[1]
'An important characteristic of the human brain is its capacity for complex logical reasoning'<1>: I would say that 'logical reasoning' is the perception of explicit relationships; things I can point at (as I suggest in TA3 - logic stems from locational, direct identification, reductionist roots). A chick will learn that the colour of the red fruit that made it sick possibly signals 'danger' and will avoid all red coloured objects regardless of their form - this is simple 'IF P then Q". It is very ALL oriented in that there are NO exceptions (which would move us to SOME and an awareness of refined negation). This remembering lasts for about four hours (Rose 1994 (?)) and so shows the limitations in the brains for chicks but also the similarities with the brains of mammals. Thus logical reason is NOT 'only in the human brain' - it is just very much more refined in the human brain (which includes the storing of a couple of centuries of developed logical reasoning in the form of books. Thus, unlike the chick, a human does not necessarily need to 'rewrite the bible' every know and then and can start well up the experiencial ladder in being aware of refined concepts that the individual may never have come across in their future life but the knowledge of which can enhance their future life)

[2]
In the context of development we can 'map' different logics to phases of development:

(a) pure reductionist (extreme LH bias) ALL bias. simple propositional calculus. (like a newborn baby or sense of awareness - there are no negations in that everything reflectsone context. Like suddenly thinking THATS THE CAR I WANT and from then on you keep seeing it everywhere. This goes with ideas in that with the sudden understanding of the idea so it's aspects become 'obvious' whereever one looks.)

[3]
(b) balanced postion (moderate LH bias with some RH) LL/SOME predicate calculus. This comes from the emerging concept of doubt and so negation - things are not 'exactly' as perceived in (1). (Note that we could create (1A) which is the emergence of absolute negation (retains the ALL character) - Aristotle's A/~A (~ = NOT) and then lead into (2) and so the emergence of a more refined calculus - predicate). At this level we also enter the different types of dichotomisations - relational (1:1) and hierarchic (1:many) the latter being where the elements are dependent on each other for their identity.

[4]
(c) incorporating illusionist areas (strong RH influence) probabilities (Fuzzy Logic) and thus context dependence - e.g. G. Spencer-Brown' s calculus of indication (see his "laws of Form" (and the enhancements by Varela and Kaufmann in their paper "Form Dynamics")). Here we enter aspectual territory (including the dynamics of oscillations) and so 'implicitness' that can lead to illusions unless we are very selective about our choice of aspects to consider.

[5]
This development path is not so much a literal hemispheric 'swing' from left to right but a developing refinement with (1) as the root context. As mentioned in TA3, if we use the concept of firstness, secondness, thirdness in regard to development phases then firstness is ALWAYS a birth/rebirth/moment of insight that can also emerge from a preceeding thirdness. Thus for humans the moment of birth is 'firstness' (an explicit moment of identification) that emerges from the final moments of development where all of the aspects are completed in thirdness. (this does allow for variations in that one could emerge in a state of second or thirdness - nature at work - either side of the firstness (if you like - premature/postmature))


[6]
thirdness therefore introduces dynamic relationships that need to be considered/included to make the new 'whole' and so reflect a 'death' - a transformation from one level to another.

[7]
In all of this, secondness is the point of highest diversity in that we deal with dichotomies (ALL/SOME, YES/NO, RIGHT/LEFT) that are still 'explicit' and to some degree only double context oriented rather than the rich (and possibly illusionist) contexts that emerge in thirdness. Secondness is very categorical and the area of making consensus-derived maps of reality.

[8]
Thus thirdness introduces relativites as well as 'metaphysicals' in that concepts like 'fact', 'truth',' location' etc can have no meaning - we can call these 'MEANINGLESS'. This does not mean that they are 'rubbish' since they can elicit strong and 'meaningful' emotive states but these are very much 'in here' - or 'out there' - or 'no where' - hard to describe since they lack location and in the context of the discussion (logic) are 'MEANINGLESS'!

[9]
Also in thirdness comes aspects of secondness (categories) that are only valid 'in here' - and are thus FANTASY when in the context of 'out there' - e.g. Morality concepts of 'right/wrong' which have logical argument but social meaning only or else rich 'logical' worlds (as Prof. Raman points out below).

[10]
'The human brain is also capable of creating a variety of misleading impression-modes. ... '<2-5> In this context, metaphor is, to use Prof Raman's term, maayaa. The 1-2-3 model captures this in that the LH is more prone to literal interpretations of reality, the middle position (2) uses analogies and in (3 - RH) emerges metaphor (symbol). But as I point out in TA3, my analysis of metaphors shows that they elicit common emotive states reflecting their dichotomous roots - they are all descriptions of the MIXING of text and context to make 'a whole' with the root mixings being blending, bonding, bounding, and binding. Thus the *brain* is a stimulus/response oriented 'literal' minded (!) system from which emerges 'mind' - a more 'what could be' stimulus/'think about the response' oriented 'symbolically' minded system.

