ABSTRACT
In R10 Muller makes some comments that I feel need correction since they
seem to be based on some misconceptions possibly caused by my style of writing.
Rather than 'lump' everything together I intend to respond 'bit by bit'
and so enable the sorting of chaff from wheat. This particular response
deals with some comments made by Muller in his abstract concerning my comments
on templates, wholes, and deriving meaning.
[1]
In his abstract, Muller comments that "...structures...arise from undivided
mind-nature experience, and therefore they are both 'inside' and 'outside',
rather than arising only from 'in here' as Lofting proposes".
I do NOT propose this. In C11 I make the statement in <2> of
"...let us stick to considering in some detail the methods of information
processing possible in a system that only 'sees' wholes and their aspects."
and this set the context for what followed. Using this context so we can
'see' the emergence of mathematics and other symbols and metaphors from
a 'wholes/aspects' template without considering 'out there'; what Muller
calls a 'mind-independent reality' (MIR). Thus C11 covers the ability to
create maps of 'out there' without even looking 'out there' first.
[2]
Elsewhere (see my site abstract "The Sense of Dichotomy"(a)) I
have stated that we seem to have adapted to our environment by internalising
its characteristics and so 'in here' reflects 'out there' and the success
of our maps of 'out there' seem to demonstrate this. However, this said,
I also emphasise that the use of dichotomisation in our making of maps has
a built-in sense of 'meaning' such that the method is self-contained and
need not reference 'out there' to create a map, we can make models and 'maps'
with pencil and paper and find that upon completion they reflect 'out there'
very well.
[3]
It is important to recognise that 'meaning' is derived from emotional responses
based on specifics (syntax) and generals (semantics) and that emotion is
ALL 'in here'. The template is thus 'dual' in that it emphasises whole/aspects
distinctions as well as these expressed in feeling; each 'cell' of the template
is coded with a specific emotion that serves as context to the whole/aspects
text. For example, a cell marked 'whole' has a context of experiencing a
sense of 'blending' and 'becoming/being/seeking oneness', whereas a cell
marked 'part' has a context of experiencing a sense of 'bounding'; of making
a distinction of A from B.
[4]
For relationships, so a cell marked 'static' has a context of experiencing
a sense of 'bonding'; of being physically joined to something and yet having
some sense of unique identity, wheras a cell marked 'dynamic' has a context
of experiencing a sense of 'binding'; of having a relationship but at an
apparent distance (like a contract or the forces of gravity). These are
dynamic in that they are only observed over time. As we refine our descriptions
of wholes/aspects so these emotive contextual colourings become more complex
in that the 'basics' are mixed and we get closer to a continuum of states.
[5]
Muller goes on to say in his abstract that:
"[Lofting] deals with a topic of central importance to mental activity,
the function of mental structures (which he calls 'templates')."
I disagree with the generality of this in that my emphasis is on a SINGLE
template from which all symbols and metaphors are created; the template
goes towards setting the form for the details and so defining the set of
possible relationships. I link this to chemistry in that the the wholes/aspects
template I talk of sits in-between neurology and psychology the way chemistry
sits in-between physics and biology; the template is a table of elements
which we use to communicate in that it is in ALL humans at the genotype
level (potentials) with local biases determining variations in expression
(phenotype level - actuals).
[6]
The presence of the template enables us to create analogies across disciplines
and cultures and so establish consensus and rapport in that the template
shows what is behind specific words and symbols where symbols are 'random'
labels to the emotion-based 'patterns'. Thus the word 'father', when used
in a general sense, elicits a pattern of feelings that are the SAME for
another culture with a very different word. Thus we are free to label the
patterns (free-will) but the patterns are 'fixed' (determinism) and founded
on recursive dichotomisations 'in here'. 'Communication' is established
when the same general patterns are elicited and so we get 'resonance' and
'agreed' meaning.
[7]
Muller goes on to state that:
"'Wholes' are the elements of mental structuring, and not mainly a
product of teaching methods, as Lofting seems to suggest"
I disagree with Muller in that his assertion is too 'static'. It is INTENT
than can determine HOW we 'see' things and so a 'whole' to me is a 'part'
to you -- or even a relational aspect. Analysis will then determine 'how
far we go' before we realise a potential error in that our intent took us
down the 'wrong' path. With the neurology, so early training can favour
the expression of something as a 'part' or 'relationship' rather than as
a 'whole' and this can affect our thinking for the rest of our lives (and
so 'cultural' differences). For example, if I tell you to expect a particularisation
so this elicits brain function that is different to if you expected a generalisation.
(usually right brain function 'rules' for the general (illusionist), and
left-brain for the particular (reductionist). By this I mean that analysis
STARTS with a right-led process for generals and a left-led process for
particulars. As we go through levels of analysis so there are oscillations
but the 'root' initialisation sets the overall context).
[8]
If the emphasis on a particularisation continues throughout your education
so you become conditioned to it and it becomes part of your personal context
in that it unconsciously guides/controls behaviour and this comes from education.
Furthermore, this particularisation can then become generalised and so affect
you view of the universe in the context of what and how things are generally
linked together.
[9]
Our education systems enable the 'setting-down' of cultural concepts that
enable socialisation but these can be 'in error' when seen from the context
of a different culture. The whole/aspects template acts like the genotype
level and so is context-resident in that it guides/controls expression but
allows for intent to determine the mode of expression. Local environmental
feedback can then lead to 'preferences' to a particular mode of expression
being used most of the time and so genotypal 'modifications' -- like we
see in the RNA/DNA relationship where the general-to-specific path is DNA
to RNA but there is scope for RNA to DNA. (Overall the suggestion is that
we use the SAME methods at the macro information coding level as we do at
the micro.).
[10]
The template breaks down to the distinction of 'objects' that are seen to
be 'independent' forms ('self-contained') and relationships that are the
'links' between 'objects' (and so 'dependencies'); thus a 'whole' can be
seen as a 'part' and in a context of hierarchic thinking so 'level' can
determine which is which and intent determines which level we are 'looking'
at. Overall, an emphasis on specifics favours an 'object' interpretation
and an emphasis on generals favours a 'relational' interpretation.
[11]
It is thus more likely that confusion arises from perceiving relational
aspects as wholes or parts; which is possible when we get into statistical
analysis as well as when not realising that we are dealing with hierarchy.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
References
(a) Lofting C.J. "The Sense of Dichotomy"
http://www.ozemail.com.au/~ddiamond/sense.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Lofting
<clo@fmsc.com.au>