ABSTRACT
Henkel writes: "Mind-contingent reality is completely subjective/objective, binding the two into an inseparable union". I think this is too 'general' in form; too unrefined (or perhaps the use of the term 'completely' is too 'totalist' ;-)). If we use dichotomous analysis then what emerges is a continuum which we can partition into 'states'. This article is intended to demonstrate the result of refining dichotomies and that includes attempts to combine the elements of a dichotomy back into 'one'.

[1]
In <2> of C14, The two 'pure' states are those of subjective and objective and statistically they are VERY rare but still possible. In the hierarchy of 'thinking' so analysis leads to the emergence of a pattern and this forces the original two elements of the dichotomy aside:

* level-0 SUBJECTIVE (I could start with objective or even a term that encompasses BOTH -- the 'universe of discourse')
* level-1 SUBJECTIVE -- OBJECTIVE (~SUBJECTIVE) (your 'vanilla', totalist 1:1 dichotomy of A/~A)
* level-2 SUBJECTIVE(100%) -- Objective(49) IN subjective(51) --- Subjective(49) IN objective(51) -- OBJECTIVE(100)
* level-3 SUBJECTIVE - slight objective IN subjective - objective in subjective - strong objective in subjective ...etc etc. etc.

[2]
You may recall from my previous articles that these levels are reducible to whole/aspects mappings thus:

level-0 whole
level-1 whole -- ~whole
level-2 whole -- parts -- ~parts -- ~whole
level-3 whole(blend) -- static relationships(bond) -- parts(bound) -- dynamic relationships(bind) -- ....

each level reflects the results of 'zooming-in' on the previous level and making further distinctions on each element of the level. For example, static relationships, that emerge at level-3, comes out of viewing the 'space' between wholes and parts at level-2 and asking 'where' is the crossover from a 'whole' to a 'part'. Static relationships are aspects of the whole that seem like parts but are not removable and so not parts nor wholes in their own right. At the same time they can also be groups of parts that 'bring-out' an aspect of the whole. Each level thus results from considering the POTENTIALS between adjoining elements of the previous levels; we study the boundary that separates and from that emerges finer distinctions (see the comments below on the content of the 'excluded' middle in dichotomies).

[3]
At level-3 we have eight 'states' -- two are 'pure' (whole/~whole) but rare and the others are mixed with a 'balance' bias in the middle of about 51%/49% -- thus there is a contextual bias that 'bends' things to either an objective or subjective initialisation.

[4]
To 'keep it simple', lets look at level-2. Here we find four possible expressions of the subjective/objective dichotomy. Two of these are the 'pure' forms common to single context ,totalist, EITHER/OR thinking. The other two are where the elements of the original dichotomy are 'mixed' and favouring EITHER/OR thinking but with entanglement, and so BOTH/AND-ness; we introduce relatives rather than absolutes but note that this does not 'wipe-out' absolutist thinking, it just adds more choice in expression.

[5]
So at level-2 we have totalist thinking (ALL) and 'scientific' thinking -- EITHER/OR (A/~A) -- as well as emerging BOTH/AND thinking.

[6]
We note that this is an extension of level-1 which is an extension of level-0. At level-0 is totalism - ALL X - where there is NO distinction. This is a 'total' moment but cannot be described without analogy and it is analogy that emerges when we 'go deeper'. Thus at level-1 there is still totalism but also total negation and so A/~A. (we replace NOT SUBJECTIVE with a single term -- OBJECTIVE). Here is where we make of first 'maps'; our first categorisations.

[7]
At level-2 this is refined in that the A and the ~A are 'divided' where we see some ~A in A and some A in ~A. Analogy is now refined and we start to introduce symbols and metaphors (these come into their own at level-3).

[8]
Using the whole/aspects template, especially the 'mixing' concept, so at level-2 the 'mixed' elements favour bounding in that we make a distinction of A from B but this in 'encoded' in the same 'space' and so there is no independence; each element requires the presence of the other to help maintain its identity. This suggests a growing genotypal bias over the 'explicit' independence-biased, absolute SUBJECTIVE OR OBJECTIVE assertions that are more phenotypal.

[9]
When we then work from level-2 of the template and look at human behaviour so we 'see' a pattern. This comes from the considering of the structure of personality being grossly categorised as identity seeking, security seeking, solution seeking, and sensation seeking (as demonstrated in earlier articles):

[10]
We can take our subjective/objective dichotomy at level-2 and 'map' it to these persona categorisations:

identity seeking -- subjective
security seeking -- objective IN subjective

solution seeking -- subjective IN objective
sensation seeking -- objective.