[11]
These emotive responses are tied to the methods of categorisation and by the time we get to thirdness and the consideration of contexts, so these emotive representations are more refined - we can have a 'blending' emotion in a 'binding' context which can create a complex 'feel', BUT if our maps are shared then we also share this feeling with others (recognising subtle individual differences of course). I think that realising this can help in learning and resolving some of the communication problems we face where metaphor is taken too literally or even when something literal is interpreted a metaphor!. (and so a 'push' for the middle?)

[12]
As part of our education we do NOT learn HOW we think and represent things. This is a problem to me and it can be taught simply - it does not require a 'deep' mind to understand it.

[13]
(Concerning Raman's paragraphs <6-8>: Lofting agrees) yes - I think a great painting captures 'invariant' components in aspectual thinking that cause a resonance - a feeling that the picture is 'right'. In TA 3 I mentioned the base 'forms' that exist in thirdness and affect our aspectual considerations.

[14]
At my website I introduce the concept of the context ratio where the previous contexts are considered in relation to the current situation. When you do this you find that the first sequence is in fact a Fibonacci sequence - something that any good artist uses 'instinctively' (golden section). This emerges as the best from of energy conservation combined with development - consideration of the previous two contexts only. Interestingly, if you consider ALL previous contexts you get a binary sequence. (high energy, fast development, high precision but can lose the form).

[15]
( Literature, democracy <9-10> ): If I am born into a culture where I am NOT aware of any other cultures (and so no possible negation) and all of my direct needs are met then I am in a position of firstness. Democracy is the middle, it allows for negation and being in the middle is the area of highest diversity and so potential growth. Thus, even with oscillations, there is a drive to maintain it. But over time things become more aspectual and illusional (like in much of our current culture) where it is illusion that makes money and props-up the culture. Although this is 'fun' it can also be a problem if allowed free reign. A I have pointed out, getting to thirdness requires an INCREASE in being selective or the 'maayaa' gets worse. If we can do this then there is the sudden transformation to firstness again OR there is the same transformation but to a state of firstness that is rigid and dark; we go backwards into fundamentalist concepts as a reaction to the increase in illusion. Better to go forwards in that we have to slow down and THINK (mind) rather than just react (brain). (every expansion starts with a contraction).

[16]
(About history <11>): also something we can learn from - but often don't!

[17]
(About mythology <12>):
yes - I think that the originators of these materials had good knowledge of text/context, wholes/aspects but could not express them in the precise ways that we can and so created rich metaphors.

[18]
(Mathematics <13>:)
stems from dichotomisations. The moment you try to use dichotomies to describe a whole you get into trouble since you are dealing with dichotomies that get more and more hierarchic where the elements of the dichotomy are tied together - they require the existance of the other to maintain their identity - and so incompleteness.

[19]
Any whole, by definition, is a closed system, but the bigger it is the less 'closed' it seems and any aspectual thinking requires a 'jump' from the indirect identification to the direct identification - this can be a problem unless the method of analysis selects the 'right' aspects that will lead to 'closure'.

[20]
(Religion <14>):
In the context of logic, religion is 'MEANINGLESS' in that there is a strong lack of location and a rich world of illusion, but yes it can offer comfort and so has 'value'.. This same area is linked to psychic concepts (gateways etc) and questions of purity - like questions on the similarities in life-choices amongst mono-zygotic twins. (especially those separated at birth).

[21]
(Mystical experience and philosophy <15-16> 'with careful analysis and argumentation ... every system of philosophy crumbles down'): As absolutes maybe, but combined with a context can be useful...
ALL - objective philosophy
ALL/SOME - categorical philosophy
FANTASY - moral philosophy
MEANINGLESS - metaphysical philosophy

[22]
(On science, and general points <17-19>):
genetic drive to keep away from the aggressors that when combined with the nature of the aggressor becomes 'us'. But, if we have adapted to our environment by internalising its characteristics then 'in here' reflects 'out there' (at least locally).

[23]
(Limitations of perception <20-23>): problems can arise in that the structure of the instruments are just extensions of our senses and so the characteristics of 'in here' are in the instruments and so - possible illusion. Thus we need to be more selective about how we design and use them, or else 'Science' becomes more and more subjective.

Chris Lofting.

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