Introduction

Neurological studies suggest that the human brain, as does the brain of other mammals, processes information at the generic level by making distinctions between wholes and their aspects.

It is the intention of this paper to (a) refine our understanding of the operations of the brain when processing data, and (2) to point-out the ramifications of these processes on our making of maps of reality.

In humans, the whole/aspects distinctions are made through the liberal use of the method of dichotomisation - the 'cutting' of a whole into a pair of apparent 'opposites' where these opposites are aspects of the whole that when considered are supposed to enhance our understanding of the whole.

With this in mind, we can conjecture that, in a biological context, the use of dichotomous analysis enables the enhancing of the identity of a detected whole for the sake of the self-protection of the detector.

In this paper I conjecture that this enhancement has, however, led to some interpretive problems that have emerged during our continuing investigation into the structure and nature of reality and our position in it.

These interpretive problems stem from the possibility of the method of dichotomous analysis leading to confusion in that properties of the method are in fact being associated with the object under analysis.

Dichotomisation

The traditional view of dichotomisation is the making of a distinction of A from ~A (NOT A), so in simple terms we can consider the concept of an egg and the rest of the universe where "the rest of the universe" is definitely ~egg

However, note that this process has a context - traditionally called "the universe of discourse" where A U ~A = 1 (the whole. The U symbol means 'Union' ). The distinction of A from ~A is more one of the distinction of positive and negative aspects within a context of the whole. We are, therefore, analysing aspects of the 'pure' or 'ideal' whole, and these create a context of identity giving A (as text) in the context of 'positive' and 'negative'; is vs is not.

This demonstrates that the process of dichotomisation occurs in the initial context of the whole and the elements of each considered dichotomy are possible aspects of this whole.

What this implies is that in the process of dichotomisation, the two elements are always linked in that one cannot 'exist' without the other; they are 'entangled' in that they attribute to the context of the whole - they serve as markers of identity.

This entanglement exists for ANY aspects of a whole that are derived through the method of dichotomisation. Furthermore, this entanglement will be perceived both 'in here' as well as 'out there' and so any entanglement perceived as 'out there' is more the result of the method and not necessarily a property of the object under investigation.

In simple terms, the method of dichotomisation serves to refine the identity of a whole - the more the analysis the more refined the identity, and attempts to seperate the contexts of the elements will lead to the inevitable discovery of the 'entanglement' of the elements (or sum of elements) used in the method of refining identity.

In logic this is akin to the recognition that the traditional excluded middle is not empty but more a rich source of relational potentials - thus X = A AND ~A (intersection) rather than X = A XOR ~A (exclusive OR).

From this we can see that in symbolic logic the emphasis is on text and the removal of context (the 'excluded' middle) and so producing apparently invarient relational markers where context is 'gone' and text is thus 'pure'. (as we shall see, there is an influence of persona at work here and we have complementary states where we seek 'pure' context and the 'loss' of text).

In humans, my research shows that dichotomisation aids in refining the following four generic conditions which seem to be the fundamentals in human behaviour:

With identity, it is the distinction of text from context and the continued maintenance and refinement of that context that goes towards refining the identity of the whole. In human personas this comes with an attraction to context-rich text in that the context supports and enriches the text. (We can find this expressed in concerns for correct grammar and spelling - aspects that can enrich the perception of text even if not adding anything to the message...it simply makes things 'feel' more comfortable...). In this process there is a desire to unit text and context into a whole with the context being considered the main area of attention.

Psychologically, we deal with summing aspects to support, or raise, the core. Note that neurologically there is a bias to wholes being formed in a hierarchic and so context dependant format.

For an example of this, the noticing of redness (an aspect) of a whole and the linking with being sick as a result of digesting this whole can lead to any whole found in the context of 'redness' being avoided - the emphasis in on the aspect as being the indicator (context influence) rather than the form (shape) of the whole (now treated as 'text'). But note that this slightly accentuates 'our' text in that 'we' - the noticer/digestor - have some control and so a degree of independence rather than the stronger contextual dependence bias of "Identity".

