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: <clo@fmsc.com.au>
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.