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 response concerning Templates and Middleware (section C)

<1>
Muller writes in [10]:

"What and where are Lofting's 'templates'? It seems to me that these mind-nature structures have, among others, the following properties:
(i) They originate ad-hoc, that is as responses to needs for structuring...
(ii) They may to varying degree become secondarily reinforced by beliefs...
(iii) The templates structure mind-nature experience before any subject-object split...
(iv) Lofting's idea of 'middleware' may be useful; it would correspond to an ability...such as the human pre-disposition to speech...
(v) In a recent communication Lofting writes that "the potential price of discovering algorithms...is the 'death' of self-identity..."

In the same section Muller then goes on to say that:

"In the past these 'templates' had many different names. Plato called them 'ideas' or 'forms' and, in contrast to Chris Lofting, saw them outside..."


I will here attempt to deal with these comments, dividing my response into sections labeled A to F.

SECTION A:
<2>
The 'location' of these 'templates', or what I would call a single template, is in-between neurology and psychology. Imagine a pyramid or cone, the peak of which is the conscious expression of information -- our psychology. At the bottom is the accumulation of various sensory data generated both outside and inside, as well as the encoding of data prior to transmission - our neurology. The inclusion of 'inside' sourced data reflects the affect of feedback loops from 'on high' that includes pre-conceptions/expectations that can influence perceptions by filtering data; we see this in biofeedback where the 'loop' enable us to consciously affect the processing of specific neural networks or even neurons.

The 'middle' section of this cone is the area of data categorisation and it is here that we find the whole/aspects distinctions at their 'best'.

<3>
As for the templates 'originating ad-hoc', this is not the case, ALL data MUST pass through the middle or 'template' area and so be processed and so ensuring a structured species-general format for processing data. genotype biases can affect the expression of this processing as can nurture experiences in the form of education, but overall we deal with wholes and aspects with the 'primary' dichotomies being specific/general and text/context. Note that these dichotomies are almost synonymous but text/context seems the more 'basic', although some may prefer the use of the foreground/background dichotomy.

<4>
Combining the two dichotomies gives us specific/general foreground and specific/general background, and a more 'abstract' dichotomy is whole(specific - phenotype)/ harmonics(generals - genotype) or whole/aspects. The set of aspects (AKA context resident material) serves like a set of potentials that can then be expressed and be seen as 'wholes/parts' in their own right, but with a change of scale to maintain overall structure (note for example the fovea(specifics)/ para-fovea(generals) nature of the eye and then when we zoom-in so the same 'format' but at a different scale where we differentiate the detectors into cones and rods. In the neocortex we find the 'same' patterns of specifics bias and generals bias within text/context distinctions in the form of the hemispheres of the neocortex as well as the pseudo-hemispheres we find in the hippocampal-amygdala areas of the limbic system.

<5>
The use of the whole/aspects dichotomy leads to the emphasis on 'independence' to whole and 'dependence' to aspects as well as the realisation that in making the whole/aspects dichotomy so we realise that we can identify a whole explicitly (what it is) or implicitly (what it is not...and this includes the accumulation of aspects that 'suggest' a whole, which leads to the dichotomy of direct-light/ reflected-light.)

SECTION B:

<6>
Muller's statement regarding beliefs (ii) is correct in that they can act as feedback and so influence all areas of the hierarchy 'below' them and this includes whole/aspects determinations where the combination of sensory data together with beliefs data can 'transform' the perception of 'whole' into a 'part', or can 'transform' the determination of a 'random relationship' into something 'meaningful'. thus belief and values work like biofeedback 'machines' but are internally sourced.

<7>
'Hard core' beliefs can lead to 'fundamentalism' such that the 'belief-group' emerges that stresses behaviours we associate with totalist, reductionist mental states -- absolute 'facts' and an assertion of 'unique' identity and 'independence' with reluctance to change position and so a degree of high conservatism where any consideration past the explicit EITHER/OR mental states is considered 'evil' and 'corrupt' (there is even an emphasis on ALL and NO distinctions of EITHER/OR; negation is suppressed) -- this associates with the concept of 'wholeness' in that there is a stress on self-containment and an intensity that projects a 'solid' and 'independent' group; thus aspects of neurological 'wholeness' are seen 'out there' at the sociological level implying projection of 'in here' to 'out there'. (note that these groups can be fact oriented (secular) and values oriented (spiritual)).


