Question What is the relationship between flow and life?
Anything has six representations. Four of them are representations
of everything. The other two are representations of slack. (increasing
- perspective? or decreasing - situation?).
Anything is a mapping from everything to slack.
The representations of anything that are representations of slack,
they are related to the fact that anything must be approximated for us
to separate it out of the entirety.
If anything can be separated out of the entirety, then this suggests
that anything can be reestablished as everything.
Reestablishing anything as locally everything (whole) has a fractal
nature, where structure recurs on different scales.
Anything must be whole with regard to itself, and have slack with regard
to what is beyond it.
The six ways of organizing thoughts are all ways of recursively generating
structure.
The six representations of anything are the ways of organizing thoughts.
The six representations of anything are the six auxiliary structures
that distinguish the four representations of everything.
Redundancy is related to slack, especially that the four representations
of everything are positive commands, and the six representations of anything
are negative commands, and so they say the same thing redundantly.
Communication is, by it's nature, is redundant.
The six representations of anything are the qualities of signs.
The qualities of signs distinguish pairs among the qualities of the
signified.
They qualities of signs are the ways of "loving your neighbor as yourself".
They are the ways that we are interchangeable.
The six negative commandments are the six ways of loving your neighbor
as yourself.
Christ's antitheses explain the six ways of loving your neighbor as
yourself.
God is the unity of the four representations of everything.
Good is the unity of the two representations of slack.
Life is the unity of the six representations of anything.
Life is that God is good.
To be alive is to be sensitive and responsive.
To love X is to support the conditions for X to be alive.
The love by which God is the unity of the qualities of the signified,
is the same love by which life is the unity of the qualities of the sign.
It is the same unity.
Anything is embedded in everything. When we think of how everything
has "no external context", "is the simplest algorithm - accepts all things",
"no internal structure", "required concept", we are thinking in terms of
everything. But we can also think of these properties in terms of
anything, for example:
Anything has a context, and even if it were to include that context,
there would still be another context.
Whatever anything has accepted, there is still more for it to accept
or not.
More questions can always be raised regarding the properties of anything.
More perspectives exist that might not require the concept of anything.
These statements take up the point of view of the question, rather
than of the answer.
There is slack in the raising of these questions. The slack may
be increasing or decreasing.
Why care about living systems? In other words, why care about life? I would like to read your answers. Here are some reasons why I want to understand living systems. I think they are also reasons for caring about living systems, and life itself:
- I have a wish, but in order to achieve it, I need to bring to life the entire ecosystem of which it will be just a part. So I care that the system be alive, because I care that my wish be alive. This is relevant to our working group "Our Own Thoughts", where in order to use the tools for organizing thoughts that I wish for, there needs to be an entire economic system to allow for them. (Much like using an automobile depends on an entire network of support services, starting with gas stations!)
- I want the system to be "healthy", but it is "sick". It may be sluggish, overheated, feverish, jumpy, self-destructive, counterproductive, hysterical, unresponsive, unbalanced, etc. So I care that every structural aspect of the system be fully employed, I want evidence of this. This is because I am responsible for the maintenance of the system. In this way, I want the Minciu Sodas laboratory to be "full of life". Not just alive as a freak accident ("just life"), but as the fulfillment of a structure for life ("full of life").
- Within the system, I want constructive behavior to win out over destructive behavior. I want the constructive behavior to be ever so clearly fruitful, and the destructive behavior to be ever so clearly barren. Consequently, I expect the constructive alternatives to be grand in scale, and the destructive alternatives to be pathetic. So I care that the subsystems generated by the patterns of behavior to be alive, that they acquire the proper scale. This is because the system is a forum for my actions. For example, I am living in the South Side of Chicago, where half of the homes on the blocks are missing, and maybe a fifth of the houses standing are boarded up, and people hang out with nothing to do, and the corner store sells mostly junk food, liquor, lottery tickets and toy guns, but otherwise there are no stores, so people drive or ride to other neighborhoods to buy anything or even to go to a supermarket or a bank or a movie. And yet spiritually so many of these half million souls never leave their neighborhood to socialize with others, so many find no way to participate in anything. Of course, in the broader sense, there is something strange about our entire world. So I want to feel the waste of life grow smaller, and the significance of life grow larger. I want "normal" to be good, not bad; life, not death.
