MEANING OR TRUTH
Polymorphic Linking
The picture at top is showing the shuffling of an older man - in order to keep his balance by having both feet in contact with the earth at all times. The other picture contains an image of Lincoln that's made by moving blobs of dark bits around until the image looked like Lincoln.
You need to realize that meaning is based on context and context is based on meaning (always). Meaning is patterns, and patterns are meaning. Meaning comes from referencing of mental objects through the abstract classes (Archetypes) extended to these real (instantiated) memories (mental objects). The linking together of our thoughts (real memories - polymorphism), creates meaning.
The Archetypes are our connection with the real world [Jung]. Polymorphism creates the linkage that allows understanding as a conversation progresses. Words are linked to a chain of meaning (patterns of meaning) from the polymorphic process. The polymorphic mind can "see" the relationships, held together by harmonics in a closed system; "see" or "perceive" just enough to create meaning in our thoughts (see below).
The "ordinary" processes of linking extended memory classes together to the base (the Archetype) class, provides a linkage of all these memory objects that have been extended from a given Archetype. When an already instantiated recent memory is recognized as similar to some new information all of the polymorphic links on that same Archetype are available. So we can visualize the pattern of these extended memories quickly. Comparing with the new information is also quick. It is like we were looking at the set of memories (the polymorphs) through a series of mirrors. Jung talks often about the negative, or the shadow, or the mirror of a memory. This is the archetype, it holds or registers the set of real memory object associated with it by polymorphism. As the mind matures (and quickly) we learn to manage this set of objects linked in polymorphic linkage that at first must have seemed like a hall of mirrors. Recognizing these linkages allows us to understand some sets of perceptions as meaningful.
Unascribed Map
Below is the translating mechanism that uses polymorphism for the analysis path.
Polymorphic Interpretation
From: https://www.deviantart.com/ryanthescooterguy/art/HTF-Base-Bunny-Rabbit-shadow-puppet-536520127
This is like shadow puppets dancing on a screen. As they pass through each other we can see “pattern or not” quickly. When there are enough pattern matches we have the understanding from the link. The patterns make sense together (in other words: they form their own pattern).
[Newtonian processes (structuralism) predicts none (well maybe just one) of the patterns that are there in the universe. The only true structuralist pattern is the normal distribution curve of random events (entropy). But this ignores the fact that constraints on distributions always cause patterns to form. The patterns ultimately follow a wave equation (a set of eigenfunctions - solutions to the wave equation). So the patterns that form make sense and they are sense. The sense is in the patterning (or mirroring) of the constraints.]
Interpreting Using Polymorphic Methodology [Game . . . Set . . . Match]
Recognizing the pattern, of the mental object, is its meaning. Patterns overlying patterns is our means of building memories (and consciousness). The patterns need to make a story (in a broad definition of story). Truth interferes with meaning, as ultimately, Truth moves the abstract (needed for meaning) into the totally abstract (for the sake of philosophical truth) and throws our link to reality away. This is because Truth most be above reality (the main importance of being truth). The only way to be above reality and still make any sense is to be totally abstract. But Meaning needs the abstract link, to reality, to be Meaning. It is not the abstract link that is important but the reality. Thus Meaning is lost in Truth. Never instantiate an abstract class [From Any Object Oriented Programming Textbook].
TRUTH IS JUST A CHINESE LANTERN!
This is like the problem of having vertigo and neuropathy. When you have both you need to be connected to reality in a "real" way. The Chinese lanterns can be up, they can be down. Chinese lanterns can be folded up in a box for the next party. So Chinese lanterns are not a final solution. They can be anywhere. In order for the old man to stay standing he needs to keep track of the flour not the Chinese lanterns. That is why older men shuffle. You keep both feet on the ground, all the time. Then you know where "reality" is. The floor is always the floor except during an earthquake; then all bets are off.