SECTION C:

<8>
In (iii) of [10] Muller introduces the subject/object split, stating that he perceives a property of the template as functioning BEFORE this split. The subject/object distinction, being a dichotomy, when applied recursively we get the template pattern; we can start by reasserting subject/object into subject/~subject. This forces the distinction of a whole and its aspects including its negation and brings out the specific/general (1:many) pattern that is found in dichotomies (where we often 'reduce' the many to 1 for ease in 'processing'...an action of hierarchic processing that we often 'forget' about and so confuse different contextual levels trying to see them as all on the same level.)

<9>
Once we make the A/~A distinction and then apply recursion so 'mixing' occurs in that, at template level 2 for example, we have:
A + A (pure -- absolute)
A + ~A (mixed -- relative with an A bias)
~A + A (mixed -- relative with a ~A bias)
~A + ~A (pure -- absolute)

These four 'states' are potential 'states' of expression in that they are genotypes. Intent or external pressure then determines the manner of expression and one of the states becomes the 'preferred way' -- phenotype. What is important here is the affect of the original context upon expression, it goes to being 51% of that expression in that it 'sets the tone' for all that follows.

<10>
If we then 'look' at this considering emotion then we find that the 'totalism' of asserting positive/negative emotion when put through recursion becomes:
(a) ALL positive - Happy, asserts identity -- names things for what they are (explicit)
(b) MOSTLY positive (51% to 49% negative) = Positively NEUTRAL (!) (uses analogy, A/~A distinctions)
(c) MOSTLY negative = Negatively NEUTRAL (leads into sadness) (uses analogy, ~A/A distinctions)
(d) ALL negative - Angry, critical -- define things by what they are NOT (and so by implications)

<11>
This may 'look' familiar since it reflects the categorisations of Hippocrates/Galen as to human temperaments:
(a) SANGUINE
(b) PHLEGMATIC
(c) MELANCHOLIC
(d) CHOLERIC

<12>
This categorisation method works at ALL levels from the 'simple' but abstract format begun in <9>, through the more 'concrete' form in <10> to the well developed general format found in <11>, and this is due to the use of recursive dichotomisations leading to the 'creation' of hierarchy in that we have the same structure existing at different scales.

<13>
In modern human typologies the number of recursive levels used has increased to about 5 or 6 giving us 32 to 64 'types' of persona and analysis of these 'persona' types shows a general correspondence with the mixing of the basic blend, bond, bound, bind elements linked to the template (see R1 and R2 of this set of responses for more details or my website on dealing with the dichotomy-based MBTI(R) categorisation system - http://www.ozemail.com.au/mbti.html) Further analysis can follow in that we can combine 'types' in to text/context relationships to develop a more refined typology, but we are restricted from going too deep due to us entering highly subjective states (which will, however, still have structure).

<14>
What this implies is that using whole/aspects dichotomy I can reduce things to 'basics' at ANY level of analysis and still maintain 'contact'. This is due to the structuring of meaning 'in here' in that 'feel' is linked to whole/aspects 'abstractions' -- wholes are wholes are wholes to everyone but exactly what 'out there' is a 'whole' has intent involved in the determinations and this comes from education and personal experiences. However, once the initial distinction is made so the overall 'structure' is known and this is the 'source' of intuition in that in most cases intuitions get better as we get older since we have experienced all of the expressions of the genotype whole/aspects and so exposure to just the initial context 'resonates' with 'in here' and we 'know where things are going' before they have even begun.

<15>
Those who develop intuition 'early' seem the be able to separate the chaff from the wheat in that they 'recognise' patterns that are aesthetically linked and are consistent in form; they have refined pattern-detection skills and this can reflect both the nature and nurture influences on development.

SECTION D:
<16>
In (iv) of [10] Muller comments on the usefulness of the 'middleware' concept, and I agree it is *very* useful in that it shows a path of communication refinement both from the bottom to the top and the top to the bottom and also shows that it is hierarchic and 'levels' oriented and that there is much information abstracting at the unconscious level in that the information passes through more genetically determined 'filtering' -- the template.

SECTION E:
<17>
In (v) of [10] Muller comments on my assertion in another email that algorithm creation leads to the death of self-identity. My point is that the creation of algorithms and formulas is the creation of genotypal 'memories' that are then 'applied' when required. This is a 'natural' process but is now being strongly enforced where in psychology etc so we see the increase in self-help texts; books that 'give you' a formula or algorithm to use in life. This leads to dependencies on 'out there' tools -- e,g, computers, calculators, more self-help books and then courses etc etc.

