Genetic Code and Gender

The traditional science and mathematics all rely on a priori knowledge. We call these sciences left side sciences. What interests us is the science on the other side of the epistemological brain – right side science. In this section we move from the One Many opposition to gender opposition. This is treated very simplistically here. However, the gender construct, so present in all the sciences of antiquity, is more profound and will be explored in greater depth later.

The author claims that the four letter generic code can be more fundamentally expressed in the binary terms of gender. This section gets as far as the start codon which starts to take on a familiar geometric meaning known in physics; Our story is starting to get very intriguing … and daring.

Introducing Elementary Gender

Left side reasoning relies on a linear, sequential, punctual form of rationality. This has become the standard and universally accepted form of reasoning in science and mathematics. Nowadays, few professionally educated people would countenance the possibility of a science based on a completely different form of reasoning. Indeed, if such a science were to be proposed, the common belief is that it would be characterised by the epitaphs fuzzy, woolly, bleeding heart, mystical, irrational and New Age. The author does propose an alternative form of reasoning which is quite “orthogonal” to left side reasoning and he intends to rebuff any such characterisations. He claims that ultimately, at its core new the science will be more rigorous that left side science. This is because the science will not rely on the vagaries of measurement, only the reason applied to reason.

So far we have illustrated elementary forms of right side reasoning by getting acquainted with thinking in terms of oppositions rather than just labelling things and then manipulating the resulting symbols. It is now time to step the reasoning up a rung. So, right side reasoning deals in wholes. The left side deals in fine detail. Let us now look at the semiotic square more closely. Our simple way of understanding the square is in the form of the One Multiple oppositions as figure 3

The alternative to left side reasoning is naturally called right side reasoning and it is inferred that this is the dominant form of rationality of right hemisphere biological brain function. However, linking the alternative form of rationality to the biological brain may be considered as an ambit claim at this stage of development. The veracity of the argument does not rely on such an association. However, the argument would gain such potency if this were to turn out to be the case, and for reasons that will become apparent with time, we will assume that the ambit claim is valid anyway. If we have to stick our neck out, then we may as well do it courageously.

The author has argued that traditional left side rationality is based on only one fundamental opposition, that between abstraction and the real. This naturally culminates in the “view from nowhere,” God’s eye view form of objectivity popularly called the Scientific Method. The Scientific Method excludes one-half of reality, the subject side, and only considers the half world of objects.

Right side rationality goes the other way. Rather than excluding the subject, the subject must be present at all times. It keeps both subject and object present at all times. However, the subject of the Scientific Method is only the impersonal subject, the formalisation of the view from nowhere. In addition to embracing the impersonal subject as partnered with the impersonal ‘objective” object, the right side demands that the personal subject also be present. This means that, instead of just being based on just one opposition like left side science, right side science needs a second opposition. The second opposition is orthogonal to the first and is intuitively formalised in the form of the semiotic square discussed earlier. The result is fascinating.

The right side presents two kinds of subject, the personal and impersonal and defines the real as that which coincides with the personal and the impersonal, the conjuncture between the classical science “view from nowhere” of the impersonal subject and the “my view” of the personal subject. This gives one “real” slot and three “non-real” slots that we refer to as imaginary. The real can only be properly known via its three imaginary partners. The front right lobe of the resulting square provides the slot for the conscious subject entity and there are three imaginary entities. This is yet another version of Jung’s One-plus-Three structure that can be discernable in all the important theological configurations. We have also seen an instance of it in Freud’s version of the semiotic square for the human psyche. Many more versions will become apparent as our incredible story unfolds.
So far, our gentle introduction to right side science has been a very intuitive and qualitative affair. On the left side of the classroom, the student has already been introduced to some elementary symbolic logic. It’s time to catch up. On the right side we can teach about symbols too, different kinds of symbols of course, and we don’t need as many as those that travel in the left lane.

Elementary Gender and its Simple Compounds

Figure 7 Semiotic square with the four generic types of structure in terms of elementary compound gender, MF, FF, FM and MM.

It is now time for the first introduction to the most fundamental and profound concept of right side science. It is a binary construct called gender. Gender has two sides to it, a masculine and a feminine side. Here, we only consider gender from an elementary point of view. After all, the students on the left side have only started learning about elementary symbolic logic. Later we will work towards a more fundamental understanding and will call it ontological gender. However, for the moment we are only going to consider it from a rather Pythagorean point of view, the point of view of cardinality

Side Note:

s will be discussed later, the fundamental approach to gender starts with the notion of the totally unqualified, completely lacking in any specificity whatsoever. Such an entity is defined as being of feminine gender. The entity of pure feminine gender possesses the attribute of being totally devoid of determined specificity. This attribute must be an entity in its own right. It will be considered to be of masculine gender. Thus, two entities with only one attribute between them. The feminine has an attribute. The masculine is that attribute. This is a very profound concept and takes some time to get one’s head around. It is for this reason we make the simplification of assimilating the gender dichotomy to the easily understood, simplistic One Many opposition. Unspecific cardinality is not an attribute, whilst the cardinality One is. The Many has the attribute of oneness, the One is that attribute. The feminine has, the masculine is.

Gender comes into play in the relationship between what can be considered a singularity and hence have cardinality One, and that which is not a singularity and hence has cardinality Many. The first kind of entity will be considered to be of masculine gender, the second of feminine gender. In introducing the cardinality interpretation, it must be stressed that we are not talking about absolute quantification. The cardinalities are relative. An entity is One, and hence masculine, relative to something which is not One and hence the feminine Many. A crude example would be a container and its content. The container would be One and hence masculine, relative to the Many contained by it, which would be feminine. However, relative to something else, the masculine container entity may be part of an ensemble, which would be feminine.

From now on, rather than talk about the One and the Many, we will talk about the masculine and the feminine. An entity that is of masculine gender will be labelled M and the feminine labelled F. A more correct statement would be to say that the entity of masculine gender can be used as the masculine label and the entity of feminine gender can be used as the feminine label. In this game labels are not only made of the same stuff they label, but they are what they label. I am my name. My name is I. We will not labour over this point, but it should be kept in mind that there is no arbitrary relationship between the signified and the signifier in this domain. Such arbitrariness is only permitted in the sciences of the left side.The interesting thing about right side science is that that’s it. Two symbols is all that you require to construct a code capable of describing and specifying any entity whatsoever in a rational universe. More complicated things than the elementary One and Many can be described by concatenations of M and F letters.

The first compound entities are made up of binary combinations of M and F. There are of course four of them and lead to the semiotic square shown in Figure 7.

The Four Letters of the Generic Code

Figure 7 shows the four possible generic structures that are necessary to describe and/or construct a coherently rational reality. Figure 8 provides a more iconic representation of the same thing. Like all of right side science, the idea is simple, simplifying but subtly profound.

When Figure 7 is looked at from a left side viewpoint, it leads to simplistic and misleading interpretations. A predicable response of left side reasoning would be to interpret the structures from a reductionist perspective as being atomic building block of nature.