The scientist or philosopher seem to reach for the shiny objects as the basis for Truth. Like the quantum wave patterns. They are so shiny and bright that they must be True. But when you read the fine print of the Copenhagen school you see that they are really like rainbows. With an actual rainbow, it "appears"(it is not really there). It is just that the angle of the sun to the point in a mist and back to your eyes is a certain angle for each wavelength of light. Quantum "particle" "rainbows" are slightly more substantial but in a physical sense they are not really there; they reflect the constraints of the probability distribution that defines them (the mirror of the constraints). They are output of the system not the object of the system.
The main problem with Truth (as we want to define it) is that the instance it refers to must be singular; but the universe is polymorphic and not singular. Meaning is polymorphic.
This is my argument about "Truth" vs "Meaning" (abstract Truth and abstract Meaning) for philosophy. Truth as defined is meant to be like a Chinese lantern hanging out there free of clashing with all the muddy earthy arguments that exist (lanterns don’t even need cables if they are battery driven or use candles). Truth is supposed to fill in our need to satisfy feeling, emotion, and of course hate. We need to be abstract to do that. But then Truth, as defined here, has no relationship with reality (and is supposed to have no defining relationship with reality - because reality is particular not abstract - and Truth must be above - and beyond - reality). Ultimately we actually gain nothing from abstract Truth. And moving all abstract links to Truth from Meaning takes reality away from Meaning. Abstract Truth is useless and meaningless. Meaning is "Meaning" because it is linked to reality through abstract classes - the Archetypes system. This is a solid but fuzzy (including the abstract portion) link.
[Important (repeating) : the main problem with Truth is that the instance it refers to must be singular (and particular) but the universe is polymorphic and not singular. Meaning is polymorphic.]
This is how Meaning works in memory - as formulated by Jung. The Archetypes are the center of Meaning; and are attached to the mental memories (through extension), and to the earth (through the Shadow Archetype) [an interpretation of Jung].
The Context with LabelsThe Context as a Conscious View - the buckets of the Shadow are not part of consciousness
The sum total of all that (extended memories and the Archetypes) is what I call the context (the context is the transcendental - that is the room we are in).
The Conscious Mind
MEANING - This Information is Brought to You by Reality
The old men know something about being tied to the earth. With vertigo and neuropathy it is hard to keep your balance. You feel like you are flying away. So since the regular systems are not working, they find that shuffling keeps them in balance. This is similar to our brains polymorphic system, keeping both feet on the ground of reality through shuffling of Archetypes. This keeps us always knowing where we are in association with reality (whether we like it or not)[Pono].
Meaning [Not Truth] Links Us to Reality
Words are linked to a chain of meaning from the polymorphic process. Meaning is linked to a set of memory objects (by perception), which are linked to an Archetype (or Archetypes), whose set of memory objects are based on the Shadow providing and extending objects from nerve process information from the external reality. This particular reality (specific) can be extended into this particular Archetype. But cannot be extended from the Shadow. This is how Meaning links us to reality.
Truth is a construct to place an authority over all thought. This is a necessary philosophical concept; which does not necessarily link into reality or any other specific system. It is supposed to critique all such bases as an authority over the operation of knowing. So using any of these other bases to examine Truth is contrary to the basis of the authority of Truth. But ultimately this concept leaves us connected to nothing. Truth is a Chinese lantern; and definitely does not link us to reality. Truth links us to a vague concept that seems to be needed for philosophy to work. But, for philosophy, Truth cannot be subordinate to anything - so it becomes an enigma.
Meaning is different than Truth. They are completely different dimensions. But Meaning is always more useful (pragmatic). When you get to the point where you feel everyone is lying to you, you need to take Meaning seriously; so you do the equivalent of the old man and his shuffle. You need to tune your thoughts to reality, and shuffle through it all, like the old man. This is called practicing mindfulness. Then you can forget the high sounding lies. Mindfulness is the beginning of reality philosophy [Pono].
Shuffle Off to Buffalo
The Archetype system is the subconscious (Ah-oh -I used the dirty word). The division between the conscious and subconscious, is really a necessity in order to separate functions that need to be separated in the brain. The mind cannot work if these functions are not separated. It would be like feedback in a sound system. The Archetype system is like the bridge system in modern computers. The Archetype system is extremely simple (for what it does) but is also extremely powerful.
