The Sense of Dichotomy: The Source of Meaning

Summary

The fundamental goal of this website is to demonstrate how humans can find meaning in any discipline that has dichotomy-based roots where a dichotomy is:

"1. (logic) division into two classes, one positive, the other negative.

2.(botony) a mode of branching by repeated bifurcation"

We further introduce a proposed model of a neurologically-based template that is used in all dichotomy-based categorisations such that we can easily make analogies across disciplines since it is the elements of the template that resonate with meaning where these elements are the emotions to which words point to.

A sense of meaning is always a property of the method of analysis, in this case recursive dichotomous analysis where a dichotomy is applied to itself to extract 'finer' meaning. If the analysis is properly structured so humans can develop a sense of faith in a dichotomy-based discipline regardless of any information that may contradict that discipline. This is especially so in those disciplines that lack any explicit feedback from 'out there'.

The method of recursive dichotomisation has for much of our history been used to formalise our maps of reality and to make predictions based on those maps.

This website suggests that, by the mapping of the method's characteristics, it is found that the method actually manifests the nature of information processing within the human brain and thus dichotomy is more than an abstract tool we have learned to use, but is a 'natural' but abstract form of neurologically linked sense, akin to the visual and auditory systems, and is the brain's way of managing information in the form of objects and relationships; the use of the what/where dichotomy.

It is further proposed that understanding the properties and methods in dichotomous analysis will aid us seperating the chaff from the wheat as we endevour to understand ourselves and the universe; we can start to see the metaphors we at times take too literally and in doing so refine our understandings of 'in here' as well as 'out there'.

Basics

Any dichotomously-derived typology, a system of categorisation, whether it be Mathematics, Physics, the I Ching, Astrology, NLP, MBTI etc., is in fact a structured metaphor. Thus, dichotomy can map anything and this indicates a reason for the ease in which humans make analogies across disciplines and can at times confuse map with territory.

Comparative analysis of some of these metaphors leads to the introduction of a possible template that shows the emergence of contextual 'meanings' that are invariant, resulting simply from the use of dichotomy. These qualities suggest that 'meanings' found in specific typologies are only valid within the context of dichotomy itself, just as colour is only 'meaningful' within the context of vision.

This comparitive analysis leads to the further conclusion that the dichotomous point of view is the only method that allows for the maximisation of choices within a developing system and that the method is a 'natural' phenomena. The dichotomous point of view thus allows for the creation of maps, based on a template, that allow for a wide choice of the methods of interpretation whilst minimising the number of possible 'realistic' conclusions; this being a well documented aspect of modern day physics as well as being inherant in the major tool of dichotomous analysis - mathematics.

The ability for mathematics, and any other dichotomy-based discipline, to 'resonate' with 'out there' is due to the process of evolution where adaption processes have led to the internalisation of how 'out there' functions at the abstract level of object/relationship interactions.

One of the fundamental properties of the brain/mind is the ability to predict possible outcomes, foresight, and then use this information for gain. Thus the normal distribution curve emerges from dichotomous analysis and is found to be a common property of all of our maps of categorisation simply because that is how we have evolved - to gather and respond to information whilst at all times maximising our options but minimising 'realistic' conclusions. (In passing, note that wave interference patterns are also a property of dichotomous analysis suggesting that there is a possible illusion occuring where properties of the method of analysis are confused with properties of the things under analysis).

This website considers the apparent one-to-one correspondences found between the characteristics resulting from simple dichotomous development and some of the modern models of reality, leading us to the probability that we have adapted to the, at least 'local', spacetime continuum by internalising at least one of it's characteristics - dichotomisation. And so the tendancy by some to see 'mind' in the formation of the universe, or to find 'truth' in esoteric maps is based solely on dichotomous analysis, and results from the projection of the proposed template out into the universe; the models of reality are based on metaphors which are models of our selves.

This suggests that Science is metaphor. It is extremely good in that its symbolism is more universal (wide consensus) but its 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 object ( wholes, parts) and relationships (aspects). By understanding this 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.

The Template

This template encapsulates the first few steps we make when we categorise. Thus, working bottom-up, from the whole we distinguish the aspects in the form of the parts and also distinguish the static and dynamic relationships.

Parts have a special function in that they can also be wholes but at a different level of analysis; they are thus removable aspects; the word 'part' manifests and entanglement of two meanings -- the meaning of an object combined with the meaning of a relationship. In this sense the word 'part' manifests a superposition, a sharing of the one space by two meanings. The word is thus an example of hybridisation in that relationships are what happens between objects but also include objects themselves.

