reverse negative

22 03 2010

Had a very interesting end to virt3c, because one of the presenters roled out the peaches and the conversation went exponential. Woke up this morning with an observation stimulated by Stephan’s paper, the power of no in the consensus model. It has application in tai chi, more so aikido, tango, politics and a whole host of psycho-social dynamics.

When approaching a person directly, there is naturally an opposition, as the boundary of self is entered. So, even with the advent of a fully positive force, the return is an apparently negative one, to meet the attention, as it were. Think about it — what does happen when there is eye-contact…? You’ve seen small kids go through a period where they hide from direct eye-contact, and then the stronger self-conscious response as adolescent hormones and self-reflection emerges.

Relate this to an automatic response to being attacked. Now think of what aikido do. To actually invite the attack, to meet it, and then to yield to it.

Now add in the effect of someone introducing their point in opposition to what another is saying even though it is just another point as opposed to one which is actually in opposition: typical oppositional state. This is an interesting play, because someone says A, another person says not A and then follows with B. I often return a disagreement frame with agreement, that is acknowledge the truth of B and then iterate the truth of A in order to hold both simultaneously; that is A and B. Notice that the shift of A to B and back again is a shift from one reality to another. That is, the disagreement is effectively cutting the contract of engagement in the speaker’s reality in order to introduce the concept in their own. The disagreement is often not in terms of content, as it were, but in location.

For some reason, the term reverse negative came into my head to describe this. If someone introduced alternative B to A, this is a genuine engagement of mind, that is, another thought. If we adopt our non-dual comprehension of negative representing the mind’s capacity to image or project, then this additional concept is also in negative space, as we would expect. It might be nice to have this happen in the same reality that person who came up with A, when no boundary of ego is traversed, but however skillful a listener may be to introduce B, the speaker of A may introduce a distinction when they hear B; that is, they are the ones performing the reverse negative. So, if normal addition to a point is a normal negative, then the reverse negative is when the person supplies a new thought at the same time as changing the location of the thought.

Hm… I can’t seem to put my finger on it.

The confusion is in considering negative as thought-space. But once we strike out in that direction, and then jump around in thought space, we are taking turns in different directions relative to that thought, so it doesn’t matter if this is positive, negative or whatever. The application of negative to the origination of thought in the mind is a reasonable one, but it need not be an absolute mapping. Hence, we can think of someone thought A as being positive, it doesn’t matter. It is the introduction of opposition, by disagreement for example, that confuses us, since it gets pulled into the bipolar attractor of the mind’s propensity to think of opposites, especially with western teaching and society.

Another approach could be to map the oppositional states of a conversation. Instead of taking the opposite, we could introduce another dimension. So, a person says a thought A, and if someone represents a thought B in opposition, it is plotted in the negative direction in a new dimension, and in a positive direction if they present it as an additional concept. If one maps a reasonably significant discussion, where people return to certain points, a graph might well represent the aesthetic or conceptual ergonomics. One with a lot of negatives will characterise a type of conversation that is more academic or give rise to greater conflict, and one with positives will characterise an energistic rise. In fact, one may possess an escape trajectory, whereas the other maintains low orbit. Hmmm… this might even end up close to the mandelbrot set, in a way. There is a tendency for some groups to engage and things just go off into hyperspace of possibilities and love and niceness, and the other ends up in a lock-down, acceptance of opposition. The trick is to encourage confrontation without it either ending in lock-down, and to align without tending off to positive excesses.

Even if we could map this, what use would this have? Well… with all of XQ explorations, one is for the person, the other is for AI. Mapping conversations and then noticing patterns will highlight particular psycho-social dynamics, perhaps purely coded in language, that could guide programmers to produce algorithms that guide AI responses. That is, the right proportion of alignment and agreement, as opposed to disagreement; that elusive quality of timing. As for a normal human being, such investigation may enable a self-correction in terms of behaviour, not at the level of words, but why the words should modified in order to achieve specific objectives. That is, for happy-clappers to learn a little discipline to be able to confront, and for academics and politicians and scientists to learn a little more alignment.

The objective, as always, is a happy consensus, and ideally this is set for a global premier for 2020.

Oh, and this needs to be linked to Baye’s Theorem, and the influencing probabilities of false positive.

%d bloggers like this: