(Copyright © 1996, 1997, 1998, 2001 C.J.Lofting)
In a universe of wholes and aspects, of objects and relationships, any descriptive system we derive is a metaphor as soon as we go beyond wholes and aspects terminology; the moment you start to 'name' things you have entered the world of metaphor. This often overlooked feature of our mind can lead to our confusing map (the metaphor) with territory (what is 'out there'). That said there does seem to be a natural tendency to do this where our methodology favours metonymy (part-for-whole) leading to metaphor. The metaphor is in the form of a map; the benefit is in increased speed of development including prediction of events but the cost is a loss of direct experience, the map becomes a filter and as such a metaphor for the particular describing of objects and relationships.
For example, it has often been pointed out that in quantum mechanics a particle does not exist until you 'look' at it. It is here proposed that this results from the method of analysis rather than necessarily being a property of 'out there'. (see the example of how recursion applied to a dichotomy leads wave interference patterns)
The basic axiom is that the brain processes information in the form of wholes and their aspects, objects and relationships. Nobel prize winner Roger Sperry's work helped to demonstrate the apparent hemisphere-oriented biases to whole/aspect functioning, with later work showing more of a continuum, or more of a weaving of two threads, rather than the discrete left/right-ness that Sperry observed. (The table of the threads)
In the brain, for the majority of individuals, there is a bias for the left hemisphere to process data presented serially (single context, ordinal bias), and the right hemisphere to process data in parrallel (multiple contexts, cardinal bias). The processing of data serially favours the processing of objects (wholes/parts and the stressing of independence), whereas the processing of data in parrallel favours the processing of the whole through aspectual considerations (harmonics, relational patterns, and the stressing of dependencies).
This implies that in general, the left hemisphere is biased to single context processing (the one) and the right hemisphere is biased to multi-context processing (the many). However, in early years of development, the failure of one hemisphere (e.g. one is surgical removed) leads to the other being able to process both types of data, thus there is an emphasis on the hemisphere taking-on biases rather than absolutes but these biases become 'set' in latter life, probably following the neuron culling that occurs around age 10-12. (Note that we are talking generally here -- see the table and associated comments re fractal nature of object/relationship distinctions).
Recent work in neurology reinforces the left/right biases where we find that, in general:
"...despite the fact that the left hemisphere is sgnificantly different in function from the right, there appears to be no structural or chemical constituent that is present one hemisphere but not in the other...This leaves quantitative differences as the only difference between areas present in both hemispheres...it is .. likely that quantitative differences lead to qualitative differences by permitting the arrival at threshholds and emergent properties." [Galaburda 1995]
Analysis of sensory preferences show that "...visual processing proceeds from the global to the local level..[and that] meta-analysis [supports] the LH-local/RH-global distinction, but the effect sizes from individual studies were quite variable." [Brown & Kosslyn 1995]
In their paper, Brown and Kosslyn conclude:
"...the hemispheres differ in their predilections for certain types of processing. Moreover, [experiment] results suggest that these differences occur because the subjects are led to attend to different characteristics of the stimuli." [Brown & Kosslyn 1995]
Hellige, quoting other sources, states:
"...evidence..suggests the right hemisphere is superior to the left for the processing of global levels whereas the left hemisphere is superior to the right for the processing of local levels..[and]...[experimental] results suggests that the right hemisphere is necessary for the normal processing of global aspects of visual patterns, whereas the left hemisphere is necessary for nornal processing of the local aspects of those same patterns." [ Hellige 1995].
Other research areas dealing with the audition system show the same distinctions at work where the left is more concentrated single context, tonic, analysis compared to the right that is biased to more harmonics analysis and this fact suggests an overall abstract processing ability of single-context, object biased left and the multi-context, relational biased right.
The emphasis on quantity leading to quality is seen where left and right hemisphere sensitivities are the same ".. when computational demands are minimal..[and that]...any hemispheric differences related to spatial frequency result from processing beyond the sensory level.." [Hellige 1995].