Right side science must take the other interpretation and advocate a monism instead of the atomistic outlook. The monist interpretation is shown in Figure 8. Once again, we have a semiotic square representing a whole. It represents any whole. The whole can understood from a general, a particular, and a universal viewpoint. We have already investigated some examples. The overall entity is the singular self the only “real» entity. It can be understood in terms of its three “imaginary” qualifications, the general, particular and universal qualifications. These qualifications are not absolute but determined relative to each other.The Figure 9 also indicates an embryonic algebra. At the finest level, the qualifications are all in terms of gender, a relative typing system. The general corresponds to MF, the particular to FF, the universal to FM and the singular to MM. There is no need for external, traditional style empirical attributes.

The author has introduced a shorthand terminology where the four binary compound gender terms have been replaced by four single letters. It is at this point that it might appear that the author has lost his mind. Rather than invent his own lettering scheme, he has borrowed that of another general, universal, particular algebraic four-letter scheme for describing and organising singular entities. The four letters, of course, are A, U, G, and C used to denote the four bases of the genetic code. At this point, the reader can merely assume that any structural resemblances with the genetic code would be shear co-incidence.
Figure 8 Iconic representation of the four bases and compound binary gender.

The Start Codon

Left side science and left side thinking has obvious and well-known proven strengths. One role of this book is to point out some of its terrible failings and how a radically alternative right side science can remedy the situation. However, right side thinking also has its peculiar traits and limitations. Some have said that to work in this domain of Kant and Hegel, the first thing to go out the window is common sense. It certainly takes some getting used to. However, one of the uncanny aspects that are particularly hard to accommodate is the absence of scale. Even in our little examples with the semiotic square has brought this absence of scale to the fore. One minute we are looking at a semiotic square of how to get rich, and then it’s looking at the Cosmos as a whole, followed by the Freudian Psych and Parliamentary Democracy in the one breath. It seemed that we didn’t even have to change tablecloth. It was all done with the one semiotic square.

The semiotic square representing the whole provided a common rational ground, a common launching pad for the analysis. The structure of the common launching pad can be sketched out as shown in the semiotic square shown below. The square represents a generic whole and illustrates that any whole can simultaneously be looked at from a general, a particular, a universal and a singular viewpoint. The square does not represent a spectacle. That would be a left side way of interpreting the representation, the spectacle without spectator, the object without subject. Right side reasoning demands that the subject is always present
Relative to the one spectator, there is only one spectacle. In the One-plus-Three structure, the spectator, the subject is the One. The One is the real part. The “three” is composed of the three relative attributes. That forms the imaginary part, the subjective part. Time and time again, example after practical example yields the same result. Three attributes labelled A, U, G form the ground attributes for the whole. This applies to religions like the Christian Trinity as Carl Jung consistently observed – AUG, the general, particular and universal aspects of the whole. It applies to Freud’s Ego, Id and Super Ego triad making up the human Self. Readers can construct their own versions of this semiotic launching pad for analysing their favourite wholes. Each time the iniquitous three modes A, U, G keeps raising its head.

Here, we have the embryonic beginnings of a code, a code for coding anything whatsoever, as long as it forms a holistic aspect of a holistic rational system.Finally, we turn for Nature’s code for any singular animate subject, the generic code. In genetics, the three bases AUG form the start codon that, on amessenger RNA molecule, marks where protein synthesis begins. In positions other than at the start, the AUG codon codes an amino acid just like other codons. AUG in this case will code methionine, but the biochemistry is not of central interest as it is purely the implementation technology and does little to explain genetic code semantics. Only semiotic structure can do that.

A central plank of right side science is that it is not limited to scale, it is also unlimited by application domain. Generic structure is generic structure no matter what the problem domain and what the implementation substrate… The illustrative semiotic analysis cases considered so far do not prove this assertion. The rationalisation comes from overall systemic coherency of reality in its ensemble, something that we have barely touched on so far.

In order to get some kind of handle of the role of AUG as the start codon in the generic code, we should try to look at other problem domains. Anyone with some background in physics would find that the semiotic diagram in Figure 7 looks a bit familiar. The cone of arrows for MF is evocative. Could this be interpreted as a cone of time-like arrows used in the customary explanation of relativistic space-time? In addition, the arrows in the FM cone, are they space-like lines? In addition, what about the bundle of parallel lines? Are these optical lines? Maybe such an interpretation may lead to a deeper understanding of something here.

The author has been privately carrying out semiotic analysis exercises over the past twenty years or more, both in his profession and in philosophical and linguistic interests. He has carried over a thousand such analyses. His basic conclusion is that there is a common language that is generic spanning across the board of the semiotic right side world of reasoning. Later, we will come back to the cones and lines illustrated in Figure 7 and add some life into them.

Figure 10 One interpretation of the semiotic square is that of four generic types, the general, particular, universal and singular.. The types can be designated by four letters. The four letter A,U,G, and C habe been chosen as shorthand for Mf, FF, FM and MM respectively.

Key Phrases: semiotics of gender, ontological gender, gender and sex, Semiotic square, genetic code, generic code, DNA, start codon, left right hemispheres, the divided brain, epistemology, anti-mathematics, masculine, feminine, gender differentiation, Generic Science, Semiotic structure

Parmenides, Ontology and the Stoics

There are two takes on reality, two kinds of knowledge, two kinds of science. In this work the traditional sciences, traditional knowledge we call left side. This kind of knowledge relies on a priori knowledge. Right side knowledge is unconditioned by any a priori and must be developed using pure reason alone. The two kinds of knowledge sit on opposite sides of a great divide. A deep understanding requires a deep understanding of this great divide. The ancients had their say on the matter. Consider, for example Parmenides who came after Heraclitus but before Empedocles.

Parmenides

Parmenides was one of the first to put forward a clear view of the structure of reality from a reasoned perspective. The philosophy of Being, ontology, starts with him. His poem, On Nature, recounts the epic voyage of the young man on his quest for knowledge.

The tone is dramatic and urgent. Despite only disparate fragments of the text remaining, one can almost hear the pounding hooves and see the sparks flying as the wise chariot steeds gallop at a furious pace through the black darkness on the renowned way of the Goddess. Streaking towards where Dark meets Day, maidens show the way. There is no room for dilly-dallying here. This is not the time for fine-spun arguments. It is time to confront the truth. The goddess, with her own hands unerringly conducts this man who knows through things. Wheels swirling, the chariot axle glows red in the socket and gives forth the sound of a pipe as they approach the gates. The daughters of the Sun hasting to convey him to the light, take back their veils. Having arrived at the gates of the ways of Night and Day, after much persuasion they pass through the gates. The young man is greeted kindly by the goddess. She welcomes him to her abode, far from the beaten tracks of mortal men.

