1. Preface.

As mentioned in the Header panel, readers wanting an overview of the formal inversion theory and its apparent implications are advised to start here at Post 1 and then to read the serially numbered posts in order. The blog will first provide a generally accessible 'broad brush' introduction. Readers requiring more detail might wish to consult the main publication on the subject, shown in the side-bar.

Any new blog in the already crowded Brain-Mind Research region of the blogosphere should probably begin by stating (at the very least) the perceived justification for its existence, the broad posting policies to be adopted and a brief pre-blogging history of the topic. This first post will do these three things.

Justification. The justification is that the particular perspective on brain-mind matching that is to be explained here (that of the formal inversion theory) is not currently available anywhere else on the Web. The theory has already been described in print, in Suitable Heresies published by Troubador in 2009, but because much modern 'first reading' traffic is via digital routes, it is hoped that the new blog will expand the community of readers with a possible interest in the theory.

Broad posting policy. It is intended that posts will usually be made at least weekly, that they will be serially numbered for ease of reference, that comments by readers will be encouraged and that the comment moderation facility will be enabled. The writer's approach to brain-mind research (and thus to reporting it) is the standard scientific one of basing observations on demonstrable evidence wherever possible and, where this is not possible, making the speculative nature of the observations obvious to the reader by statement or context. As far as possible, the posts will be made in non-technical language, because they are intended for the very wide lay and professional readership that now appears interested in brain-mind research and its problems.

Pre-blogging history. The cross-fertilising research mentioned in the side-bar led to the conception of the formal inversion theory in 1991. However a central implication of the theory (the apparent neuro-anatomical obligation for our traditional one-truth thinking conventions to be replaced in due course by two-truth thinking conventions -- to be discussed in later posts) seemed so heretical that eight years were spent in re-examining formal cognitive patterns in the arts and sciences for what I thought must be basic errors. Having failed to find any well-documented pattern of rational thought that was not compatible with the theory, I eventually became convinced of its validity, despite the apparent implied heresy. Being equally convinced that mainstream publishers would not accept such a heretical paradigm shift based on one personal interpretation of human and mammalian brain wiring, I felt obliged to establish a small specialist publishing house for dissemination purposes. The ideas were thus first tentatively published in limited edition books in 1999 and 2001, and then in a generally available (unlimited edition) book in 2002. As further evolutionary, philosophical, clinical and other evidence in support of the theory became available, supplementary books were published in 2004 and 2006. The details of these developments are listed in Suitable Heresies, which also provides the latest printed version of the argument for the theory. The perceived publishing problem is now evaporating, because accumulating evidence (as explained in the main publication and in this blog) suggests that a case for the paradigm shift may now be credibly argued in scientifically and philosophically admissible terms. This has led to the transfer of print publications to the larger specialist publisher Troubador in January 2009 and the closure of the small interim Chiasma Press in May 2009.

In a nutshell, because evidence compatible with the theory has been found in a large range of subjects such as molecular biology, comparative and human morphology, clinical neuropsychology, philosophy, logic, mathematics, physics, cultural studies, politics, ideology, philology, computation and history and because evidence clearly incompatible with the theory has yet to be found (by this writer), the stage seems to have been reached where the case for the theory is highly arguable, even though it is too early to suggest that it has been proved.

The next post will provide an introduction to the theory itself.