By adding the dichotomy of contract/expand we get a full template (see below) onto which the I Ching is based, as is the MBTI® and even Mathematics. In fact, any map (metaphor) of objects and their relationships that has dichotomous roots will slot onto this template. What then emerges is a sense of meaning for each cell that is unconsciously expressed in our descriptions and these descriptions will use words analogous to terms used to describe ways of mixing.(presented below)

This mechanism of description, combined with a system of labelling, enables us to use the same general meanings in different contexts and so particularise those meanings; all dichotomy-derived disciplines come with their unique lexicon that helps to differentiate 'this discipline' from 'that discipline'. What is suggested here is that the words are different but they all point to the same general set of meanings based on descriptions of object/relationships interactions.

I suggest that the meaning template is part of the neurology of the brain and is the tool used by us to categorise. Thus the ease with which we can make analogies across apparantly widely different disciplines - these are possible since the template forms the basis of categorisation and thus 'resonates'; it is not the things that are connected but the method of their categorisation. The template is the underlaying structure of dichotomously-derived metaphor and meaning is built-in to the method of analysis.

This feature is of huge survival value but at the same time can lead to one confusing map with territory and thus metaphors being taken too literally; which has been the case in the esoteric disciplines (I Ching, Astrology, Tarot etc). These disciplines have their dichotomous roots attached to times where Science was poor and the metaphors rich. What this site demonstrates is that even Science is metaphor and has the same constructs as the esoteric disciplines.

This example of the template is only three levels deep where by level three we have four dichotomies at work. As we add another level so we add more details but these details are found to be just the level 3 cells placed within the contexts of the other level 3 cells. Thus, there are eight cells at level 3 which, when placed in the context of each other cell, create sixty-four possible states (8 x 8).. These sixty-four states can be used as feedback on themselves leading to over four thousand states that can in turn be used as feedback, and so on. However continued feedback leads us away from general patterns and more into the area of the particular and so subtle 'anomolies' in determination of meaning emerge and we get social and personal differences.

We can of course ignore the feedback 'feature' and create level after level (..,8,16,32,64) but the resulting meaning is found to be the same when we get to the sixty-four states as if we had made the 'jump' from 8 to 64.

The fundamental unit of 'measurement' is that of object:relationship (whole:aspects) which is at its optimum at level 3 (eight states); from there-on we are dealing with refinements although each level reveals a new set of 'meanings' that could not be expressed earlier since the require a specific degree of contextual development to sustain them.

My analysis of our use of words and their associated meanings has led to the discovery that we seem to describe states at different levels by using terms that emphasise the mixing, the entanglement, of the elements of the original dichotomy. For example, as pointed out earlier, if we start with the distinction of whole:relationships and apply this dichotomy recursively so we get at the next level the pairing of:

whole+whole, whole+relationship::relationship+whole,relationship+relationship.

the first pairing is contained in the term 'whole'. The second pairing emphasises a context of objects with a relational overtone. This is expressed by the word 'part'. The third pairing emphasises a context of relationships with an objects overtone. This is expressed by the phrase 'static relationship'. The fourth pairing emphasises 'pure' relationships and is expressed by the phrase 'dynamic relationship'.

When analysing these 'mixing' is has become apparent that there are feeling associated with the words that are best expressed using terms derived from literally mixing things. The set of basic terms is:

whole -- a sense of blending.

part -- a sense of bounding. (to distinguish this from that)

static relationship -- a sense of bonding.

dynamic relationship -- a sense of binding.

The full 'mixing' template, presented below, gives the preferred terms for description. Thus, for example, static relationships are linked to the term 'bonding' (the formation of a bond - a joining) whereas dynamic relationships are linked to the term 'binding'. (e.g. contracts are 'binding'. They define a dynamic relationship that extends through time with parties being seperate other than for the contract). Wholeness is linked to the term 'blending' (a blend being a balanced mix) and parts is linked to the term 'bounding' (to enclose and so distinguish 'this' from 'that'). The final step is to add the dichotomy of contract/expand which is synonymous to the dichotomies of negative/positive, context/text etc:

Once we have set out this template we find that we can populate it with the fundamental characteristics of various dichotomy-derived disciplines. For example, the categorisation of the main types of numbers used in Mathematics placed over the template:

Rational numbers symbolise all the possible cuts of the whole = parts. They thus form all the elements of the harmonic series.

Irrational numbers symbolise static relationships (e.g. e, pi. phi - diameter to circumference) These 'numbers' reflect the grouping of parts to form relationships to the whole.

Complex numbers symbolise cyclic and morphic change (sqrt(-1)); transitions and transformations.

As we go deeper, so we find one type of number expressed within the context set by another - whole numbers within the context of complex numbers, as we find in some elemements of quantum mechanics (integer jumps). Furthermore, as we go deeper so we move more and more from a textual emphasis to a contextual emphasis. For example the abstract concept of a Hamiltonian reflects the mathamatical representation of a context and the influence of that context on text, aka an object; pure whole numbers, on the other hand, are seen as totally free of any context or more so they are self-contained.

Text covering an extended derivation of the template : blending, bonding, bounding, binding
Return to homepage
Backspace to return to previous page.