She invites him to have an open and critical mind, to learn all things, but above all the unshaken heart of persuasive truth. There are two takes on reality. On the one side there is that taken by mortal men as they blindly stumble about in a world of opinions. On the other hand, away from the world of fickle beliefs, there is another world that harbours unshakable truth, a world where reason holds sway. At the epicentre of this world of reason is the simple truth that there are two possibilities. The goddess declares:

“The first, namely, that It is, and that it is impossible for anything not to be. This is the way of conviction.”

She then recounts the other possibility:

“The other, namely, that It is not, and that something must needs not be.” She then explains, “That, I tell thee, is a wholly untrustworthy path. For you cannot know what is not – that is impossible – nor utter it.”

The Parmenidean Paradigm

An epic journey is always a good ploy to get the reader into the right frame of mind. Excuse the pun. Parmenides’ allegory like any allegory can be read in many ways. One could see the tale as taking place on two levels, a logical foreground a gender background. The background imagery displays the feminine in all its plurality, culminating in the abode of the goddess. There the ethereal feminine welcomes the singular masculine, he who knows through things. However, he is but a youth still in quest of knowledge. Nevertheless, he knows he has been conducted here for a purpose.

Across the unsaid background tapestry, spreads the ephemeral abode of goddess and teaming maidens. It is far from the world of mortals and untainted by their bumbling subjectivity. This is the pure feminine, so pure that it is totally devoid of attribute. It is completely unknowable. She is not even real. The goddess, the feminine incarnate, explains that “you cannot know what is not.” You can only know what is. It looks as if the goddess has negated herself out of existence.

This is Ground Zero of rationality. Many thinkers have come here over the ages, each making their own interpretation. Parmenides paints his picture in great clarity. On one side, we have the land of mortals enmeshed in opinions. On the other side is the immortal land of Truth. This other side is what we have been referring to as the right side take on reality. It is in this domain that Parmenides must construct his version of monism philosophy. He must explain Oneness. Like all who have toiled in this domain, he must tackle the dialectic of the One and its other. His reasoning is stark, even brutal: The One is, the Other is not.

As we have seen in previous sections, right side reasoning is expressed in oppositions and oppositions applied to oppositions, a dialectical, semiotic form of thinking. Left side reasoning starts from given preconditions such as opinions, traditions, rumours, gossip, innuendos, measurements, experiences, sensations, axioms, stabs in the dark, fabulation, and sometimes wicked self-serving deception, just as the good goddess explained: This is the natural lot of mortals. Right side reasoning has no preconditions. It must start from the primary opposition. It is here that we find the primordial form of Ground Zero. The task for the philosopher, the ontological scientist, is to provide an explanation of Ground Zero in terms of the primary opposition. The understanding of this primary opposition varies, depending on the thinker. In the case of Parmenides, his position can be summarised as follows.

  • What is the primal entity?
    Answer: It.
  • What is its specificity?
    Answer: It is.
  • What is the primary opposition?
    Answer: The opposition between what is and what is not.
  • What exists?
    Answer: Only what is exists, what is not does not and cannot exist.
    Comment: What is determines the knowable. Even more strongly, it determines the known. The deep essence of It is known. It is, end of story. What is not determines the inherently unknowable. The totally unknowable is tantamount to not existing.
  • Where is the origin of the primal entity located, i.e., where is Ground Zero?
    Answer: In the eternal present.

The above five points do not cover the complete ontological paradigm of Parmenides. Like any ontologist worth his salt, Parmenides must provide the enveloping rationale for why the above points are necessary.

David Furley has honed in on a passage from the narration that attempts to explain the noyau of the argument, the raison d’être of It:

The last section of the Way of Truth is particularly difficult. Parmenides repeats his assertion that there is no not-being and there are no different degrees of being; what exists is equal to itself everywhere and reaches its limits everywhere. From this he concludes that it is “perfect from every angle, equally matched from the middle in every way, like the mass of a well-rounded ball” (Furley)

We see here Parmenides’ attempt to explain First Classness, the central, all enveloping characteristic of rational reality. A world satisfying First Classness must be totally unconstrained in every way, the ultimate in perfection. It is here that resides the great challenge to ontology. This is the task confronting us. We have to understand such a world that is totally unconstrained with no one behind the scenes pulling strings, and no king pin calling the tune wether seated on high, low, in the middle, in or out of reality.

If there were to be hidden forces at work behind the scene, then a fundamental science of reality would be impossible. On the other hand however, if reality is left free to be dominated by the draconian requirement of the totally unconstrained system, then indeed it must be exactly that, a totally unconstrained system (the only constraint allowed) The iron laws of First Classness(FC) spring in to play, the laws of ontological fair play organise fair play. In this great riddle, there is only one answer and, as the goddess said, only one “unshaken heart of persuasive truth.”

Reconciling the coming into being, the genesis of reality, with FC is not easy. The very notion of a determined beginning violates FC as this privileges the starting point entity from all others. FC does not allow privileged entities and there is nothing more privileged than coming first. Parmenides resolved that violation by saying that an entity at the beginning does not exist, as it no longer is. He then argued that it never could have existed, finally ending up with the formula of the only thing real is the eternal present and nothing changes.

It is interesting to look at how the Stoics resolved the problem, as they too adopted a doctrine based on FC. For the Stoics, the only immortal was Zeus. They were pantheists so the universe was the body of Zeus. The body changes, is born and dies away in the conflagration but Zeus stays immortal throughout the process. The universe had a beginning and eventually ended up in the conflagration. In this more complex scenario, avoiding the violation of FC becomes more difficult. The beginning and the end of the Cosmos in the conflagration become privileged moments, one preceding all that will exists and one succeeding, thus violating FC. The Stoic solution was that time was circular with the whole story exactly repeating itself the next time around. In this way there are no privileged points in time and FC is not violated. This Eternal Return solution retained many aspects of the Parmenidean solution. Bodies in the past did not exist, nor did those in the future. The only bodies that exist are those in the present. By eternal repetition of the cycle, nothing really changed and no state of being was irreconcilably privileged over any other. FC was respected.

Parmenides’ allegory of the young man streaking across the heavens waved on by the veiled daughters of the Night, heading straight for the abode of the goddess evokes the image of a spermatozoid streaking to a rendezvous with the unfertilised egg. However Parmenides’ does not allow the union to be consummated.

There will be no masculine principle uniting with the feminine principle in this scenario, despite the atmospherics being full of it. The closest we get to any explicit such union is at the level of logic: one proposition in the affirmative and the other in the negative and never the two shall meets. Parmenides pitched his paradigm at the loftiest level and really could not embrace any explicit masculine feminine union as this would imply an explicit beginning and so violate FC. For a work around for this conundrum, we have to wait for Empedocles.

In the meantime we understand that there are two ways of understanding reality, one is the Way of Truth and the other is the Way of Opinion. For Parmenides, the only repository of truth was in the One, a pureness of eternal, ungenerated Oneness. It is that unique Being that “neither was nor will be, because it is in its wholeness now, and only now.” In truth only the One is.

