Anyway, as thoughts can vary, one of the variations there can be is to which extent one yields to categorizations, and if so, to which kind/-s of categorizations. In our versions of this world and universe, thoughts do not tend to spread automatically, nor seem much to exist without material life. Without automatic spread of thoughts, there is a need for a bodily organ to preserve and cherish thoughts that perhaps would be potentially much more accessible in another universe.
As you probably know, an ordinary brain has two hemispheres. They work on preserving different types of thoughts, one of them logical, the other one creative thoughts - or so it has been said. That stuff is not safe to assume, but even so, the two brain halves fairly clearly seem to at least somewhat different. I believe they work differently regarding aspects of reality that can be transferred to even and odd numbers respectively.
To the extent the two hemispheres are different one can still imagine the difference to be about logic and none-logic. To the extent that assumption is correct, I suppose logic can be defined as follows:
Logic can, I feel, be viewed the essence of constituting even and odd as the same by having it what the even numbers stand for should be specified as a tool for an essence of what odd numbers can stand for. Because that essence that it stands for is nine, which (as is explained at least somewhat well, I think, here) stands for clear-mindedness and theoretical knowledge.
Imagination and creativity can be viewed very much as the vice versa compared to logic, I think, as the essence of constituting even and odd as the same by having it that what odd numbers stand for should be specified as a tool for an essence of what even numbers can stand for. Because that essence that it stands for is eight, which (as is at least somewhat well explained here, I think) stands for anti-dogmatism and so.
Because, as I view things, the brain has one hemisphere, the left one, for what odd numbers stand for. It also has one, the right one, for what even numbers stand for. This can be an explanation for something I did not know when I first formulated my here presented view on what is focused on by which hemisphere. That is, it is not anymore that one views it as logic, but rather as routine, that stuff that the left hemisphere handles well. Similarly it is no longer viewed as creativity, but rather as capacity to handle to the unexpected, the stuff that the right hemisphere handles better. Neither brain hemisphere is only what I just pointed to, and which I recently found in this article, which also further describes them (among other things), at least a bit.
Before I saw the above-mentioned article, I seem to have had the right point of view anyway. This is without knowing that the paradigm of logic and creativity was outdated since fairly long. I then described what I believe there to be in the right brain hemisphere as focus on heterogeneity (of interpretation), and what i believe there to be in the right one as homogeneity (of interpretation). Each of these qualities can be viewed as reliant on on usage of a certain number of categories, seventeen for heterogeneity and nineteen for homogeneity.
The two hemisphere cooperate to some extent, of course.We do have a brain that can focus on one thing at a time - most of us at least. I believe part of their cooperation can be explained by the numbers I associate with heterogeneity (seventeen) and homogeneity (nineteen), respectively. That is in the qualiti4es of those numbers, I say one can find clues to how our brains cooperate. In my framework it is by that the essence of what I have called meaning steps to those numbers,respectively (from eight and nine to them, respectively), that they (these numbers, thereby their qualities, and thereby the hemispheres that each stand (I believe) each for one, respectively, of these qualities) can be linked. Firstly the first (direct) prelude (or main prelude) of the nine series, nine, equals the size of first meaning step meaning step of the eight series. This should mean (shouldn't it?) that logical presumptions can be used as the emphasis of meaning for imagination.
It seems likely to me that the vice versa also works. Because there seems to be - at least sort of, I think, an in-between prelude for part of the first meaning step from eight (to seventeen) in ten, since if the four is of a meaning step to five, then an eight including it can be defined as having a partial meaning step, to ten. Perhaps such a partial step can easily be completed into a complete seventeen? If so, then what one presumes by imagination can also be used to emphasize meaning of logic and so.
That is, a perspective of nine expected categories contains the division into two groups of four, just like a nine-category perspective contains the division into three groups of three. The former can also be used for four groups of two. Using the two together can form divisions into groups of six, twelve, eighteen, twenty-four, thirty-six or seventy-two. By repeated usage of nine one can relate to for example twenty-seven or eighty one, and of eight to sixteen, thirty-two, sixty-four, etc. Repeated usage of both can be used to relate to all main preludes of categorisation. Perhaps this can explain our brains' capacities to represent all sorts of things?