- I want the system to be free to choose, to be fluid, to be able to head off in fateful directions. I want the system to exercise free will. I care that the system be self-generating, not forced by its environment, but distinctly meaningful. That is because I am the system! This is how I feel about my own spiritual life. I personally believe that all life comes from God. Yet I think God himself grants us our own significance distinct from his own. I imagine our free will has significance even where God does not exist, perhaps tragically so. I feel that to be alive I must be open to choices, more than I would offer myself, more than I wish for. I like the idea of life occurring far from equilibrium, where the excess of energy must resolve itself by creating order, and this happens when there is a great gap between expectations and outcomes, because order allows for significant options. I like the idea that we may choose what motivates us. I do believe that I must extend my options by choosing the will of God over my own at every junction. This is how I must continuously bet my life for the game to rise to the next level. Yet this is very foreign so I want to comprehend what I can do to live on the edge where options arise. Likewise, how can I lead my business so that it thrives amongst many options, far from equilibrium?
- I want the system to be transparent and just. No burden should be dismissed. I care that the various parts relate to each other genuinely and believably. This is because I am a tax on the system. Consequently, I want to make a living in a way such that it is clear how overall, people benefit (or not) overall. Unfortunately, it seems that in our economic system the jobs that provide the most direct benefit - rearing children, raising food - pay the least, and vice versa. I want sense to be made of this.
- I want it to be clear, within the system, where efforts should be focused. What issues are most significant, important? I care that the system be resolute, that it be accountable with respect to its context so that it can make genuine progress by trying out solutions that focus on the issue, not changing irrelevant things haphazardly. This is because I participate in the system and I do not want to spend my efforts well. For example, in a conversation I want to focus on the topics that will connect our talk with our life, not just whirl around with no consequence.
I asked David Ellison-Bey, about Why care about life? and he said, roughly:
"If it's alive, it's fulfilling a purpose. We recognize it, we're
aware of it, but maybe not where it fits. We want to respect it because
it has a purpose we may not be aware of. We don't want to hurt it."
Steve Bonzak added:
(flight, fight, submit, bluff)
- We want to protect a living system from external forces that we might
predict and avoid. Consider the example of climate, protecting ourselves
from a hurricane.
- We want to be able to steer away external forces that we can't avoid,
make use of the vital points, as in martial arts.
- We must submit to an external force, but we want to preserve our
internal integrity, so we must know our core values. For example,
if I am growing up in America but want to grow up with a Lithuanian culture,
I have to understand the key values to focus on, perhaps the books that
I read and the language that I think in.
- We want to be nonpredictable, so that we do not have any particular
weak spots that an external enemy can find and focus on.
-We want to externally feed a system, because we love it and want it
to continue living. What's the best way to do that? For example,
how do we love our children?
- We want the system to survive, we want it to repair itself and adapt
to new external situations. What help does it need? [related to healthy
system].
- We want the system to maintain its capability, so that it does not
atrophy. How does it get "exercise" so it does not atrophy?
Idea Life has to do with redundancy, especially reconciling the redundancy of the positive and negative assertions of the Law, and in general: the relationship of all four levels.
Idea The first four structures enable sensitivity - wishing for, and the last six structures enable responsivity.
Idea Basic questions to ask that can help show the relevance
of structures:
How they answer: what do I truly want? (God as counterquestion).
How they assure: peace. (God as emotional response).
So to what extent do the markings of the foursome assure peace, calm?
They say that one thing can change without another thing stay fixed.
Divisions: Unordered hierarchy.
Criteria: Open sequence.
