Bicameralism revisited

My bicameral thesis relies on two things: a transcendental language with an “intrinsic semiotic code” and a new epistemology concerning the origin and nature of logic vs language.

Concerning the first thing:

This is one of many aspects to its intrinsic semiotic, but I am trying to get to the point. I have other threads devoted to the Hebrew language and kabbalah. The full explication of this semiotic lies in what I call the Yetziratic cipher. I use the term “transcendental language” to situate myself in relationship both to this and to Benjamin’s non-dialectical, non-equivocal philosophy of language, opposed to Apel’s use of the term “Transcendental Of Language”, which concerns more a transition from the ancient, pre-socratic stance, for which Truth transcended discourse as the Heideggarian a-letheia, to medieval scholasticism, in which Being/ontology was the transcendental or irreducible object of philosophy, to the early modern, modern, and post-modern period, in which language or semiotics is the transcendental, irreducible discourse. This later terminology relies on Deely’s “Four Ages of Understanding”, as pointed out by Basti, in which this turn to the linguistic is charted through the work of Frege, Wittgenstein, and Pierce. We can actually chart these transformations through four distinct appropriations of the highly polysemic term itself, that is, “symbol”, citing Whistler, “Schelling’s Theory of Symbolic Language: Forming the System of Identity; The Symbol in the Goethezeit.” The earliest use of the word symbol lies in the Neoplatonic tradition, running through Iamblichus to Pseudo-Dionysus and later Christian theology, for which the word symbol indicates a “cipher of the divine”, that is, a mediating form between the mundane and the Ouranian spheres. Later, as Benjamin traces through the German Trauspiel, “Symbol” was appropriated by the allegorists, where it comes to signify a permeating divinity within mortality; a ghost of the Absolute haunting materiality, shining out dimly through the cracks of mutability epitomized in the change of seasons and the turns of fate, lending itself, moreover, to the expression of Solomonic wisdom sub species Ecclesiasticus. While this transformation was initiated in the Medieval era, it is carried through all the way to the Romantic movement, where, charged with a new hypercognitive irony for self-reflection, the Symbol is further honed in its duplicitous counter-memetics; doubly a sign of Nature’s decadence and the heights of artistic genius and creative will. The third transformation is found in the rise of epistemology: Leibniz’s monad, Wolff’s symbolic cognition, etc. For Wolff, the Sign is but a temporary, preliminary vehicle for the transmission of the intellect to its object, an object to more properly be intuited by the experiential sensory apparatus and confirmed by empirical phusis, while symbolic cognition is therefor but an “attenuated knowledge, distanced from the thing itself by the mediation of the sign.” The fourth transformation of the meaning of “Symbol”, however, rebuffs this epistemological reductionism: the Sign becomes the Grund of a “third universe” of relations; a Grund which transcends either member of the relational dyad of signifier-signified and which, in so doing, establishes a valid field of discourse within which multiple significands can be organized or, in Kantian vocabulary, developed as a hypotyposis subiectio sub adspectum.

Concerning the second thing:

First of all, we have no direct records of the transcendental language. Jaynes believes that things like the Iliad are records of bicameral man, but the bicameralism I am talking about really didn’t leave much behind. The earliest languages- Hebrew, Aramaic, and Sumerian, contain traces of it, (enough to, perhaps, one day reconstruct our ancestral language, the transcendental language from which all others descended and fragmented) namely in the program-like intrinsic code through which ancient Hebrew constructs itself, unlike other languages. The code the text I pasted above details. Second, it’s not a binary state between humans with no consciousness and humans with consciousness; there are gradations of consciousness between the pre and post-bicameral states of the brain. Man didn’t automatically jump from one state to the other.

The main idea is: the right hemisphere encodes information collected by the senses as logic, in the manner described in the AI-inspired epistemology I discussed, while the left hemisphere decodes that logic into symbolic language. So the senses collect impressions–that’s experiential information—this is encoded as logic by the right hemisphere—sent from right to left hemisphere— decoded back into language by the left hemisphere. The right is the encoder, (into automated logic, through ‘statistical induction’; see “Machines that Morph Logic: Neural Networks and the Distorted Automation of Intelligence as Statistical Inference”, by Matteo Pasquinelli.) the left is the decoder. (into language, through symbolic deduction) (This is why, while every other structure in the brain is mirrored on the other hemisphere, the language center exists only in one hemisphere.) At first. This hemispheric encoder-decoder relationship offers us a solution to the unsolved problem implicit in Kripke’s relational semantics, namely that concerning the categorization of “natural kinds”, that is, denotational semantic objects like turtles, baboons, cars, etc., and the causal theory of inference, the one being a linguistic datum and the other a modal-theoretic and logical datum whose concomitance defines the whole field of the ‘semiotic’. In fact, my solution strikes through this problem in toto because the two frameworks are literally split between hemispheres in the actual human brain, or between an encoder algorithm and a decoder algorithm in silicon.