For Parmenides “The only true reality is Eōn—pure, eternal, immutable, and indestructible Being, without any other qualification. Its characterizations can be only negative, expressions of exclusions, with no pretence of attributing some special quality to the reality of which one speaks” (Calogero, 2010) As for the Way of Opinion, this is the world of appearances, a misleading world of falsehood. It is this Being and only this Being that truly, objectively is. All else is illusory.

Parmenides provided a vivid image of how the very deepest reality could be comprehended. This image in useful to carry forward in one’s mind in the development to follow.

Ontological Calculus of Empedocles to the Stoics

This is not a scholarly work. In writing about Empedocles and the Stoics, for example, we imply that this is the way they thought and expressed their ideas. Clearly this is not the case. Rather than being scholarly, our approach is to fundamentally reverse engineer ancient thinkers’ concepts. As a consequence what we write is often more of what the ancients could have thought, and sometimes what they should have thought, if they remained true to their doctrines.

Keeping this in mind, we will now repeat the summary of Parmenides doctrine and adapt it to the next phase in the development of ancient physics. In order to develop the theory of the Four Elements, the initial structure of Parmenides must be pushed to the next stage. What follows is a brief summary of this next step, as seen from a modern perspective. The key idea is what we call ontological gender. It is this structure that explains how the fundamental starting point for our unifying science. The ancients got there first, but there is some cleaning up to do.

We have already considered these concepts in earlier sections, but here is yet another angle.

The Gender Paradigm

  • What is the primal entity?
    Answer: Any entity whatsoever.
  • What is its specificity?
    Answer: Entity has the attribute of absolute non-specificity.
    Comment: This attribute, that of absolute non-specificity, is an entity in its own right, in accordance with First Classness.
  • What is the primary opposition?
    Answer: The opposition between what has the attribute and what is the attribute.
    Comment: The entity that has the attribute determines feminine gender, the entity that is the attribute determines masculine gender. This is the definition of ontological gender. These two entities are different by gender but indistinguishable.
  • What exists?
    Answer: Only what is exists.
    Comment: This follows Parmenides but adds some detail: Only what It, that entity of pure masculine gender, fundamentally exists. The pure feminine entity has something (the attribute of total non-specificity) but when it comes to whether it is, clearly it is not. Having something differs from being something. However, the pure feminine entity, although different, is indistinguishable from the pure masculine. Parmenides glossed over that point.
  • Where is the origin of the primal entity located, i.e., where is Ground Zero?
    Answer: The location is that determined by the primal entity.
    Comment: The whole Cosmos gyrates around this location. Thus, Ground Zero can be thought of as any location whatsoever.

This summary has added in some innovations that don’r belong to the ancients. However, it is in keeping with a strictly generic approach that the Stoics were pioneering.. The summary represents where they were heading more than where they were at.

Traditional sciences, what we call left side sciences, express all knowledge in terms of attributes of things. This is quite reasonable because it is impossible to directly know the thing that has the attribute. The knowledge of things is always indirectly achieved via attributes of things. Note also that in pure left side science, an attribute is not a proper thing as it is in pure right side science.

In our work we are endeavouring to develop the right side science that does not rely on any preconditions whatsoever. Harvesting attributes as a precondition for theorising is a fundamental left science activity, but not so for right side science. Thus, all the empirical attributes that abound in left side sciences are forbidden on the right side. If right side science is to have any attributes then it has to reason them into existence, not measure them. This reasoning process leads to the attribute par excellence, that of masculine gender.

Then comes the incredible aspect of right side science. This is the only attribute we need! All other attributes can be constructed from it or with it. We enter into the web of gender intrigue. The only guiding principle at our disposal is that of FC. FC demands that an attribute must be capable of being considered as an entity in its own right: In this context it becomes the masculine qua feminine MF. What is good for the gander is also good for the goose. The feminine entity must also enjoy the possibility of being considered as an attribute in its own right: It becomes the feminine qua masculine FM. Here we are starting to get compound gendered entities, depending on roleplaying. The other two combinations are the pure gendered entities qua themselves, notably the masculine qua masculine MM and the feminine qua feminine FF.

In the process we have advanced from the primordial Parmenides paradigm through to the Doctrine of the Four Roots of Empedocles and later developed into the four-element doctrine of the Stoics.

There are four elements that have mixed gender MF, FF, FM, and MM entities, corresponding respectively to expansive air, water, converging water and fire.

These binary terms can be thought of as noun adjective pairs where F and M can play the role of noun or adjective, depending on their position in the pair. These terms are the elementary terms of the generic code. The genetic code is the biological instance of the generic code where the four letters, using RNA notation, are A, U, G and C respectively.

As a side note, it is interesting to look for traces of generic structure in natural languages. English, because of its huge vocabulary and penchant for labelling things does not offer fertile ground. However, French is a good place to look as it retains a strong version of gender typing. In fact it is rather pure in this regard as it even allocates gender to the names of countries. Ignoring gender constructs though and just considers the noun adjective example:

   une histoire vraie

which means a true story. Reversing the noun adjective order gives

   une vraie histoire

which means a made up story, providing a certain kind of negation of the first construct.

In the generic code, reversing MF to give FM produces an even more dramatic kind of negation, as will be seen. MF and FM, or air and water in the old book, are really like chalk and cheese.

D. J. H. Moore

Epicureans, Stoics and the Code


In this Post: Even featuring the Tea Party!
The history of philosophy is constantly punctuated with battles between two practically orthogonal ways of thinking. A case of this philosophical dichotomy that was particularly well thought and well fought was that between the Epicureans and the Stoics. This ancient joust of ideas is quite pertinent today. Epicureanism, with its atomism, dualism and extreme nominalism, can be taken as a roughhewn template of the thinking of the modern sciences. Charles Sanders Peirce remarked on this opposition between the Epicureans and the Stoics and noted “Epicureanism was a doctrine extremely like that of John Stuart Mill.” In the twentieth century, English philosophers like Bertrand Russell and Peter Frederick Strawson took up the relay. Judging by the obituaries, Strawson would have to go down as a very successful Epicurean as he was noted for leading a remarkably pleasant and happy life in step with an equally pleasant style of philosophy
Continue reading “Epicureans, Stoics and the Code”

Semiotic Structure of the Four World Religions

The previous post outlined the overall structure of the world religions with the diagram shown above (Figure 3)  This structure can be studied in more detail.

The Theological Square of Squares

The theological semiotic square provides a way of understanding the four world religions and how they relate to each other. Every religion has its own semiotic square and so there are semiotic squares “within” the semiotic square. Take Hinduism for example. The One in the One-is-One doctrine is the Brahman, the impersonal god that cannot be worshipped directly. The Brahman can be comprehended in the form of a triad of personal gods consisting of Shiva, Vishnu, and Brahma. This leads to the semiotic square in Figure where Vishnu occupies the same front top slot as did the Christ god and Shiva occupying the same back left slot as Allah. Brahma, who is rarely worshiped takes up the Buddhist slot. Theologians warn that this is an error. The Christ god and Vishnu are quite different as are Shiva and Allah.