Topology: Nondirected network?
Argumentation: Directed network?
Verbalization: Acyclic network?
Narration: Closed sequence.
Consider how these relate to different kinds of creativity.
Relate to Christ's antitheses.
Relate to laboratory's objectives.
Open Sequen ce priorities: (importance goes beyond particular priorities)
No nDirected Network relatedness: (respo nsibility goes
beyond particular roles)
Directed Network: cause to effect: (joy goes beyond particular gifts)
Acyclic Network outcome to possi bility: (challenge goes beyond particular
strengths)
Closed Sequence: (belief goes beyond particular knowledge)
Directed N etwork attention: (rights go beyond particular
environments)
The properties of living systems are given by the kinds of mental pictures:
Idea Consider the basis of life to be Holland's seven properties of complex adaptive systems. Then consider, what does it take to establish - to set up - each property? For example, how do they relate to the eight messages of Christ, such as "as you value the little, so you value the big" (changes of scope)?
The messages of Christ, that he speaks in his parables, give the rules for behaving within a living system:
Entropy can be thought of in terms of blocks, are the same blocks in all compartments? So entropy is a measure of predictability, even distribution. Order is given by unpredictability, uneven distribution.
Equilibrium is linear and predictable. Disequilibrium is nonlinear and unpredictable.
Disequilibrium is a state of high flexibility, and therefore, high freedom.
Emotion is the energy of life, generated by expectations.
Yang (sunny side) vs. yin (shady side). Consider this with regard to the Sun, which is the external source of energy that makes possible entropy reversal.
The following canonical expressions of yang and yin, known as the eight
principal patterns, are like representations of the twosome: FreeWill/Fate
= Excess (forcefulness) vs. Deficiency (frailness), Outside/Inside = Exterior
(influence) vs. Internal (disharmony), Theory/Practice = Heat (talkative)
vs. Cold (withdrawn), Same/Different = Yang vs. Yin.
The kinds of disease, as given by Chinese medicine, presumably describe
the misbalance of any kind of system, as when an economy "overheats" or
"is sluggish".
Perhaps there is a "disentropy" law that, whenever energy is constantly fed into a system, there is a necessary build up of order.
Shallow ecology = humans are outside of nature, source of all value.
Deep ecology = humans are part of the natural environment.
Self-assertive vs. integrative points of view:
(rational vs. intuitive, analysis vs. synthesis, reductionist vs. holistic,
linear vs. nonlinear, expansion vs. conservation, competition vs. cooperation,
quantity vs. quality, domination vs. partnership). Male (yang) vs.
female (yin). Two represenations, both necessary. (Capra, 10)
All things are interconnected, so how can we know anything, without knowing everything? Only as approximate knowledge. (Capra, 41)
Stage B:
In the mid-term, which may be dozens of generations, a gene will by
chance drift out of the population unless at some point it offers some
reproductive advantage to the carrier. This assumes that the growth
of the carrier population is limited, as discussed above. The fact
that the population is limited is "feedback" from the ecosystem as a whole.
At this point, the gene will survive at Stage B if it can capture a percentage
of the population of the carriers. For example, people with
sickle cell anemia survive malaria epidemics better than those people with
round blood cells. So every so often people with sickle cell
anemia will have a reproductive advantage. At those times, their
genes will have a reproductive advantage over the alternative genes, the
alleles. Capturing a percentage of the population of the carriers
means that the genes have to be able to increase, by the reproductive advantage
they yield, in the percentage of the population. In other words,
surviving stage B means that the gene goes from negligible (a handful of
instances) to nonnegligible (a handful of percentages of the population).
It also means that the gene is a participant in the ecosystem, and therefore
receptive to feedback from the ecosystem. Surviving Stage B means
that the gene sometimes (not necessarily always) has a reproductive advantage
over some (not necessarily all) of the alternative alleles.