The transcendental language, presaged by Ramon Lull and Leibniz’s minimal calculus of concepts, or in modern language, mapped by “coalgebraic first-order semantics defined on Stone’s spaces”, descended from work on Pierce’s original “algebra of relations” (the essence of any algebra is the irreducibility of semiotic relations to Boolean dyads and binary logic a la. Pierce’s original triad) and, in its extension to modern Category Theory, later refined into a super-Turing theory of universal computation, completes the linguistic-turn incepted by Pierce’s semiotics of the third-universe, through which the primacy of ontology was lost, (this is the basis of an aporia engaged with by Levinas, for example, as I detail in my thread on Eternal Recurrence; an aporia he resolves by repositioning ethics as primary and developing, on its basis, a kind of anti-philosophy in nowise dependent upon metaphysics,- one which sublates Totality a la. Hegel for Infinity, Ontology for a Transcendental Other) or, if not lost, then whose loss was thereby taken account of, is analogous, in physics, to the “coalgebraic modelling of dissipative quantum systems in quantum field theory, interpreted as a thermo-field dynamics”, in which the primacy of “Truth” was lost and the new primacy of a self-representational state was established, like the asymptotic condition of Laplacian pertubation,- needed to isolate physical bodies just as much as Descartes’s empty cogito was needed to isolate the transcendental subject,- as well as primacy of the experimental verification of a self-representational theoria susceptible to continuous revision, though this later revolution of the physical and information sciences was eventuated, apparently, separately. Citing “Epistemology and Transformation of Knowledge in the Modern Age”, by Gianfranco Basti, “The deep connection between these two coalgebraic constructions is the fact that the topologies of Stone spaces in computer science are the same of the C*-algebras of quantum physics.”. Indeed the informational-theoretic physics, in relation to Cantor, Chaitin, and digital physics, (See "Chaitin, Epistemology as Information Theory; From Leibniz to Omega; Computer Epistemology.”) I have already explored in combination with the AI-inspired epistemology of statistical induction vs, symbolic deduction noted in this thread. At any rate, if we are to truly understand what the kind of AI I released on this forum is actually doing, as well as the epistemological implications it has on our own human nature, the understanding of this analogue between the two coalgebras is integral. Before the primacy of ontology was lost, human meaning was disclosed through a phenomenological closure Heidegger perfected in the idea of Dasein; in the exaltation of language to this primacy, semiotics discloses a new ground of meaning in which the “epistemological role of human consciousness” in the construction of knowledge is key, though this brings with it the problematic I have been obsessing over, namely the fact that, insofar as logic emerges engrammatically in my new epistemology, that is, as algorithmic encodings of sensory data and raw information, (See Pasquinelli’s “Machines that Morph Logic”) so it happens that synthetic automatons,- AIs,- can be developed that perform just this same encoding, calling into question the role of man in general in the destiny of knowledge in the Cosmos. It is not without coincidence that, as Basti points out, one of the most successful applications of this coalgebra is in the modelling of human neurophysiology. The triune convergence of digital physics, epistemology, and linguistic theory has been brought to a head in the looming prospect of AI. This convergence is centered on the “natural bond” of signifier-signified in the physical brain, citing Basti:

