KARL JASPERS FORUM

Target Article 30

SCALE AND MEANING; SAMENESS AND DIFFERENCE
by Chris Lofting
13 July 2000, posted 3 October 2000

ABSTRACT

There seems to be a tendency when making our maps of reality to over-emphasis DIFFERENCE and the price for this is the forgetting/ignoring of SAMENESS. In particular, there is a failure to teach the fundamental set of meanings that we have as a species and how these meanings unconsciously influence our seemingly 'different' maps, ideas, concepts, disciplines etc. By focusing on the SAMENESS we can save a lot of energy spent in trying to deal with the DIFFERENCES.

[1]
Human communication is not limited to one mode. By this I mean that for discussion purposes we assert that each individual has within them a number of levels and these communicate with the same levels in others; there is parallel processing going on with the range of possible meanings determined by the overall structure and dynamics of a particular level and its relationships to the other levels. The spoken/written word is thus a digitalisation, an encapsulation, of analogue sensory systems that when converted back to analogue activates various parts of our neurology. (From a neurological aspect there ARE levels in the brain as well as evidence of the translation of words into internal sensory experiences. However for this current discussion we do not need to focus on that as yet).

[2]
The differentiation process in [1] takes what seems to be a continuum of states between two poles, one pole expressing SAMENESS and the other pole expressing DIFFERENCE, and emphasises levels within this continnum. For my purpose, SAMENESS links to the concept of species and DIFFERENCE to individuals within the species.

NOTE: I think this continuum is more of an 'interdigitation' of the SAMENESS/DIFFERENCE dichotomy where after a few recursive steps we get something approaching complexity/chaos patterns and the process itself demonstrates a movement from SAMENESS to DIFFERENCE (from one to many) and yet retains groups of SAMENESS within DIFFERENCE. Note that with these basic distinctions so SAMENESS, by its nature, includes encapsulation, a grouping and so an emphasis on the one whereas DIFFERENCE emphasises the many, which includes the exceptions, the NOT one.

[3]
For my purpose we can define four levels of communication within the individual/species but these levels are not totally independent from each other, they are like levels in a pyramid or cone with the base manifesting sameness and the top manifesting difference (aka uniqueness). Neurologically we 'see' this sort of pattern in the layers of neocortex where the 'point', is on the surface of the cortex under which there are six 'support' layers. The point can be one or a few neurons grouped together that react to a particular stimulus.

I think for now modelling four levels will be enough to get my point (!) across.

[4] The four levels are:
(a) Species level. This is a level based on SAMENESS, it is a strongly consensus-driven level which utilises emotional resonance to get a sense of meaning (When compared to 'out there' it reflects SAMENESS within DIFFERENCE where the DIFFERENCES are with other species). The set of possible meanings within the species is defined by the dynamics of the neurology and is generally restricted to differentiation of objects (the what) and relationships (the where) and the refining of these distinctions using recursive dichotomisations. This level is very general when compared to the next levels and is strongly linked to fundamental emotional states that elicit a general sense of 'meaning'.

(b) Cultural level. This is a level again based on DIFFERENCE within SAMENESS (b compared to a) but from *within the culture* and so *within the individual*. There is thus a smaller group emphasis on SAMENESS in that the DIFFERENCE is detectable when we compare this level (level b) to the previous (level a) as well as cultural groups within the whole level of (b); 'individual' cultures if you like. This level rests upon the species level and so is influenced by that level and I suggest the use of symbolisation, metaphorcation acts to refine the meaning structures found in (a) as well as allow for more complex forms of expression which, at the level of (b) are taken as if fundamental.

(c) Family level. This is again a level based on DIFFERENCE within SAMENESS, in the form of the family as DIFFERENT from the culture. This level is influenced by all previous levels and there is also an increase in a emphasis on being 'different'.

(d) Individual level. This is again a level based on DIFFERENCE within SAMENESS but here there is no group, the emphasis is strongly on uniqueness and so the particular over the general. This ensures that the individual is always 'different'. The 'price' of this difference is the requirement for education to maintain sameness at the family/cultural level but this education is more than often limited to refining and so maintaining the 'value' of levels (b) and (c). if you do not have (b) and (c) you get an individual within a species and so 'driven' by genetics combined with ideosyncratically-derived concepts. We can suggest that (a) and (d) are the more fundamental levels with (b) and (c) emerging both from gene forces as well as individual experiences passed on to others; local distinctions leading to 'group' patterns.

[5]
In the context of the levels outlined in [4] My emphasis on communication is more on the level of that described in [4(a)], the species level, upon which all other levels refine their meanings; thus higher up than [4(a)] an object is named and painted with refined emotions such that it becomes particularised within a unique context (as in MY meaning, MY family's meaning, MY culture's meaning); we thus aim to DIFFERENCE SAMENESS.