The BUS and Bridge System of Computers is similar to the Archetype System in our Mind (note how external data is handled separately)
[The problem with conscious / sub-conscious designation is that neither is subordinate to the other. The two are separate functions. Because the Shadow system is not seen, it becomes difficult to evaluate from a structured standpoint. But even the conscious has this problem as the polymorphic processing is not amenable to structured analysis. I prefer the designate the Shadow system as the "befo" (pidgin for a word that means something like "before" but is more specific and thus more useful here). The the instantiated real memory portion of the mind and the functions available to it is the "afta" (the pidgin word that is similar to "after"). This saves us from the "who is in control problem" and makes it clearer that the relationship is functional, like a computer bridge.
Befo and Afta and Formation Data Context
In the mind, this is part of staging the Formation Data Context. Through this staging the blip on our inner screen that is a nerve impulse, that the mind needs to interpret in order to understand; is "formed" in some steps that turn that blip into a thought with the associated context that provides the meaning. So the Formation Data Context process forms a blip of a nerve signal into a meaningful memory. This is befo and afta.
The biggest problem with the subconscious is “left-over” trauma. The trauma was in a hurry, and it caused us to be in a hurry, which means we didn’t get a chance to fully instantiate the information during the incident or incidents. The information is also painful in some way. So this information appears to remain in the subconscious (the Archetype system) and un-instantiated. But that seems to affect our lives in considerable ways. The worst part is that the trauma interferes with our connection to reality (with some form of anxiety); which needs to be able to work through the Archetype system; which is now bruised. We have to trust reality (to survive) but cannot. Defining these two parts of our minds as functionally related helps take away much of the ethical guilt associated with tying these functions together hierarchically.
The Archetype, expressed as something singular and also more general and universal, is the negative region to logical and rational thought [Jung]. It gives the logical and rational meaning by holding the symbols in some [polymorphic linking] configuration. But the configuration of the Archetype is like the (photographic) negative of the logical and rational process [Jung]. So it fills the empty space of logical and rational thought. It also fulfills the meaning of such thought as such thought is merely symbols that have either no meaning in themselves or that may have some meaning but not exactly the meaning that is referenced in some logical and rational thought [Jung]. Here the meaning arises out of the real memories that are extended from that Archetype. But, as we discuss below, the meanings as patterns blossom (are visualized) from the polymorphic links between the memories as they are extended from the Archetypes.
Polymorphic Interpreting
This is an extremely powerful way for the mind to recognize patterns very quickly. The Archetypes, themselves, are not instantiated, so they cannot be seen; they are part of the "subconscious" - in the shadow.
Abstract classes cannot be instantiated “in themselves”. The Archetype, is an abstract class. It gives the logical and rational meaning by holding the symbols in the polymorphic configuration. Archetypes are in the “shadow” (sub-conscious or befo [meaning not instantiated]) of a conscious symbol, which is extended into the memory object. The Archetype fulfills the meaning of the symbol in thought. The Archetype molds a thought into meaning [Jung]. The Shadow (an Archetype) is the Archetype of Archetypes (the shadow of all shadows; and the base class of all base classes for our compiler).
To understand language I picture that there is some kind of probability holes that words can fit into [per Jung]. But the structure must be surrounded by applicable memories that are somehow linked to the memory holes [Archetypes] so the content can be matched, quickly, to the contexts we already have. This matching starts tentatively. As the probability of success in interpretation goes up, the context and content are arrived at smoother, faster, and with immediate links to meaning.
Old Lane
Understand that the words have meaning through the context of extended Archetypes. The polymorphic links between the objects extended from an Archetype (or set of Archetypes) provides the meaning to the text. The sentence itself gains meaning through the polymorphic links in the mind’s context [including any real memories and the links between them and the Archetypes]. This is how we have meaning. This is not truth based; there is no time and no methodology for a truth table. But it needs to be “true”; that is "real" ("real" is a better understanding of our conceptual basis o the process - mindfulness). The formation of patterns of linked objects (under the control of the Archetypes) creates the sense of meaning. When combined into stories that are related to our narrative, a sense of consciousness is recognized.