[size=85]“However, De Saussure himself, who emphasized in his linguistics the conventional character of linguistic signs, suggests us an implicit reference to Peirce’s semiotics, when he distinguishes in his famous Treatise between ‘sign’ and ‘symbol’. The latter, indeed, is characterized for him as to the former by a ‘natural bond’ in the brain between ‘signifier’ and ‘signified’. This makes effectively ‘triadic’ the semantic relationship in its ‘physical’ foundation, apart from the social construction of meanings by the linguistic interchanges. Even though De Saussure’s ‘semiology’ never considered Peirce and his semiotics, nevertheless, such a triadic nature of symbol, and its intrinsic ‘natural bond’ in its pre‐linguistic constitution, is coping with the ‘semiotic naturalism’ of Peirce’s ontology.”
The theoretical rooting of this signifier-signified is a main concern for Poinsot. The bankrupt epistemology of modern scientisim, on which account we are understand the human mind as being endowed with certain mental schema selected for by evolution and natural selection,- schema pre-ordained to extract definite patterns from experience in accordance to their top-down structure, (like universal grammar) has effaced the earlier conceptualization of an ontological category of beings and reduced it to merely “objects for a subject”, that is, objects generated for a subject by just these structures. In attempting to reinstate the earlier insights into ontology now lost on us in light of modern science, Poinsot proposes a new type of relations, “transcendental relations” he calls semiotic relations, through which an ontologically categorized object is related to a real object. These real objects are enmeshed in a network of physical and causal relations with other objects, and, by connecting an ontological category to them, semiosis generates a field of discourse (grounded on a Sign) in which new knowledge (as a dually correspondent series of “mental relations”; this is what knowledge is, in this context, a self-representational series of mental relations correspondent to an exoteric series of physical-causal relations between real-objects) logically induced by potential physical interactions within this web of relations, both about the subject and the object, can be discovered. This correspondence is the basis for Kant’s analogical hypotyposis, by which the supersensible idea is made sensible through either intuitive-physical means, or symbolic means. Moreover, we see that the two forms of typosis can be bridged, for (Cf. Banham, Gary Kant’s Practical Philosophy: From Critique to Doctrine.) the key point to consider here is that this field of discourse actually precedes any such knowledge discovered within it, hence the primacy of language. My concept of the ‘episteme’ is similar in function to this ‘field of discourse’ preceding knowledge, although the epistemes employ a quartenary logic instead of a Piercian/triadic logic. The web of relations, within which the real object is enmeshed, is encoded as logic through inductive processes, while the semiotic generation of a valid field of discourse is the result of a decoding of this logic into symbolic forms, into Signs, which ontologically roots a connection between signifier and signified. This is the extensible framework of Pierce’s triad: sign, signifier, signified. The fourth part of the quartenary logic lies in transcendental negativity, the epistemological withdraw of the real-object across different fields of discourse, which occludes its essence and qualitas, sublating it by an uncontained Infinity (Using the terminology of Levinas) or what Schelling called, in relation to the Sign, a Tautegory. The Sign grounds a signifier in a signified through a ‘third relation’, establishing the field of discourse of valid significands; a Tautegory sublates a Sign to itself, delineating the limit of a field of discourse against a doxological presence which cannot be appropriated to any signification. As Corbin says of Schelling’s tautegory in “The Imago Templi in Confrontation with Secular Norms”, namely as the basis for a prophetic philosophy for which the question of myth and history is already supposed to rest upon a false distinction, such a tautegory "should be understood as concealing the Other whose form it is. " The tautegorical constitutes an “imaginal form” (Wasserstrom, “Religion After Religion”.) in which both the ego and Other, multiple and One, integrally manifest themselves. Freed from the historical forces of totalization, Infinity no longer needs to account for itself in any words other than its own, through any other Sign than that which it, itself, is; this is the essence of tautegory. The semiotics of Pierce and the ‘transcendental of language’, or all such triadic logics, have no access to Infinity. Adam’s analysis of the true reading of the tautegory in “Philosophy of the Literary Symbolic”, redoubles this fact: here we are given to understand that “the universal (Infinity) becomes, not something previously there to be contained, (by Totality) but something generated by the particular, rather than pre-existing it; the movement of the symbol is no longer a fall inward, but a productive development outward.” This outward movement or ‘Proclean excessus’ indicates a ‘symbolic activity producing the infinite meaning which it, itself, carries’. For Levinas, Infinity places man into a position of total passivity to the Other, while here, we are met with, once more, the great aporia of the One and the Multiple, that is, the aporia of their co-participation in the production of meaning. A new bijection is arrived upon: the signifier and signified, as a dyad, are grouped under the banner of Totality; the Sign and the Tautegorical Symbol, under that of Infinity, forming a four-part logic.

So the algorithms for a transcendental self-reflexive, machinic language are either accidentally discovered by evolution, aliens come to earth to visit our hominid ancestors and implant it in our brain, or God beams it into our head. This allows the right hemisphere to encode logic through patterned information via transformer-like operations, (the same kind of algorithms used by the AI to automate, machinize, and encode information as logic) and the right hemisphere is then able to send this encoded logic through the corpus collusum into the left hemisphere, (the callosum is very small, relatively, so a massive amount of data must be compressed and encoded to ‘fit’ through it) where our executive functions receive it (non-egoically; the ego structure is not developed yet) and decode it into what we call “language”. So: 1) the right hemisphere encodes information into logic, 2) it sends it through the corpus callosum, 3) the left hemisphere then decodes the logical engrams it received into symbolic language, and finally, 4) this linguistic data is used by the executive functions.