The semiotic structure shown in Figure 3 corresponds to a very unconditioned reality, Figure 4 shows four semiotic squares, one for each entry in the first semiotic square. Each such entry corresponds to a qualifying context for the four more qualified structures. Each of these four semiotic squares corresponds to a whole and should be comprehended in isolation as they are mutually exclusive. You can’t be a Christian and a Muslim in the same instant. Each semiotic square is shown with a small accompanying square representing the qualifying context.

With experience with these structures, further reading of the material presented here, practice and some guidance from an instructor, the student should be able to start providing detailed explanations concerning the mythical beliefs and imagery surrounding theological structures. For example, why is Vishnu and his reincarnations such as Krishna all dark skinned and Shiva vivid white? Why does Vishnu have reincarnations and Shiva none? Why does the Christian god have an offspring and Allah none? The Koran in the Islamic trinity is divine substance. The book transcribed by Mohamed is a combination of symbols that only approximate divine substance. Expand. Last of all, why are the principle deities featuring in major religions all male?
Any well versed theology or divinity student should be able to provide some kind of reasonable response to these questions. It is hoped that the material provided by the author will expand the horizons somewhat. The author also hopes that the layman, together with the theoretical physicist might also profit from the experience.
Figure 4 The godhead of each of the four world religions.

Shankara’s Quintuple Dosage

Taken together with the unqualified semiotic square in Figure 3, the overall structure feature a configuration of five squares. Back in medieval times, The Indian Shankara put forward a non-theological version of this structure in his Theory of the Quintuple Dosage based on a theory of five intertwining elements. As a matter of passing interest the diagram can be found in the author’s previous book (Moore, 1992) and elsewhere.

The Real and the Imaginary

In the previous section, we have started exploring elementary cognitive or generic structures and their interplay with reality. The theological semiotic square has provided a way of understanding a holistic view of reality and that are four fundamental “takes” on reality. These four worldview paradigms are mirrored in the four world religions.

Science without subject

In present day scientific circles, it is generally thought that there is only one kind of science worthy of the name. These are the traditional empirical based sciences that we have been referring to as left side sciences. Left side sciences are considered as objective as they study objects under controlled conditions that remove any possible subjective factors. As such, left side science specialises in the domain of objects where any reference or involvement of the subject has been eliminated. The operational paradigm here is science without subject. Such sciences end up in a single opposition between two different kinds of object. The objects involved are the real object and the imaginary object. Left side science is dominated by a duality between the real and the imaginary.
The duality between the real and the imaginary runs right throughout the science and appears in many different and sometimes surprising guises. In the first instance, it appears as the dichotomy between the object of a science and the theory of that object. The object is considered as belonging to the real whilst the theory belongs to abstraction and hence is imaginary. This primary opposition resurfaces in Analytic Philosophy in another guise as the Mind Body problem.
Classical physics provides the most dramatic expression of the Real Imaginary duality. According to the classical physics doctrine, all entities have properties. In physical reality, only entities are deemed to exist, whilst properties, not being entities, are deemed not to exist, In other words, entities are real whilst their properties are imaginary. This is an amazing situation as the only way that classical physics can get to know the real component of reality, the entities, is via perceiving and measuring the attribute. Real world entities can only be known via their imaginary component. This is left side science at its purest and most intriguing. Not only does the science lack a subject, it has to content with a second rate access to real objects. The whole system bathes in the imaginary. There might be two halves to the world, but we can never know more than one half, the imaginary half.

Science with Subject

The opposing paradigm to the Science without Subject doctrine leads naturally to Science with Subject. This is where we find right side science; the paradigm that insists that Subject must be present with Object at all times, and treated on equal terms. It is at this point, right at the beginning of the presentation, that we see the essential difference emerging between left and right side reasoning. The left side cuts the world into imaginary and real chunks, and only retains the chunk that it feels it can know, the imaginary. This left brained beast can only know what it feels. This creature lives in a half world that keeps on fracturing into finer and yet finer distinctions.
Contrary to the fractured atomistic half worldview of the left side, right side science specialises in always seeing the world in the form of wholes. The wholes are reminiscent of Leibnitz’s monads “without windows.” Each offers a holistic view of the universe. Both the left and right side paradigms agree that their world is split into two, the imaginary on the left, and the real on the right. This is where the two paradigms part ways and enter into two different worlds. The left side takes refuge in the left side, satisfied with the half world of abstraction. The right side paradigm must also make its home on the right side. However, unlike its tunnel vision sibling, it is conscious of a bigger world and its domain of influence extends over the whole world. It is even conscious of its sibling and acknowledges left side deftness in dealings requiring finer, crystalline aspects of reality. On the other hand, the left side is prone to believe that it is an only child, and often behaves accordingly. This is particularly notable for left side science.
The critical step to obtaining a holistic view is to introduce a second cut, orthogonal to the first. The first cut determined the dichotomy between impersonal subject on the right and its corresponding object on the left. The second cut determines the personal subject at the front and its corresponding object at the back. Instead of two takes on reality, the paradigm provides four takes. We have returned to the semiotic square structure. Just as for the left side, the concept of the real and the imaginary emerge. This time the real becomes associated, not with the impersonal subject, but with the confluence of the impersonal subject with the personal. This corresponds to the front, right hand corner of the semiotic square. Now, the left side paradigm declares that the real can only be known via the imaginary side, via attributes, abstract theory and so forth. The right side paradigm has its own take on this matter.
The real world is no longer that thing out there seen from the God’s eye view from nowhere. The real becomes relativised to the personal subject. The real becomes the identity of the personal subject with its reality, the impersonal subject. This becomes an expression of Shankara’s principle of non-duality expressing the formula the One is One. The impersonal reality and the reality of the personal become indistinguishable. This is real, all else is illusion, Shankara’s Advaita Vedanta declared. For consistency, we prefer the term imaginary rather than illusion.

Then suddenly, we hit the goldmine. Left side, after cutting itself off from the real has to content itself with knowing the real via empirical attributes flowing from god know where and what. The right side paradigm does not need to go out there rummaging through the dustbin for leftover  attributes in order to understand the real. The right side already has three attributes in immediate possession. This can be seen from the semiotic square produced by the two fundamental oppositions. Relative to the personal, real subject in the front right hand side of the square, there are three other boxes left over that provide an opportunity to get to know the allusive One is One entity. These three boxes can be thought of as three attributes of the real. They can also be thought of as imaginary. Thus, in summary, left side knowledge exhibits essentially a one kind of fundamental dichotomy, that between Body and Mind, the real and the imaginary, the concrete and the abstract. Knowledge of Body, the real, the concrete is via empirical attributes. One the other hand, right side knowledge exhibits a fourfold structure where the real appears as relative to the subject and there are three a priori generic attributes, applicable to any determined subject.
The generic structure thus involves the real entity with three imaginary entities. This four-fold structure we interpret as the epistemological brain. In a moment of foolhardiness, we also interpret the biological brain to be organised along these same generic principles. Moreover, the right side of this structure is capable of comprehending the whole structure in these terms. The left side is anchored in an atomistic view of reality and is incapable of such an overview. The left side, be it epistemological or biological, by its very nature cannot be conscious of the whole.

