Most of this site deals with how we make maps of reality and how we get 'meaning' from these maps. It covers maps made by 'Science' as well as those made by the more esoteric disciplines (e.g. The I Ching, Astrology etc) and emphasises that these maps are more metaphor than something to be taken literally (weak metaphor being based on analogy which compares things whereas strong metaphor replaces things with symbols - that are often then taken too literally.) Below is a short introduction that may help in your travels through the site. This is followed by links. Note that references and further reading are supplied at various points in the site and the below is more a summary.

My research into brain functions suggests that the following 'map' (or meta-map) is a useful guide to understanding our personal selves as well as our social selves and our culture in general - and even our species. This meta-map includes the 'origin'(location?) of concepts like 'truth', 'fact', 'spirit' etc., all concepts that are considered when we make choices in our lives.

Basics

The new-born infant is a product of genetics. When born, the infant can be considered as the completion of genetic programming (nature) and now open to stronger environmental influences (nurture) that will refine the infant into a fully functioning adult form.

One thing that we notice in infants is that their sensory systems do not seem to be very differentiated; thus when given a stimulus of a specific type (e.g. auditory) they will turn AS A WHOLE in response.

As the child develops so a process of refinement occurs where the child learns to be selective in determining the type of stimulus, and in selecting an 'appropriate' response system as well as an appropriate response.

This implies that the child becomes able to determine text from context, and the child starts to differentation 'ME' (text) from 'NOT ME' (context).

This process of refinement is controlled by neurological and pharmacological influences (nature) as well as the environment (nurture) with the latter working on a context set by the former.

Included in this influence on refinement is the way the child interpets reality, and recent work on the brain suggests that there is a degree of lateralisation in the brain, manifest by the distinctions of left and right hemispheres and this leads to the emergence of possible biases in development that will later influence the more abstract thinking processes.

What should be noted is that there is more a continuum of possible mental states between the 'extremes' of right and left hemisphere functioning and this continuum is not strictly 'linear' in that a degree of mixing occurs. (Note that prior to about age 7, if one hemiphere is removed the other can take-on some of the functionality.)

This mixing of left and right gives us 'mind', and we find that this mixing creates more of a mental 'levels' approach with the 'middle' position being one of balance.

My analysis of the research literature, both in psychology and neurology, as well cognitive science and the 'humanities' has led to the following associations:

Left Hemisphere (LH)

The left hemisphere deals with direct identification rooted in the concept of determining location. It has a text bias and a single context. It is explicit in expression and concerned more with 'what is' or 'what WILL be'. Any relational considerations are limited to direct identification. It is independence biased. It is where we get concepts like 'fact' and 'truth' in that these are abstractions of location concepts emotively expressed as "YES - THATS IT!".

As we develop so a LH bias can become reductionist in that it attempt to establish location and so will reduce everything down to 'basics'. There can also develop a degree of conservatism in the form of a reluctance to change once a comfortable position has been obtained.

Being location biased (with the only context being correct/incorrect) so the emphasis on logic and syntax - these are the ONLY sources of meaning. (As we shall see, this mellows when we introduce RH functioning). This meaning is, I suggest, driven by an ancient drive (nature) to remove illusion - useful when survival depends on distinguishing prey that has markings that help it blend-in with the surroundings.

Since it's task is more analytic, it does thing in sequence (proactive) and leads the brain's response to all direct explicit linear communications.

Right Hemisphere (RH)

The right hemisphere deals with indirect identification rooted in the concept of disguise; its 'role' is to create illusion and so hide location. The stripes of the tiger and the changes of a chameleon are 'sourced' here. It has a STRONG contextual bias (text is the 'object' to be identified and so 'nebulous'). It is strongly hierarchic which at a refined level reflects a continuum of aspects that go towards identifying the 'text' (or disguising it).

The RH is more attuned to harmomics (colour, chords in music) and to concepts like refinement. It is biased to 'What could be?" (the LH would be "What WILL be")). It develops statistical models. It is implicit. It is dependent. It is qualitative and so an emphasis on 'value' compared to the LH emphasis on 'fact'. Its ancient roots (nature) are opposed to explicit identification - it favours hiding - blending-in by making the edges 'fuzzy' (cause of interference to help disguise).

The Middle

'Mind' is the dynamic that emerges from the linking of left and right; there will be biases depending on nurture but overall a 'mix' will emerge. This mix is where we find dichotomous processes (pairs of 'opposites') in that one is neither totally left or totally right but a mix of the two, changing with circumstances - slowly if left and perhaps too quickly with the right. Furthermore, these dichotomous processes seem to be the fundamental tools we use when categorising 'out there', as well as when making choices; we determine choices by comparing characteristics that are left or right biased - resulting in either extreme states or else a mixture of left and right.

This mixing leads to the merging of RH illusion with LH revelation and so to concepts like enhancement - to make one 'look' better and so be seen (located) by others but not as prey - more as leader or sexual partner.

We also have the ability to respond to non-linear communication in the form of ideograms etc. These symbols are HIGHLY context dependent and so need to be linked wiith learnt meanings prior to going through high level syntactic analysis (a LH function) - if required at all. (we can see how the concept of the RH being 'wholistic' emerged).

This merging also leads to intution in that the moment the summing of aspects (RH bias) leads to an apparently direct identification (LH bias) (YES - thats it!) is the moment of insight.

Due to the nature of dichotomy, the middle is also the area of highest possible diversity since it allows for the balanced mixing of relational concepts.

This mix includes the linking of revelation emphasis with illusion emphasis (hierarchic in form) and so social positioning; here our mind is 'projected' into the formation of culture.

This linking also brings out the basic four modes of representing something. In logic for example we can have YES,YES/NO,FANTASY, & MEANINGLESS:
YES is extreme left hemisphere functioning - all positive, no concept of negation. Revealing. When we introduce a bit of doubt (negation is more often learnt by infants) we move into YES/NO states. This is the beginning of awareness, of the distinction between ME and NOT ME and is abstracted at the social level into making maps - to reveal the hidden and so categorising THIS from THAT. It is thus representative of a shift towards the RH. (Emotively the LH is positive/neutral and the RH more negative. This emerges from the manner of processing data where the RH is more tuned to aspects and these ellicit emotion which ellicits chemestry to store the data - more than the LH.)

As we refine ourselves and also shift further right there emerges the concept of FANTASY. This is where the YES and YES/NO states still exist but only 'in here' - the abstractions of mind that have no references 'out there' but we find of 'value'.

At the same time as the emergence of FANTASY comes the emergence of MEANINGLESSNESS - this is an extreme right hemisphere functioning where the root of logic - location - has dissapeared and so concepts like 'fact', 'truth' etc are literally meaningless. As an example, in the four modes of representing philosophy this is the mode linked to metaphysics whereas the other modes are:
YES - Objective philosophy
YES/NO - Categorical philosophy
FANTASY - Moral philosophy (right vs wrong)
MEANINGLESS - Metaphysical philosophy

In the context of logic, the 'extreme' concept of metaphysics is 'pure' illusion.

Examples of the four modes in esoteric subjects:

YES - Air
YES/NO - Fire
FANTASY - Water
MEANINGLESS - Earth

In the types of numbers:

YES - Whole Numbers
YES/NO - Rational Numbers
FANTASY - Irrational Numbers
MEANINGLESS - Imaginary Numbers

As examples of the four modes of representation in quantum mechanics:

YES - Dirac's transformative mechanics
YES/NO - Heisenberg's S-Matrix mechanics
FANTASY - Schrodinger's Wave Mechanics
MEANINGLESS - Feynman's Sum of Histories

Note that as we move more and more to indirect identification (and so possible illusion) so we get more and more into wave analysis and statistical methods. Thus Feynman is extreme in that his system is based on everything being made of waves and it is the interference that causes reality. This there is no initial location - logic 'disappears'. Also note that his system suggests levels in that there is a wave level 'behind' the interference.

ALL of these are modes of representing THE SAME THING. Each one in some way 'brings' out an aspect or group of aspects that enable identification BUT as we get more and more into RH areas so we are open to illusion; we must be more and more selective about what aspects to consider when making our maps.

The brain therefore functions at a basic four levels in that we have:

text - YES
context - YES/NO
static relationships - FANTASY
dynamic relationships - MEANINGLESS

Note that these are not 'seperate' since they develop in the context set by the previous (Feynman's work in physics came AFTER the development of the other three.) Thus MEANINGLESS INCLUDES statics, text, and context, to 'create' dynamic relationships but we need to be wary in that these can be illusions or even lack location and so be 'illogical' but not necessarily 'valueness'.

Finally note that due to hierarchy, the symbols/illusions created in the RH can become experienced as being 'real' and so become text and 'YES' oriented. These can then go through the sam processes.

As an example, consider how we make language. First is the development of a word (symbol) for something (e.g. A LION). Then we look more at the word and develop a 'ness' about it in that we treat it contextually (LION-LIKE). Then we look again and combine text and context (and so a relationship) and use the result as a metaphor (THAT MAN IS A LION).

Thus we have a journey from YES through YES/NO to FANTASY and MEANINGLESS and we can use terms derived by the American philosopher Charles Peirce to describe these:
FIRSTNESS (yes - monadic - literal)
SECONDNESS (yes/no - dyadic - analogy)
THIRDNESS (fantasy+meaningless+yes+no - metaphor)

This is hierarchic and so thirdness can become the firstness of the next level of analysis.

The Book of Changes is based on the 'fact' that the brain deals with information in the form of wholes and their aspects and this can be symbolised dichotomously. Furthermore, as we consider more dichotomies so we are in fact functioning within a hierarchy where each new dichotomy is considered in the context the preceeding ones.
The human brain and wholes and aspects
Book of Changes Main page

E-mail Chris Lofting