[11]
Note that the two middle 'types' spend their time making algorithms and formulas based on 'fact'/'fiction' (subjective IN objective - 'fact' bias) and 'right'/'wrong' (objective IN subjective - 'values' bias). Then note that creating algorithms and formulas are characteristics of a preference for more genotypal behaviour in the form of having a structured set of 'behaviours' of which one can be expressed when needed. (at my website I suggest that these two personas have emerged due to fear or 'bad experiences' with the more 'fundamental' identity seeking (SUBjective bias) and sensation seeking (OBjective bias) personas. Thus we create algorithms and formulas to 'be prepared'. At the same time we recognise that genetic diversity can lead to these personas being 'born' that way.)

[12]
Overall these patterns emerge from the A/~A dichotomy process when it is taken past level-1 and this is what Henkel is trying to do. My point is that the use of dichotomy is 'fundamental' to our thinking which is 1:many 'all the way'. Thus the discussion of subjectivity introduces its negation from the start and all possible states of the subjective/objective dichotomy are 'known' in theory (genotype) if not yet in practice (phenotype). Henkel's attempt to 'unite' subjective/objective demonstrates a 'drive' to get behind things into contextual influences and so the sets of possible expressions rather than the expression itself (Henkel is in fact denying the specific expressablity of objective or subjective.)

[13]
In the template, each level manifests a more refined degree of expression and so works like a 'gene' in that the continuum from 'pure' WHOLE to 'pure' ~WHOLE contains all the different modes of expression within that 'gene' (note that in the biological gene there is a 'crossover' point as well). As we refine our understanding of things so we change levels, or should I say the one level is more refined. Thus level-2 is level-0 in a more refined form; we dont go through level-0 again but more directly to its representation in level-2.

[14]
Overall, it does not matter how 'entangled' Henkel wishes to get in his attempts to 'drop' MIR, due to our nature it will remain in some form or another since behind it is our method of categorisation and that is by the recursive use of dichotomies of the 1:many form. Thus at level-1 we 'see' a dichotomy that is '1:1' (A/~A) and as we 'go deeper' so the ~A is found to contain all of the aspects of A that includes the aspect of negation. Furthermore, I think Henkel fails to see the 1:many nature of the objective/subjective dichotomy in that it is perceived at 1:1 whereas the template shows that it is more 1:many; when we shift down to 1:1 all we are doing is demonstrating the specifics/general functionality 'in here' where 'many' contains only '1'.

[15]
In <3> Henkel writes:

"In an attempt to pin down the experiential structure of potentiality, consider its reality status, which brings up the specific context of quantum mechanics. The reality status of quantum mechanical potentiality or availability is a very interesting question."

My answer is "not really" since it is what is BEHIND QM, its structure, that tells us that the potentiality question comes from genotypal behaviour that is part of 'us' and so is encoded in our maps; how we perceive determines what we perceive, and how we perceive is determined by a set of genes 'in here' that are 'encoded' with text/context, whole/aspects, specific/general distinction-makings.

[16]
In <3> Henkel continues:

"Within the constraints of the usual quantum mechanics, potentiality is well described as the set of potential states (eigenstates of a Hamiltonian) of a single quantum system before observation."

These are 'reducible' to basic set theory where the set of possible states of a particle (micro level) or person (macro level) are combined with the set of all of the possible states of the universe. At the particle level, these states of the universe are determined by implication in that we use the constants of the universe (speed of light, electron charge etc) to determine what the universe CANNOT do and so imply what it can do. The combination is a 'Cartesian product' where each possible outcome is represented by in turn linking an element of the particle set with each one of the universe set and with each 'pair' comes a probability of expression This gives us the genotype -- the 'gene' and an experiment will elicit a specific expression (phenotype) which we will find as one of those predicted. This is called the 'wave' collapse simply because it is more efficient to use the wave metaphor than the particle metaphor in that here one leads into the other - genotype leads to expression - phenotype; general to specific.

[17]
We can 'reduce' this further to basic logic in that the distinction of A OR ~A (actual) becomes A AND ~A (potential) where the latter when summed equals 'zero'. Now the term 'zero' means that there are NO SPECIFIC values for all of the possible values expressible. Zero is NOT a number but a place-marker that points to POTENTIALS. In logic this is called the excluded middle in that the EITHER/OR nature disallows 'the middle' since the 'middle' contains potentials and not actuals. (so A + ~A = 0. Mathematicians 'forget' the potentials that the 0 represents and so prefer the 'nothing' concept and teach it as such. Since potentials are 'background' (context) so we see the repression of context.)

