Hi Roger (and any others interested) , thanks for the email. In response to another person's email I have below clarified things re the original prism post. I hope you find it useful...: ----------- <snip> 'they' wrote: > Your provocative post inspired a brief and spirited discussion > this afternoon at our social self-inquiry session. We attempted > to translate the implications of your presentation of an > "illusion of ordinality" to the concept of abstraction associated > with General Semantics (GS)... > > In GS we speak of abstractions as the inferences we draw from our > direct experiences. Since Aristotelian language is oriented in a > cause and effect structure, a tendancy exists in the culture to bias our > abstractions with ordinality and then "color" them with cardinality. > <I replied: Sure...but with this in mind lets consider Chomsky's grammar hierarchy where we have: [unrestricted[context-sensitive[context-free[regular]]]] (draw this as circles within circles with regular as the inner most): In the context of language *EXPRESSION*, syntax favours a bias to the use of regular grammars which are STRONGLY ordinal; unforgivingly so. The deterministic form is highly efficent, very EITHER/OR. In computers we use finite state automatons to parse regular grammars. This type of grammar is very black/white, no colour. robotic. ANY error causes the parsing to fail, reject the whole message, there is no sensitivity to feedback etc. A regular expression is something like 101110.... each bit is interpreted as 'unique' in a left-to-right manner (although the use of ordinality to label the sequence 1st-2nd etc brings out a pair emphasis (odd/even...)) TO deal with palindrome languages (or to know we are dealing with palindromes), as in 110011 where there is REFLECTION involved (110 : 011), we need to move to context-free grammars. What is noticable about this is that it reflects a binary tree pattern where in the above sequence of *positions*, 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th, so we 'find' pairings in reflection of 1st-6th, 2nd-5th, 3rd-4th. These pairings reflects the binary tree derivation vertically from X (x being some concept or another): X [1][6] [[1][3]][[4][6]] [[1][2][3]][[4][5][6]] (or refer to the diagram http://www.eisa.net.au/~lofting/btree.JPG ) Note that in palindromes there is a sharp pairing distinction of left 'side' to right 'side' with a development emphasis on outside-to-in. Thus a context-free grammar can process regular languages as well as palindrome languages. However, we cannot process what we call copy languages using a context-free grammar, where a copy language is 011011 where the line position relationships are 1-4, 2-5, 3-6 and so relational mappings 'cross over' the mappings of other relationships (e.g. 1-4 crosses 2-5 link and so an ordinality, left-to-right pattern) Thus we see a group ordinality installed of 011 - 011 - ... where to process copy languages we need to use context-sensitive grammar. See the pattern developing? - If we go back to regular expressions where the rigid left-to-right ordinality hides odd/even pairing showing a possible derivation from a vertical process so we see an oscillation developing where we have: (1)regular - *observable* horizontal bias (left-to-right) (2)context-free - *observable* vertical bias (can do (1) and now includes left-reflects-right) (3)context-sensitive - *observable* horizontal bias (can do (1) & (2) and now included left copied in right where right repeats left etc) suggesting (4)unrestrictive - *observable* vertical bias, and we find here there is no rigid algorithm possible and so a lack in ordinality, back to approximations, topological processes! choices that includes 'randomness'! :-) BUT these patterns in the grammars are *observables* and as I have shown this can be illusion such that the core of (1) is vertical. WE then USE (1) to derive (2) and in doing so work 'orthogonal' to (1) such that (2) is observably 'vertical' but inherently horizontal. Note how when we get to (4) so there is no algorithm (and so a lack in ordinality and a closer link to randomness etc a concept that is sourced in cardinality). BUT we can use (4) in an ordinal way (as in 011011111111110011 etc) to describe cardinal processes! (See the works of Gregory Chaitin on this e.g. "Exploring Randomness" etc) All of this said note that when we speak we already have formated what we intend to say, and all of that is usually done unconsciously (you can try and think what you are going to say but that becomes very, and noticably, laboured.) IOW we have formed an emotional response in the form of a spectral pattern that then gets shoved up to the frontal lobes etc for expression. IOW the colouring is already done before the speech; we dont have words we want to put into feelings, we have feelings we want to put into words. (notice the rigid ordinality in this!) Speech is a 'whole' that contains within it the spectrum of the message. When received by others so the speech is broken down giving us the spectrum and so we get emotional resonance -- meanings; the speech therefore acts like an envelope in which we place the spectrum we wish to communicate. In general we are dealing with analogue-to-digital conversation, transmission, followed by digital-to-analogue to get the resonance. Language is a mapping system, where all maps are metaphors; language is a metaphor used to 'carry' meaning that, in theory, cannot be directly experienced since to do that requires occupying of the same space and that is a physics no-no (Pauli Exclusion Principle etc). What we have as a species is a pool of emotion and it is that which gives us meanings through 'wave' processes that allow for superpositions made up of the basic emotion 'waves' giving you more complex meanings. Another perspective you might prefer is that of serial (ordinal) vs parallel (cardinal); the cardinality emphasis, the topological emphasis, comes from all senses being receptive at any one moment. It is like the difference between a serial port on your PC vs a parallel port. The serial takes 8 bits one after the other - the parallel is 8 bits