Real and Imaginary Numbers

Many years ago, the author’s first glimmer of understanding came from some quite elementary mathematics. The details can be found in the Appendix. Very briefly, it concerns the nature of number. Students are taught that there are two kinds of number, real numbers and imaginary numbers. Imaginary numbers are necessary in order to provide a tractable number for the square root of negative numbers. Numbers made up of a real and an imaginary part are called complex numbers. Most students, even engineers and scientists, go through their studies only knowing about complex numbers and that there is only one kind of imaginary number. This is left side mathematics at work.

In a later post, the right side slant will be presented, free of any metaphysics. In this case, you get hyper-complex numberswith one real and three kinds of imaginary number. 

Both the left side and the right side version of real and imaginary numbers should be included in a balanced education.

Key Phrases: Semiotic square, genetic code, generic code, DNA, start codon, left right hemispheres, the divided brain, epistemology, anti-mathematics, masculine, feminine, gender differentiation,  Generic Science, Semiotic structure

Science is a Belief System

I’m talking about left and right hemispheres. Sometimes it’s not sure whether I’m talking about the biological brain, the mind, or the epistemological divide between the empirical sciences and the “other” way of thinking. I’ve given up making the distinction. I’d rather be hung for a tiger than a sheep.  Well, the whole Cosmos is split into left and right sides and the cleavage line goes right down the middle of the author’s skull.  I must point out that the same situation applies to you as well. No one is spared in being chopped in half. In the post after this one, we see that even God is split in two.
Traditional Sciences form a Belief System
The left hemisphere bathes in abstract reality. This great bubble of floating rationality works from propositions, which have truth-values. As such, each proposition expresses a belief. The left side subject believes in propositions, which have ‘true’ truth-values, and disbelieves propositions, which are deemed to have false truth-values. A considerable source of angst for the left hemisphere is figuring out what propositions to believe in and which to disbelieve. The source of angst comes from the fact that the whole rational apparatus is suspended mid-air in a world of abstraction. This abstract bubble of rationality has no logically expressible relationship to the non-abstract world, whatever that might be. Like Descartes contemplating his own thinking, this miserable isolated left hemisphere eventually arrives at its core belief: it is true that I exist because I’m thinking about it. Of course, this Cartesian proposition is only a belief. Like all the uni-directional propositions that populate the left hemisphere, by its very uni-directional nature the proposition has a truth-value which only may be true and equally may be false. The only critical faculty available to left side reasoning is the demand for internal logical coherence of its belief system.

The end result is that left side thinking can be very sharp for detecting the most subtle logical irregularities, contradictions and variances from the current prevailing belief system. This is the strong point of left side reasoning. The weak point is that the resulting belief system can creep so far away from common sense that it becomes quite whacky, fundamentalist religious belief system and political belief systems can even become very dangerous and destructive. Modern sciences, exploiting the analytical clarity of left side, try to avoid creeping into insanity by peer review and attempting informal common sense interpretations of empirical data.

The corpus of knowledge making up present day sciences makes up a gigantic belief system. Karl Popper cottoned on to this fact by providing his well-known criterion for a belief system. A belief system is one where no proposition in the system is absolutely and definitively true. For Popper, a belief system was one where every proposition that is provisionally true but may be “falsifiable”. For this to be possible, all propositions must enjoy the rational status of possessing a truth value: hence, providing the possibility of being either true or false.

Karl Popper effectively declared that modern science, according to his falsifiability criterion, was fundamentally a belief system. He then went on to use the criterion in the reverse sense: If any pretender to scientific knowledge was not a belief system then it was “unscientific.”

For traditional science, the minimal requirement for an assertion be acceptable as scientific is that it be either believable or unbelievable. This requires that the assertion can be stated as a proposition possessing a truth value thus allowing a believable object of belief (true truth-value) or disbelief (false truth-value). Left side science is intimately wedded to a certain brand of logic which assumes the Law of the Excluded Middle. There is no middle way. Propositions are believed either true or false, in science. There is no “cannot be determined” or “not applicable here” clause in the logic of the empirical sciences. If a proposition should indeed offer such “third option” possibilities then it cannot be an object of belief or disbelief and so would not be accepted as being potentially scientific. The validity of an empirical science proposition must be black or white, there are no greys.
Traditional science is based on abstraction. A fundamental characteristic of abstract reasoning is that it does not demand that objects exist or not. This is seen as its power. A favourite topic for abstract reasoning is the proposition “God exists.” Is the proposition true or false? The same question can be asked about unicorns and gravitons. Do they exist? According to the Law of the Excluded Middle, the answer must be true or false. The basic assumption of abstract reasoning is that existence is an attribute. Something existing or not existing is like something having mass or being massless. Existence is a mere attribute that some things have at a particular point in time. Unicorns will never have existence because they are fictional. Unicorns do not exist and never will exist. Socrates also does not exist, but for a different reason: he is dead. The Judeo-Christian god is an entity which possesses this existence attribute. God exists. In the form of his son, he even once existed in the flesh. What is more, he can return in the flesh at any time. The Judeo-Christian god is distinct from any other god by its existence attribute. Grace to this attribute, the citizen is faced with a stark choice.  The citizen, being an abstract thinker, must respect the Law of the Excluded Middle. He can believe that god exists and so enter into the communion of believers. Alternatively, he can believe the contrary: God does not exist, he declares. He thus enters into the club of the Atheists. Theist or atheist? That is the question. It is in this way that the god fearing believer and the god hating atheist join hands in a common goal. They are all people that believe that the god question is a reasonable question with a clear and precise answer. They are all creatures driven by belief. Of course there might be a third option, that of the agnostic. However, the agnostic must climb to even more illustrious heights and start musing over whether the Law of the Excluded Middle is valid or not, and why.

Not all people are creatures of belief. This is the case for Allah and the Hindu gods. In the case of the secular Islamic world, for example, there are no atheists as there are in the secular Judeo-Christian world. No one, not even the most devout Muslim, believes in Allah and so no one can disbelieve in Allah. Allah is not an object of belief as Allah is beyond the true and the false. With Allah belief is inconsequential, what matters is faith. Allah is determined by the faith of the individual. If you hold such faith then Allah is your god. If you are secular, not only do you have no god, you have no concept of god. There is no debate. There cannot be any debate between the faithful and the infidel, just a different state of being based on faith or the lack of it. The difference between belief and faith can be difficult for Westerners to comprehend.