Hellige goes on:
"Kosslyn et al suggest that the left hemisphere is biased in favour of information from visual channels with small, nonoverlapping [my emphasis] visual fields, whereas the right hemisphere is biased in favour of information from visual channels with large, overlapping [my emphasis] visual fields. Consistent with this possibility, they cite Livingstone as having suggested that magnocellular ganglia (which have relatively large, overlapping receptive fields) project preferentially to the right hemisphere." {Hellige 1995]
My emphasis is that the nonoverlapping bias is a bias to objects, to bound forms and I suggest that this is linked to the serial-biases linking of memories by the hippocampus that works in 200ms 'frames' and so 'forces' the presence of a boundary. The overlapping emphasis stresses pattern detection processes in trying to blend-in/stick-out from the context, the background.
Data from psychological research, when combined with the above gives rise to a general model of neo-cortex function, and so thinking in general, of an emphasis for objects in the left and relationships in the right. These are of course biases in that anterior section of both hemispheres show 'interdigitation' where areas are linked to both as if 'woven' into a patten. If we view the brain as a whole so we seem to see complexity at work in that there are base, general, patterns in older sections that become refined and more 'mixed' in the last areas to develop, the anterior parts of the brain (e.g.) :
left H --------right H
LRLRLR - LRLRLR (anterior links)
LLLRRR - LLLRRR
LLLLLL - RRRRRR (posterior links)
This model means that there are biases in each hemisphere tracable to more 'gross', older areas and these influence the refined weavings in the more refined newer areas. Thu, if we could remove the brain from its container so we have what looks like a tree, with rigid trunk and flexible branches and leaves.
In [Lewis & Diamond 1995] there is strong evidence that the LH/RH differences are linked to sex hormone levels present before and after birth and so a developed bias in processing preferences can be seen, and this link to hormones determining further biases is found in other research.http://www.uq.edu.au/nuq/jack/jack.html
The above implies that serial language - speech, where words are almost self-contained - is a left hemisphere function, but we know that the brain oscillates as it processes data, with one hemisphere taking the lead.(see the papers on hemisphere switchimg). Thus any form of serial data leads to a LH control of processing, but the RH contributes when multi-context processing is required. This sharing of tasks is applicable to any parrallel data where the RH takes the lead and the LH contributes when single-context processing is required. (Syntax is more of a LH task, whereas semantics is more of a RH task but both hemispheres can handle both tasks; it is all a matter of refinement. (e.g. see Munte et al 1993))
(for regional Cerebral Blood Flow (rCBF) etc see Posner & Raichle 1994; Lassen et al 1990. The controller of this oscillation seems to be the attention system combined with circadian rhythms).
Wholes thus come in two forms - those acquired 'as one' and those acquired through the accumulation of aspects (the many).
Aspects have three basic forms, static, dynamic, and removable. The latter are called parts and can be treated as wholes but at a different level of analysis. This introduces the concept of wholes having hierarchical structure.
Considering the above, we here state that that which is not interpreted as a whole is interpreted as an aspect.
Developmental studies suggest that the brain of the infant is a raw but sensory-integrated whole. Exposure to the environment leads to degrees of sensory differentiation and through education the refinement of the senses and the development of abstract metaphors to deal with wholes and their aspects. The degree of sensory differentiation seems to be controlled by the immediate culture's main method of communication. (see Stein & Meradith 1993; Tsunoda 1979; Endo et al 1981; Lorcu 1990)
One of the metaphors created for whole/aspects analysis is Science, and there is the suggestion that much of the success of hard Science is based on a wave-analysis approach abstracted from our sensory systems with Science's basic symbolism of wholes and their aspects being captured by the metaphor we call Mathematics. From this it becomes obvious that Science is strongly aspect-oriented as it endevours to analize a whole in detail, and the high level of precision required for this task is analogous to the precise triangulation system we use for identification using our audition system. (e.g. see Levarie 1980; McAdams & Bigand 1993)
In the mind, when we explicitly attend to a whole, the whole is detected to be an object, something with substance. Thus, in Physics, the placing of a detector close to a hole through which an electron is supposed to pass will detect exactly that - an apparantly solid object passing through the hole.
