<1>
ABSTRACT
Considering KJ Forum C2 to TA2 and the concept of SOC (Science of Consciousness) I wish to make some points (please note that my emphasis on left and right brain biases is 'gross' in that finer analysis shows a degree of mixing, but behaviour suggests an initial contextual influence so comments concerning 'left-hemisphere functionality' mean that there is a bias to the LH setting the overall context within which a behaviour occurs -- and this can still include RH activity; thus we always deal with *biases*, even if I express myself 'assertively' ;-))

<2>
Ontology is NOT independent of epistemology, it in fact has epistemology as it's context (and visa versa). Thus a form of 'extreme' epistemology is where there is an emphasis on direct sensory identification of elements 'out there' - so direct that there is no apparent distinction or moment of doubt 'in here' such that our emotion 'favours' a degree of recognising independence. This we call ontology - the inner perception of 'out there' as being independent of 'in here' and so leading to the development of a methodology. GENETICS can lead to this sort of model in that our brain responds DIRECTLY to an external stimulus - there is no software (thought) involved either consciously or unconsciously but thought can adjust the behaviour if need be but only after the initial action; there are times when 'we' have to react to our own (at times surprising) genetically-driven behaviour. Epistemology 'emerges' when 'doubt' and the distinction of 'in here'/'out there' is made. On the other hand, if we start from an epistemological perspective so we head towards ontology; this ontology/epistemology dichotomy is not made of independent elements - they are forever entangled since the dichotomy is 'inherital' - (see below).

<3>
In our making of maps of reality we have traditionally used a model of:
(a) induction, where we move from an observed specific to a general.
(b) having reached a number of observations we create a hypothesis.
(c) deductions based on the hypothesis leads to predictions that, if found valid, lead to the enhancement of
the hypothesis. Note that 'in here', the hypothesis is often take (and defended) as if a 'fact'.
(d) From Charles Peirce we are introduced to the concept of abduction. Abduction is where we 'suddenly'
notice something 'out there' that implies a validation of an existing hypothesis.

<4>
The difference between induction and abduction is that the latter requires prior knowledge - it works in a context set by the hypothesis, as does deduction, whereas induction has no prior context other than 'neutral observation'.

<5>
The use of abduction enables a degree of self-correction in that it introduces the concept of feedback other than the YES/NO characteristic of deduction - thus the deduction/abduction dichotomy is a 1:many type in that deductive methods are EITHER/OR whereas abductive methods goes beyond this (and so 'many'); abduction introduces 'possibles' (what we can call BOTH/AND-ness)

<6>
Abduction can thus 'create' apparently 'new' ideas and so we have a degree of growth, but as we shall see, the form of these 'new' ideas are pre-determined - so we experience 'novelty' rather than something 'new' .

<7>
If we look carefully at these processes we find that deduction/abduction form a loop within a context set by the hypothesis and so the abduction/deduction dichotomy is 'inherital' in form - the elements of the dichotomy are tied to each other and are elements of the whole that is the original hypothesis and by oscillating between these two elements so we develop the 'factualness' of the hypothesis.

<8>
This is like dialectic method which works on thesis/anti-thesis leading to synthesis where the object of synthesis is in fact the context in which the thesis/anti-thesis dichotomy functions - the process is also 'inherital' (even if implicit in that it seems to go backwards - from many (A/~A) to one rather than from one to many).

<9>
The 'problem' with these inherital methods is that, as I have mentioned in previous articles/comments, since they are based within a context of a 'whole', their outcomes are pre-determined. This is due to the brain's bias to wholes and aspects where our neurology seems to be biased to processing data in these ways in that ANY inherital dichotomy implies hierarchy and a dependence of initial/previous contexts which will therefore 'colour' our interpretations of the whole and so 'mix' 'out there' with 'in here'.

<10>
In Science the ontological emphasis favours stressing independence, and studies of our brain favours the left hemisphere as being the most biased area for the 'origin' of these sort of methods in that the LH is biased to direct identification (location), including explicit relational concepts (syntax) all working in a single context (the 1). Combined with this is an aspect of the LH that allows for 'neutral' emotive expression and so initial contexts for wholes can be 'neutral' - A concept strongly favoured in Science and perhaps the root of our concepts of 'cold hard fact'.

<11>
In Philosophy we have the same model in that metaphysical concepts also favour an 'out there' independence except that the locational aspects are 'lessened', thus the 'objective' can have a 'feel' but nebulous location and can include the individual (This is an RH biased behaviour where we try to maintain an objective 'tone' (context) within which is placed both 'out there' and 'us in here'. Overall Philosophy can be considered as RH thinking but grounded in a LH context where we still try to maintain some degree of 'objective' thinking even when dealing with metaphysics. Even though the gross context is the same, Science and Philosophy have een considered as 'independent' disciplines (until more recent times). Thus Metaphysical Philosophy in a RH context is Religion with an emphasis on 'value' - a concept strongly derived from emotion and an emphasis on dependence.)

<12>
To *combine* Science with Philosophy means to develop a SOC using inherital methods in that the combination is done WITHIN A DETERMINED CONTEXT and so this can lead to a model of consciousness that is pre-determined from the method. As I demonstrate elsewhere, the use of inherital dichotomies leads to the emergence of a template of 'meaning' that is linked to the method and we create metaphors using this template.

<13>
With this in mind, to establish a 'Science' of Consciousness is 'meaningless' in that the locational emphasis on Science negates any 'pure' emotive content, but it is the variations on emotive contents that go towards differentiating various 'types' of conscious experience and even the inclusion of Philosophy still implies the presence of an area we could call, in a locationist sense, ' the unknowable'.

