D
droid
Guest
Outside the realms of subjective human perception which lead to either/or positions, or what are essentially definitions of classes which exist in the objective world, there are real-world analogs in language and genetics which provide another perspective.
Most complex physical processes are blending processes or plus/and processes For example, if I mix some paints together, I get a blend that essentially averages the inputs into something homogenous. The alternative, and much more rare, combining process is called a discrete combinatorial process. In such processes the combination is not an average – each individual combination has perceptively unique qualities. This means a discrete combinatorial system can generate and infinite number of qualitatively different outputs. In other words, innovation (of develpoment) in its broadest sense can really only be possible when discrete combinatorial systems are at work.
There are only two discrete combinatorial systems that we know of: DNA and human language (and by extension most of what we call “thinking”). It is no coincidence these are exactly the processes that generate endless variety. These two systems have done pretty well so far -- the discrete combinatorics of DNA has resulted in the natural world we live in, and the discrete combinatorics of our language system are what give us the tools to describe and shape the world in which we live.
Though its very shaky ground - I suppose music could also loosely be described as a discrete combinatorial system, though the definition is almost meaningless when applied to human action, which is in itself is the result of an endless chain of combinations.
Anyway - the point is, its the and/plus processes that gives us complexity, that when taken to the Fractalist/Buddhist extreme leads to the conclusion that all 'actors' have a cause/effect releationship with all other 'actors' on a physical/spiritual level. The 'either/or' processes (electron/proton - negative/positive etc) provide the building blocks for further development, but its the combinations - simple or discreet that lead to true complexity.
It strikes me that this physical process (in language and universal grammar in particular) is quite similar to how people build up opinions and moral and political values. A foundation of absolute opinions formed in early life which lead to a more sophisticated and nuanced word view as we grow older - in that sense, the political use of dualism the with us/against us position exemplified by Bush, is not just an appeal to tribalism, but an appeal to an immature, unsophisticated self - an actor that has yet to develop philosphically or emotionally and is more receptive to crassly emotive argument.
There is, of course an inherent conflict between the materialist, scientific approach and the very idea of dualism. Cartesian dualism in particular has been the subject of attack by cognitive and neurologists, who aim to break down the mind/matter divide with empirical biological evidence, but whether or not this is possible, I think the argument that either/or positions are all creations of human perception and classification rather than material objective 'facts' has some merit.
Most complex physical processes are blending processes or plus/and processes For example, if I mix some paints together, I get a blend that essentially averages the inputs into something homogenous. The alternative, and much more rare, combining process is called a discrete combinatorial process. In such processes the combination is not an average – each individual combination has perceptively unique qualities. This means a discrete combinatorial system can generate and infinite number of qualitatively different outputs. In other words, innovation (of develpoment) in its broadest sense can really only be possible when discrete combinatorial systems are at work.
There are only two discrete combinatorial systems that we know of: DNA and human language (and by extension most of what we call “thinking”). It is no coincidence these are exactly the processes that generate endless variety. These two systems have done pretty well so far -- the discrete combinatorics of DNA has resulted in the natural world we live in, and the discrete combinatorics of our language system are what give us the tools to describe and shape the world in which we live.
Though its very shaky ground - I suppose music could also loosely be described as a discrete combinatorial system, though the definition is almost meaningless when applied to human action, which is in itself is the result of an endless chain of combinations.
Anyway - the point is, its the and/plus processes that gives us complexity, that when taken to the Fractalist/Buddhist extreme leads to the conclusion that all 'actors' have a cause/effect releationship with all other 'actors' on a physical/spiritual level. The 'either/or' processes (electron/proton - negative/positive etc) provide the building blocks for further development, but its the combinations - simple or discreet that lead to true complexity.
It strikes me that this physical process (in language and universal grammar in particular) is quite similar to how people build up opinions and moral and political values. A foundation of absolute opinions formed in early life which lead to a more sophisticated and nuanced word view as we grow older - in that sense, the political use of dualism the with us/against us position exemplified by Bush, is not just an appeal to tribalism, but an appeal to an immature, unsophisticated self - an actor that has yet to develop philosphically or emotionally and is more receptive to crassly emotive argument.
There is, of course an inherent conflict between the materialist, scientific approach and the very idea of dualism. Cartesian dualism in particular has been the subject of attack by cognitive and neurologists, who aim to break down the mind/matter divide with empirical biological evidence, but whether or not this is possible, I think the argument that either/or positions are all creations of human perception and classification rather than material objective 'facts' has some merit.