(copyright © 1999 C.J.Lofting)
From neurological research it has been discovered that humans seem to derive meaning by processing data using the
what/where dichotomy and this website demonstrates how, when we apply the dichotomy recursively,
we can generate a fundamental set of meanings that we can then combine to create more complex meanings. These meanings
are of course very general and we particularize them through the process of metaphorcation
where we label objects and relationships within a particular context aka discipline. These labels are facades and
go to forming a lexicon unique to the discipline and so enable us to express what/where interactions in terms
of a particular discipline.
The template discussed at this website is behind all disciplines, the template is what
we use to encode/decode metaphors and this template has a structure. It is this structure that enables us to make
analogies across disciplines in that it is the invariant patterns of emotion linked to the what/where distinctions
that 'resonate' with meaning, the words just act as pointers or elicitors of the feelings that lead to a sense
of meaning. In this sense. a feeling of 'wholeness' is invarient at the general level but has many labels at the
particular level.
This being the case, we can refine the basic what/where distinctions through deriving more particular terminologies
from this general form.
For objects (the what) we can derive the concepts of who and which.
For relationships (the where) we can derive the concept of when and from the where/when linking comes the concept
of how. This takes us into causality concepts from which emerges the values oriented concept of why.
Note that in relationships, the question of how etc implies a bias to considering contextual influences and so
what is behind things; the emphasis is on determining algorithms and formulas rather than on the expression of
those algorithms/formulas.
In the world of creativity, the 'true' artist is more interested in expression and so limits or even intentionally
avoids algorithms and formulas since the emphasis is on something unique, particular, original.
The 'true' scientist, on the other hand, is more interested in the algorithms and formulas since the scientist
attempts to determine the nature of things and so be able to predict their expression both where and when; the
artist goes for the particular rainbow, the scientist goes for the algorithms and formulas that lead to the expression
of all rainbows and as such the scientist favours the analysis of harmonics of 'the thing' to see if something
novel can emerge that has not been previously predicted.
We can see from this that artistic creativity is intense, particular, and almost context-free and highly positive/neutral in form whereas the scientific process forces a more critical approach through the analysis of context where context is not 'the thing'.