Structure arises from recurring patterns of events. (Alexander)
Stage C:
In the long-term, which may be hundreds of generations, a gene will
survive if it makes the ecosystem stabler and thereby enhances the survivability
of the species. Here it is important that the gene strikes the right
balance with the other genes, first of all those that participate alongside
it in the ecosystem. For example, a gene may in Stage B wipe out
all alternative alleles. But when there is a change in environment
- a drop in temperature, a new predator or disease, then the gene and the
entire species may face extinction. Genes that make the environment
more homogeneous - by wiping out alternative alleles, or other species
- typically reduce the options for the ecosystem to reorganize itself.
One of the consequences of sex is that genes can be preserved which do
not offer any immediate advantage, and they can rebalance their proportions
within the population. A set of alternating alleles offers more opportunities
for adaptation then does a single allele. Therefore the long-term
survival of the gene depends on its long-term benefits to its species of
carriers. Success of the gene here is based on its responsiveness
to feedback from the ecosystem. The fewer niches that the gene can
fill, the worse chance that it will survive. The less it participates
in the divergence of species to occupy different niches, the less chance
that it will survive. The less that it contributes to the richness
of adaptability of the ecosystem, the less chance that it will survive.
Surviving Stage C means that the gene provides advantage to the species
to respond well to feedback from the ecosystem.
An organism is able to maintain constant internal environment. (Capra, 43)
Homeostasis: self-regulatory mechanism, allows organism to maintain dynamic balance with variables fluctuating between tolerance limits. (In the face of changing external environment). (Capra, 43)
Heraclitus: Everything flows. (Capra, 43)
Cell metabolism combines order and activity, simultaneously transforms
nutrients, synthesizes structure, eliminates waste products. (Capra, 43)
Question How does life relate to the fivesome, the structure for time and space, for decision making?
Ideas I like Steve Raiff's description of the two interfaces
that separate us from the world. There is one interface - my mind,
my principles, my stands - between my will and my body, and there
is another interface - my society, my desires, my wishes - between my body
and the world. Flow occurs when we are able to pass through these
interfaces, out into the world. From past (inside) to future (the
world outside).
Question What is the relationship between flow and life?
Ideas The eightfold way creates flow, as in prayer, or Steve Bonzak's principles of kung fu. Fun is just a measure, not a goal. The S-curve of skill and challenge. When we are stuck in a rut - we change thinking hats. This helps with the physiological interface between brain and body. Similarly, motivational games - making us sensitive and responsive to embedded life interests - can help with the interface between body and world.
Idea God is good, but good is not God. Identifying
God with everything, and good with anything, we can say that God is the
unity of the four representations of everything, and good is the unity
of the six representations of anything. But the four representations
of everything are the same as four of the six representations of anything.
So we can say that what God and good have in common (God is good) is given
by the four representations. What makes God and good different are
the other two representations, which anything has, but everything does
not. In other words, there are two representations which we can apply
to anything, but not to everything.
Key concepts
Chaotic attractors, fractals, dissipative structures, self-organization,
autopoeitic networks.
Principles
I had a good conversation with John Harland about ecosystems.
We talked
about the difference between the "macro" view, and the "micro" view,
much like the difference between macroeconomics and microeconomics.
A macro point of view considers, for example, the complex layers of
stable relationships among niches that accumulate and enrich an
ecosystem. For example, the ecosystem of the Earth has organized
itself
to maintain rather stable temperature and atmosphere despite the fact
that over millions of years the Earth has been moving closer to the
Sun. Much as the human body maintains constant temperature.
The
self-organized ecosystem has a vested interest to be responsive to
maintain these inner stabilities in the face of cataclysms and changes
in the energy flow into the system. A macro point of view looks
at a
gene as an abstract pattern and may ask whether that abstract pattern
has gone extinct or not millions of years later.
A micro point of view considers how new variations are able to occur
and
how they affect the existing stabilities. For example, how does
a
mutation of a gene lead to new stabilities within the ecosystem?
A
micro point of view looks at instances of a gene, are they successful
at
replicating?