There is a big difference between belief and faith. For example, someone can believe in fairies but it is difficult to imagine having faith in fairies. In Christianity, belief comes first and faith second. It is quite possible for a Christian to have a crisis in faith and even lose the faith. Nevertheless, the Christian will still believe in God.

The Christian god is qualifiable by a proposition that satisfies the Law of the Excluded Middle. The proposition “God exists” thus can be considered as a scientific hypothesis. This is where Popper steps in and adds an extra requirement for a proposition to be acceptable as a scientific hypothesis, the proposition must be falsifiable. The general consensus amongst both Judeo-Christian theists and atheists alike is that the proposition “God exists” is not falsifiable. There is no scientific experiment that could possibly refute the proposition. Thus, by Popper’s criterion, the question of whether god exists or not cannot be covered by science. Once again, the theists and atheists usually concur on this conclusion, something which underlines the unanimity of theists and atheists in Judeo-Christian culture. Theists and atheists mutually agree on everything except the particular truth value of a proposition.

However, things aren’t as simple as that. Some atheists have felt threatened by theists who have started to pedal a fundamentalist view of creation. To restore the balance against the inroads that the Creationists are having into the education system, the atheists have resurrected some nineteenth century science to act as an alternative beacon of inspiration for our youth. They call this alternative to Creationism, Darwinism. The atheists peddle the Darwinist message that every human being on this planet is the end result of a long series of random genetic mutations leading to what we are today. By selling Darwin tee shirts over the web and promoting this inspirational message across the media, the atheists hope to win the day.

The battle between the Creationists and the New Darwinists seems to be essentially peculiar to the US. What is of concern in this section is the scientific status of Darwin’s Theory of Evolution. Firstly, one should note that the basic epistemological basis of the Theory of Evolution was due to the Epicureans of ancient Greek and so preceded Darwin by several thousand years. Despite a similarity of their world scientific outlook, the Epicureans differed from the New Darwinians by their views on how to enjoy life. The New Darwinian advocates getting meaningful pleasure out of life by getting excited about new pictures posted on the Hubble telescope web-site. The Epicureans took a different tack. Rather than pleasure being a mere by-product of certain kinds of scientific pursuit, they turned the pursuit of pleasure into the central object of science itself. They argued that one of the worst obstacles to leading a happy pleasurable life was fear of the gods. This lead to the Epicureans taking the theological position that the gods were distant from humans and totally uninterested in human affairs. Of particular interest was their scientific outlook. The Epicureans, although not empirically minded, held a similar philosophical outlook to traditional sciences. They were strict materialists, atomists and determinists. The whole world was in the vice of a strict determinism of cause and effect. But, like modern physics, there was an exception to this draconian determinism. Epicure called it the Swerve. Atoms moved and interacted with each other in a totally deterministic way but every now and then an atom would execute an imperceptible, totally random “swerve”. Epicure exploited this notion to develop his Swerve Theory of the universe. At the beginning of the cosmic cycle, the world is non-structured: All atoms were falling down in straight vertical lines, according to Epicure. After an immensely long time, because of the accumulated random swerves of the otherwise deterministic atoms, the universe micro swerved into the way it is today,

Amazingly, this picture is no different in principle to that of modern science. The random beginnings were a bit different but the micro swerving into the world of today is the same belief. Since Epicure’s time Swerve Theory has come a long way. The random swerves of atoms has been confirmed and even quantified. Nowadays the Epicurean Swerve Theory is known as Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle and is explained in the Wave Equation.

Swerve Theory has been applied to the biological realm where it manifests itself as genetic mutations. Just as collections of atoms micro-swerved to produce the first single celled living creature, further random swerving eventually lead to the animals that we have become today. It’s all a product of Epicurean Swerve Theory.

Darwinism also adds in the survival of the fitness paradigm as an embellishment of Epicurean Swerve Theory. It is thus claimed that genetic swerving is not a completely random process as some swerves are more successful as others and hence are directed by success. The successful swerves then go to propagate other successful swerves. The end result is that only the fittest survive. In fact, the survival of the fitness paradigm is a huge red herring. It’s about as meaningful as saying that the survivors of a car crash are the fittest compared to those that perished. The paradigm is a simple tautology. Who survive are the fittest, who are the fittest are the survivors. The semantics are the same, only the labels change. All up, the survival of the fitness paradigm adds nothing to elementary Epicurean Swerve Theory. To name the survivors as being the fittest is just a change of terminology. We are all the “fittest,” we are all the last men standing; we are all the survivors of a trillion times a trillion Epicurean Swerves. And that is the way we came to be the way we are today, believe it or not, says the Theory.

It would seem that Epicurean Swerve Theory and its modern biological successor in Darwinism are capable of being expressed in terms of a theory that people can believe or disbelieve. Thus the theory could be taken as a traditional scientific hypothesis. However, there is no way to possibly refute the hypothesis. That things change deterministically with a random component, this is hard to refute. This is what Karl Popper himself eventually recognised. By his falsification criteria, Darwinism was unscientific! Popper initially accepted this conclusion and only later tried to worm his way out of it. Refuting that we didn’t just drift to where we are today and thus refute Darwinism is a task that even Popper can’t convincingly achieve.

Where Darwinism wins prestige is the notion that the theory explains something. It explains evolution. However, it only has descriptive not explanatory powers. It describes evolution. As we know, the evolutionary process goes in the face of what is predicted by the second law of thermodynamics where there should be a drift to increased entropy, an ineluctable drift towards thermodynamic death. However, this drift is deterministic as there is no Epicurean Swerve or Heisenberg Uncertainty in classical thermodynamic theory. In the evolving world we live in, the opposite seems to be the case. Evolution leads to an apparent decrease in entropy, a steady rise in diversity rather than a steady fall. Darwinism describes this phenomenon, but does not explain it.

We are now coming to the end of this section with the basic understanding that science is based upon falsifiable belief. As for religion, it is either based on non-falsifiable belief or faith, which is impervious to belief. In the third slot is Darwinism. It appears that Darwinism is somewhere in the domain of the Epicurean Swerve theory. Alternatively it can be taken as a non-falsifiable belief that things, particularly living things, evolve and so are in the same boat as the religions. The New Darwinians seem to prefer the latter option ad see it as a viable religion substitute, but still a religion nevertheless.

It is now time to carry out another exercise in semiotic analysis. This time we will end up with a system based on belief on the left side and a system based on something else on the right. The right side system is based on faith. This will be an exercise in theology. See the next post.

Key Phrases: Semiotic square, genetic code, generic code, DNA, start codon, left right hemispheres, the divided brain, epistemology, anti-mathematics, masculine, feminine, gender differentiation,  Generic Science. Science as a belief system.