[18]
Modern logic is starting to refine this in the use of Fuzzy Logic which gives a probability estimate to the A/~A; just like the wave equation of QM and so context is taken into consideration and we start to include the previously excluded middle in our considerations. But this does not 'remove' the absolutes of A/~A, rather it reduces the probability of their expression since we are moving from the specific EITHER/OR states to considering the more 'potential' BOTH/AND states.

[19]
The hierarchic structure here allows for the *expression* of a BOTH/AND state and so to be seen as 'specific'. This can be 'illusion' in that if I 'zoom-in' so I will detect the entanglement and shift-down a level to reduce it to EITHER/OR, but, as I have stated previously, so 'illusion' can transform and so, for example, a human being, although seemingly 'specific' is also reducible. However, the process of reduction can lead to the 'loss' of humanity in that the human dies leaving just the more 'concrete' parts that made them.

[20]
This takes us into emergence in that the progression 'up' the hierarchy can lead to the 'sudden' expression of something not obviously seen at lower levels -- in fact cannot survive at a lower level. In physics, due to lack of resolution we have moved from considering specifics outright to considering specifics by looking at generals and all of the possible expressions contained in the general.

[21]
Henkel's combining of subjective/objective leads into this path but one must be wary of an increase in 'illusions'.

[22]
In <7> Henkel writes:

"In closing, I would like to clarify my introduction of degrees of reality I would like to modify them from Degrees of Reality to Types of Physical Models of Reality.

* First Type of Reality Model: The classical physics model, where things and events have absolute objective reality.

* Second Type of Reality Model: The quantum mechanical physics model, where subjective/objective, yet-to-be- observed potential quanta await conversion to subjective/ objective actuality through quantum measurement. But also, where quantum systems themselves are considered to have absolute objective reality.

* Third Type of Reality Model: The extra-Cartesian or Organism Experience model, where everything potential---in the subjective/objective Cosmos---awaits conversion to subjective/objective actuality through individual organism experience, and eventually gets incorporated into the subjective/objective collective cultural Logos. Organism experience as a process is then subjective/objective."

[23]
Note that we can assign these to the whole/aspects template's levels of thinking and so 'see' Henkel's development at work:

First type = level-1 (A/~A) (to me this is 'one-off' in that there is a level before that is too ALL and totalist to be useful in map-making. It contains entanglement (BOTH/AND that are not differentiated and so the use of A/~A. (e.g. MIR/~MIR)

Second type = level-2 (the wave collapse of BOTH/AND into an EITHER/OR; thus MIR + ~MIR = potentials and one is expressed -- an actual -- but which one is dependent on context).

Third type = level-3 (the emergence of apparently 'irreducible' forms. BOTH/ANDs that are 'expressible' and so EITHER/OR but at a higher level. These are reducible but can 'lose' something in the process of reduction. In the template this level is where static and dynamic relationships come to the fore and the observation of dynamic relationships become 'difficult' since we have to stop the process to 'see' what is going on...and so the benefit of computers that allow us to observe and then 'freeze-frame'. These refinements can be useful as feedback in our understanding of what is 'enfolded' in the base whole/aspects template)

[24]
In the template there are eight possible 'expressions' at level-3 where four 'new' ones emerge from the recursive processing of level-2:

BLEND (whole)
BOND (static relationships)
BOUND (parts)
BIND (dynamic relationships)
~BIND
~BOUND
~BOND
~BLEND (~whole...can be the literal opposite of whole or else all aspects that point to wholeness. Reflected over direct light)

[25]
I can thus see something as an expression of a static or dynamic relationship, or as a whole, or as a part. I can see something directly or by the shadow it creates (the latter leading to possible illusion).

[26]
I can assure Henkel that there are a number of levels to go (about another 3) before you start to get 'close' to where our maps get 'efficient' in that we have a good set of 'meaning'-loaded elements to play with and where we dont have to sink into the complexities of mathematical expression. This said, many of the social persona typologies function from level-4 thinking and have done pretty well from there in that the hierarchic structure of whole/aspects combined with feedback allows for good generalisations; more levels just give you finer detail with the possibility of an 'emergence'.

-------------------------------------------

Chris Lofting.
<clo@fmsc.com.au>