[6]
My emphasis is that at all levels, when communicating with someone else, there is consensus-derived communications and so SAME to SAME. This means that all communciations have within them particular formations that are encoded such that decoding is at a particular level and the data is not necessarily 'meaningful' beyond/outside that level. This means that the expressions of the individual, although DIFFERENT at the surface level, the level of expression, have encoded in them data that is only interpretable at the other levels and the full set of interpretations determines the overall meaning. Thus sensitivity to body language helps to validate the spoken word etc., we are sensitive to incongruent communications even if we only 'feel' unsure, the expression etc seemed 'right' but there is something 'wrong' which we cannot consciously put our finger on. This demonstrates how at the same time these levels can operate almost independently of the others; they are to some degree at least self-contained; autonomous. (As we find in the behaviours of the left and right hemispheres of the brain when we cut the communications channel between them, the corpus callosum, or put one hemisphere to 'sleep').

[7]
Due to the hierarchic nature of the overall structure of our species, where it is DIFFERENCE within SAMENESS at each level all the way up, so there are also influences across levels such that the unique expressions at the 'top' are coloured by unconscious influences from the 'bottom'. We can see from this a high level of complexity and redundancy in human communications.

[8]
We know that SAMENESS presented at our senses is eventually habituated, demonstrating an overall sensitivity to DIFFERENCE which ensures that I do not have to keep identifying something which has become a regular part of the local or non-local context. Thus the level described in [4(a)], a level biased to SAMENESS, is based on assumptions to such a degree that processing this level's data is habit; there is no thought applied since it is so general and so more SAMENESS than DIFFERENCE; there is a set of possible meanings available and a communication selects one of these as a particular; end of story. There is no DIFFERENCE detectable outside of the set of meanings available. This is reflected in our sensory systems with all of them having ranges, absolute limits in which we must operate. With these sensory limits being the case, and emotion being the prime responder to sensory data, it is acceptable that emotion too has its limits; fear and joy have their bounds.

[9]
The habituation-to-SAMENESS process so strongly favours sensitivity to DIFFERENCE that I suggest that conscious reflection is biased to DIFFERENCE to a degree where SAMENESS is not consciously detected or if it is it is soon ignored. In particular I suggest that the SAMENESS of the level described in [4(a)] is not detected or it is ignored.

[10]
I think that this failure to teach detection of these patterns is the cause of many of our communications problems in that the bias to DIFFERENCE forces us to use LOTS of energy to identify concepts etc. However we can conserve some energy by decoding the species level SAMENESS elements even though these are expressed very generally. (I stress species-level since SAMENESS in the cultural/family level can vary more dramatically for the individual than the structure of the patterns at the species level.)

[11]
All disciplines are made-up by their DIFFERENCES in that we particularise context and then create a lexicon within that context to specialise even more. In doing so we encapsulate to such a degree that the species-level communication links, those more sensitive to SAMENESS, are forgotten/ignored.

[12]
Disciplines then become like species where to be a participant in the discipline acts as a form of identity and so assert 'us' from 'them'. We then learn the lexicon (the SAME language) and that favours more refinements to such a degree where sub-groups form within the discipline (cultures, families) to a degree where high levels of specialisation mean that few groups can actually understand each other within the SAME discipline. Here we see the SAME development processes being repeated within the disciplines as we see within a species, suggesting a definite pattern at work, both 'in here' and 'out there' or perhaps the pattern is imposed on 'out there' by 'in here'. We shall see.

[13]
I think that the disadvantage of the perceived increase in complexity as a result of the over emphasis on DIFFERENCE is found in an increase in entropy at the individual level, the individual is pressured to become a specialist and in doing so loses sight of the 'big picture' since it is assumed that the 'big picture' contains too much data, too much 'DIFFERENCE' to a degree where it can seem paradoxical and/or meaningless.

[14]
This assumption, that 'out there' is paradoxical/meaningless, is, to some degree, false in that at all times we still communicate at the species-wide level of SAMENESS even though at a seemingly too general level. Thus the DIFFERENCES in fact have ties to an underlying SAMENESS.

[15]
What my template work shows is that at the 'pure' SAMENESS level, that of the species, all of the DIFFERENCE is encoded in SAMENESS in the form of basic object/relationship distinctions that are unique to that level; there is never anything 'new' other than a variation on an existing, for all purposes hard-coded, theme.

[16]
Furthermore, there is a degree of structure at the species level such that when presented with data from a source, a discipline, that is 'outside' of our realm of experience at the DIFFERENCE level, we can zoom-in (or down) to the species level of communication and quickly pick-up the patterns that operate at the species level and from there extrapolate back to the 'top' level, the discipline-specific level. Thus we reduce the time it takes to 'understand' a particular discipline or concept/idea etc since at the species level of communications it will have a format that we can use to make analogies etc to other disciplines and so use DIFFERENCE (i.e. other disciplines) to detect SAMENESS (common general meanings).