I think most - perhaps all - of our evidence comes from the micro point
of view. However, cognitively, a sensible theory has to be driven
by
the macro point of view. So an important question is how the
macro
point of view drives the micro point of view.
Macro-success at long-term survival, and micro-success at replicating,
are two different questions that are related, but not trivially.
We
came up with three stages of what is relevant when - say by mutation
- a
new instance of a gene is introduced.
In the long term, all of evolution is driven by Stage C. Stages A and B - for example, the nature of sex as it exists todaqy - must have been driven by trial and error at Stage C.
In conclusion:
Variation: In the short term, nature is generous to variations.
Selection: In the mid term, genes must offer reproductive advantage
to individual carriers.
Integration: In the long term, genes must offer evolutionary advantage
to one or more species that carry it - the ability of the species to respond
gracefully and constructively to changes in the environment.
Ammendment: In the long term, it is about survival of an ecosystem layer, which may be destroyed by catastrophe, perhaps brought on by itself, or may evolve in a shoestring pattern.
Compare with qualities of signs.
What changes, and what stays the same?
Open rather than Comfortable I am happy, and have gifts
which may keep me happy. But I received them not for anything I did.
I could have been born in awful circumstances, I sometimes imagine Cambodia,
where even these gifts might be useless, and life might be very miserable
and short. If I think these are useful gifts, then I have a responsibility
to use them to serve those who do not have my good fortune, and to reach
out to them. This is what they would want me to do.
Changes: Circumstances. Stays the same:
My responsibility.
Take a Stand rather than Convince I believe (in God), regardless
of anything I do or will know. This is so important to me that it
is an unconditional stand that I take. But this is the belief that
I have been raised with. There are other people who seem to be raised
with other beliefs. If they take an unconditional stand, then I respect
that there should be no argument or evidence by which their belief would
ever change. So I do not want their belief to change. But I
believe there is one truth, one true belief. So there must be a way
of translation by which every person who takes an unconditional stand has
this same true belief.
Changes: Understanding. Stays the same:
My belief.
Come to My Senses rather than Measure I should be ready
to give up my life for another. I think of jumping into water to
save somebody, or pushing them out of the way of a truck. That person might
be a baby, who has not yet invested in life, or an old person, who is about
to leave life. That person may have no talent, or
none of my interests, or no care for other people. But none of
these things should matter. Otherwise, I am separating myself from
other people. For the very sake of our equality, I have to be ready
to hand over my life for others without question, without weighing the
risk for them, or the risk to me. And likewise for the smallest chores
of life. I should not measure the importance of people, but value as important
what we share, the opportunity to do what any good person would do.
Changes: Concerns. Stays the same:
My equality.
Get Along rather than Judge I am not able to judge what is truly
hard for me to do, and what is truly easy. I only know my efforts
as I make them inside of me. I only know one outcome for any effort
I make: I never know how much I fell short, or how much I did extra.
So how can I judge another? I know the difference between agreeing
and refusing to make an effort. I have no way of measuring the amount
of effort, so I can only presume that any efforts we make are equal, so
long as we make them. Issue by issue, I can challenge us to make
an effort, but I must accept as satisfactory any effort made.
Changes: Strength. Stays the same:
My challenge.
Save rather than Blame My environment affects me, and may
make me think badly of others. I must ever thrust myself outside
of my own situation, and enter that of others, so as to counter my prejudices.
Everywhere I go then becomes my neighborhood, and I may respond on behalf
of my neighbors, when they are
not strong enough to do so. So I am ready to respond, as I myself
think appropriate, to anything on behalf of anybody. Most especially,
on behalf of my enemy.
Changes: Prejudice. Stays the same:
My engagement.
Be Unconditional rather than Be Consistent My ability to
care about you makes me human. You cannot take this away from me.
