myth and ritual art there was joined harmoniously the dawning
enterprise of [LH ‘top down’] Greek science, for the new life" (Occidental
Mythology, p. 185).
The philosopher in modern times who comes closest to Pythagoras’ notion of
‘the music of the spheres’ is A.N. Whitehead.  Cf. Lubbock, 
"Whitehead’s cosmos suggests a musical performance; a free-wheeling jazz
festival; an ensemble of countless players, some good, some bad, all
improvising as hard as they can go.  They play, not for the glory of God,
or to celebrate some spiritual ideal of Art; they play only because they
enjoy it. Unfortunately the musicians don’t always agree on which chords to
strike, and they even disagree about what tunes they want to play. And so
ugly fights frequently break out amongst the artists, and they smash their
instruments over each others’ heads. Often they smash each others’ heads.
But rising like a wraith among the screeches, squawks and thwacks, you will
hear the cadences and counterpoint of supernal music, almost too lovely to
bear. It is the proper task of the true philosopher to lead you to
experience that intangible beauty, to understand it, and to intensify it"
(Alfred North Whitehead for Dummies by Richard Lubbock (1995)).
Cf. Ruskin, "All art aspires to the condition of music".
                                                 ## <.> ##