The moment we try to observe statistically we move from a narrow angle of concentration (particular/local) to a wide diffuse angle (mentally we go from a 'what is' state to a 'what could be' state - the general/non-local). This act changes the level of analysis from that of a whole to the analysis of many wholes that are now aspects of a greater whole - that of the group and the period of observation; this is often missed, and thus the apparent whole we were detecting is now aspectual and appears to have 'wave' characteristics. Thus all information is more in aspectual form (harmonics) rather than in whole form.
For example, in Physics, the accumulation of data on a photographic plate beyond the storing of the first bit of information (the first electron - whole object) leads to an aspectual mapping (wave harmonics). In Psychology, the formation of typologies (and thus moving beyond the individual) also leads to aspectual mapping in the context of a greater whole - the Society.
In an aspect of Physics, quantum mechanics, the use of down-converters in light-based experiements is intended to take a whole and try to 'cut' it (thus a photon of energy X is 'down-converted' to become two photons of energy X/2) But what you get out of it are the aspectual characteristics - waves and their interferences within the initial context of the pre-converted single photon (whole). (For the EPR experiment, note the emphasis on correlation, where the two start as one(whole) and are then split).
This is also the case in single-slit, double-slit, and polarization experiments. The moment you try to cut a whole you drop an analytical level. If you insist on treating this level as within the context of the whole than all you will perceive is aspectual information. Only when you also drop the context to the same level do you perceive 'wholes' again. Text and context are tied. To change levels with one without the other leads to aspectual data only since, to the brain, that is what you are after - holding the original context (whole) and then changing textual levels gives you all new information but of an aspectual nature.
The roots of our senses are primarily audition and vision. It is proposed that these have been abstracted at higher levels into aspectual bias (the sub-tones of audition, the colour of vision - both termed 'harmonics') and whole bias (the octave (audition) and the object (visual)) Thus the overall bias to one:many relationships; a relationship that is distinctly hierarchic in form (for hierarchy see Goldberg & Costa 1981; ?? 1993). This suggests a degree of synesthesia (mixing of the senses) exists at abstract levels. (see Stein & Meredith 1993; Goldman-Rakic 1984; Constantine-Paton & Law 1982)
When something is not explicitly observed/heard it becomes an aspect of a higher whole (background). In quantum mechanics all particles etc are aspects of the universe and thus can be treated as if harmonics (aspects) of the octave (whole). As we 'zoom' in so we cross hierarchic boundaries (as revealed by the integer (whole number) coeffeciant?) and deal with 'lesser' wholes and their aspects. This is 'fractal' behaviour; it's wholes and their aspects all the way down.
Considering the above, and considering the 'fact' that our detection equipment are extensions of our senses, so the above properties are (unconsciously) built-in to the equipment.
Returning to physics, in quantum mechanics the crossing of a boundary is captured by the detection of integer-controlled 'jumps'. Thus in the context of an atom, the electrons are treated as aspects of the whole and thus have specific 'levels' when observed within the overall hierarchic format of the atom (in hierarchy, everything has it's place). Outside of the atom electrons take-on the form of wholes and the energy 'jumps' are not observed. All of these observations are made by our senses or by tools designed to extend them and the integer requirement in frequency finds foundation in the behaviour of our audition system - a wave-biased system:
"Most of the information in speech is carried in an acoustic entity called "formant transitions" which are formed principally during the pronunciation of vowels. If this information is presented to the left hemisphere, a consonant is heard. If it is presented to the right, a chirping tone is heard (which is what would be predicted strictly on the basis of the frequency contents). Moreover, if the frequency spectrum is continuously varied, the right hemisphere hears a changing complex tone[all aspects of the one -- dependencies bias], whereas the left hears a constant consonant up to a point at which it abruptly shifts to another consonant [analogous to integer 'jumps' - independent objects]. Without going to far into the complex area of verbal acoustic spectra, it seems clear that the left hemisphere may be treating the auditory stimulus in a manner designed to provide special processing for the information-carrying aspects of speech" (Kent 1981, p218)
This 'old' piece of informatation (I inserted the [] parts) finds extended meaning in the context of wholes and their aspects and how our maps are tied to our senses. It is easy to see how confusion can easily arise in the form of linking properties of the method of analysis with the properties of the object under analysis. Thus the abstraction of the properties of our senses can lead to the making of maps based on 'integer' jumps which we detect, but the tools of detection have that property within them and thus it is not necessarily 'out there' - it could be 'in here'.
