(The differences between)

Meaning and Thought

The following is a speculative investigation into the philosophical (or perhaps phylosophical) underpinnings of the Instrumentation ontology. Understanding this material is not necessary (or even possible, in some places, I suspect).

General Background

Meaning and thought (from the Creation layer of a glyph) are "Disjunctive Complements". They can exist separately in a virtual conceptual continuum, but they appear to inhabit contiguous solution spaces from a humanistic point of view.

Each Instrumentation glyph Layer is actually composed of four Disjunctive Complements. The passive types align along the "more or less control" axis while the active types align along the "stable or transitional" axis.

This illusory parallax results from the 'folding' of trigram context-space, from a non-orthogonal three-dimensional construct (a regular tetrahedron, where all 60 degree [omni-distributed] axis are isometric and each Type is equidistant from every other Type [within active or passive], except for its 'polar' opposite) into a polar two-dimensional glyph (to facilitate viewing, visualization and finger placement), as you can see in the diagrams below.

Alternate views of Creation layer

The four Creation layer Disjunctive Complements and their "inactive horizontal pair" values (where both 'Meaning' and 'Self' equal three) are:

Value	Pair	Axis	Realm
5	Meaning and thought	both more control (this is the strongest pair)	mental
4	Self and object	stable over transitional	existential
2	State and time	transitional over stable	consequential
1	Relation and number	both less control (this is the weakest pair)	experiential

The "active pairs" also appear to be "forced away from each other" in the glyph view, but this pseudo repulsion is really just an (optical) illusion caused by their non-euclidean two-dimensional 'shadows' from their non-rectilinear frame of reference (which would be the original '3D' tetrahedron within an "isometric vector matrix").

The Point (such as it is)

In general, the Disjunctive Complements have a profound influence on human ability to perceive the existence of their partners (in both directions), but the existence of human perception does not predicate a symmetric reflective relationship. A relationship between Thought and Meaning is only 'apparent' in light of human consciousness.

Time cannot be observed directly, but we infer its existence when we perceive successive changes in the States of things around us. Likewise, we would not be aware of the possibility of multiple States without Time passing. We require both to be present before we can discern the existence of either one. They, however, do not require us or each other in order to achieve validity or inhabit reality. This is tantamount to the difference between meaning and thought.

Prosaically, a tree falling in a forest will *always* make a sound. This is true even if no creature has ever evolved the ability to detect or interpret atmospheric pressure oscillations. This egocentric confusion as to the causality of coincidence and effect is the root of "Complementary Disjunction".

To complete this proof, I offer the following "thought experiment":

"Only a human would require an explanation of the above."

( Please achieve enlightenment now )

back to the home page.