Any real language is based on context rather than being based on atomic and immutable words and sentences. And how can we interpret this kind of language? All of the language on earth - everyones language - except that of structuralist philosophers - are contextually based. I would say that all languages are based on context and everyone (except a structuralist) is quite capable of interpreting statements made in such a language. The problem is that the interpretation of the listener is then not guaranteed to be exactly the intent of the originator.
This is the rules of real discourse, because language as it was created by our predecessors (and there are a large number of separate languages that all follow these rules) is not structural; language is contextual. The reason it is contextual is that our polymorphic minds are contextual [and the universe is actually harmonically contextual]. Context is always polymorphic [real context]. That [polymorphism] is how "it" [the context] becomes meaning. You should say communication is based on meaning rather than truth. Then the context is the transcendental. We understand contextually. The meaning is the only ultimate "truth" [again - "real" is a better understanding of this conceptual basis point]. And this meaning cannot be absolute (the absoluteness that the philosophers desired). Things change beyond our control. What was true [real] ten minutes ago is no longer true [real]. After all it is polymorphic (polymorphic means the solutions are manifold or harmonic). [Note, again, how "real" is a better basis for our discussion than "truth".]
Meaning comes from referencing of abstract classes (Archetypes) extended to our real memories (mental objects). The linking together of our thoughts (real memories - by polymorphism) into patterns, creates meaning. Patterns are meaning. Polymorphism creates the linkage that allows understanding as a conversation progresses. Words are linked to a chain of meaning from the polymorphic process. The polymorphic mind can "see" or "perceive" the relationships, held together by harmonics and polymorphic links in a closed system; just enough (perceived) to create meaning. What we see is also beyond simple one-on-one relationships. There are many relationships [needed for meaning] that are present in the real memory objects and in the many links between Archetypes.
The three stooges were afraid of defining things through something like meaning, instead of truth because there was no room for finality. But there is no finality. You cannot define anything absolutely and independently. Nothing is atomic and immutable. The meaning of everything is related to some context associated with it.
[This conscious thought process is linked to our surroundings through our most abstract class (the Shadow), which is the ultimate basis for all thought [Jung], and the base class of our compiler. I like to regard this [Shadow processes] as the "befo" which is pidgin, so this is a special before as we refer to the division of the mind for this special processing need. Then the conscious part of mind is the "afta". This shows their relationship in terms of timing of the action, rather than hierarchical or authoritative, neither of which is true; and leads to false assumptions about their relationship.]
This is the Context
The Context from the Conscious View + Buckets
The Conscious View of the Mind (with Buckets)
The Data Buckets at the Bottom are in the Shadow
(but you cannot "View" the buckets in the Shadow)
The Data Buckets are, in fact, Shadow Class Items
When symbolism is more important than reality - there are no real answers - just symbols.
Beautiful old Russian Orthodox chant
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xOiycw4UQGA
My first textbooks were for my algorithm course. I designed the course too, at Metro State. Later I wrote textbooks for other computer courses, at various schools, that were basically algorithms used to help learn the programming in those courses. Reverse Engineering the Universe was the beginning of my quest for the algorithms of the universe. The books that followed, as I naw recognize, were studies of algorithms in different areas.
Notice that in algorithm textbooks the pictures are part of or maybe most of the argument for what we are talking about on this page. Check out Mary Loomis texts as examples. She is the most accepted algorithm textbook writer. My algorithm texts were much more that way; the pictures where most, if not all, of the argument. Note that my textbooks were successful in teaching algorithms and programming in general.
So now I am writing about the algorithms of the universe (from some kind of reverse engineering) and the importance of the pictures, as part of the argument, is still there. It is sometimes paramount. Below are some examples of my algorithm books.
Reverse Engineering the Universe
Requiem de Mozart (with narration)
https://youtu.be/s3B3BBIaiF8
hashtag#harmonics hashtag#closedSystem hashtag#polymorphic hashtag#mind hashtag#ArtificialIntelligence hashtag#AI hashtag#truth hashtag#meaning hashtag#intelligentUniverse