We can reinforce this arguement by considering the visual system, where light as a whole is white but when 'split' we see it's aspects - colour. We often then interpret these aspects as wholes; forgetting their roots.
Thus 'Black' is all light absorbed. 'White' is all light reflected, and the other colours are the aspects, where some aspects are absorbed and others reflected.
(It is of interest to note that the harmonics in sound and the harmonics in vision (colour) are the main ellicitors of emotion, and it is emotion that forms the link between the two senses and affects the way we respond to wholes; emotion 'colours' or 'sets the tone' of a whole. In relation to the hemispheres so the left is black/white and the right is all colour. For emotions so the left is known to be more 'gross' in emotional expression than the nuance-sensitive right).
The interaction of aspects and wholes is captured by the use of dichotomy in the way we make maps. This method is strongly statistical in that for a map to be understood by more than just the originator, a degree of concensus is required. Each dichotomy adds a level of 'meaning' (an aspect) and each dichotomy is based on extremes (or very generic terms) such that the variations in personal methods of interpretation of those extremes are allowed for, and thus the map still leads the user to the single piece of 'factual' information. Thus as you add more dichotomies ('refinements'), so they are within the context of the previous dichotomies and the map takes-on a hierarchic structure. The brain works this way in making maps of reality - it appears to create specific dichotomously-derived metaphors to deal with the various types of wholes and their aspects.
Thus, for example, the apparent wave/particle nature of things is 'false' (even in a strictly mathematical sense), it is the method of analysis that leads to the apparant paradoxes where the context is held constant and we attempt to change textual levels. This does NOT imply that the wave/particle models are 'useless' - they have been highly successful, but they do not state what is 'out there', they only state how 'in here' perceives what is 'out there'.
The hierarchic structure of our brain leads to the 'manifestation' of the processing of information as wholes(one)/aspects(many). Within this is the question of context where context becomes an aspect of a whole (different contexts for the same 'thing'). So we have raw context (one) and refined context (many).
ALL information acquired by the brain will fall semantically within the context of wholes/aspects and will lead to specific emotive responses that enable the forming of analogies across different disciplines purely because of the whole/aspect dichotomy.
(review the properties of dichotomy)
It is through the holding of the whole as context and the analysis of the aspects (level change - change in perspective) that leads to emergence and creativity. One of the properties of metaphor is the ability to combine just about any two words of the language and then determine if any 'meaning' emerges that is applicable to the current context. However, this form of creativity is more adaptive than innovative in that the playing with aspects is always within the context of the whole. Innovation comes form going outside of the whole and adding something 'random'; but then this is the same as changing levels in a greater whole. Thus adaptive creativity is restricted to a level whereas innovative creativity crosses levels.
Thus we find that when contextually viewed at the 'correct' level, the apparent complexity that emerges when manipulating text and context is simplified; as seen, for example, in the increasing number of dimensions needed to get a TOE (Theory of Everything), with concepts like String theory oscillating between 10 and 26 dimensions with each added dimension 'resolving' previous difficulties. (with the new dimension usually added after a lot of 'adaptive' creativity.)
Science is metaphor. It is extremely good in that it's symbolism is more universal (wide concensus) but it's maps are founded on our brain's way of dealing with reality. Our brain uses dichotomy to create subject-specific metaphors enabling the grouping as well as differentiation of wholes and their aspects. The ease we find in making analogies across disciplines is due to the presence of a template of 'meaning' for all metaphors, and it is the template that ellicits 'meaning' through resonance.
By understanding that science is metaphor, as well as the inherant properties of dichotomous map-making and the associated template, we can be more wary of our confusing map with territory and with confusing the properties of the methods of analysis with the properties of the objects under analysis.
References and Further Reading
Return to homepage
Backspace to return to previous page.