<14>
This 'unknowable' is the area of psychic functionality - of spiritual gateways and the whole concept of non-locality and these areas are best studied in Psychology, Psychiatry and Cognitive Science. A possible 'clue' to non-locality is in the study of Schizophrenia in which the explicit locational emphasis in the psyche seems to have been removed or 'twisted'. By studying different personas we find that there are personas that are 'similar' in form - 'psychics' are more a RH-biased persona in that they can 'dissapear' to 'wherever' and still come back - this being I think because their sense of personal identity is created by aspects (context - implicit identification) rather than explicit identification (text). Thus BOTH types 'hear voices' but one type retains a connection to 'here' simply because of the rich variations in context that form part of RH nature which goes towards an overall emphasis on dependence. (I have suggested that Schizophrenia is linked to LH-rooted anomalies that include an emphasis on independence and so the 'voices' are 'independent' of the individual).

<15>
As a culture becomes more refined, so it moves into subjective/aspectual areas (BOTH/AND states and the world of possibles) and so emerges an increase in concepts like 'channelling' etc where an implicit persona emerges from changing the aspects that make-up the person. This is like a kaleidoscope where a rotation hanges the pattern but it is still within the whole - for schizophrenics the text is lost and so location becomes context 'many' rather than 'one' and this becomes a psychotic experience - psychosis determined by the more 'location-bound' doctors. (A similar problem for RH-biased individuals leads to depression and so neurosis rather than psychosis. This is simply due to the dependence on ASPECTS (context) to establish identity rather than text. This RH emphasis on everything linked together can become a problem in that it is emotion that seems to bind contexts and so the depressive experiences an overemphasis on negative emotional links giving a 'bad' sense of 'self' since there is no ability to treat memories as independent of each other in time).

<16>
With the above distinctions in mind, at best, a SOC would be statistical, but this is a function of the illusion-creating RH and so would serve little purpose other than create an industry based on interpretations -- but we already have this -it is call Astrology, or Tarot, etc etc etc all of which are founded on inherital dichotomies (fire/water, air/earth) (as are psychoanalysis etc where the emphasis is on aspectual analysis of the infant/mother, infant/father dichotomies. All of these can lead to feelings of 'value' and 'fact' even when illusional since they are all metaphors for describing relations of wholes and their aspects).

<17>
Thus the use of inherital dichotomies leads to the creation of metaphors that only serve to express dependent whole/aspects relationships in a more 'novel' way whereas the use of relational dichotomies maintains a degree of independence but prohibits 'subjective' analysis (Thus Behaviourism is strongly stimulus/response and excludes subjective concepts but is also repeatable across cultures (or even species)).

<18>
My own analysis of inherital dichotomies leads to the explicit identification of the possible states of 'meaning' for any 'whole' that is analysed this way and so any SOC based on inherital methods will lead to these 'types' emerging simply due to the method - thus a whole area of mathematical description opens-up simply because of the inherital nature of Cartesian-based mathematics when applied in a statistical way. Thus a SOC would be seen to have 'value' but this would be only 'in here' and so subjective. (Thus SOC becomes 'fantasy' in that it is a Science but applied 'in here' - if this is 'acceptable' to the culture - no problem, but to the more 'hard core' reductionists there is still a degree of illusion involved in that I cant see 'in here' -- although PET and MRI etc do help...)

<19>
In general, methods of analysis based on relational dichotomies lead to apparent 'objective' maps of reality but prohibit consideration of internal development; these are LH-biased dichotomies with an emphasis on relationships of otherwise independent forms (so the emphasis on orthogonal placements of dimensions, dimensions being expressed as dichotomies(+1/-1)). Methods of analysis based on inherital dichotomies lead to apparent rich descriptions of 'wholes' but these are bound 'in here' and increase in subjectivity and so can become 'illusions' when we try to apply them 'out there'; these are RH-biased dichotomies where the elements are entangled from the start in that they are dependent on each other for their identity since they 'emerge' from a common context (the whole). We find this in the current dichotomy for Quantum Mechanics - particles/waves (1:many).

<20>
From <19> we can conclude that the 'best' position is in the middle - where we are now - in that we can maintain a degree of objective bias whilst benefiting from some of the tools of subjectivity (probabilities etc). But this implies that a SOC will never be 'complete' - another characteristic of inherital dichotomies in that as we 'cut' deeper so there is always more to see or else our powers of resolution become so diminished that we can no longer make distinctions even though we 'know' there is more. When this happens we shift into wave models based on probabilities etc. and so no closure.

<21>
In summary, the functioning of the brain includes within it an apparent bias to using dichotomous methods when mapping reality and these methods have encoded with them contextual markers that introduce 'meaning' where the text/context relationship 'out there' resonates with a possible text/context relationship 'in here' and so eliciting a 'meaning'.

<22>
Since we are creating *maps* using these methods, there is a bias to locational concepts linked to LH-type behaviour and any attempt to create a 'Science' of anything implies a foundation based on LH processes, unless we redefine the term 'Science' to include non-locational concepts, something I find 'un-comfortable' but something that needs to be considered if we ever wish to seriously delve into the world of Consciousness (that includes the 'Un-conscious') even if we are entering a potential world of illusion.

Chris Lofting.

[The author is Analyst/Programmer for Computershare Ltd.
e-mail <clo@fmsc.com.au>]