Dear Chris,
Thanks for your
comments and references.
Perusing your web
pages, a reason of some delay with the answer, I found myself at one
on many issues. Nevertheless, you misplacement of ontological categories may
become a serious obstacle in your endeavor
to 'trace a development path from the 'big bang' to consciousness through' and
'to flesh-out all of the possible interpretations of reality'. First and foremost, your 'fundamental template
dichotomy of differentiate/integrate' is sprung from a confounding claim that
opposition and complementarity are forms
of dichotomy. This contravenes to the canons of ontology where the dichotomy as
a bipartite and bifurcate division is a kind of oppositeness, altogether with
its other forms: 1.interdependent correlatives; 2.contraries (the disjoint
contrarieties without intermediates and differing in kind, like odd and even, or
with intermediates differing in degree, like white, gray, black);
3.contradictories (contradiction as dialectic, antagonism, complementarity,
contradictoriness of propositions, affirmation and negation).
Strictly speaking,
ideal dichotomy is always composed of positive and negative terms,
which describe not a kind or a class, like the contrary opposites, but
rather the whole universe. And the reason why it was not recognized useful
for the exhaustive division of a class (or a kind) is that the resulting
negative opposite is indefinable and undividable, and
so must be discarded in a series of divisions. As the illustration, the
dual opposite of 'intelligent', 'not-intelligent', applies
to everything, all the things in the world which are not intelligent,
animals, objects, colors, etc.
As a consequence,
your fundamental oppositeness of Sameness (integrations, unary,
symmetry, collectivism, where, consciousness, A&B, Bose-Einstein
condensate) and Difference (differentiations, binary, asymmetry,
individualism, what, A XOR B, fermions) is hardly a dichotomous
relationship. Which is rather 'sameness' and 'not-sameness'. Besides,
more correct to oppose identity (sameness) to diversity (otherness) and
similarity (likeness, resemblance) to difference, for the combination of
the first two pairs determines the degrees of likeness and difference. That is,
to get the difference, one need to compose sameness and diversity, whereas you
start your model of reality from sameness and
difference.
I suggest a better
phraseology and expression may essentially contribute to a better understanding
of your otherwise original metaphorical interpretation of such
crucial issues as the individual and the universal, the one and the many,
the same and the other.
Regards,
Azamat
Abdoullaev
http://www.eis.com.cy
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2005 1:58
PM
Subject: RE: Idealism vs Materialism:
universal formal ontology
Azamat, you wrote:
"As I have
noticed in my communication with Chris, dual thinking, the tendency
to classify things into two opposed classes, the damnation of all
metaphysical argumentation, makes all the confusion here
again."
No. There are TWO
perspectives operating. ONE is based on exaggerations from a base, what I have
labeled as "asymmetric" dichotomies. These focus on identifying SAMENESS
across DIFFERENCES. These will give you a spectrum format in expression -
power law stuff. The passage 'along' the dimension that develops from this is
a passage from vague to crisp, local to universal. Each point in this
hierarchy is a point for analyisis of DIFFERENCE from SAMENESS and as such we
use opposition to analyse - this gives us Gaussian distributions, the dynamics
of +1/-1 as compared to those of worthless/priceless.
Due to the
PRECISION focus of our brains, so as we differentiate we move into
perspectives that are 'opposites' oriented, we are focusing on a particular
point on the spectrum derived from asymmetric perspectives. Our brains do this
'naturally'.
The price of high
precision thinking is the pushing away of 'others' to make things 'clear' -
this clarity is PARTS oriented when seen from the position of our species...
gets into what I have pointed out before re XOR/AND dynamics - and is
experienced in such areas as basic sensory paradox
processing.
Understand these
dynamics and out pops the properties and methods of all categorisations where
the universals created then need local context to give them some
colour.
As a dichotomy is
recursed so it develops into a continuum where we can no longer detect
'difference'. THAT becomes the background upon which we then try to impose
structures - that background is not a 'tabular rasa', it has the structure of
patterns of differentiating/integrating such that the labels we create will
reflect what is beneath them: meaning in the form of vague 'feelings' of
'something' where the precision is in the label that links the universals to a
local context, and in doing so causes the generation of a
lexicon.
The
differentiation element of the differentiating/integrating dichotomy is the
'discrete' end of the process and will focus on objects, wholes and parts. The
integrating element is the 'continuous' end of the process and will focus on
relationships.
The asymmetric
nature of the dichotomy shows objects being derived from relationships (or the
'space inbetween' objects - as fermions are derived from bosons). Focus on the
objects and out will pop 'opposites' in the form of DIFFERENCE from SAMENESS
(fermionic perspectives - electron/positron pair where the difference is in
the charge).
If we focus on the
'boson' end of things, so the focus on differences in energy levels reflected
in differences in temperature give us the 'hierarchy' we see emerge from a BEC
where the BEC is representitive of the 'integrated whole', no distinctions
possible, and as we raise temperature so fragmentation occurs, allowing for
identifying SAMENESS from DIFFERENCES. This SAME *dynamic* operates in
our brains and reflects the overall dynamics of differentiating/integrating -
same patterns across all scales of analysis.
Chris.