, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Analogic Thought – Part III – (IV) – 2008

2008 Cricket Diane C Phillips
Cricket House Studios – USA1

The way I use analogic thought processes and analysis generally is goal-driven. It doesn’t have to be goal-oriented, however.

An open-ended exploration to discover what is there can be made analogically by simply collecting all factors and elements found as they are. In this case, a goal need not be present to reflect exclusion of anything found. All is brought to the table as a set of facts, excluding nothing.

But, how do I process those elements if they are not processed logically?  What other choice would there be to understand the facts located for the set?

Analogic processing compares relationships which generates sets of questions to answer, such as

1.  Where were these “discoveries” in the set found in relation to their original environment and in relation to one another?

2.  Over what period of time were they discovered, in what order or arrangement and in what condition?

3.  How have they changed in time from the moment they were discovered until now and before being found?

4.  In what ways do the items in the set relate, in what manner are they alike, in what ways dissimilar, and obviously of the same set besides time and location discovered?

5.  How do these elements fit together in a greater picture?  In what associations are they a representative part of other sets, other factors, other lines of connection and what part of other larger pictures do they serve?

This last question is not to be confused with representative “pie slice” aberrations of thought which say a slice of the pie is representative of the whole. It is a faulty assumption of logic to believe that a pie slice is capable of providing accurate ratios of elements in a whole pie or in a whole picture. This item number 5 above is different than the “pie slice” logic.

The process defined in analogic reasoning seeks to find the likely representation of links into greater systems and processes that may be evidenced by the factors or items in a set.

Let’s say, for example, that I came upon a piece of paper with four numbers on it and two words. That will be my set for the example. Element one is the paper, its location, condition and time it was found. Element two would be what is written on the paper, the way it is written, the method used to write it and the character of the writing (hand-writing or machine generated).

Element three would be the position of the numbers and words in relation to the physical parameters of the paper, their relation to one another as written on the surfaces, the relationships of the words and numbers to possible larger sets and these relationships to the placement and time of where the paper was found.

Now, honestly, this all happens very, very quickly after using this way of thinking for awhile. Its more cumbersome writing it all out than it is doing it because our brains are made to think this way in the right hemisphere, and to process all this in an instant (or pretty close to an instant.)

So, let’s use these numbers on the paper which appear randomly on its surface: 1, 3, 9 and 2.99 ; and these words; milk, Joey. That would make one hell of a sentence. It could be part of one sentence in a quick note, so there is a possibility.

Six physical number indications – not a phone number. One item and one name would make a strange shopping list but I have daughters, you never know what may be in their idea of “shopping for”.

Because I know there are more elements of discovery here than those already listed, I’ll share what else I see . . .

1.  Pressures of pen or pencil greater on some elements of the writing than others,

2.  Crumpled edges, a small grease stain on one corner like burnt motor oil rather than kitchen grease,

3.  The smell of sandalwood incense and something else like diesel carbons on the paper,

4.  I didn’t find this in the trash, nor fully crumpled but in a spot on the floor of the attic near a box of both girls’ junk they left there,

5.  I don’t know Joey and they’ve never mentioned him when I was paying attention,

6.  Joey may be a girl or a guy and I am never sure if milk means the white stuff that I buy to drink or is what?

7.  The term 2.99 could pe a price or a time because we indicate time with a dot rather than a colon and often use military or international time signatures, even my children do and old roommates did also,

8.  Why does it matter? Sometimes it does & sometimes it doesn’t but if this note does indicate my children are milking Joey for $2.99 – I need to have a talk with them about getting more money. And, I don’t care how old my children are – it would probably be good to meet Joey.

9.  The other element present is that there are faint indications of spray across the surface of the paper which look like a soda bottle, beer or other fizzy beverage may have sprayed across its surface or someone blew into the bong instead of sucking on it or was siphoning gas and spit it out or who knows what. It isn’t the spatter from clean water.

Putting all these elements together as our set on an example here is for the purpose of comparing logical processing with analogic processing.

Logic says, where did I find this and who does it likely belong to? Then, ventures a guess – an educated guess, but still – a guess, and sets about to find other supporting evidence for this guess or theory. Unfortunately the drawback of this process is that all or nearly all other elements are discarded in the process of supporting the guess that may have been incorrect in the first place. The process continues well into its latter phases before the assumption is clearly proven or disproven. In the process, much of the available facts and elements that belong to the set are discarded, ignored or misinterpreted to fit the premise.

Analogic, holistic processing can overlook factors as well. The only difference is that the entire premise isn’t compromised so far along into the process. There is always an element or factor implied in analogic reasoning called, “what is not there, what it isn’t, what could or should be there that wasn’t there.” This implied category is ever present and inherent in the process of its comparative analysis form.

In our example, the category includes a.) it isn’t on yellow legal paper or fancy note paper, b.) it wasn’t found put away nicely nor hidden though it may once have been, c.) it isn’t new, current nor recent, and d.) no one in our family may know Joey or ever have known Joey.

This example throughout indicates the basic processes of discovery, implementation and comparative analysis processing relationships among similar and dissimilar items without a goal-driven, determined outcome. It is different and human beings need both logical processing as well as analogic processing in order to do well, accomplish, create solutions to complex problems and real-world situations and to survive. That is why the human brain is made to use both approaches, not one to the exclusion of the other.

It is neither crazy, nor left-handed, nor sick, nor evil to use analogic holistic styles of thinking, processing information, creating and analysis. What is crazy is for each of us to be built for doing it in perfect capacity and not use it.

That social and oppressive tactics have been furthered over centuries to force the dominance of logic and the hindrance of all other forms and pathways of thinking is barbaric and ignorant. It borders on the sad fact that we have all been denied very inalienable rights and freedoms even within the confines and privacy of our own brains’ capacities and how we utilize them.

Not only for today, but for all the tomorrows before us, I would hope that each and every individual be allowed and encouraged to process, learn, use, develop, create with and explore with the abilities of both sides of their brain, not just one. And, that denial of this very basic freedom be changed.

A note about the example used –
As it turns out –

–> Joey isn’t a person – it’s a kangaroo on loan to a zoo.
–> Milk was spelled MILK  –> which stood for Martin Luther King Blvd in Atlanta (mis-abbreviated).
–> The numbers 1 , 3  –> 1 p.m. and 3 p.m. were show times (1,3) respectively.
–> 2.99 was $2.99, the discount admission price with a coupon.
–> 9 (a.m.) Was the time they would meet at the church with the group going to see it.

–> and the spray was from a Dr.Pepper that exploded in my kitchen when the note was sitting on the counter there.

daughter was working on her change the fuel pump project with the note in her back pocket as she laid on the ground to get to it.

She was planning to drive her car and go with some of her friends along and they got the discount coupons through a social services agency and the church group paid for breakfast.

–> and $2.99 wasn’t all it cost because they spent around $20.00 for lunch and gas to get there & back.

—– and “Why would I know somebody named Joey?” inquires daughter, now in her twenties which indicates something but I really don’t know what.

Which all leads to one very glamorous and educated truth –

“When all else fails, ask the sources involved and seek more information regardless of the method used to process any information.”  – quote from Cricket Diane C “Sparky” Phillips, 2008

Written by Cricket Diane C “Sparky” Phillips, 2008

“Creating the Tangible from the Impossible every day.” – quote and slogan for CricketDiane

Cricket House Studios – USA1