all at once. The neural prism allows for parallel processing where an input is broken down into constituent frequencies in one step and different neural networks respond to these different frequencies and then all of the data, together with feedback, gets re-intergrated to give you the 'whole', now refined, picture. Most of this processing is unconscious, a 'fact' uncovered by recent work in Cognitive Science. Thus most of our internal processings are unconscious and we set-up data pre-coded, pre-coloured, that we then express and in doing so assume we have some sort of conscious control of what we are saying! (Also see Libet's work on delayed responses of conscious awareness of stimuli). In my example of a neural prism, where I split the prism output into examples of constituent frequencies we can use to create different meanings, I used analogy to colour processing where the white-RBG 'neurons' reflect (!) constructive processes of identification and the black(K)-CMY 'neurons' reflect the destructive processes used for identifications. The neural prism 'as is' creates a spectrum that is unique to whatever is being analysed. If we interpret ALL neurons as prisms then we see a process of information refinement (using my example) based on powers of 8 where 1, the initial prism, spreads out to 8 neurons where each of the 8 produces 8 and so in all 64 and from that we get to 4096..and so on. Sameness would 'stop' the differentiation processes and that would include, for complex 'different' systems where sameness is limited, reaching a resolution limit in the senses/neurology. Thus each level reflects a refinement on the data presented at the previous level and that refinement includes the creation of spectra interpreted 'as if' a list. Quantitative precision emerges where we 'notice' a more precise and so more ordinal pattern based on bifurcations -- powers of 2 (1-2-4-8-16...64....4096....) What the neural prism points to is the development of intuition, of habits etc, where through feedback processes (that includes ordinal analysis of some data) so we return to a 1-8-.. processing pattern where habits in responses reflect this sort of 'full spectrum' recognition and so a 'full spectrum' response. The above hierarchy of grammars seems to reflect this process where generals (topological experience as in all senses 'active' at the one moment and so 'linked together' giving us a 'distortion' of the 'one' reality surrounding us) are zoomed-in upon (draw our attention) through breaking the 'whole' moment down. This process has led to the development of refined horizontal processing out of the cardinal and within the horizontal we find oscillations that lead to vertical to horizontal to vertical etc as we oscillate and move 'up' the grammar hirerarchy to clearly identify the moment which eventually takes us 'back' to the topological level but with a refined identification of 'the moment'. (and there is nothing to stop us breaking out of the hierarchy at any level.) This 'moment' has a unique spectrum and that is stored as a memory and with repeated experiences of similar moments so we develop a habit in response; 'instanteneous' -- intuitive (and so we get situations where we assume X and respond as habit and ..whoops! an 'error' occurs ... :-)) (there are a lot of 'ordinal' terms here -- habit! :-)) > The group questioned whether or not you were advocating an > orientation that eschewed ordinality altogether ("all is Maya") :-) I can see how the concept of Maya came about... > or > were simply illustrating the "user illusion" our maps manifest IN > ORDER to access a sense of continuity. > > Does the sequencing of events serve some specific practical > purpose (ie. learning, differenciation, etc..) even if we > consider that process as an artifact of > cardinality/prioritization? Or does the realization of the > vertical source of our chronological experience somehow free us > from the shackles of the illusion and therefore alter the manner > in which our maps are constructed? > I think the realisation can act to refine our understandings of our species. Note that the strong emphasis on ordinality to develop precision has led to the development of the spoken word and the internet! Thus the 'illusion' plays a major role in our being which is 'typical' evolution -- you can do whatever, believe whatever, you wish. If you survive -- well done. :-) My own interest is in the source of meaning at a species level and so I 'travel' wide and far and in doing so come across 'puzzles' that have been created through a more horizontal perspective when to flesh things out you need to 'go vertical' and visa versa. Understanding that and teaching it early on can aid in enabling the acquisition of information without the struggle of fighting with something that has been categorised 'incorrectly' -- once you know HOW we create our maps, and that includes encoding distortions etc -- so we can make better maps or more so meta-maps, maps about what is behind our maps! :-) (and then there is the re-learning (?) of the more 'instant' learning skills we find in idiot-savants etc which is suggested by the more 'instant', parrallel processing suggested in cardinality). The advantage of Science has been its emphasis on looking 'behind' things, to identify algorithms and formulas and so ease the 'stress' in dealing with the infinite expressions we have to deal with. (BTW Science seems to stem from fear...) This 'look behind' emphasis favours ordinality to gain precision but at a cost, the 'ignoring' of cardinality and the topological that includes 'ordinal-free' expressions. (texts on Markov Chains etc are not your 'average' person's bedside reading! I think there are areas that have been researched but are described in such obscure terms that they are useless! -- but then I am guilty of obscurism a well! :-)) It is interesting that REM dreams seem to share the same space in our brains as topological processes i.e. exagerations/distortions. What is noteworthy is that in most of us the more 'ordinal' of the brain has a left hemisphere bias and it acts to interpret since interpretation is linked to details - precision etc; narratives "once upon a time...". This interpretation includes determining what is 'random' and so meaningless and what is meaningful. In REM sleep it seems that this part of the brain is 'off line', asleep, and so not able to ordinalise precisely - and so no rigid logic filtering etc. Our dreams 'jump about' a bit. There is some 'ordering' but ..... When we awake, or even when the ordinal part awakes but we still sleep, so ordinality comes 'on line' and we start to try and interpret the dreams but part of the dreams can be from 'random' events where sensory data elicits 'random' associations that are felt as if 'meaningful'; like electrical thunderstorms through the temporal lobes that can elicit a 'spiritual' experience (face of god, jesus, etc etc ) and so a cardinality moment (reflection and so a context-free grammar at work, vertical bias), that the experiencer spends the rest of the lives trying to repeat and/or identify the meaning! (ordinality - at the level of context-sensitive grammar at work - horizontal bias) :-) What I suggest points to consciousness, as in a sense of continuity, acting as a management system, keeping things 'in order' (and so if it breaks down we get psychosis -- a concept more often linked to left hemisphere 'damage'). Ordinality helps with narratives where we link things together but in specific, precise ORDER. Richer narratives are where we move up the grammar hierarchy and so 'away' from rigid ordinality but at the same time retaining a degree of it since we have found as a species that that retention is 'useful'. IOW the story is a 'general' and its content is 'particular'. What we have 'lost' contact with are the pre-ordinal processes, the implicit, hidden, patterns that led to the emergence of ordinality. The cost of this loss is that loss of alternative, more 'holistic' learning skills. Perhaps the 'discovery' can aid is fleshing this out. > Is there some implicit transformation in the offing for gaining > the insight that our everyday ordinal experience is no more "out > there" than the dreams, ideas and idle thoughts we have bobbing around > in our heads? Your post seems to somehow neutralize the power of > ordinality by exposing it as a parlor trick of our neurology, intended > only to serve as a primitive stomping ground in a cardinal refinery. > :-) The ordinal favours precision in communications but understanding the development loop that leads 'back' to the cardinal can aid in transcending the ordinal that so dominates us; we are at times a little too anchored in the ordinal (we strive to be 'FIRST' etc) > I guess, my/our question is/was...is Aristotelian based-language > as dead as Latin, the flat earth and the Greek myths in terms our > collective evolution? Is "cause and effect" a by-gone Santa Claus? :) > :-) uuuummmmm....! I think we need to clearly recognise the metaphors we live by which we more than often take literally. I think there is a need to get a better idea re randomness in that in the world of cardinality, in a topological perspective, there is no such thing; topological perspectives allow for the exclusion of ordinal concepts - the term 'random' is associated with an ordinal perspective on things where a 'distortion', a topological expression, is seen to have 'no cause'. The topological brain works on a belief system regarding linkage where 'all is connected' -- there is a BETWEEN emphasis; or more so a 'rubber sheet' emphasis where the 'discrete' are just anomolies created by twisting and turning the 'sheet' (this is very 2D thinking so go up and try to work with it in 4D+!). There IS linkage in ordinality but it is more emphasising WITHIN; this reflects the taking of a whole and seeing 'inside' where the method of seeing 'inside' creates an awarness of the concept of a 'line', an internal 'order', an awareness of history. From this develops the whole emphasis on genetics, family lines, 'purity' concepts and on into RNA/DNA etc etc Note that the emphasis on 'inside' reflects a general perspective on discreteness. With this in mind note that topological processes include such concepts as spacial distortions, there is no LOCAL cause. Current models in quantum mechanics lead us to these sorts of conclusions where connectedness is limited to 'correlations' where a past entanglement of A and B means that regardless of 'distance' so they remain 'linked'. This perspective comes out of topological thinking and with it comes 'cause & effect' issues since there are no such concepts of 'distance' and 'time' etc. As I have emphasised, the process of cardinal-to-ordinal-to-cardinal reflects refinement process. This process operates at all levels thus at the sociological level we see primitive cultures develop cardinal biases in thinking -- gods are 'in' everything, everywhere, etc., 'all is linked together' thus the cardinal has a 'spiritual' edge that is external, socially uniting. Numeracy is limited to '1, 2, 3, many' etc and precision is limited to qualitative identifications that can lack clear identification of 'cause'. This gets into traditions, habit formations etc. Our current culture has gone through a process of ordinalisation and with it an emphasis on quantitative precision and so a society into being 'FIRST' etc. There is no real problem with that other than the (a) huge cost in energy (and waste) and (b) the lack of considering consequences to our species. However, I think that we have now reached a stage in differentiation where we have just about cut everything into 'bits' and are now starting to re-intergrate, to 'return' to the topological levels but with very REFINED knowledge. This process requires the clear understanding of 'good habits' from 'bad habits', the development of discernment and a more qualitative bias in development. best, Chris. ------------------ Chris Lofting websites: http://www.eisa.net.au/~lofting http://www.ozemail.com.au/~ddiamond List Owner: http://www.yahoogroups.com/group/semiosis MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/ MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at: http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