<18>
The 'problem' is that when used in an early education context there is a failure to help develop self-esteem and self-confidence to a *precise* degree in that rather than figuring things out for oneself so we reach for the computer/calculator etc to do it -- we are trained to look for the algorithm or formula at too early an age and so personal capabilities are reduced. This then feedsback into the community in that more 'automation' (algorithms/formulas) is required to get around the developing standards drop.


<19>
For humans processing information, the 'fact' that there is an 'easier' way is besides the point. In neurological development, if you dont go deep early so you will have difficulty doing it later; you will ALWAYS need a calculator/computer/book/course to refer to and this can cause problems with establishing a sense of confidence and self-worth and so self-identity becomes established from one's context -- what is around you determines 'who' you are and so 'you' are never 'there' without dependencies and this can lead to increases in stress and depression since a poor sense of self-confidence can lead to 'inefficient' behaviours.

<20>
What we see happening at the macro level is what we see at the micro -- the creation of algorithms and formulas is 'like' the creation of DNA/RNA interactions where the DNA works to store the genes (algorithms/formulas) and then when required so they are expressed via different RNA steps. This is very 'automaton' in that it does not consider 'mind' and 'consequence' to the whole, it is an 'efficient' method as far as dealing with 'facts' are concerned but we dont 'store-away' consciousness in this way (although we recognise levels of consciousness) and it is it the 'health' of consciousness that could be affected by these methods (or perhaps changed for the better -- we need to wary though..)

SECTION F:

<21>
At the end of [10] Muller comments on the templates as being like those of Plato. I think we can say that the explicit ideas of Plato developed from the implicit affects of THE template on the process of thinking. As I have demonstrated before, it is very easy to see the emergence of mathematics from the recursive use of whole/aspects distinctions but my argument is that the expression of mathematics is sourced in us; numbers are not something 'magical', they are symbols given to patterns that reflect whole/aspects interactions. The 'fact' that mathematics seems to be able to predict events 'out there' suggests that the whole/aspects dichotomisation process has been 'internalised' in that it is used 'out there' and so the ease in developing 1:1 correspondences. We can in fact 'divide' mathematics into quantitative methods (whole/parts) that are 'captured' through the use of whole and rational numbers, and qualitative methods (static/dynamic relationships) that are 'captured' through the use of irrational and complex numbers. Adding the positive/negative distinction gives us the eight 'basic' elements that we find at level 3 of the whole/aspects template, and it is with these 'basics' that we can develop a vast number of types of numeric representations.

<22>
In the context of 'in here'/'out there' distinctions, as I have mentioned in a previous response, the assertion of MIR implies the assertion of ~MIR (MDR) and so a dichotomy. This has form regardless of 'reality' such that elements of the method of analysis can get entangled in the discovery of 'patterns' that seem to be 'in MIR' or 'in MDR' whereas they are neither. This brings us to chemistry, which is what the template is analogous to in that it serves as a table of elements plus their possible relationships.


<23>
If we look at the valence shell of the elements, the shell that is responsible for all relational activities, so we find a range of possible states that are constrained within the 'rule' that we can have no less than one and no more than eight electrons in this shell.

<24>
If we go back to the template and go through a few recursive steps so we find that each specific 'path' in the set of possibles has a probability linked to it. Thus as we go deeper so we find that the 'pure' elements that served as the original dichotomy elements are now pushed out to the boundary and are now considered 'rare' or 'unrefined' forms. The areas of highest diversity are now in the middle and when we graph this we get a normal distribution curve.

<25>
Now go back to the valence shell. The number of electrons range from 1 to 8 (min/max dichotomy) and the 'middle' of this would be 4/5. When we then 'look' at the specifics we find that the elements with 4/5 electrons in their valence shell are two of the most diverse elements around -- carbon and silicon; with carbon being the base from which life seems to have emerged.

<26>
The valence shell is an example of the characteristics of the template being 'out there' in that the 'push' is to find the position of highest diversity and this is done dichotomously. In nature this has been random and based on a few billion years of trial and error, for 'life' a degree of 'intent' has developed leading to the 'rushed' development we find in us today.

[Chris Lofting
E-mail <clo@fmsc.com.au>]