I have the right to care about you, and work that you may have life, regardless
of what you care about, or want me to do, or not do. However, I am always
at risk of abusing this outlook. When I do take up this outlook,
I must suffer myself in ways that would remind that I also have other things
to do. I must find something more to do with my life, to keep me
from bothering you.
Changes: Relevance. Stays the same:
My need to care.
Unordered Hierarchy
Our mental picture is of a Catalog, a hierarchy which violations restructure
with a network of crosslinks. Systems use this to organize tags,
distinctions that enable selective interaction. Systems of thought
often use this for channeling convergence. How does our mind move?
Idea (FromID) relates to topic (ToID).
Nondirected Network
Our mental picture is of an Atlas, a network which violations restructure
with a hierarchy of global and local views. Systems use this to organize
diversity, the stability of niches. Systems of thought often use
this for inspiring divergence. How does our mind move? Conception
(FromID) suggests reconception (ToID).
Acyclic Network
Our mental picture is of an Evolution, a hierarchy which violations
restructure with a sequence, as when we synchronize the branches of the
tree of life. Systems use this to organize building blocks, the generators
of candidate models. Systems of thought often use this for appraising
scenarios. How does our mind move? Outcome (FromID) brings possibility
(ToID).
Closed Sequence
Our mental picture is of a Chronicle, a sequence which violations restructure
with a hierarchy, as when we group together adjacent events into historical
periods. Systems use this to organize internal models, the selective
emphases of experience. Systems of thought often use this for selecting
context. How does our mind move? Context (FromID) influences event
(ToID).
Open Sequence
Our mental picture is of a Canon, a sequence which violations restructure
with a network, as when reuse occurs within a Scripture, or within a factory
line. Systems use this to organize nonlinearity, where effects of
changes can be disproportionate. Systems of thought often use this for
ranking judgements. How does our mind move? Lesser priority (FromID)
is overshadowed by greater priority (ToID).
Directed Network
Our mental picture is of a Tour, a network which violations restructure
with a sequence that we walk along. Systems use this to organize
flows, the effects of propagating and recycling. Systems of thought
often use this for examining legitimacy. How does our mind move?
Cause (FromID) leads to effect (ToID).
Patterns of Space
Patterns of events are always interlocked with patterns in space.
Buildings are made of patterns in space.
The character of a building comes from the character of the patterns
of events.
To understand structure is to grasp it as a whole.
I can grasp structure as a whole through the simplest picture with
the fewest elements.
The fewer the elements, the richer the relationship between them.
The patterns of events are the outward properties.
The picture should account for the patterns of events.
The structure supports the pattern of events.
Changing the structure changes the pattern of events.
A theory should describe the interaction between space and events.
The elements of structure are different everywhere they occur. (For
example, the windows in a room).
The elements of structure are themselves not constant and therefore
not the elementary constituents that are repeating.
The elementary constituents should be invariant throughout the variation.
The relationships between the elements of structure are repeating.
A building is defined by patterns of relationships among its elements.
Structure consists of patterns of relationships.
The elements themselves are patterns of relationships, and nothing
else.
There are no elements, only a fabric of relationships.
The relationships repeat themselves and give structure to a building.
Elements are simply labels for recurrent patterns of relationships.
Patterns may function temporarily as elements, in order to make relations
between elements clear.
Elements evaporate when we look closely at them.
A pattern is a morphological law, by which within a context of type
X, the parts A, B,... are related by relationship r. (For example,
within a gothic cathedral, parallel aisles flank the nave on both sides.)
A pattern is a relationships among other patterns.
A pattern in space has an associated pattern of events.
The pattern in space is the requirement, but not the cause, for its
associated pattern of events.
The pattern in space consists of exactly the relationships needed to
sustain the pattern of events.
Only the repeating patterns of events in space are important within
a building.
We remember the patterns, the characteristic, typical features of a
place because they give the character of that place.
The way of life lies within the patterns.
The number of patterns is very small, several dozen in a building,
several hundred in a city.
Patterns vary from culture to culture.
Patterns which are Alive