With rationality, it is the distinction of A from ~A that enables the 'logical' processing and analysis of data that can lead to a solution to a problem. This is a variation on the identity states with an emphasis on the text over the context and with it comes, when considering personas, an attraction to the more context-free text since the rich context acts to REMOVE or HIDE the text. There is thus a bias to try and make things 'clear' by removing the context as much as possible and so a bias to what might be called EITHER/OR processes (A common procedure in Science).

Not only can this be considered as a variation of "Identity" but it is in fact a refinement of "Security" in that we have emphasied 'text' even more to the extent that it replaces context as a strong influence on overall identity.

Here we have a play on the 'us'/'them' of Security in that a thrill comes from living on the boarder and crossing it such that it virtually dissapears - an act of unification that is 'sensational' rather than the price paid for removing the boarder in the context of security - the possible destruction of the individual...

This is the mark of total independence in that text rules all, and any conflict is seen to be open to 'my' resolutionary 'powers'; either by combat or by play. In this sort of situation the existing context is simply replaced by 'me'.

In both identity and sensuality the bias is to unification and 'blending'. The distinction (!) is that for identity it is context that is the major determinate whereas in sensuality it is the text that is the determinate; 'me' rather than 'others' and so in the former, Identity, context acts as a sort of cloak whereas in the latter, Sensuality, it becomes an extention of one's self forever spreading outawards; absolute context-free-ness, even if only imagined.

In these states, the moment of uniting text and context is the establishment of wholeness and the experience of what we may call BOTH/AND-ness in that the elements of a dichotomy become enfolded back into the whole under analysis and we 'restore' the 'one'.

The states of security and rationality, on the other hand, seem to be states where text and context are maintained and the emphasis on wholeness is more a matter of keeping balance or more keeping something (text or context) at bay rather than attempts to totally obliterate one or the other. This gives a bias to EITHER/OR-ness within a BOTH/AND context (!) (although the Rational prefers BOTH/AND to be within an EITHER/OR context! What this emphasises is that generically context is always more BOTH/AND and text is always more EITHER/OR)

The Problem

When using dichotomous methods we forget to consider that the moment we make the distinctions so the elements are forever linked. This linkage comes from the 'fact' that these elements are forever aspectual (as in the above four categorisations).

This process is highly beneficial when seen in the context of allowing the gaining of more detailed aspectual information about a whole but it appears to cause problems in that we sometimes 'forget' this linkage.

It is due to this linkage that we sense that the parts (aspects) of a whole are all linked, irrespective of what whole it is - either an apple or the universe or the human race (and so the consideration of 'psychic' states); after all, the definition of 'a whole' implies a closed system and the aspectual analysis of a whole would have to include it's negations)

Considering this, note that when we make our 'formal' and 'objective' maps of reality, we find 'weird linkage' in the results of the dichotomy-biased experiments designed to demonstrate Bell's inequality and the EPR paradox in quantum mechanics. In these experiments we fail to recognise that the linkage is a result of the method and so nothing 'special' in that the use of dichotomy is part of our methods of information analysis.

We can extend this to the 'whole' that is Physics (or any other discipline with dichotomous roots or uses the method to establish identity) where there is a desire to unite all of the forces. This intuitive 'feel' that there is unification can be found in the methods of whole/aspects analysis which is a carry-forward of evolutionary principles that enable the species to survive through the refinement of aspectual analysis primarily in the form of the dichotomy of text/context.

Neurological Consequences

By considering the process of dichotomisation as a property of 'in here', as well as noticing the distinctions between text and context, it follows that the distinctions made regarding left and right hemisphere functions need to be refined.