Another advantage is logic (with the meaning step from nine to nineteen) can, I think, specify negligence and neglect (a reason, I think, behind illusions, among other things) as something that should be viewed as unimportant for real interpretation of whatever one observes, thinks or so. If one has a spirit more or less inclined against negligence, then this spirit can be used to emphasize such specification as good and right, by serving as its prelude anchorage or so. But if one's spirit is inclined to emphasize negligence as meaningful, then illusions (and so) will probably thrive - in one way or another - unless stopped from becoming too important. But that can be done by creativity, which specifies spirit as something is that should basically be viewed as rather unimportant. I say and basically because of the ten that is - or at least might be - there within the meaning step (from eight to seventeen) that causes this specification.
The two specifications of logic and creativity (or better said, probably, of hetero- and homogeneity) can together specify the prelude and continuation of an eleven, the first so-to-speak meaning step of negligence. The continuation to the second step can, I think, be understood too, since it is right in-between the values of first step homogeneity and first-step heterogeneity. It is understanding of that second step that provides information about worst-case scenarios and so. The understanding yielded by those two techniques alone is usually mostly, or even only, theoretical, in a sense that can - though it hardly always does - render it more or less toothless in practice. At least combined with good potential for handlement potential that work in practice, it still is - of course - a help with the theoretical knowledge.
Anyway, it seems to me that there is also some (at least) advantage to the initial separation of what the hemispheres at least seemingly (to me) stand for. Because (as discussed also here), the categorisations into two and three categories respectively are substantially different (as discussed here). But the two perspectives, heterogeneity and homogeneity, receptively, are alike only in that each of them avoids mixing those two fundamentally different views too much. This similarity is illustrated below - and is perhaps also linked to how our two brain halves can be so physically alike. ...
|The mutual exclusions of two or more perspectives involves that the original perspectives kill each other, or so to speak, so that they together form a new one, a new perspective, on principle quite unlike the ones that added up to it.|
Oneness (in my cognition theory to be described as using only one category) is an attempt for the view that all are equal, should be treated equally well. The most simple incompatibilities the two-categorical notions, which imply that one excludes one. Twoness (so to speak) I see as beng about discrimination in general. Threeness (so to speak) is general discrimination against discrimination. Fourness (so to speak) is softened discrimination, creating integrity.
A discrimination means that two or more parts are not viewed as equals and thus that they aren't really comparable. The lightly softened twoness of the eight-categorical notions is softened by soulfulness or so, by seven, that is, a process which is defined further here. This yields, I think, that a four factor that is included in it, but then strengthened a little bit by there being one more two-factor, which also takes part of four-category tendencies within the eight categories. The softened discrimination in each four tends (to the extent one has a good enough humility or soul) to create two soft enough to soften even discrimination between the two of them, meaning that here we have a choice, even the essence of free perspectives, and thereby being oneself, sort of. With the twenty-three comes that one has a personal view with that choice of perspectives.
Anyway, I intended to mention memory in this context. It has seemed to me that the amygdala or so contains a specialisation on thirteen, i.e. memory. But, probably (or at least perhaps), I say now, thirteen is more about our spirit itself, its memory about oneself and other persons.In the amygdala we perhaps only view the memory variants of our right- and left-hemisphere specialties: nineteen and so for logic and seventeen and so for creativity. As described also if you followed the memory link, both nineteen and the seventeen can specify themselves, respectively, rather effectively. It seems likely, I think, that right-hemisphere memory and left hemisphere memory, respectively, do that in the right and left half of the amygdala and so, respectively.
Be that so or not, there is very easily a need for something of wanting to care about a thought. That is, one can feel a need to have some anchorage with oneself (perhaps one's spirit) - and destiny or so, perhaps? This I have here had it there can be, and perhaps also you can look again at the heterogeneity link and/or the homogeneity link, above.