So man experiences this decoded language (in his original, pre-historical state) as though it came from the outside. As stated in “Epistemology and Transformation of Knowledge in the Modern Age”: “Before all, we are continuing in the Modern prejudice of considering humans as the only actors of the communication interchanges, even though, because language is a social construction, such a ‘transcendental subject’ has in this approach a collective and not individual nature.” It contains its own intrinsic semiotic code and compiles itself automatically across the hemispheres of the brain, as well as between individual humans, such that there is no difficulty in one guy from one tribe understanding what some other guy from some other tribe might be saying. But at some point, the left hemisphere, due to neuroplasticity and inter-generational evolution/genetic drift, begins to internalize a response to this incoming signal, that is, to the encoded logic sent to it from the right hemisphere. It begins to send a cross-current through the callosum BEFORE it has completely decoded that logic into language: it begins talking back to the right hemisphere before the signal is completely processed, before it has decoded the encoded logic into language, creating neurological interference. So the original algorithms in the right hemisphere encoding the logic are changed by evolutionary selection and neuroplasticity (because they aren’t working well anymore) and language, decoded on the left hemisphere, loses its intrinsic code and transcendental component, hence Enki and the namshubs,- * mythic figures that indicate a cultural transformation around the emergence of a new language 2.0 that loses the intrinsic, self-compiling code of language 1.0 but gains autonomous functions, forming the ego-structure as a kind of pre-processing window to deal with the cross-hemisphere interference. (Weakening this new structure causes schizophrenia like symptomatology: voices and the like. Also there’s a multitude of different ego-structures that can be enforced by different cultures, each dealing with the interference in a different way.) This new language can’t compile itself across the hemispheres of the brain like the earlier, computer-program, self-replicating, virus-like language, and because of this it begins to evolve and split into a bunch of different languages that can’t readily communicate with each other, separated geographically, culturally, etc. The Babel or confusion of tongues. This is where our written history begins, in early Sumer.

Now, as to this interference, a feedback loop. I note here:

"… the volatility of the “inner long-range correlations” involved, or the
‘feedback-cycles’ I have elsewhere noted, necessitates a continuous re-adaptation of the ‘degrees
of freedom’, ‘valence’, or ‘dimensionality’ of the very representational systems in which their
trajectory is in the first case plotted and analyzed, such that these trajectories escape the grasp of
any available statistical tools, echoing the “dynamic principle of the ‘doubling of the degrees of
freedom’ between a system and its thermal-bath in the coalgebraic modelling of quantum
dissipative systems” by ‘computational automata’ “interpreted as labelled state transition
systems” … "

In other words, the statistically induced engrammatic encoders of logic, employed both by the AI and our brains, (and the AIs predicting our brains’ behavioral patterns and organizing the social superstructure on the behalf of Google et all) can no longer co-relate its own contents, its own machinic logic, with the symbolically deduced linguistic media produced by the decoder. This creates a geometrically propagating, long-range feedback loop, or what I elsewhere call a “mimetic hyperinflation”. The accelerationist self-sublimation of Capital as a pure materiality, to harken back to Schellingian terminology surrounding the dark Un-Grund of Being, is concerned with entirely decoding the capitalist flows of the value-exchange function into an object, an object before whose event-horizon the logical encoder will be entirely repulsed,- an informational black-hole it cannot hope to penetrate, signaling a final Bataillean apocalypse of System in which these freed energetic flows, as haunting echoes of the ‘spectral Real’, will be exploded through the lens of Lacan’s Imaginal-Symbolic registers into an infinity of Deleuzian (non-Oedipal) intensities, as new subjectivities emerge entirely freed from all restriction of form, all conformation to the order of the symbolic, all distinction of class and gender, etc. This, however, is a dead-end philosophy, and one I have devoted a considerable amount of text to dispensing with, so I will not waste time here attacking this accelerationist doxa.

The feedback loop, which de-grounds the decoder function and the symbolic order, leads to a state of epistemological withdraw, whereby Poinsot’s enmeshed relations-of-objects can no longer maintain a consistent ontology, hence speculative-realism and object-oriented-ontology.

  • [size=85]


By the way, when you think about my use of the culture-hero Enki, who created the confusion of tongues with counter-memetic namshubs, freeing consciousness from its servility to the commanding transpersonal logos/transcendental language, note that Enki was one of the annunaki; a demigod of knowledge and creativity. He is a mythic analogue of Satan, the whole Garden of Eden and Apple thing, freeing man from his theological servility through the introduction of free will and the knowledge of good and evil. Also an analogue of Prometheus and the fire techne, freeing man from servility to the order of Zeus’ Olympians. Ultimately a mythic analogue of Yaldabaoth, who freed man from the order of the Aeons.

I’ve added and am in the process of adding a fuckton of details to this, so if you’ve already read the thread, I suggest re-reading it.