What is suggested is that the right hemisphere has a strong bias to context where as the left hemisphere has a strong bias to text and the 'whole' is the synchronised operation of these parts. Note the emphasis on bias - we can note that the LH has a contextual influence in that it is concerned with temporal context in the form of 'correct' sequence - logic/syntax/location - whereas the RH is knowm to be concerned more with grammar, spelling, and overall 'meaning' of the whole (grammar/semantics) rather than any concern with the 'correct' placement of the whole in 'time'.

Refining this further we have:

LH is biased to visual text and temporal context.
RH is biased to visual context and temporal text.
Combining these parts (created by EITHER/OR processes) leads to BOTH/AND states.

At the level of personas, RH-biased individuals use 'visual' context (objects, colours, family, support groups) to enhance their identity, and time is 'eternal' (and so the past is well-remembered. See my notes on timelines which imply that this persona has a timeline out in front of them left-to-right ). This suggests hierarchic bias in that context is hierarchically mapped. Note that the emphasis on visual is that we can 'see' this context, even if it is expressed auditorally in emotion-inducing words. The temporal text link drives a search for identity in that 'I' seem to be just a 'point' in time.

LH-biased individuals use temporal context (logic etc) that enhance their identity and time is 'sequential'. This 'thin' context forces a preference for textual considerations over context and so an emphasis on the self (text) rather than the more RH-biased emphasis on others (context) and so a degree of self-containment but a possible lack of social skills.

The Role of Emotion

In any whole, it is the initial context of the first experience of the whole that 'colours'/'sets the tone' for all further experiences of that whole or wholes like it.

The observed emphasis of the RH to deal with refined visual context suggest that it is the surroundings in which the experience happened (colour etc) that are encoded in context and are more strongly linked with later recall, whereas for the LH it is more WHEN or what was said rather than how it was said.

These biases would easily create apparent biases along the line of RH being apparently bias to wholes and the LH being apparently biases to aspects, but it is my conjecture that the RH is more influenced by visual roots and the LH by more auditory roots and so the non-linear form of vision would favour the use of 'wholistic' terms rather than the linear form of audition, and so the use of more aspectual terms, but as a 'whole' the individual is the union of these.

Further observations of RH/LH interactions have shown that the RH is markedly more refined in dealing with metaphors, and things implicit, whereas the LH sees the whole more 'literally' and explicit.

Considering this in the text/context argument, metaphor does not describe a whole explicitly, it describes the whole by reflection in that it is the richly-developed context that enhances text and so the overall identity.

The Context of SpaceTime

If the individual is the union of text and context we must then recognise that the individual exists in a context - that of SpaceTime.

What this demonstrates is the implicit (!) hierarchic manner of our modelling of wholes and the use of text/context considerations becomes intent-driven.

At a fundamental level, a whole has text and context.
Of text and context, the former is more 'point-like' and explicit and the latter more 'nebulous-like' and so implicit.(cell nucleus vs 'the rest')
What I cant explain using points I will try and explain by implication (use of analogy or rich metaphor); this is like using direct or reflected light
Whichever I choose to use will only give me an aspect of the whole but it can also resolve possible paradoxes in that the whole is so biased that it is text or context 'confusing' e.g. visual paradoxes often cause the eye to oscillate between apparently conflicting text/context. Changing the location (by turning the diagram sideways etc) can resolve the 'problem' and location is more of a LH task whereas visual 'whole' determination is more of a RH task.
(more to come...)
e.g. the RH good recognition of faces is more the recognition of emotion IN faces and so a contextual bias.

People using RH-type communications (often called 'wholistic') are in fact using rich contextual links to communicate. So ideograms are STRONGLY dependent on context for interpretation whereas the tone-based systems that favour LH bias are more self-contained and more 'context'-free; a 'text' bias where rich contextual 'meaning' is built-up over time unless it is encoded in the contextually biased tone (harmonics) of the conversation.

The hierarchic structuring of wholes by the brain means that all wholes are also text/context elements depending on their location in the hierarchy. Furthermore there is a link between temporal hierarchy and structural hierarchy - but then this is a dichotomy so there has to be!!! ;-)