[17]
In the particular context of the DIFFERENCES between Astrology and Astronomy, both systems use dichotomisations (a species level tool) as the source of their distinction making and as such the sense of VALUE we get from each will be the SAME, the 'thrill' of discovering a 'new' truth in either discipline is coded in the SAME way at the species level even if the expression level is exceedingly DIFFERENT. The presence of the species level allows for the apparently 'fictitious' to retain value since the SAMENESS of the method of meaning determination at this level does not discriminate between Art and Science, Fact nor Fiction but only on value; on survivability etc.

[18]
In the creation of ANY idea/discipline, even if 'absolutely' unique from all other, there is an element of meaning present at the species level that ensures understanding by all others, even if only in a general way. This general way is just enough to be able to understand the contents of that discipline even if the symbolisms etc seem 'obscure' but to achieve this does require understanding of the structure of level [4(a)] and this is something that, to date, I have not seen done in schools/universities etc; there is no course on "Fundamental Information Processing in Our Species" probabily because the neurological data to support such a course has only recently been discovered.

[19]
From the above analysis I think it becomes clear that our over-emphasis on DIFFERENCE, and so specialisation, has distracted us from reflecting on SAMENESS levels of communications as a possible source of easing the pressures place on us by the emphasis on DIFFERENCE detection (as well as of DIFFERENCE presentation since the habituation process to SAMENESS has a price in a materialist world, we have to keep re-identifying, re-wrapping, the old in 'new' forms to maintain sales etc To keep things dynamic requires DIFFERENCE).

[20]
Reflecting on [1] to [19] there is a noticeable pattern of development where we move from the general one (species) to the many (individuals within the species). In terms I link to the species-level of communications, (and described in more detail at my websites) there is a bias of moving from a BLEND (the one) to a BOND (one starts to split) to a BOUND (two+, but static) to a BIND (two+ but dynamic) state; the latter manifesting independent forms (individuals) interacting over time but with no observable connection. BINDING is like having a contract between two parties such that over time their behaviour suggests some sort of dependence (e.g. their species natures). Overall this pattern reflects a sort of unblending of the original species once it is formed where genetic diversity is inevitable. This diversity may act to ensure survival of basic species elements but in doing so also acts to be the birth place for 'new' species.

[21]
I have also noticed that, also from an evolution context, there is a development pattern that is the reverse of the above, we go from BIND to BOUND to BOND to BLEND. This pattern takes us from DIFFERENCE to SAMENESS and is reflected in such concepts as initial processes in Darwinism where a gene and a context start out 'different' and over time become so entangled that they become 'one'.

[22]
Thus the pattern within [20] suggests a process that is seemingly INTERNAL but expansive, where a species will develop into sub species and eventually lead to the emergence of 'new' species. There is a general emphasis here of SAMENESS BEHIND/WITHIN DIFFERENCE.

[23]
The pattern within [21] suggests a process that is seemingly EXTERNAL but contractive, thus two species can interact and if it works out become one either literally or in the form of a tight symbiotic relationship which for all purposes is interpreted as if one. There is general emphasis here of SAMENESS BETWEEN DIFFERENCE.

[24]
We can thus combine these sequences into a thread of development that is applicable to ALL ideas/disciplines/species etc etc., we have a basic set of species-level patterns that will reveal the properties and methods of ANY concept through the use of recursive dichotomisations and a set of basic feelings. In moving 'up' levels we particularise these general distinctions through words and symbols but these never replace the basic patterns they just make them appear DIFFERENT by covering them; which is what metaphors do in that the cover becomes the carrier of the underlying meaning. Overall we seem to have found the basic method used by our species to process information and as such determine/generate meaning.

[25]
My template work has used the I Ching (Book of Changes) as an example of this process of particularising species-level meaning such that I have been able to take the Book of Changes way beyond its original form of 'a divination system' and demonstrate it to be a very useful form of symbolisation of species-level meaning in that the symbols work at both the particular and general level and behind each symbol we find the set of feelings that elicit at least fundamental meanings.

[26]
The reason so many 'see' so much in the I Ching (e.g. mathematics, quantum mechanics etc etc) is that the use of recursive dichotomisations in this system reflect the use of recursive dichotomisations at the species level of meaning, at the SAMENESS level, such that you can see 'anything' in the I Ching or any system developed using the same principles.

[27]
Such systems, such metaphors, as the I Ching thus work as aids in zooming-in on any discipline, both from the point of view of whole/part differentiation as well as static/dynamic relationships differentiation. These GENERALS aid in understanding the underlying 'roots' of the PARTICULARS and as such aid in assimilating information at a high band width, you can process high level DIFFERENCES more easily since you can look to the SAMENESS level, the species-level, to give you some foundations without having to learn the whole lexicon from scratch before you can act.

[28]
The above material demonstrates that we can make some assumptions about information and that is that it will conform in some way or another to the patterns at the species level of processing information; regardless of any DIFFERENCES there is ALWAYS that level of SAMENESS, and understanding the dynamics of SAMENESS can help us in understanding the dynamics of DIFFERENCE and so see through the veil of specialisation to the underlying general nature of our species.

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

Chris Lofting

(For biography see end of TA 3)

websites:

http://www.eisa.net.au/~lofting