 

D. J. H. Moore

Kant’s Semiotic Square

An easy way to construct a semiotic square is with two dichotomies. The hard part is choosing the pertinent fundamental dichotomies. We adapt the convention that the first and primary dichotomy provides the left side, right side dichotomy of the square. The secondary dichotomy provides what we will call the front side, back side of the square. Drawn on a piece of paper the secondary dichotomy will correspond to the two halves defined by a horizontal dividing line of the square.
In previous sections we developed a fundamental semiotic square based on the oppositions between the One and the Multiple. This opposition was applied twice, once as a left right side dichotomy and once for the other axis. In the first case the One involves the impersonal One. The second case involves the personal One. This was repeated in another interpretation as the opposition between subject and object. The first opposition involved the impersonal subject and the objects that it subjectifies. The second opposition involved the personal subject and its corresponding kingdom.
It was argued that the most fundamental of these kinds of dichotomies was based on gender where the masculine expressed the attribute of pure singularity free of any other particularity. The masculine was an entity in its own right. The only particularity possessed by the feminine was that it had this attribute. In other words, the primary opposition was between two entities of different gender. The only specificity of the feminine entity is that it has an attribute. The specificity of the masculine entity was that it is this attribute: One has it, one is it. The first gender opposition is between the impersonal feminine and masculine, the left right dichotomy. The second gender opposition has the personal feminine and masculine for its two poles, the front back dichotomy. The gender construct underlies the fundamental typing mechanism underlying all of the unifying science presented in this work and helps explain the ancient theory of the four “letters” or the four elements. Exploiting this hyper-generic gender construct, a universal typing mechanism can be constructed where any entity whatsoever can be described in terms of such generic types. The four binary combinations of the two gender types provide the alphabet for such a system. In a previous section, we made a preliminary interpretation of the genetic code as being such a typing mechanism. We even tentatively linked the four letters A, U, G, and C of the genetic code with their corresponding four binary gender types MF, FF, FM and MM respectively.
How this material should be taught and at what age the various concepts should be introduced, the author has no firm opinion on such matters. The author has found that even mature can have problems coming to terms with the concepts. Some, the highly trained academic for example, find the ideas threatening.
It’s time now to look at Kant’s version of the semiotic square.
In the Critique (Kant, 1738) and particularly more clearly in Prolegomena to any Future Metaphysic (Kant, 1783) Kant effectively outlined two superimposed dichotomies. The primary dichotomy was between knowledge founded on a priori judgments and that founded on a posteriori judgments. A priori judgments are based upon reason alone, independently of all sensory experience, whilst a posteriori judgments require real world experience.
In addition to the primary dichotomy between a posteriori and a priori judgments, Kant superimposed a second very important dichotomy. This was the dichotomy between analytic and synthetic judgments. Analytic judgments are where the predicate is wholly contained in the subject. Synthetic judgments are where the subject is completely distinct from the predicate and so must be related to some outside principle.
We can visualise Kant’s secondary dichotomy by complementing the left-right side primary dichotomy with a front-back side secondary dichotomy where the synthetic is on the front side and analytic is at the back side as shown in Figure 15.
Superimposing the two fundamental knowledge dichotomies leads to visualising the overall architecture of knowledge as a kind of semiotic square with left and right side specialisations each with its own analytic “frontal lobes.” In effect, this is Kant’s version of the semiotic square. The artifice provides a way of visualising the epistemological structure of knowledge, the layout of the epistemological brain, so to speak. In our more rash moments, we claim that this also provides a sketch of the architectural and functional layout of the biological brain. In later sections we will investigate the role that this structure plays in the science of spatio-temporality. In the broader picture, our we intend to demonstrate the science behind Kant’s claim that all perception and cognition takes place within a spatio-temporal framework. The first informal, intuitive acquaintance with this framework is via the semiotic square.
This artifice is not presented here as a theory of the brain, but merely as a pedagogic aid to visualisation.

As can be seen from the diagram, we end up with four different kinds of science. Kant homed into the front right side of the diagram, that of synthetic a priori judgments that, in theory, should synthesise new knowledge that was necessarily true. This is the domain where the Kantian question, addressed by this book, is located. How do we produce right hand, front side knowledge?

Figure15 Kant’s two fundamental dichotomies can be superimposed to construct a semiotic square of knowledge. Solving the Kantian question requires knowledge of the right hand front corner kind.

Polysynthetic Knowledge

The knowledge that we seek is based on Kant’s synthetic a priori judgments and is, in effect, doubly synthetic knowledge. Using a term borrowed from linguistics, we will call it polysynthetic knowledge.
In linguistics an important language classification is between analytic and synthetic languages. The difference between the two classifications is not very precise but, in general, analytic languages tend to have simpler words consisting of a smaller average number of morphemes. Also, the grammatical structure of the language is expressed more in terms of syntax based on word order rather than inflexion and affixing and prefixing of grammatical markers on individual words. Overall the analytic language will be synchronic in structure rather than spatio=geometric. Thus the analytic language speaks by the intricate sequential flow of single notes of a melody. On the other hand, the synthetic language expresses its message in terms of dense, rich chords, each articulating a beautifully vivid spatio-geometric image. It does this by using words with a larger number of morphemes per word. Also word order is of less importance or, in some cases, of no importance.
It is interesting to note that proto Indo-European was highly synthetic; this is the reconstructed common mother language of all Indo-European languages including Latin, Sanskrit, Hindi, and most European languages. Since then most Indo-European derivatives, of which English is a good example, have become increasingly analytic with the passage of time.
At the extreme end of the synthetic scale are situated the polysynthetic languages. Examples of these hyper-synthetic languages seem to be closer to the deeper natural order of things. Examples of polysynthetic languages include languages of North America, Siberia, and Australia.
The polysynthetic nature of Australian Pama-Nyungan languages is illustrated by the example:
“…the words meaning man (ergative) + see (past tense) + you (accusative) + big (ergative) can be placed in any word order whatever; they will be understood to mean ‘(A/The) big man saw you.’” (Heath)
At the other end of the spectrum would be the doubly analytic forms of knowledge located on the front, left side of the Kantian square, a posteriori knowledge expressed in analytic judgments; the analytic as analytic. We will call this polyanalytic knowledge. This classificatory term doesn’t seem to be used in linguistics and so we will refrain from rashly endeavouring to discern polyanalytic language groups. However, we can get a good grasp of what the polyanalytic entails as far as a philosophical classification is concerned. There probably would not be much objection to saying that a good example of a polyanalytic philosophy would be none other than Anglophone oriented analytic philosophy.

If we admit polyanalytic philosophy into the fray then, to be fair, we should also admit its totally opposite number, polysynthetic philosophy, yet to be born. Whilst analytic philosophy delights itself by listening to the tinkle of meanings flowing from natural language, usually English, on the other polysynthetic side, a different language is spoken where single words can be so large and the chords struck so vibrant that the music can last for a lifetime.

Key Phrases: semiotics square, genetic code, generic code, DNA, start codon, left right hemispheres, the divided brain, epistemology, anti-mathematics, masculine, feminine, gender differentiation,  Generic Science, Semiotics structure

D. J. H. Moore